Land prices...thoughts on future of WIHA

"Theories", ideas, and strong motivation is what changes the world.

Example: In theory it's great to think we colonists can break away and form a new country but for all "practical" purposes we know the Queen and the Brits have us by the you-know-what. Once a colonist, always a colonist. That's the "reality" of the situation. Gotta live with it. Period.

Well, the tea went over-board and we changed the world.

Our "national interest" is NOT being improved by intervening in foreign affairs. Once other countries see us as benign and non intrusive, commerce and fair trade will dictate our relationship with other countries - NOT politics.

We should care less what form of government another country has, or, for that matter, how many people are getting killed in the process. I'll cry some tears for them but wisdom dictates that it simply is NOT our problem - been there, done that, in Vietnam - and damn near everywhere else. It's a fools folly!

"Natiional Interest" is just what the term describes: OUR interest - not international interest. The rest of the world, again, will "figure it out" in due time.

Back to hunting: I agree stongly with onpoint - Wild, free-ranging animals are not owned by private business. They're part of our nation treasure for ALL who want to partake, can enjoy. Land use is already restricted in many ways - it's not a very big leap to create an implied easement to obtain our national treasure while, of course, respecting all other rights of the landowner.
 
RK Special K said:
"Theories", ideas, and strong motivation is what changes the world.

Example: In theory it's great to think we colonists can break away and form a new country but for all "practical" purposes we know the Queen and the Brits have us by the you-know-what. Once a colonist, always a colonist. That's the "reality" of the situation. Gotta live with it. Period.

Well, the tea went over-board and we changed the world.

Our "national interest" is NOT being improved by intervening in foreign affairs. Once other countries see us as benign and non intrusive, commerce and fair trade will dictate our relationship with other countries - NOT politics.

We should care less what form of government another country has, or, for that matter, how many people are getting killed in the process. I'll cry some tears for them but wisdom dictates that it simply is NOT our problem - been there, done that, in Vietnam - and damn near everywhere else. It's a fools folly!

"Natiional Interest" is just what the term describes: OUR interest - not international interest. The rest of the world, again, will "figure it out" in due time.

Back to hunting: I agree stongly with onpoint - Wild, free-ranging animals are not owned by private business. They're part of our nation treasure for ALL who want to partake, can enjoy. Land use is already restricted in many ways - it's not a very big leap to create an implied easement to obtain our national treasure while, of course, respecting all other rights of the landowner.
Click to expand...
If you create the implied easment while respecting all other rights the landowner will plant it to corn and soybeans and there goes your habitat and there goes your national treasure. The wildlife does belong to the public but I can show you hundreds of thousands of acres of farmland that has little or no wildlife on it. When you pay to hunt your not buying the wildlife you are renting the habitat and providing an incentive to keep the habitat there and possibly creating more habitat.
 
haymaker said:
If you create the implied easment while respecting all other rights the landowner will plant it to corn and soybeans and there goes your habitat and there goes your national treasure. The wildlife does belong to the public but I can show you hundreds of thousands of acres of farmland that has little or no wildlife on it. When you pay to hunt your not buying the wildlife you are renting the habitat and providing an incentive to keep the habitat there and possibly creating more habitat.
Click to expand...

Haymaker, habitat that has no access for most, is no habitat at all. It's like looking in the store window and can't afford to go shopping.
 
onpoint said:
Haymaker, habitat that has no access for most, is no habitat at all. It's like looking in the store window and can't afford to go shopping.
Click to expand...

I suspect that depends in whether you are a hunter or wildlife. Thousands of acres of land that has little value to wildlife doesn't do much for the hunter either. Land that has trees, nesting, food and water will produce more wildlife than will stay there. I have come to the point in my life where I can enjoy wildlife even if I don't shoot it.
 
After reading some of the posts on this thread, and seeing how some of you feel about private property rights remind me why I let very few people I don't know set foot on MY land.
 
A couple more points. The public may own the wildlife but the farmer feeds it. Its his crops they eat. If I was ever forced to allow access to hunters (keep dreaming it won't ever happen) I would make damn sure there wasn't one tree or one spear of grass to hide an animal on my farm.
 
fsentkilr said:
A couple more points. The public may own the wildlife but the farmer feeds it. Its his crops they eat. If I was ever forced to allow access to hunters (keep dreaming it won't ever happen) I would make damn sure there wasn't one tree or one spear of grass to hide an animal on my farm.
Click to expand...
http://www.landreport.com/americas-100-largest-landowners/
It's guys like these that cause folks to feel like that. When one man has over 2 million acres and says he will never have enough. That is a problem IMO. Tough for most Americans to live the American dream when a small segment owns all the land. 90% of Americas private land and wealth is owned by less then 10% of our population. The system is broken

http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
 
I know that if someone thinks they can come into my yard to harvest rabbits or tree rats, I am going to have a problem with that.

The land owner decides who has access to the land, period.
 
fsentkilr said:
A couple more points. The public may own the wildlife but the farmer feeds it. Its his crops they eat. If I was ever forced to allow access to hunters (keep dreaming it won't ever happen) I would make damn sure there wasn't one tree or one spear of grass to hide an animal on my farm.
Click to expand...

A quaint post from a guy with "fsentkilr" as his moniker. Not "pheasant enthusist", "pheasant gamekeeper", or "Aldo Leopould", or maybe " I don't paricipate in farm subsidies" as a moniker. I provide for wildlife because I can, I hope it will still be there when I am gone, I do let hunters hunt my ground. Assuming they are well presented. Interesting to me, I have enjoyed their participation and experience as much as my own. Actually a bonus to holding the ground and sweating to make it work. I was lucky and a big part of my farms were inherited, I like to expand the sport by having them have a great place to see what it's supposed to be. I don't see any reversal of property rights, and I like to size up the participants.. If you go into any relationship with expectations that people are fairly decent, they might suprise you, if not, they are the fool, not you.
 
Old and New I have never inherited anything. I do let people hunt if they make a good impression when they stop and ask. What I meant is that some of the attitudes on here make me reconsider If I should or not. I don't owe it to anybody to let them hunt. I would put my farms up against any when it comes to wildlife habitat. The point I was trying it make, is if the public could come walking around on my farm at will to pursue wildlife, I would make sure that changed and there wasn't any. I wouldn't want people walking around on my land at will. It doesn't matter public asscess won't happen and I don't even know why I addressed it.
 
fsentkilr said:
The point I was trying it make, is if the public could come walking around on my farm at will to pursue wildlife, I would make sure that changed and there wasn't any.
Click to expand...

The point is, deny us access, hoard the land and price us out and we will make sure not to support hunting any longer. This is not aimed at the average land owner. It's aimed at those who approach life as I'll never have enough and you outsiders are nothing more then a threat. Your habitat isn't for saving the game. It's for your own benefit plain and simple, admit it and we will just move on. It's that simple. It's like guys who kill a 1029 snow geese then say..it was to save the tundra... BULL $HIT!!!! It was for ones satisfaction..,just tell the truth.
 
Over the years I have planted thousands of shrubs. Currently I have over 700 acres of upland bird buffers and filter strips. I would be making a lot more money farming that ground than what it pays in crp. I will never take them out even if the program ends. I have never leased one acre of ground to hunters nor have I ever charged anyone one dime to hunt anything. Please explain how I benefit financially. I can't even count the number of people that hunt ducks on my watersheds and corn stubble. I do know most of the people but I do let guys I don't know hunt on occasion when they ask. Perhaps I never should have started coming to this website. I have seen so much antilandowner sentiment on here its really starting to change they way I view hunters. I understand 90 percent of them don't espose the same antilandowner and anti private property right that some have. For somebody to even think they should have public access to my land simply to hunt rally makes me mad.
 
The vast majority of habitat programs are already funded by government. Without CRP in place, pheasant hunting would largely disappear. Grass is the foundational base upon which pheasants exist on this planet. Shelter belts, cattails, farm crops, etc. are micro-habitat issues that do very good within the context of a great, macro-habitat base but do almost nothing if the vast, immense, surrounding landscape theme is not favorable.

Since wildlife IS our national treasure, it seems reasonable that the government should and does fund habitat projects for its well-being. Although its highly commendable when property owners fund their own projects, it really is not, in the big picture, all that significant. I know of NO farmers willing to disc up 400 acres of good crop land, purchase and plant grass seed, then leave it as such with no revenue. Hence, the reason for my first post on this subject - The "FINAL SOLUTION".

North Dakota has a modified version of what onpoint and I are talking about - if it's not posted, you may hunt it. I would go further and open it all up.

I own 320 acres in ND and the government has paid 95% of the cost for CRP, praire preservation, forbes and shelter belts. 2 days after I bought it, I removed the "No Hunting or Tresspassing" signs. I plan to build a "cabin" on it but it will remain open. I like the opportunity it provides to discuss with other hunters, other places to hunt. My Mom always told me " do unto others as you wish them to do to you". I try to follow that as best I can.

In Michigan, as a land developer, we own substantial amounts of raw land that is excellent hunting for deer and turkey. I WILL NOT post it NOR will I accept "bribes" from hunters wanting exclusive rights to it. I tell them "You may hunt it. You and the other hunters will figure it out on your own". Deer and turkey in Michigan seem to flourish without much need for "habitat projects" funded by the government or landowner. But I could care less if a hunter is on the property and shoots a deer - good for him! I just want the right to develope it when that time comes.

Us landowners gotta get off our "high horse" on these hunting/landowner rights issues or we'll destroy hunting as a recreation, except for the "chosen few".

On the issue of "providing crops": Farmers plant crops and get paid for it. The amount pheasants take is really quite insignificant. It's an extremely minor cost of doing business. Far less costly than desease or insects, etc. I know of no farmer who plants a 1000 acres of corn for the sole purpose of feeding birds.

On the issue of "yard hunting": Regulations would prohibit, of course, hunting near occupied dwellings and structures. Hence, the need to contact the owner before hunting, to confirm these locations.
 
M. R. Byrd said:
HUNTING LICENSE EXEMPTIONS

The following persons are not required to have a hunting license:

owners of land or tenants of land leased for agriculture, and immediate family members living with resident landowners and resident or nonresident tenants, while hunting or furharvesting on this land;
legally-defined Native American Kansas residents (apply for free license);
nonresidents using field trial permits issued by KDWPT; and
residents 15 and younger or 65 and older.

http://www.kdwpt.state.ks.us/news/H...eral-Information/Hunting-Furharvester-License
Click to expand...

OOPS. :eek: Thanks for the pointing out my error.
 
fsentkilr said:
Old and New I have never inherited anything. I do let people hunt if they make a good impression when they stop and ask. What I meant is that some of the attitudes on here make me reconsider If I should or not. I don't owe it to anybody to let them hunt. I would put my farms up against any when it comes to wildlife habitat. The point I was trying it make, is if the public could come walking around on my farm at will to pursue wildlife, I would make sure that changed and there wasn't any. I wouldn't want people walking around on my land at will. It doesn't matter public asscess won't happen and I don't even know why I addressed it.
Click to expand...

Got to agree with you on these points. I could never support a law allowing anyone with a hunting license to go on private land without express permission from the owner or lessee.
 
The tone of many of the posts in this thread is concerning. Reminds me of Marx and the OWS mindset. Total BS.

Land owners have to have the say in what is done on their property. If they don't why is your house any different?
 
I own land myself. I let numerous people hunt it. I use to have great neighbors. It was always a agreement. They hunted mine, I hunted there's. After my one neighbor passed away in a auto accident. New people moved in. The signs went up and it was made clear. STAY OFF MY LAND. Then they sold. The next guy that moved in..same thing, STAY OFF MY LAND. Bought a place in South Dakota. That really soured me. Nobody will let you hunt, unless you bring cash..lots of cash. Money, Money, Money!!! I don't even buy a pheasant license there anymore. The public land is over hunted and I'm not paying $100-$200 a gun per day to kill 3 old chickens. I hunt Mn and enjoy it WAY! better and I can shoot lead and use my older quality guns, which I enjoy.

fsentkilr, if you have over 700 acres just in shelter belts and such...just how much land do you have?
 
I will also add this:

PETA and The Humane Society love these hunter/landowner squabbles. They know that it discourages hunting and will eventually price it out of reach and severely frustrate access and the motivation to hunt better than any ad campaign they could possibly devise.
 
"On the issue of "providing crops": Farmers plant crops and get paid for it. The amount pheasants take is really quite insignificant. It's an extremely minor cost of doing business. Far less costly than desease or insects, etc. I know of no farmer who plants a 1000 acres of corn for the sole purpose of feeding birds."

I agree that birds don't do any damage to crops. I can guarantee you that deer do. I harvest corn with a 16 row corn head. The outside 16 rows along deer cover will lose at least 50 bushel to the acre due to deer damage. Of the 3000 acres of corn I have I would guess 100 acres have this amount of damage. 100*50*8= 40,000 dollars. Thats not exactly chump change. Like I said, the public may own the wildlife but the farmer feeds it.
 
SetterNut,

Go down to your local munincipality that governs the use of your property. It's already highly restricted. Building codes, zoning, wetlands, utility easements, on and on. Let's ad one that promotes a good cause. I'm all for eliminating a few that don't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top