New idea for access to private land

[30338]

You missed it, but I mentioned Colorado. As you mentioned, when they are handing out the subsidies, .gov has all kinds of parameters a rancher or farmer must follow. So why would saying that allowing public access be such a huge deal? My preference is no subsidies, no ethanol payouts, no payments of any kind for growing or not growing product. Since there is not the case, I want access to those lands.

I am successful in my industry, though in hindsight farm ground was a great deal with these kinds of programs. A person does miss opportunities in life. Anyway, since I need to get back to work today I will leave you with "nothing is free". One county receiving $26 million in taxpayer funds owes the taxpayer access in my opinion. Or they can eliminate the subsidies and then with wallet in hand I will knock on doors and take my chances. Over $500 million in payouts in Colorado alone in 2012. Socialized farming is apparently here.

 

[Nemont]

Do you think socialized farming is new?

I am successful in my industry and the government has been "helping" it grow tremendously, in the end we will be helped out of existence.

I still don't know what that has to do with tags available in Colorado and farm subsidies. Access isn't on the table because it is an additional property right that has not been rented from the land owner (in most cases). Doesn't matter how much money is paid.

So you don't want to really pay your own way via buying land and running it how you see fit. What you really want is all the taxpayers, including the vast majority of none hunting taxpayers to help subsidize your choice of hobbies. Seems like farmers and ranchers are not the only ones seeking to have their lifestyle paid for.

$26,000,000 is less then we spend on duct tape for the military, I still can't get duct tape from them for free.

Nemont

 

[Southwind]

Actually, the federal government subsidizes land owners to allow hunting already. It is a matching funds program for our State administered and managed "Walk in Hunting Program" which of course is purely a volunteer enrollment process but has opened a million acres of private land to public hunting in a state that is around 90% privately owned.

 

[Nemont]

Nemont, Good graph you posted there. The social security and medicare totals are kind of scary but that is another topic. I just googled the county I am referencing in Colorado and the total subsidies in 2012 was $26,000,000 for that one county. So if we look at the total number of tags available in that county and divide that out it becomes very lucrative for the landowners to allow those few hunters access. Very lucrative indeed. Those large corporate type farms were making 6 figures from those subsidies. If 6 people wanted to hunt one of those spreads, I guess it would make sense to let them on.

I don't think most people who are not rural understand that one county in one state receives $26,000,000 per year in subsidies here in the west. And there are only a hundred or so tags available in the entire county. Based on what has been put forth so far, I am sticking with my opinion that those ranchers and farmers should grant access based on these types of payouts.

With our limited tags and draw systems, it seems like this would work better than say in MO with unlimited tags. I still think this makes sense in our state with our tag system.

What is the name of the county.

 

[LopeHunter]

I do not support the proposal. You are not welcome to trespass into my home just because I took a mortgage deduction. Is your home open to strangers wanting to drop by and stay a few days each year. Why focus on one type of property owner when it comes to subsidies?

 

[WapitiBob]

So what's your welfare? Your house? Your kids? Student loan interest? Medical expenses? Contributions to your church?

His welfare is access to another guys private land.

 

[30338]

Hey Wapiti, I mentioned several times, if you don't take welfare payments, I mean subsidies, from the taxpayers, then you have no reason to let the taxpaying public on your land to recreate. If you take subsidies for your land then you would allow the taxpaying public access to your lands during legal open seasons or as was pointed out, any time to recreate by taking pictures or hiking. I would be for not allowing camping as that could leave a trace.

Kind of like welfare folks having to take blood tests to see if they are on drugs prior to getting their checks. In this case, I see no need to blood test the ranchers and landowners since we legalized weed here. They just need to open their ranches up for public hunting if they have their hands out. Take public taxpayer monies, allow taxpayers access to your lands.

 

[Redwood]

I've got family and know a pile more of folks that collect subsidies on their property. The general concensus is that it is the best thing to ever happen to them. They get a ton of coin and don't have to do anything for it. All the while, they're making pretty good money on the rest of the property. I get some of the reasons, but for the most part it's a huge mistake in fiscal responsibility. But why do we care about that, china will borrow us more.

 

[Trigger50]

Wisconsin farmers can receive state compensation for deer/bear/turkey or goose damage to crops. But, if they receive compensation they must allow hunting on their property.

 

[Nemont]

I've got family and know a pile more of folks that collect subsidies on their property. The general concensus is that it is the best thing to ever happen to them. They get a ton of coin and don't have to do anything for it. All the while, they're making pretty good money on the rest of the property. I get some of the reasons, but for the most part it's a huge mistake in fiscal responsibility. But why do we care about that, china will borrow us more.

I think most agree with that. The question is does this money get the general public access to private lands. It is a rather liberal idea to have government involved at both the state and federal level to take another property right from landowners

I know there is abuse in the system but not a single penny of that money was ever meant for access. I am fine with ending all the programs and allowing the free market to work but I think it is not a valid argument.

Nemont

 

[spook12]

Wisconsin farmers can receive state compensation for deer/bear/turkey or goose damage to crops. But, if they receive compensation they must allow hunting on their property.

30338,here's your template.

A states solution to a states problem.

 

[1_pointer]

I think I may be changing my tune. If we can tie access for state regulated hunting to federal farm program payments, I think those tags need to be equally available to all. That'd be fair right? I mean, since the residents of most western states have the management of their fish and game agencies largely, or if even partially, funded by federal programs (P-R & D-J) and non-resident fees there should be equal access to those tags. Lets get this band wagon rolling!

 

[sbhooper]

I think I may be changing my tune. If we can tie access for state regulated hunting to federal farm program payments, I think those tags need to be equally available to all. That'd be fair right? I mean, since the residents of most western states have the management of their fish and game agencies largely, or if even partially, funded by federal programs (P-R & D-J) and non-resident fees there should be equal access to those tags. Lets get this band wagon rolling!

That could cause this to be the longest thread in history!

Wisconsin has the right idea. I did deer damage control for a few years for a neighbor that leases his property to an outfitter. He wanted to mitigate his deer damage, and so I got the nod. He got the best of both worlds-his problem was addressed with Game and Parks permits and he got his outfitter money without allowing public access.

As far as the CRP, Nebraska Game and Parks has a program to pay landowners for access to large CRP tracts. They get paid twice to have their land in CRP, but at least people can take advantage of it.

I think forcing access through private land that gets subsidies, in order to hunt locked in public land would be more than enough compensation to the hunter/tax payer.

 

[What Map]

Using tax dollars to get land owners to do what we want is part of our culture. I want to reward them to "produce" wildlife habitat versus growing crops. I also support paying them for access like Montana's Block Mgmt program. MT's program was the first in the nation and I helped get it off the ground. We can do the same at the Federal level with Open Fields programs. Hunters can impact policy at the State and Federal levels. The land owners certainly do.

 

[shoots-straight]

Wisconsin has the right idea. I did deer damage control for a few years for a neighbor that leases his property to an outfitter. He wanted to mitigate his deer damage, and so I got the nod. He got the best of both worlds-his problem was addressed with Game and Parks permits and he got his outfitter money without allowing public access.

That's a good thing?

 

[sbhooper]

That's a good thing?

I didn't say it was a good thing. It is just the way it is and the public gets nothing for it.

 

[noharleyyet]

Where do I sign up for my free beef and milk?

 

[BigHornRam]

Where do I sign up for my free beef and milk?

Yeh! And make sure you make my free beef and milk, free range, grass fed, organic, non GH and GMO, please.

 

[shoots-straight]

I didn't say it was a good thing. It is just the way it is and the public gets nothing for it.

Wisconsin has the right idea. I did deer damage control for a few years for a neighbor that leases his property to an outfitter. He wanted to mitigate his deer damage, and so I got the nod. He got the best of both worlds-his problem was addressed with Game and Parks permits and he got his outfitter money without allowing public access.

That led me to believe you thought it was a good idea.

 

[Bokeh]

Talk about an emotionally charged issue! Guess it depends (literally) which side of the fence you are standing on.

I know that, generally speaking, farmers and ranchers work hard and have a tough go at making the dollars work. I am self employed, too. If I have a bad year or an economic slump, the US Gov't doesn't give a damn about me. They just want their taxable dollars based on whatever I do make. They certainly aren't sending me any checks. I'm on my own. It doesn't matter if it's Republican, Democrat, liberal or conservative. My role is to simply work and pay my taxes.

It's too easy to stand in one set of shoes and make judgement based only on what's in front of me. There is always a bigger, more complex picture. Too easy to say that we pay our taxes so we demand this and that. But there is a balance and the scales of justice are seldom if ever really fair.

I support the independent rancher and farmer as firmly as I support all of our core American values. Corporations with no soul and no values are far too prevalent and we need to do all we can to help these families maintain their lifestyles and their independence. No matter what. But it does sometimes make me think of the fat dog that gets fed at the table and then growls when you go near his bone.

CRP is one of the best things to happen for wildlife. Open space and habitat is the most critical component to sustaining wildlife populations and hunting. But it sure is difficult, on your day off or vacation, to stand across the fence from a big CRP field with a posted sign. And the comment about how many of us are willing to lay out the money to buy ranch land and take our chances is silly. There's not much wheat country available for sale. And you know why.

It's really a matter of conscience for the landowner. They have the right to decide. Fair enough. I would like to think that if I were on the other side of the fence, I would consider the balance of stewardship and rights. I would like to think that I would be open to reasonable access and fairness. But, chances are, if I were on that side of the fence, I would growl if you guys came near my bone!

It's always a matter of perspective when we make our choices.