Lease Question

[Ben Lamb]

Deplorably well said rammac....big wink

Disagree. Lots of folks here tout Wyoming, Kansas, MT, etc programs for landowners allowing access. Many still participate in Ranching for Wildlife Hunts without the kind of response we are seeing here. It's fun to paint with a broad brush, but I think it's important to recognize that most here hunt in the west, where leases aren't necessary either through these access programs or because of abundant public lands.

Painting everyone with a broad brush is easy. Nuance and honesty are difficult.

 

[TheJason]

To the original poster, you'll have to understand that this is the public lands group, spelled; M-Y W-A-Y O-R Y-O-U-'R-E A-N I-D-I-O-T, they don't consider privately owned lands that are open to the public as chic or proper. Never mind that many western states have land owners that support programs that provide hunters access to private lands, they'd rather point at the land owner and ridicule him for owning the land.

Speak for yourself, because that doesn’t in any way apply to me or a number other members on here.

 

[noharleyyet]

Disagree. Lots of folks here tout Wyoming, Kansas, MT, etc programs for landowners allowing access. Many still participate in Ranching for Wildlife Hunts without the kind of response we are seeing here. It's fun to paint with a broad brush, but I think it's important to recognize that most here hunt in the west, where leases aren't necessary either through these access programs or because of abundant public lands.

Painting everyone with a broad brush is easy. Nuance and honesty are difficult.

Deplorably is nuance...what rammac posted is honest...not that difficult.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Deplorably is nuance...what rammac posted is honest...not that difficult.

I was talking about the angry guy's post, using you as an example because I like you and would rather engage with a thoughtful person.

It's not honest. It's an opinion based on a limited data set. I've seen a lot of folks on this site talk about how awesome private land access programs are, and many folks who post here actually fight to increase funding and make those programs better for all involved. I've seen a lot of people post photos of animals harvested either on private lands open for access or private lands where they were lucky enough to have access with no bad blood split over their success.

But maybe I just have vision while the others wear bifocals.

 

[Straight Arrow]

...what rammac posted is honest.

Likely it is his sincere honest opinion. It's just not factual ... just not true.

 

[noharleyyet]

I was talking about the angry guy's post, using you as an example because I like you and would rather engage with a thoughtful person.

It's not honest. It's an opinion based on a limited data set. I've seen a lot of folks on this site talk about how awesome private land access programs are, and many folks who post here actually fight to increase funding and make those programs better for all involved. I've seen a lot of people post photos of animals harvested either on private lands open for access or private lands where they were lucky enough to have access with no bad blood split over their success.

But maybe I just have vision while the others wear bifocals.

I'm talking about a spambot that morphed into a regional bashfest...as usual. Now we've gone to paint brushes and fertilizer spreaders. If the boots don't fit...

 

[Ben Lamb]

I'm talking about a spambot that morphed into a regional bashfest...as usual. Now we've gone to paint brushes and fertilizer spreaders. If the boots don't fit...

 

[Gr8bawana]

Disagree. Lots of folks here tout Wyoming, Kansas, MT, etc programs for landowners allowing access. Many still participate in Ranching for Wildlife Hunts without the kind of response we are seeing here. It's fun to paint with a broad brush, but I think it's important to recognize that most here hunt in the west, where leases aren't necessary either through these access programs or because of abundant public lands.

Painting everyone with a broad brush is easy. Nuance and honesty are difficult.

To the original poster, you'll have to understand that this is the public lands group, spelled; M-Y W-A-Y O-R Y-O-U-'R-E A-N I-D-I-O-T, they don't consider privately owned lands that are open to the public as chic or proper. Never mind that many western states have land owners that support programs that provide hunters access to private lands, they'd rather point at the land owner and ridicule him for owning the land.

There is a big difference between landowners allowing public access and landowners who allow access only when you pay for it. I can only speak for myself but I will never hunt anyplace where I have to pay a landowner for access.
To those who want to hunt private land, go for it.

 

[Zach]

There is a big difference between landowners allowing public access and landowners who allow access only when you pay for it. I can only speak for myself but I will never hunt anyplace where I have to pay a landowner for access.
To those who want to hunt private land, go for it.

It's all good though if someone else pays the landowner to allow public access? CRP comes to mind...

 

[BuzzH]

It's all good though if someone else pays the landowner to allow public access? CRP comes to mind...

Assuming you're talking about the conservation reserve program? If so, landowners are not required to allow public access to it.

I think a better example of what you're talking about would be the AccessYes program in WY or Montana's Block Management program where hunters pay landowners for access.

I'm a huge fan of those, for the simple reason that the theory is that the average guy has a place to hunt. Priority of who hunts those is not determined by who has the fattest wallet and access is usually handled by the GF department.

While it is a "lease", its not an exclusive lease. The program is voluntary on all sides, with the funding for these programs coming from a percentage of a conservation/habitat stamp or donations.

Again, like others have said, the broad brush painting and comparison's of an exclusive private lease and a hunter access program is just not an appropriate argument.

I have 100% buy in on Wyoming's program, its the best I've seen in the various States I've hunted. So much so, that my wife and I have been in the top 10 individual donors to it in the past, and WYBHA has also made substantial donations since the Chapter was formed.

Lots to like, with almost all upside, and no downside, for everyone involved.

So, if we're all into being honest, I think rammac is full of crap...

I've hunted many HMA's and some are well past very good hunting...

 

[Whiptail]

Assuming you're talking about the conservation reserve program? If so, landowners are not required to allow public access to it.

Why doesn't the government require public hunting access for CRP? Since it is public money it seems like the public should get something in return.

 

[1976]

If you want to get to the nuts and bolts of a hunting lease, and not for argument sakes, I guess I and probably many hunt talkers are proud lease holders of, Block Management, walk-in areas, and other access programs across the U.S. Many are paid through our license fees, the non resident license holders, those of us that check the donate box and put a little extra in the kitty, and the many that belong to conservation organizations that also provide to these programs.

 

[TheJason]

Why doesn't the government require public hunting access for CRP? Since it is public money it seems like the public should get something in return.

Because when the program originated it had nothing to do with hunting or wildlife. It was for air and water quality, and the wildlife enhancement was a nice ancillary benefit.

 

[F250]

I seldom find myself agreeing with Ben Lamb. However, this time I do.

 

[BigHornRam]

Because when the program originated it had nothing to do with hunting or wildlife. It was for air and water quality, and the wildlife enhancement was a nice ancillary benefit.

Not entirely accurate.

http://farmdocdaily.illinois.edu/2017/05/historical-background-on-the-crp.html

Similar to the commodity support programs, the suite of current conservation programs in the farm bill have their roots in the New Deal. They began with legislation passed by Congress in 1935 and 1936 that was designed in part to help address massive soil erosion and the Dust Bowl. Its early iterations were largely subordinate to price support goals, however, used to pay farmers to temporarily hold land out of production in hopes of controlling supplies, increasing prices and conserving soil resources. For example, in the 1936 Act Congress declared the policy to include preservation of soil resources and the reestablishment of farmer purchasing power (Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act of 1936, P.L. 74-461).
Conservation efforts faded during World War II as the war effort prioritized production, but returned in the post-war years. In fact, today's CRP is a direct descendant of the Soil Bank created by Congress and the Eisenhower Administration in 1956; designed to address surplus production with short and long-term acreage retirement programs. In 1956, Congress declared that "the production of excessive supplies of agricultural commodities depresses prices and income of farm families; constitutes improper land use and brings about soil erosion, depletion of soil fertility, and too rapid release of water from lands where it falls" (Agricultural Act of 1956, P.L. 84-540).

 

[Steelhead]

A lotta folks won’t lease land to me because I yell “Smoked him!!” Too loud

And in his defense people post plenty of animals that come from guided hunts and private land on here, but for the most part...

 

[SteveE]

Lease Texas and enjoy.

Montana has this incredible program called block management.

Only people trying to lease here are the out of staters that are moving in and they are having zero luck.

Stay away please...

Check it out -

 

[SteveE]

Seriously question, what are your thoughts on getting bedroom eye makeup tattooed on? I find it a huge inconvenience to have to reapply every couple of hours... needs to be shinny in the pics or people won't know you're serious.

And should I scream, “SMOKED THAT JOKER” or stick with “BANG FLOP” as my victory cry.

 

[SteveE]

And to give the subject a little umphh here is one for the Dbag from Florida that tried to run me off “his” lease in my backyard. Guess where this guy ended up



Loved the look on your gangs face when I hiked out!