How do you feel about landowners charging to hunt their CRP, etc...

R

retrvrman

New member
I was wondering how folks thought about landowners charging guys to hunt CRP/land which is subsidized by the state and federal governments and if I am correct the program is paid for by everyone's tax dollars?

The reason I ask is that I hunted with some local guys and farmers on their land/CRP this past weekend and they didn't charge, they did it because they wanted too and I was friends with someone they knew, so a friend of a friend. However they, the local guys and the farmers, have a problem with some of their fellow farmers or locals who do charge.

What is the opinion of the group or thoughts??

I know this my kick up a fire storm.

I consider myself a conservative and I believe in those prinicples.

Greg
 
I own land in South Dakota. sure i'll charge on land, trees or even CRP unless youre a close friend of mine.

wether you pay taxes to pay for the CRP, its still the farmer's land bc he too pays the land tax, the govt doesnt nor do you on that farmer's land.
 
Notice I didn't say that I disagreed or agreed. I am merely playing devils advocate in asking the question that is all.

And the fact is that some guys I know who own land in Kansas don't charge it brought up an interesting point. That is all.....


QUOTE=birdman652001;52683]I own land in South Dakota. sure i'll charge on land, trees or even CRP unless youre a close friend of mine.

wether you pay taxes to pay for the CRP, its still the farmer's land bc he too pays the land tax, the govt doesnt nor do you on that farmer's land.[/QUOTE]
 
I don't mind paying a small fair fee if it is good habitat, the money he receives is to leave the land alone for wildlife,like birdman said, they still have to pay fees, and they are not going to get rich on the money from uncle sam. I am glad they are willing to do it. usually fairly good wildlife cover.
 
retrvrman said:
Notice I didn't say that I disagreed or agreed. I am merely playing devils advocate in asking the question that is all.

And the fact is that some guys I know who own land in Kansas don't charge it brought up an interesting point. That is all.....
Click to expand...

i wasnt thinking you did disagree. just stating that you or the people are paying taxes that fund CRP programs, just as highway maintence, or anything you pay taxes on. farmers who are low on the totem pole and scraping what they can get out on their cattle, crop grains, are usually going to charge for a hunting fee as land taxes arent cheap either.

again if you were a close friend, i wouldnt charge you, any other hunter wants to hunt, i'll charge my usual charge except family members and friends.
 
I dont agree with it one bit.

If the farmer/landowner is selling trespass fees then he should be getting no govt money to subsidize him for wildlife habitat period. The individual may own the land but he does not own the wildlife. At least in the state of KS.

Id also like to see it be illegal for guides to be paid for their services and then take clients on public lands in KS.
 
Now I agree with you on the whole guide taking folks on public lands but then again folks need to educate themselves a bit more....


KsHusker said:
I dont agree with it one bit.

If the farmer/landowner is selling trespass fees then he should be getting no govt money to subsidize him for wildlife habitat period. The individual may own the land but he does not own the wildlife. At least in the state of KS.

Id also like to see it be illegal for guides to be paid for their services and then take clients on public lands in KS.
Click to expand...
 
It bothers me because I'm cheap and want to hunt good spots for free, not because I think it is wrong or unethical or any other term you want to use for it.

It doesn't bother me that I pay taxes and THEN have to buy a hunting license and THEN must follow rules or people who get their livelihood from my taxes will write me a ticket or take away my ability to hunt.

It doesn't bother me that I pay taxes and then have to pay nominal fees for my kids to participate in extra curricular activities or even pay so they can take their own school supplies.

It doesn't bother me that I get paid a fair wage for my work and then get bonuses, perks, and benefits.

It doesn't bother me to pay for a meal at a restaurant and then give a gratuity if the service was good.

I could go on but you can see where I'm coming from.
 
I don't like guided hunts on public land in Kansas or other parts of the lower 48. If it is public then don't allow individuals to make it commercial. However, It doesn't bother me in the parts of the world that are still truly wild like Alaska, etc.
 
Roger that...I see your point. That is the point that the farmers and landowners I was with were making.

I mean I watch the hunting shows and I see all the advertisements in magazines for all of these 5 star pheasant hunts in SD, KS, etc and they are thousands of dollars.

What percentage of folks actually can afford those?

I have always said that I in a perfect world if I had thousands of acres of primo pheasant land in SD I would invite veterans and youth to hunt and would keep everything else to my family and friends and that's it.

That's all I would do. I don't begrudge guys for charging, it is what our country is about and based on...the almighty dollar...

NCKHusker said:
It bothers me because I'm cheap and want to hunt good spots for free, not because I think it is wrong or unethical or any other term you want to use for it.

It doesn't bother me that I pay taxes and THEN have to buy a hunting license and THEN must follow rules or people who get their livelihood from my taxes will write me a ticket or take away my ability to hunt.

It doesn't bother me that I pay taxes and then have to pay nominal fees for my kids to participate in extra curricular activities or even pay so they can take their own school supplies.

It doesn't bother me that I get paid a fair wage for my work and then get bonuses, perks, and benefits.

It doesn't bother me to pay for a meal at a restaurant and then give a gratuity if the service was good.

I could go on but you can see where I'm coming from.
Click to expand...
 
I think its wonderful that they pay them to put there ground into CRP. I think they should pay for more of it to be in the program. You take away that program and we can all sit back and watch bird numbers free fall.
 
I guess I really didnt answer the original question. I think its fine they charge hunters, the goverment is paying them to take the land out of production. And although I am not a farmer and have no idea what they pay, I'm guessing its less then what they could make farming it?? Maybe some of the farmers on here could answer that. So if they need to charge hunters to make up some of the money that is lost due to not farming it then more power to them.
 
I approach this issue from two perspectives. First, As a realist, I lease land, ironically enough CRP, in my home state, of Missouri, I do it in order to have a place to hunt with the real possibility I'll see and get shots at pheasants. I also do it in the hopes with my nudges and financial support, the current owner keeps it in the CRP program and continues the management that has been very productive for pheasants. Second, from a political activist perspective, I abhor the implications of having to pay to shoot game which is by constitutional law owned by all of us in common, and held in trust by the states. I would very much support an open hunting ammendment which allows hunting on all lands, except a homestead site of no more than 160@ with companion legislation to allow for strict enforcement penalties, indemnification from lawsuit for landowners, and a fund to pay for real damages to landowners who are victimized by clowns masquerading as hunters. Research will indicate our founding fathers would have addressed this issue originally, but they were dealing with a country which had 98% public ground, and could never forsee a country with such restricted public access. Subsequently, the goverment goofed on the issue. Though I was suprised to read that the Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly in favor of public access over the years. In the end the realist prevails, because I don't have enough years left to spend fighting this issue to resolution, so we live in a world as we allowed it to be made, as best we can.
 
Talking about access, are any of you familiar with the public use of waterways in Kansas? All but three rivers in Kansas are privately owned.

It is trespassing to boat down a river (like the Republican where I live) without first getting permission from EVERY landowner on both sides of the river where you will be boating/floating. Even if you never step foot on dry land. It is an impossible task.

I think it is ridiculous that rivers are privately owned in Kansas and you can be prosecuted just for passing through on water.

It surprises me how many people are not aware of this.

Here is info. from the KDWP:
http://www.kdwp.state.ks.us/news/KDWP-Info/Locations/Rivers-and-Streams-Access
 
oh boy.. another CRP arguement thread. didnt we have this one already?

CRP used to pay good, fact, now they pay crap, FACT. Crop fields pay way better if you dont have a drought.
 
most guys who get CRP payments and enroll in the Kansas WIHA program are being fairly compensated, but nothing says they can't or should not lease privately.
 
If CRP was opened to public access it would kill the program. If you owned land, and had the option to rent to a farmer and keep control of the use of it or rent to the government and have no say on who uses the land, which would you do? CRP was started as a way to stop top soil erosion, and to improve water quality, wildlife habitat was an afterthought. Thanks to organizations like PF & DU wildlife habitat is now one of things looked at when awarding/accepting new acres.
 
oldandnew said:
I abhor the implications of having to pay to shoot game which is by constitutional law owned by all of us in common, and held in trust by the states. I would very much support an open hunting ammendment which allows hunting on all lands...
Click to expand...

You are not paying to shoot game. You are paying for the opportunity to hunt a certain piece of ground.

Paying to shoot game is what takes place on Controlled Shooting Areas in Kansas.

You actually make this very point in the second sentence I quoted. Your fist sentence talks of shooing game but then you move your argument to support of a open hunting amendment. Access and harvest are two very different things.

I will admit I have never thought of access to ALL wildlife as my constitutional right. Wildlife is managed, not held in trust. However, if this is your position then perhaps it would help you feel better if you considered the fees associated with hunting as your share of the cost to raise your game as it fed on privately help lands. You are not paying to shoot game, your simply reimbursing the landowner for all the resources your animals used before you harvested them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top