What happened to the good old days???

[Livnthegoodlife]

I grew up in ND hunting whitetails with my dad for 10 years and we never had an issue with getting on the neighbors land not even with the neighbors that did not like us. That was 10 years ago and I have been out of hunting pretty much until this year. I went out to hunt north of the black hills in the prairie and asked at 6 different places if I could hunt and they all said it was paid hunting and they were full! That left me very depressed the opening day as there is hardly any public land in the section I was hunting. My boys and I went home and I fumed about this for a couple of days. Then decided to try my luck again. My wife went with and we stopped at a house that another guy on opening day said was paid hunting also but the nice lady said we could hunt her land!! So I was excited to finally be able to do some hunting. We ended up getting a nice muley buck.

What do you guys think of paid hunting? I think it is ruining hunting for the common person.

 

[wilecoyote76]

People are driven by the almighty dollar. I'm sure the concept caught on pretty quick and some landowners were able to gather up a few extra coins as a result. Fortunately here in Idaho we have a lot of public land to hunt and don't have to rely on trespass fees just to get on certain property.

I don't believe it is ruining the hunting for average working person, it just makes it a bit harder to hunt the normal stomping grounds we did years ago. Unfortunately I don't see it going back to the good old days but being courteous and be willing to work off the trespass fees could be possible. For the last few years we have been fencing for a farmer that has a lot of huntable ground. As a result, we get to hunt and he doesn't have to hire workers to get the job done. It's a win-win for both parties involved.

 

[Idaho Ron]

I would pay a small trespass fee. I paid 10 dollars to hunt a place for upland birds in Montana. I would pay up to 20.00 to hunt on land that I KNOW had birds. Here in my part of Idaho the land owners DON'T want upland game and don't manage for wildlife.
For big game, I won't pay. It is not worth it for me. I will hunt public land or quit. I hate to ask for permission to hunt. The guy is pissed off because somebody left a gate down, or littered, or shot a cow, or shot his dog. I don't want a lecture. I was not the criminal that wronged him why do I need to hear the ( I don't let anyone hunt because) speech. I quit asking years ago for hunting. If I can't find it on public land to hell with it.
Most of the time private land is not all that great anyway. Like I said before most land owners don't want the game on their land to start with. The big federally subsidized welfare ranchers don't want big game on PUBLIC land either, because it competes with the thousands of cattle they are using to "cow out" the public lands. Oh did I mention that Mike Simpson sucks and the Owhyee initiative also sucks. |oo
Ron

 

[pa mt man]

Livinthegoodlife, try 40 years ago. My father and uncle built a cottage on slippery rock creek in the fifties. I'd spend the whole summer there fishing and hunting groundhogs. My damn sister talked my father into selling it to her in 1972 saying it would stay in the family. She sold the place in 74 for four times what she paid for it.
But I wouldn't want it now anyways. I went there last summer and didn't recognize the place. Houses and paved roads everywhere. It's like that in alot of my old hunting spots. Old strip mines that I use to hunt when I was 15 now are reclaimed and have houses are on them.

I wonder what it's going to be like in another 40 years.

 

[280]

visit Texas and you will see what hunting in all states will soon become

 

[Ithaca 37]

visit Texas and you will see what hunting in all states will soon become

Not if you guys would smarten up and vote for politicians who promise to expand, enhance and protect public land. Any idea which party is always trying to exploit public land for private gain? This is where most hunters are unbelievably stupid. They vote for politicians who support the destruction of public lands, and then they bitch about not having a place to hunt.

 

[BigHornRam]

Here is a good article that highlights some other issues that we are facing.

Ranching near Yellowstone becoming thing of the past:
People increasingly buying property around park with no intention of working land
By MIKE STARK of the Billings Gazette



Owning a slice of paradise isn't what it used to be.

Generations of ranchers on the rural fringes of Yellowstone National Park passed their land to offspring or sold it to likeminded people.


But for the past decade and longer, more ranches have been snatched up by people with less interest in turning a buck off the land than weekend trips, trout fishing and catching a glimpse of an elk or wolf on their property, according to a new study.

In sales involving 400 acres or more outside Yellowstone, only 26 percent of buyers were “traditional ranchers,” according to researchers' study of records from 1990 to 2001.

The largest category, at 39 percent, were “amenity buyers,” those who want the land not primarily for agriculture production but for its recreation and ambience, the study said.

The new buyers often arrive with a different set of values from those who have family ties stretching back generations.

In some cases the new owners try to fit in, and in some cases they don't. Either way, they're transforming the social and natural dynamics, said Hannah Gosnell, an assistant geography professor at Oregon State University, one of the study's authors.

“It's not black and white, there's a whole range of new owners,” Gosnell said. “The one thing they have in common is they're pretty wealthy.”

The study, published in the journal Society and Natural Resources, is one of the first to quantify what many have observed about the transition of ranches in parts of the West, and around Yellowstone in particular.

A tough agricultural market and attrition among younger ranchers has made it difficult to turn away lucrative offers from outsiders looking to buy chunks of rural land near Yellowstone.

The study, conducted by researchers from Oregon State University, the University of Colorado and the University of Otago in New Zealand, analyzed 582 land sales in 10 Montana and Wyoming counties outside Yellowstone.

They found that nearly

1.5 million acres of private land changed hands between 1990 and 2001, about 22 percent of large agricultural operations in the greater Yellowstone area.

A few areas had turnover rates close to 50 percent during the 1990s, including Paradise Valley, Madison Valley and the Upper Green River basin in Wyoming.

Aside from “amenity buyers,” the researchers found that investors were involved in 14 percent of the purchases, part-time ranchers were

6 percent and conservation groups were 2 percent.

Contrary to what some might think, developers bought only

6 percent, and the researchers found few instances overall where the land was subdivided. The study area, though, didn't include fast-developing areas in Gallatin County and Jackson Hole, Wyo.

In many cases, the valley ranches have become weekend and vacation getaways for the wealthy, some of whom pursue ecological restoration, others who have a few “hobby” cattle and others who simply want seclusion.

Jim Taylor, managing director of Billings-based Hall and Hall Inc., said he saw the trend start in the mid- to late-1980s and it's been running strong ever since. Among other things, his company represents buyers and sellers in deals for large ranches.

Wealthy buyers are drawn to the area for its natural beauty and to ranches for their location, the fishing, a romantic ideal of rural lifestyle and a number of other factors, he said.

“It's a pretty compelling place to put your money. You're buying a place with intrinsic value,” Taylor said.

Amenities like airports, shopping and good restaurants add to the allure, but proximity to a place like Yellowstone can put it over the top.

“People are paying more for those places because there's not very many of them around a huge protected area,” he said. “It's like buying on a beach.”

The change in ownership also has implications for wildlife.

In some cases, the new owners are more apt to allow elk, wolves and others to linger on their property, which can be good for animals seeking safe habitat but problematic for nearby ranchers still trying to keep their cattle operation running, Gosnell said.

Some aren't inclined to keep the area open for hunting, an unpopular choice among many sportsmen and creating complications for wildlife managers.

“It makes hunting as a management tool difficult to implement sometimes,” said Don Childress, wildlife administrator for Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks.

One of the biggest questions is how the change in ownership patterns will shape the long-term future of the land.

It's possible that the new owners are in it for the long haul and it's possible that when it comes time to pass it to the next generation, they won't be interested and the ranches will hit the sale block again, Gosnell said.

“There's just not a lot of certainty with the current ownership pattern,” Gosnell said.

What's not going to change is the powerful draw that a place like Yellowstone and its surrounding region will have on potential buyers.

“Probably as these landscapes with amazing environmental amenities become more rare they will become more and more valuable,” Gosnell said.

The study was funded by the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation and Yellowstone Heritage.

 

[Tom]

“It makes hunting as a management tool difficult to implement sometimes,” said Don Childress, wildlife administrator for Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks.

Does Montana have a wildlife tax exemption for landowners who manage the habitat well for wildlife?

 

[1_pointer]

Tom, do you think that having adequate habitat for critters is the problem near Yellowstone??? Hard to manage populations of animals that move goodly distances across more and more landowners as larger tracts are subdivided. Even more so if those new landowners don't like hunting.

PS- Stat for the day is 2 + 2 = 5.

 

[Tom]

Thanks for the answer. Motivation for the landowners, that was what I was trying to get at. I guess its to hard up there, eh?

 

[cjcj]

The good old days are long gone... We used to get a tag every year... not anymore..:BLEEP: .. Its sad overpopulation/greed... I agree with Ithaca`s post..hump .

we vote in mostly pro almighty dollar worshiping dickwads who would develope and put condo`s on the rim of the grand canyon if we let them...I see it getting worse before it gets better.|oo :BLEEP:

 

[280]

so what are you saying Tom, all states should follow Texas`s lead?

 

[Dangerous Dave]

Not too thrilled about the 'pay to hunt' scheme, either. Instead, I went a different direction. I bought some land to hunt on.
Two of my cousins and I (along with two other partners) pooled our resorces and bought 1,450 acres in Northern California. Officially it is called a timber company, but it's actually a deer hunting preserve -just for us. We are not by any means wealthy -heck, I still rent 'cause I can't afford a dang house out here. Still, it's worth every dollar I spend on it, and it keeps the housing developers at bay... and supplies the deer with a secure place to live. We are also legally allowed 4 landowner deer tags a year.
The locals have a pretty dim view of us "outsiders" buying up the whole north-facing ridge above the town below. They still insist on cutting our fences and pushing out our property and driving right on through it without so much as a howdy-do. When I manage to have a little "talk" with them, they all seem pretty embarrassed about not being able to read all of our No Trespassing signs, but still felt justified in cutting our fences to get in simply because they are inclined to. I seriously doubt if any of the four poachers I kicked off our land this year had drawn a tag for the area. I guess the question to be asked is: Are my cousins and I "selfish landowners", or are the poachers being greedy and unlawfull? I guess it all depends upon your point of view.
The first guy I interviewed gave me the lame excuse that he and his family had hunted our two ridges for generations and he sort of felt that he had some sort of birthright to do so whenever he felt so inclined. I asked him if he had no problem with me kicking his front door in whenever I felt like it and walk through his house, and maybe walk into into his backyard and shoot his dog or cat if I had a hankering to? To this day I don't think he understood what I was getting at. The important thing is... I do.
It was also mentioned in town that "Buying that property wasn't fair." Yeah, right -Tough S-. It was on the market for over three years, and a dozen or so local deadbeats could have combined resources and bought the thing right out from under us. But, no... they'ed rather poach the property instead. The way I figure it they don't deserve to the way they've nearly shot out the entire mule deer herd -in and out of season for decades- sad, but true.
I guess I'll learn to enjoy my new status as a "jerk landowner." One damn thing's for sure... NO ONE'S gonna be poaching deer off our property all year long if any of us can help it.

 

[1_pointer]

Tom- No, it's not too hard. But the folks that can afford to and are buying the land around Yellowstone aren't going to be swayed from their views on hunting or people hunting on their land by some piddly tax exemption. The quality of habitat isn't the problem. IMO, the biggest problem is trying to manage through hunting game species that travel long ways. Larger numbers of ownerships make this even more problematic. That's the problem, fragmented habitat and ownership are a natural resource management nightmare.

Dave- What you guys did, is unfortunately the way of the future for the areas with little to no public land. Good for you. Being a landowner is a burden and a privledge. Just hope the good outweighs the bad.

 

[Dangerous Dave]

1 Pointer, I agree with sharing public wildlife resources and would enjoy sharing it with everyone. I wish I could invite everyone onto my property to hunt. But we all know that an additude like that only works in fairy tales -and not the real world.
The local F&G wardens know who we are and support and agree with us and have asked us to give them the license plate or offroad sticker number of anyone we catch on the property. I hope it doesn't come to that.

 

[MarvB]

Thats one of the other problems up there Dave...the "local" warden is stretched from Round Mountain to Alturas making him not so local at all and the "good ol' boys" unfortunately (and due to the lack of economy up there) have waaaay too much time on their hands.

Didn't realize you guys bought that much of the ridge- good for you!
I'll have to swing by and meet ya some time if/when I'm up hunting the Rush Creek-Adin Mt. area again.

Marv

 

[Dangerous Dave]

Thanks for the invite, Marv. If I tag out early next year I just might take you up on it.
Actually, it's split 50/50 on what the locals think about us. Half are sympathetic and realise that what we did is REALLY helping the deer, and know how hard the outlaws have hammered the deer for the last 30 -40 years. The other half want to shoot the rest of them to hell and gone.

To get back on topic: In a perfect world, any one of us should be able to hunt anytime OR anywhere for anything we wanted to. It would be great. Too bad it can't happen that way and I guess that's why we have dreams. As far as I'm concerned, how well we hunted this week should deturmine whether or not we live long enough to see next week. Life ain't fair. DD