Land price$$$$$$

Chris - UGUIDE........

This selling off of farmland for homesites is what bastardized and ruined the hunting landscape theme in Michigan and the Eastern States. It's part of the malignant Eastern Pheasant Cancer that is spreading westward. When you start putting slickers in the country it's a slippery slope. Nothing good can come from it except $. It's usually one sign of the beginning of the END.

KEEP RESIDENTIAL LIVING VERY NEAR THE CITY!!!!!!!!!

KEEP FARMING AND HUNTING IN THE COUNTRY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It should be this simple - if you don't farm, you can't build a home on agricultural property. BAD USE OF RESOURSES AND UP-SIDE-DOWN PRIORTIES for land use.
 
In Michigan, I call our rural land use "Agriburbia" - the mutant, ugly result of crossbreeding farmland with residential living. It makes access MUCH more problematic and drastically reduces the huntability of the rural landscape.

These residential dwellers are usually habitat destroyers and it's VERY difficult to hunt grouse anyway without ending up every ten minutes in a backyard with a swingset and kids playing, etc, etc, etc.......WAY too many humans now occupy the countryside for non-farming purposes. WAY, WAY, WAY too many!!!!!!!!!!!
 
RK Special K said:
In Michigan, I call our rural land use "Agriburbia" - the mutant, ugly result of crossbreeding farmland with residential living. It makes access MUCH more problematic and drastically reduces the huntability of the rural landscape.

These residential dwellers are usually habitat destroyers and it's VERY difficult to hunt grouse anyway without ending up every ten minutes in a backyard with a swingset and kids playing, etc, etc, etc.......WAY too many humans now occupy the countryside for non-farming purposes. WAY, WAY, WAY too many!!!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...

Where do you live? In an apartment in the city, or milking cows on a farm. I think all of us "humans" are a net zero on natural habitat. In the city we flush our waste into rivers, as farmers, we spread pesticide, herbicide, non organic ( petro chemicals), on the land. I admit sprawl is an eye sore. There are shopping malls on top of areas I hunted quail in, while I was in college!
 
In the Dakotas it's just the opposite. They are forcing people into town. The family farm continue to die well the huge(ya you won't call it Corp, but I will)(most are LLC's now..Limited Liability, Corp.) Corp farms continue to try and get more and more land. The first thing a new owner does when they buy a farm. Bull doze all the buildings, make sure nobody ever moves back on the place. nobody moves back to the farm in the Dakota's they only move away and the people replacing them. They don't have pheasants or habitat in mind. They have profit, profit that means bigger equipment and more acres under till.
 
onpoint said:
In the Dakotas it's just the opposite. They are forcing people into town. The family farm continue to die well the huge(ya you won't call it Corp, but I will)(most are LLC's now..Limited Liability, Corp.) Corp farms continue to try and get more and more land. The first thing a new owner does when they buy a farm. Bull doze all the buildings, make sure nobody ever moves back on the place. nobody moves back to the farm in the Dakota's they only move away and the people replacing them. They don't have pheasants or habitat in mind. They have profit, profit that means bigger equipment and more acres under till.
Click to expand...

One big reason is that there are tax consequences to having buildings on the land. Not only they make farming easier with nice straight rows, but they reduce their property taxes to boot. With no livestock, no need for people. Most of these guys don't live there anyway, the ground is deserted from early winter on till spring when the sprayers and tillers come out of hibernation.
 
Humans are definitely NOT a net zero. We have distorted and polluted the surface of this earth like no other creature. But we are what we are. That's what we do best. The bottom line is this: If there were only a million people on the earth, we could be very close to a net-zero. But with pushing 10 billion! Net Zero? C'mon, who are you trying to kid?

Onpoint, you again are "on point". Except, I really don't care who or how the farmland is owned. BUT, it has to give up some room for conservation and protecting or NATIONAL HUNTING TREASURE.

And you are right, Out west, I see the collapsing of the population to the perimeter of the city, a positive. Exception: The I-29 corridor is starting to look more and more like Michigan. A real bad omen.

The problem is NOT malls(or any development, for that matter) on the edge of town. That is where it belongs. In the east, we humans are THE most invasive species to the rural landscape with dwellings and all the related activities that are unfriendly to habitat. This and aggressive farming methods are the two biggest detriments to pheasant habitat. Out west, the problem though is mostly aggressive farming.

The LP of Michigan has 12 million people. North Dakota has 650k. A good general rule of thumb: Where there are many people, there are few pheasants. Where there are few people, there are MANY pheasants.
Iowa has reached that breaking point. To get habitat back where it belongs in IA will be like trying to go up-stream without a paddle. VERY, VERY difficult.
We still have a chance further west.
 
Yes-we humans collectively don't seem to care about balance one bit. Urban sprawl has destroyed a lot of land in MN. Out instead of up. We seem to think our land here in the US is an inexhaustible resource-develop it drain it poison it and then move on-especially if you've made lots of money doing any of those actions. Very few give a damn about tomorrow its all about me and right now.

This notion that we are the best farmers on the planet-the most productive, the most efficient, explains itself-efficiency has a price and its the land, the water, the habitat that gets thrown under the bus.

What I've noticed in the Dakotas is that as farms get bigger, and are corporate where you do shift work etc, they including the owners move to the larger cities for the culture and amenities they can't get in the toolies. So the popular towns explode in growth and yes outward not upward. And some people retire and move to small and real small towns because they crave a different existence from where they came from.

Its insanity that continues to repeat itself. Big ag has its hooks deeply imbedded in politics to get and perpetuate what they want, and because they grow our food, our clothes, and put out these warm and fuzzie ads that the gullible citizens eat up, they get a free pass.

YIKES
 
Gentleman, is all this land monopoly and price soaring the sum result of capitalism? I firmly believe capitalism has raised the standard of living in the U.S to the best in world history, but there are always unintended consequences.
 
FieldKing said:
Gentleman, is all this land monopoly and price soaring the sum result of capitalism? I firmly believe capitalism has raised the standard of living in the U.S to the best in world history, but there are always unintended consequences.
Click to expand...

There are unintended consequences to all forms of government. Certainly Communism has some! My dad always said a benevolent monarchy was best, but you don't get to pick the next guy or gal! At least here we vote to enshrine the little lordlings every 2-6 years! We might be able to vote them out. The good news is the greed will eventually be their undoing. I hope I am alive to see it, and I hope there is some upland game birds to see it as well.
 
RK Special K said:
In Michigan, I call our rural land use "Agriburbia" - the mutant, ugly result of crossbreeding farmland with residential living. It makes access MUCH more problematic and drastically reduces the huntability of the rural landscape.

These residential dwellers are usually habitat destroyers and it's VERY difficult to hunt grouse anyway without ending up every ten minutes in a backyard with a swingset and kids playing, etc, etc, etc.......WAY too many humans now occupy the countryside for non-farming purposes. WAY, WAY, WAY too many!!!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...

Problem is RK is that we live in a FREE country and folks can do just about what ever they want within their rights and the law. Crazy isn't it this thing we call freedom. Seems I recollect we just had a holiday recently celebrating the very thing.
 
Freedom, however, is restricted by the principle of common good.

You are not free to commit murder - reason: not in the common good

You are not free to rob banks - reason: not in the common good

All laws and regulations restrict our freedom for the common good of all. I don't happen to agree with every last one of them but that is(or should be) the intent.

I'm suggesting this one: NO NON-FARM RESIDENTIAL DWELLINGS IN AGRICULTURAL ZONED LAND. REASON: NOT IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF COMMON GOOD. More specifically, it is extremely poor use of our national resource we call LAND and impedes on our NATIONAL HUNTING TREASURE. If too many of us live where we hunt, then we eventually will not have that land to hunt. If we live where we do not hunt, then we can live AND hunt. I believe that should be a BIG priority. Especially as our population continues to rise, unrestricted and un-needed use of our rural farmland will continue to impede on our ability to enjoy hunting. Come to Michigan and see the destructive forces at work.
 
RK Special K said:
Freedom, however, is restricted by the principle of common good.

You are not free to commit murder - reason: not in the common good

You are not free to rob banks - reason: not in the common good

All laws and regulations restrict our freedom for the common good of all. I don't happen to agree with every last one of them but that is(or should be) the intent.

I'm suggesting this one: NO NON-FARM RESIDENTIAL DWELLINGS IN AGRICULTURAL ZONED LAND. REASON: NOT IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF COMMON GOOD. More specifically, it is extremely poor use of our national resource we call LAND and impedes on our NATIONAL HUNTING TREASURE. If too many of us live where we hunt, then we eventually will not have that land to hunt. If we live where we do not hunt, then we can live AND hunt. I believe that should be a BIG priority. Especially as our population continues to rise, unrestricted and un-needed use of our rural farmland will continue to impede on our ability to enjoy hunting. Come to Michigan and see the destructive forces at work.
Click to expand...

That would be somewhat like China, where everybody lives in the city and is bused out to work in the fields everyday. I'll have to disagree. IMO, when we had 4 farms on every 160 acres, we had the best hunting ever. IMO, we need to move away from the monopoly that is being put on land ownership. More and more land is being owned by fewer and fewer people. It's land hoarding period!!!!

You tell me when you will have a better chance of getting hunting access. When you can ask 25 people or when you can ask 2?. Same as when we use to have 50 places to shop for something we needed. We could usually find it or shop for the best price. Now we have maybe two or three giant places. If they don't have it, your SOL. If they do, they are the only game in town. Either pay their price or go with out. Life has turned into one great big game of Monopoly and a certain few have bought up everything on the board, put several hotels on it and are charging us insane fee's for landing their. In the game it was to drive you out of business and own everything...it's now became a reality in real life. What ya going to do when they raise the rent so high you can't afford to survive? Go out of business? No, I think it's much worse then that. You all figure it out.
 
So few control so much and how can that honestly be good for all of us on this planet?? Geez I thought that was something our founders and so may who came here were getting away from and avoid it. Now its applauded.

Reality shows like Gold Rush etc show the American dream as pimping and whoring our lands and water to get rich and screw the consequences to our land. ITS FREAKIN CELEBRATED AND SHOWN OFF. There must be something wrong with me cause thats never been my dream.
 
New level of insanity in South Dakota--Kevin Costnar is offering 1000 acres in the Black Hills for only 14 Million--that's $140,000 per acre folks--:eek: Think I'll buy it---NOT ;)
 
Last edited:
SDJIM said:
New level of insanity in South Dakota--Kevin Costnar is offering 1000 acres in the Black Hills for only 14 Million--that's $140,000 per acre folks--:eek: Think I'll buy it---NOT ;)
Click to expand...

Actually that would be 14k per acre. Still insane.
 
Well there are people who have $14,000 per acre invested in Ill., NW Iowa, etc. What about a guy who buys $7500.00 acre ground, bust out the marshy area, bulldozes the hedge rows and fences, tiles everything, irrigates it, he has at least $14,000 per acre market? Is he insane, because he assume that he will get it back when he sells it? or because he believes it will return on the current commodity markets, which will last forever? I realize that the black hills property is mostly scenic, but there are a lot of people who believe that the other property described is a fine, lendable, investment.
 
OnPoint...........

you're missing this one because you're not comparing "apples to apples".

1939 - 1965:
One farmstead on 160 to 640 acres was NOT at all intense saturation of the hunting landscape. Many large areas had even lower densities of farm dwellings. And farmers farmed the land with MUCH less aggressive methods leaving good residual habitat. Also, VERY IMPORTANT, farmers were VERY pro-gun and pro-hunting. They welcomed guns and hunting on their property with open arms.

1966 - 2013:
Filling the huntable rural landscape with 5, 10, 20, 40, 60 acre residential homesites creates not only practical safety issues but loads up the countryside with many anti-gun, anti-hunting "city slickers". The pressure to restrict guns and hunting becomes greater with every new "invader". PETA and the Humane Society LOVE this trend - spread the adverse, impeding influences to where it really hurts - right on top of the honey hole. Even if these dwellers are ok with hunting, they use the property for many other recreational activities that hurt and impair habitat. ATV's, hiking, crosscountry skiing, etc, etc. The adverse impact of a 20 acre homesite is really MUCH bigger than 20 acres. You usually can't hunt right next to this property so it really "takes out" 40-60 acres of huntable habitat. It's an UGLY trend that will eventually "rot out" the rural landscape for decent access and hunting. Again, come to Michigan and I'll show you how this all works. We'll take a drive and knock on doors - you'll come to see the light.

Again, I'm for a NATIONAL HABITAT PROGRAM that provides LOTS of habitat and opens up access. I call it our NATIONAL HUNTING TREASURE and HERITAGE. Call it the new "freeway system" of conservation habitat. I'm sure that the individual landowning "profiteers" will not solve this one for the good of all(or most). Nope, not a chance in hell. And who would blame them - not me.
 
Did you notice that South DaKota CREP just hit 100 000 acres? That is alot of acres in just one program, plus walk in and all the private acres that provide hunting. It seems like it is pretty good now. With the cover being better this year will be different than last year.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top