New idea for access to private land
- Thread starter 30338
- Start date
HSi-ESi
Well-known member
Like all govt programs, this one can be abused.
Historically though - subsidies are used for market corrections and keeping us out of another 'Dust Bowl'. Habitat programs have proven to be very useful and necessary.
As a hunter and non-farmer/rancher - I think going after hunting privileges for folks taking subsidies is very short-sighted.
Historically though - subsidies are used for market corrections and keeping us out of another 'Dust Bowl'. Habitat programs have proven to be very useful and necessary.
As a hunter and non-farmer/rancher - I think going after hunting privileges for folks taking subsidies is very short-sighted.
As I said, I don't take any subsidies. My house is paid for. I paid my way through college. I am paying my kids way through now. I pay $13,000 a year in health insurance. I do make some donations to various foundations and I do take those tax writeoffs. If they wish to make those non tax exempt, I'd still donate to them.
If the folks who are taking Obamacare subsidies for example, think they can keep their doctor and their health plans, they are wrong. I think if you take something from the tax payers, then you can expect to lose some control of certain aspects of your life.
So to be clear, in the future if the farm lobby wants to receive taxpayer funds for their special interest, then I as a taxpayer who is paying those funds wants access to those properties. If you don't want to grant access, don't sign up. I think it is definitely something that should be debated and included in future legislation.
npaden
Well-known member
I guess I'm one of the bad guys. I have some of my land signed up for CRP. About 30 acres total out of the 200ish acres that I own.
It is a rental contract, with specific provisions for what I can and can't do with the land during the term of the contract.
I have also had grazing contracts on my land in the past.
The contracts are specific as to what is and isn't allowed on the land. Just because I had a grazing contract on my property didn't mean that the guy grazing his cows could let his friends and family hunt on my property. In fact, the lease specifically prohibited that.
If my CRP contract required me to allow access to any yahoo that wanted it, I would not have entered into the contract, I would go back to leasing the grazing rights on the property instead.
Another problem is the 30 acres that are in CRP are scattered out over the 200 acres that I own. Hunting checkerboard land is hard enough as it is, I can't imagine having to jump around from one little field to another trying to stay on CRP land.
I earn around $30 per acre for my land that is enrolled in CRP so right at $1,500 per year. I could earn more signing a grazing lease, but I think it is better for wildlife with it in CRP.
From my perspective, it would be a no brainer to exit the CRP program if it required access. I'm sure there are some out there who would stay in the program, but I would think they would expect to be compensated at a much higher rental rate to allow access.
It is a rental contract, with specific provisions for what I can and can't do with the land during the term of the contract.
I have also had grazing contracts on my land in the past.
The contracts are specific as to what is and isn't allowed on the land. Just because I had a grazing contract on my property didn't mean that the guy grazing his cows could let his friends and family hunt on my property. In fact, the lease specifically prohibited that.
If my CRP contract required me to allow access to any yahoo that wanted it, I would not have entered into the contract, I would go back to leasing the grazing rights on the property instead.
Another problem is the 30 acres that are in CRP are scattered out over the 200 acres that I own. Hunting checkerboard land is hard enough as it is, I can't imagine having to jump around from one little field to another trying to stay on CRP land.
I earn around $30 per acre for my land that is enrolled in CRP so right at $1,500 per year. I could earn more signing a grazing lease, but I think it is better for wildlife with it in CRP.
From my perspective, it would be a no brainer to exit the CRP program if it required access. I'm sure there are some out there who would stay in the program, but I would think they would expect to be compensated at a much higher rental rate to allow access.
spook12
New member
I live in a rural community, in the last 12 years my homeowners insurance has gone down twice due to the fact that the rural fire district that I live in has upped it rating because of some pretty hefty grants from the Federal Gov. There is no way that the dept would be as highly rated as it is if it fell to me and my neighbors to fund on our own. I've been honest and admitted that I personally have benefited from the Government teat, my Question is do I owe you and everyone else free access to my private property?
smarandr
Well-known member
Then you're getting subsidized. I'll be sure to enlist your kids for some free labor--after all I'm paying for the tax credit you (should) be taking on your tax return every year.
Npaden, I am not one of the good guys, nor am I one of the bad guys whoever those folks are. I did not call you a bad guy. I am also not saying that it would be an easy implementation. Would things like reduced payouts in return for not allowing access be debatable? Would partials under 100 acres be excluded? Don't know the answers but feel like the question should be asked and pushed.
Spook12, if you lived in a flood plain and your house flooded. Would you expect me to pay for your stuff? I don't really want to pay for your stuff. I am paying for my stuff. If I build a cabin in the rockies, ruining some game habitat along the way, I would be forced to pay higher fire insurance or elect to not insure. If I don't insure and it burns, do you need to pay for my stuff? No.
Once folks see that .gov is helping them, they tend to vote for more of it. I don't want government grants for fire stations, rural airports, etc. People select where they live in our free society and they accept the risks. That is way it should be, but that is not the way it is. I have 17 trillion reasons why.
Staying on topic, if we put in minimum acreages for the discussion, if we allowed landowners to opt out for 50% reduced payouts for example, what other things could be done? Through this thread my choice of words may be suspect, but at the heart of my argument is you should expect to give up something in return for subsidies. I stand by that argument.
Spook12, if you lived in a flood plain and your house flooded. Would you expect me to pay for your stuff? I don't really want to pay for your stuff. I am paying for my stuff. If I build a cabin in the rockies, ruining some game habitat along the way, I would be forced to pay higher fire insurance or elect to not insure. If I don't insure and it burns, do you need to pay for my stuff? No.
Once folks see that .gov is helping them, they tend to vote for more of it. I don't want government grants for fire stations, rural airports, etc. People select where they live in our free society and they accept the risks. That is way it should be, but that is not the way it is. I have 17 trillion reasons why.
Staying on topic, if we put in minimum acreages for the discussion, if we allowed landowners to opt out for 50% reduced payouts for example, what other things could be done? Through this thread my choice of words may be suspect, but at the heart of my argument is you should expect to give up something in return for subsidies. I stand by that argument.
I don't think I qualified due to income level. I know I can't take them for tax deductions due to my income level. So my kids aren't as equal as others I guess. In addition, both of them are employed and paying their own taxes this summer. So I am lucky in that regard and appreciate their efforts to get out and get to it.
On that note, I cannot fathom a reason why there is a tax break of any kind for the number of kids you elect to have or for paying mortgage interest. Talk about simplifying the tax code. No tax breaks for kids, tuition, or home interest is a definite winner in my book and one I would happily vote for. What business is it of anyone's what size house you buy or how many kids you have? Off topic but thanks for letting me vent.
npaden
Well-known member
30338, CRP contracts rental rates are already very marginal, and if I was actually trying to maximize my profits I would not be in them. I'm in it because after the big hassle of the initial year getting the contract in place it is easy for the next 10 years and I don't have to deal with cows on my place. Further reducing the contract rates would simply drop million of acres out of the program.
Npaden, Thanks for the reply. Not sure what the answer is for this, just that it bears review and discussion. 10 years seems like an eternity to be enlisted in anything. Thanks again as I would just like a civil discussion of the pros and cons of where we are at with these payments and access issues.
npaden
Well-known member
P.S. - Wouldn't it be a subsidy to you if the government was paying for access for a place for you to hunt on?
re. part I bolded. Depending on the program the landowner is in enrolled, by participating they are giving up some level control of what they can or cannot do on a piece of ground. By enrolling they are giving up the option of sodbusting or draining a wetland to plant into crops which are common local examples. Lots of hunters and even more wildlife are grateful for this provision as there'd be a lot less woodlots in much of the midwest were this not the case.
smarandr
Well-known member
Let's say I buy your argument that by supporting the welfare rancher/farmer you are entitled to access to his personal property. My guess is your total dollar support as a percentage of his subsidy is infinitesimal, and therefore you are only entitled to hunt an equivalent portion of his property. That would seem a little more fair to me.
Nemont
Well-known member
30338,
So being civil, let me ask you this. Since you are a free market kind of guy who wants to pay his own way, why don't you buy land and run in a free market way and still comply with all the rules and regs?
I am curious why you haven't tried this, before you want access to property just because somebody took a government hand out? If the government is handing out money most people, not all, but most generally take it, so do you blame the people who took the money or those offering it?
How about this we take your personal tax payment that go to the general fund, so exclude FICA, and just figure this on your personal tax income tax payments. Sound like you are successful so let's say you paid in the ball park of $45,000 in Federal income taxes. Excluding the food stamp program, I see estimates that direct and indirect payments to farmers cost $30 billion on the high end estimate. Or about .008% of the federal budget. So of your $45,000 in income taxes about $360 went to pay for ag subsidies. So for $360 you want access to literally millions of acres of land just for hunting. How much access would $360 get you on the private market? EDIT: as you pointed out 40% of this is borrowed so your true share is $216
I am not saying these subsidies are right but ask yourself why were they put in place and continue to be paid? Also what is expected of the landowner, it isn't as if these government payments don't come with strings attached. Try grazing or haying CRP if it hasn't been released. Or just planting all crested wheat grass seed. Also they tell you when and what you can do when it comes to timing of planting crops, etc etc. The reason access isn't on the radar screen is because a lot of farm land across this country has almost zero value for hunting. In addition much of the other lands are not enrolled in government programs. How do you draw the line at just hunting access? Campers, hikers, bird watchers, fossil hunters, shed collectors, mountain bikers, tofu eating free love hippees etc etc would also expect access. That would lead to additional government programs to pay landowners for the damage done by the public accessing their property and ruining some of it. The payments simply are not large enough to make that big of a difference.
I am unsure the American public will want to see what happens if there was true free markets applied to their food and agriculture lands. The Chinese are in the market to secure more farmland.
Nemont
So being civil, let me ask you this. Since you are a free market kind of guy who wants to pay his own way, why don't you buy land and run in a free market way and still comply with all the rules and regs?
I am curious why you haven't tried this, before you want access to property just because somebody took a government hand out? If the government is handing out money most people, not all, but most generally take it, so do you blame the people who took the money or those offering it?
How about this we take your personal tax payment that go to the general fund, so exclude FICA, and just figure this on your personal tax income tax payments. Sound like you are successful so let's say you paid in the ball park of $45,000 in Federal income taxes. Excluding the food stamp program, I see estimates that direct and indirect payments to farmers cost $30 billion on the high end estimate. Or about .008% of the federal budget. So of your $45,000 in income taxes about $360 went to pay for ag subsidies. So for $360 you want access to literally millions of acres of land just for hunting. How much access would $360 get you on the private market? EDIT: as you pointed out 40% of this is borrowed so your true share is $216
I am not saying these subsidies are right but ask yourself why were they put in place and continue to be paid? Also what is expected of the landowner, it isn't as if these government payments don't come with strings attached. Try grazing or haying CRP if it hasn't been released. Or just planting all crested wheat grass seed. Also they tell you when and what you can do when it comes to timing of planting crops, etc etc. The reason access isn't on the radar screen is because a lot of farm land across this country has almost zero value for hunting. In addition much of the other lands are not enrolled in government programs. How do you draw the line at just hunting access? Campers, hikers, bird watchers, fossil hunters, shed collectors, mountain bikers, tofu eating free love hippees etc etc would also expect access. That would lead to additional government programs to pay landowners for the damage done by the public accessing their property and ruining some of it. The payments simply are not large enough to make that big of a difference.
I am unsure the American public will want to see what happens if there was true free markets applied to their food and agriculture lands. The Chinese are in the market to secure more farmland.
Nemont
Last edited:
Frenchy
Well-known member
Pretty much how I see it as well.
Put me in the camp that does not see the correlation between farm subsidies and Hunter Access.
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.
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.
Nemont, also duly noted on all types of access. Not sure what the solution is, but I am seeing that $26 million figure and it just seems like a ton of money for one county that historically is impossible to get access in. It just chaps me. I do appreciate the civil tone by all posters. Just looking for a solution.
Nemont
Well-known member
What is the total value of food and fiber produced in that county in Colorado? What programs did the $26,000,000 go to fund? If it is so lucrative why don't you secure all the access you could ever want by buying some land to hunt on? Answer that question and then we could open up the discussion to some other issues.
You realize the Federal Government has zero to say about how many tags are available in any county anywhere in the country right? So why would tags, issued by a state, be tied to a Federal program? Seems like you want the government involved in a lot of things regarding hunting. I thought you said government can't get much done but you want two different levels of government to work out your access to private lands based on how much a county gets in farm subsidies? You can't really be serious can you?
What state are you in?
Nemont
You realize the Federal Government has zero to say about how many tags are available in any county anywhere in the country right? So why would tags, issued by a state, be tied to a Federal program? Seems like you want the government involved in a lot of things regarding hunting. I thought you said government can't get much done but you want two different levels of government to work out your access to private lands based on how much a county gets in farm subsidies? You can't really be serious can you?
What state are you in?
Nemont
Last edited:
