Kenetrek Boots

Fed $$ to pay landowners for access

BuzzH

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 9, 2001
Messages
17,797
Location
Laramie, WY
Comments?



Monday, November 10, 2003 Good Afternoon!

Government Payments for Hunting Rights (11/10/2003)

WASHINGTON (DTN) -- Senate Budget Committee ranking member Kent Conrad, D-N.D., announced Friday the introduction of bills in the Senate and the House to provide government payments to farmers who open their lands to the public for hunting and fishing.

Conrad was joined at a press conference by his co-sponsors, Senate Intelligence Chairman Roberts, Senate Finance ranking member Max Baucus, D-Mont., and Sen. Mike Enzi, R-Wyo., and Rep. Earl Pomeroy, D-N.D., and Rep. Tom Osborne, R-Neb., who are sponsoring a companion measure in the House.

Conrad also noted the bill has also been endorsed by the National Farmers Union, the North Dakota Farm Bureau, a plumbers' union, the Sporting Goods Manufacturers Association and hunting and fishing advocates groups ranging from the National Rifle Association to the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership.

Conrad's "Open Fields" program would make $50 million available annually through the Agriculture Department's Commodity Credit Corporation for grants to the states, which would in turn make payments to landowners who agree to open their land to the public.

Conrad said the bill would address the decline in the availability of hunting ground for "the average hunter." Conrad noted that many farmers have closed their land to hunters due to "bad experiences" and fears of liability while wealthy, outside investors have been buying up land, paying "more than the land is worth for agricultural purposes" and then closing it to public hunting.

The access issue is also causing political problems within states and between states because some states are giving preferential treatment to in state hunters, but rural business leaders say out of state hunters often spend more money. Osborne noted that "We are losing young people as hunters" because the parents have a hard time finding a place to teach them to hunt.

To counter these trends, 13 states have established programs to make payments to farmers who keep their land open to the public without charge and to provide liability coverage. Conrad's program would increase the budget for those programs and encourage other states to establish them.

The bill would also repeal a provision in the 2002 farm bill that prohibits any land enrolled in a state conservation program from qualifying for farm program benefits. A Conrad aide said some farmers are not signing up conservation programs because they don't want to lose farm program benefits.
 
Wow, sounds like a great program!!...if you're a farmer or rancher.
rolleyes.gif


How about his: The states have the power to issue private land only tags, because the animals belong to the states. How about the states issue only PUBLIC land only tags. Any land not open to the general public...no hunting. That might "address the decline in the availability of hunting ground for 'the average hunter.'"

I know that isn't necessarily a good idea either, but I'm sick of these landowners thinking they are owed something for doing the right thing.

Oak
 
A tough issue, and I have mixed feelings about it. In Idaho, we have a HUGE percentage of land that is public, so if we would just manage it for the PUBLIC, then we would have plenty of places for the PUBLIC to hunt.

Instead, we allow Welfare Ranchers to overgraze the land, destroy stream banks, and eat all the food. Then, the Deer and Elk move on to private ground, and the rancher wants money from Fish and Game for hay losses PLUS he won't allow hunting.
rolleyes.gif


And now, along comes a program to pay the Welfare Ranchers to allow people to hunt the deeded land where all the critters are, as the public land was abused.
rolleyes.gif


Other states have other unique issues, but in Idaho, just take care of the PUBLIC land for the PUBLIC, and we will all get along fine, thank you very much.
smile.gif
 
I think that the people who want access to the private land should pay for the access, not the general public. By pay, I do not necessarilly mean with cash. Help with farm chores like bucking hay, fixing fence, painting a barn, fall roundup, and so on. It's amazing what a willingness to give, will get you in return. You might even make a good freind.

Paul
 
Good thoughts by all on this issue.

I agree that in states with lots of public lands, its best to provide quality habitat...then we'd have no need to pay off welfare ranchers.

Paul, also a very good point.

I do think that in states with very little public land this may not be a bad idea. I'd rather my tax dollars be spent on this than many other wasteful goverment ideas...iraq comes to mind.
 
Paul,

Most landowners are a bit reluctant to have somebody drive up to the house, and ask if they can start fixing fence, in my experience. Unless there is a relationship there, the rancher would probably find it to be a "worry" more than a help. (Liability for injury, damaged tools and equipment, etc.. etc..)

I actually think it opens up a can of worms, that many are scared to see, when you get "free" labor. If I build a fence in July, to I get the RIGHT to hunt, the RIGHT to the best place, etc.. What about the son-in-law who comes out to hunt, etc.. etc..

I find what works best for me, is to show up at their house, eat their food, drink their beer, and then shoot the animals on the way out along the driveway...
biggrin.gif


Buzz, does Wyoming still have the coupon on the Non-resident tag, that you give to the landowner, and he sends it in for $$$? How much is the coupon worth? That system seemed to entice the small/medium sized landowners, who could not sell trespass fees, into allowing Non-Resident hunters (ME!)
biggrin.gif
 
Gunner, yes, they still have the program, but its not just on the NR licenses, but also the resident licenses. I think antelope are like $11, deer about the same, and elk are around $15.

Lots of landowners here are willing to let you hunt just for the price of those coupons, especially antelope.

It really isnt a bad program at all, and hunter dollars arent spent on access until an animal is harvested.

Wyoming is pretty diverse as far as getting access. Some areas its almost all "sure you can hunt, $100 a day per hunter", lots of leased up stuff by outfitters in other areas, and some just say sure go ahead.
 
I admit that sometimes I forget that there are different circumstances in different areas. After giving this a little more thought (my fingers out-typed my brain yesterday
biggrin.gif
) I think it might not be a bad idea in some situations. I live in a state with relatively large tracts of public land, but obviously all states don't have that kind of resource. I'm not sure where the money comes from for this program(I'm not familiar with the Commodity Credit Corp.), but it seems to me that a program like this should have to be paid for by hunters. Maybe through PR funds? I don't think the general public should be paying for it. I guess what chaps my hide is when I see private individuals making money off animals that supposedly belong to the public. It's really no different than logging or grazing on BLM or NF. Taxpayers shouldn't lose money while a private individual gains money.

Game agencies manage wildlife for the public, even that which is on private property. Your license dollars pay for this management. Then the state issues PLO or landowner tags so that the landowners are guaranteed licenses, and therefore can sell premium hunts. I don't think it's right for the game agencies to cater to those who can pay the most to hunt. This proposed program addresses the problem to a certain degree, but you still have a private individual profiting from public wildlife.

I'm not sure that this program will be able to pay as much as outfitters pay for some of their leases. I suspect this program will end up catering more to small game and waterfowl hunters.

I agree with Elkgunner that unless you know a landowner, he's most likely not going to want to bother with the work-to-hunt idea. I don't think it's as simple as it used to be, or the hunting rags would make it out to be. Obviously it's different from state to state and situation to situation.

A very complicated issue.
frown.gif


Oak

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 11-11-2003 12:48: Message edited by: Colorado Oak ]</font>
 
Montana already has a program like that. Called block management. I good friend of ours has his little farm in it to try and curb the bludgening whitetail population. I think he said he got paid something like $10 a day for the deer hunters for up to three days or something. I don't remember for sure. It may have been a little more.

My dad wants to put his property in the same program, but I have effectivly talked him out of it for now. I would think the phone would ring off the hook and there would be people showing up at the door at all hours of the day. The ranches out in Eastern MT probably arn't as bad but due to my dads location I have no doubt that it would be a problem...

The funds that pay for this program come directly from nonresident licence fees. Residents pay nothing into the program as far as I am aware of, yet they are the ones that use 90% of the access. Kind of a load of crap if you ask me... But it allows a lot of private land to be opened up to hunting that more than likely would have been open anyway. It seems that for the most part the ranchers that are in the program don't really care about the animals on their property, they want them off or gone so that they don't eat all their grass. The best part is that the FWP prints a booklet that lists the ranches, showes thier location and size along with the spicies that can be hunted.

I have hunted the block managment quite a few times, the qualitly is not that good but we always saw animals and not to many people. It for the most part was like hunting public land... At least they are trying...

I agree that the animals on private land should not be sold to the highest bidder... we all own those animals not the property owners.
 
Bambistew is correct the block management program in Montana is funded completely by Non-res. fees. This program has opened up a lot of land to hunting that was not open before. If I owned land I would want everyone of my neighbors to be enrolled in block management because every critter would be on my place. The open land get hunted hard early and often.
Nemont
 
Big difference between Block Management and the progam that is being proposed. BM is funded by hunter dollars, albeit non resident hunter dollars. The program being proposed is from the general federal tax fund. Take money from this and the anti's will be calling us welfare hunters the minute the first dime is spent. Think about it.

Elkgunner,

I would have to disagree with you. I have gained access to hunt many times using this method. It does help if you are clean cut, polite, and sincere. It also helps if you actually have a skill to offer other than being a smart ass. Showing up with tatoo's, a nose ring, and dope on your breath probably wont cut it. Sorry.

Paul
 
Paul,

I am flippin' happy for you, that you can overcome your lack of friends and pleasantness to be around, by providing free labor to people, just so they will let you on their property.

I have never had to resort to that, as my charm, my wit, and my suave and debonir demeanor generally will open any doors for me.

Why don't you try being pleasant, and listening to people, and then they will let you on their property? I guess I have just been lucky to not be such a pain in the a$$, that I have to bribe people to access their lands.

Sucks to be you.
biggrin.gif
 
SITKA Gear

Forum statistics

Threads
113,581
Messages
2,025,880
Members
36,237
Latest member
SCOOTER848
Back
Top