Headin west
Member
And those CREP acres should be good this year. I hope this program keeps expanding.
Land price$$$$$$
- Thread starter SDJIM
- Start date
RK Special K
New member
Follow-up to my previous post:
Case in point:
In the late 80's to early 90's I had a fantastic ruffed grouse covert - drainage ditch, aspens, grape tangles - just a perfect place - ALWAYS good for a bird or 2 or even 3. It was about 100 acres +/-.
In 1993, the landowner sold THE best part of this to a family that put up a $400,000 house about 1/3 back from the gravel road. They slashed and burned all the thick brushy stuff and cut the aspens down for firewood. Blazed ATV trails all over for their kids to have fun on. In the far back corner they put a small barn, swanky gazebo and a couple picnic tables and a swingset. I went to the door to ask about hunting(even though it now was rendered about useless. Hunting? Did you say HUNTING? Hell NO! We got little kids outside playing all over! So I went to the owner of the remaining part of it(who always had no problem with letting me hunt in past). His response: Well, I kinda promised the buyers that I wouldn't allow hunting anymore so I gotta keep my word. 100 acres gone - just like that!!!!!
That's the cancer that is afflicting the rural huntable landscape in MOST of the LP of Michigan.
Case in point:
In the late 80's to early 90's I had a fantastic ruffed grouse covert - drainage ditch, aspens, grape tangles - just a perfect place - ALWAYS good for a bird or 2 or even 3. It was about 100 acres +/-.
In 1993, the landowner sold THE best part of this to a family that put up a $400,000 house about 1/3 back from the gravel road. They slashed and burned all the thick brushy stuff and cut the aspens down for firewood. Blazed ATV trails all over for their kids to have fun on. In the far back corner they put a small barn, swanky gazebo and a couple picnic tables and a swingset. I went to the door to ask about hunting(even though it now was rendered about useless. Hunting? Did you say HUNTING? Hell NO! We got little kids outside playing all over! So I went to the owner of the remaining part of it(who always had no problem with letting me hunt in past). His response: Well, I kinda promised the buyers that I wouldn't allow hunting anymore so I gotta keep my word. 100 acres gone - just like that!!!!!
That's the cancer that is afflicting the rural huntable landscape in MOST of the LP of Michigan.
RK Special K
New member
Forgot to mention in the last post that this residential sale was 40 acres. It left an "L" shaped parcel around it that the owner retained. For all practical purposes, the entire 100 - GONE! If PETA and the Humane Society knew of this, they would probably give them some do-goody-good award for protecting all God's creatures from the ravages of hunters.
So this sounds like a quality of life issue. His is better because he gets to raise his kids in the country where they can appreciate nature and have fun riding ATVs. Yours is worse because you have lost a hunting spot. Which should take priority? I hear that they are dozing houses in Detroit to go back to farm land. Is that true? If so there may be opportunities to see urban sprawl in reverse.
fsentkilr
Active member
The guy that bought the grounds quality of life should take priority, because he is the one that ponied up the money and bought the ground. Anyone that wanted to keep it for hunting could have done the same.
UGUIDE
Active member
In real estate class they taught the law of real estate as" its highest and best use". Real Estate will eventually get used and marketed for its highest and best use.
That is what happened in your case. It is not a cancer it is the laws and principles of real estate.
I am sure you could have retained your hunting spot should you have been willing to offer a higher amount than the homeowner that eventually became the landowner.
RK Special K
New member
I'm simply saying that zoning and use restrictions should "direct traffic" to the point that there is something left for hunters to hunt. You don't have to destroy the habitat and hunting for residential purposes. Live near the city - then take a short drive to enjoy nature for a few hours or the day. You don't have to destroy it to enjoy it!
I'm saying that by zoning and use restrictions, it shouldn't be an option. I can't put a McDonald's in my residential neighborhood, although many would try if allowed. Why direct McDonald's to other areas? Because use of property anarchy is not in the common reasonable good. If you follow the logic of some, I should be able to run a hamburger joint from my front porch. Although in many residential areas it may be economically feasible, IT IS STRICTLY NOT ALLOWED. And for damn good reason.
Detroit? - Get real. There are a few weedy areas that hold a wild bird or two. No city official in his right mind would allow those birds to be hunted. Unsafe and the areas are WAY to small. It IS NOT going back to farmland. It will eventually be intensely redeveloped in some form.
I strongly disagree with those who believe the rural farming landscape should be sliced, diced and sold to the highest bidders for personal residences and playgrounds. STUPID, STUPID, STUPID use of something they're not making any more of.
I'm saying that by zoning and use restrictions, it shouldn't be an option. I can't put a McDonald's in my residential neighborhood, although many would try if allowed. Why direct McDonald's to other areas? Because use of property anarchy is not in the common reasonable good. If you follow the logic of some, I should be able to run a hamburger joint from my front porch. Although in many residential areas it may be economically feasible, IT IS STRICTLY NOT ALLOWED. And for damn good reason.
Detroit? - Get real. There are a few weedy areas that hold a wild bird or two. No city official in his right mind would allow those birds to be hunted. Unsafe and the areas are WAY to small. It IS NOT going back to farmland. It will eventually be intensely redeveloped in some form.
I strongly disagree with those who believe the rural farming landscape should be sliced, diced and sold to the highest bidders for personal residences and playgrounds. STUPID, STUPID, STUPID use of something they're not making any more of.
RK Special K
New member
The "highest and best use" of Yellowstone National Park is really posh, swanky, building sites for movie stars and billionaires. Why, Bill Gates could buy 40 acres around Old Faithful for $40 million and have it in his backyard. He would put a 15 foot high security fence around his property and build a $40 million "cottage" on it for his family and a few other billionaires to enjoy. The rest of Yellowstone would be parceled off as lots and sold to the highest bidders! I think that would be a fine use of a NATIONAL TREASURE. Just like our NATIONAL HUNTING TREASURE should be considered the same way - sliced, diced and sold to those with the deepest pockets - who cares - whatever brings in the most $ should be the absolute rule to follow. Whatever anybody wants to do with their property, let them do it.
RK Special K
New member
My point:
Some things should be preserved as a NATIONAL TREASURE for ALL(or many) to enjoy. I definitely include our NATIONAL HUNTING HERITAGE as one of those.
Some things should be preserved as a NATIONAL TREASURE for ALL(or many) to enjoy. I definitely include our NATIONAL HUNTING HERITAGE as one of those.
mnmthunting
Banned
RK, Couple stats that might make you feel better.
Minnesota has about 51.2 million acres of land.
one fourth of the land is federal or state land open to the public and will not be developed.
Montana has about 90 million acres, 30 million is state and federal open to the public. Lots of acres to hunt.
Minnesota has about 51.2 million acres of land.
one fourth of the land is federal or state land open to the public and will not be developed.
Montana has about 90 million acres, 30 million is state and federal open to the public. Lots of acres to hunt.
RK Special K
New member
Especially for upland birds, most(but not all) of this is lower quality habitat.
If the existing public land is the solution, then why are sage grouse almost extinct, and generally, why aren't all upland birds at levels from the 40's and 50's. I would say that bird numbers and habitat today are down, nationwide, more than 65% from that era and the slide only continues. Iowa is almost a dead pheasant state. Many historically good pheasant areas of Kansas, Minnesota, and Kansas are gone or becoming VERY marginal at best. Still some good areas BUT the island is shrinking - no doubt.
Private land is THE foundation upon which great hunting(especially pheasant) was built upon. If the island is reduced to the existing public land, 95% of us should take up bowling and let the last 5% diehards have at it(and I may be one of those). But is that what we all want?
If the existing public land is the solution, then why are sage grouse almost extinct, and generally, why aren't all upland birds at levels from the 40's and 50's. I would say that bird numbers and habitat today are down, nationwide, more than 65% from that era and the slide only continues. Iowa is almost a dead pheasant state. Many historically good pheasant areas of Kansas, Minnesota, and Kansas are gone or becoming VERY marginal at best. Still some good areas BUT the island is shrinking - no doubt.
Private land is THE foundation upon which great hunting(especially pheasant) was built upon. If the island is reduced to the existing public land, 95% of us should take up bowling and let the last 5% diehards have at it(and I may be one of those). But is that what we all want?
RK Special K
New member
Typo correction: above post should read " Kansas, Minnesota, and NEBRASKA"