So we are going to borrow money from China to buy land through eminent domain, so people can hunt for free. That is a different country than I grew up in. Even if that all works the wildlife will be on private land in the winter because they can't make it on grass alone in a tough winter. They need serious winter cover, shelterbelts and a food supply, silage pile or a place where cattle are being fed or food plots. How many WILD turkeys winter in someones yard? How many deer come and stand on my best alfalfa stack for the winter? I commend you for buying land and opening it up to the public. Keep going that makes much more sense than the government doing it.
Land prices...thoughts on future of WIHA
- Thread starter nwkansnative
- Start date
RK Special K
New member
Fsentkilr,
Put a sign on your property - "Lots of deer here-deer hunters welcome-hunt anytime-no charge". Should take care of the problem in a year or two.
Put a sign on your property - "Lots of deer here-deer hunters welcome-hunt anytime-no charge". Should take care of the problem in a year or two.
On the subject of birds not doing any damage. There is a product out there that most if not all farmers in this area put on their seed corn to keep pheasants from eating the seed out of the ground. A few years ago we ran out of treated seed so we planted 1 bag of untreated seed out in the middle of the field. The devistation was such that it could be seen clearly on a satelite photo. It does cost money to have wildlife around if you have significant numbers.
RK Special K
New member
The benefits of abundant wildlife, in general, far exceed the costs. There are a few exceptions. Mother Nature - aka, too little wildlife, too much wildlife, no rain, too much rain, too hot, too cold, insects, desease, etc. She smiles down sometimes and also can have a frown. Part of life on the farm.
I wouldn't confuse dealing with these issues as justification for restricting hunting access or charging for it. Wild, free-ranging animals roam from one property to the next - they're not some exclusive property of any one property owner - let the hunters have at'm. The tradition of hunting in America will be solidly preserved. And PETA and The Humane Society will vanish in the Kansas wind and be drowned out by the shouts of "ROOSTER" all throughout this great land.
I consider my allowing free hunting as a contribution to a greater cause. Far, far, far better than any contribution I could make to PF, DU, RGS, etc. I do, however, make contributions to these organizations because they do other good things.
I wouldn't confuse dealing with these issues as justification for restricting hunting access or charging for it. Wild, free-ranging animals roam from one property to the next - they're not some exclusive property of any one property owner - let the hunters have at'm. The tradition of hunting in America will be solidly preserved. And PETA and The Humane Society will vanish in the Kansas wind and be drowned out by the shouts of "ROOSTER" all throughout this great land.
I consider my allowing free hunting as a contribution to a greater cause. Far, far, far better than any contribution I could make to PF, DU, RGS, etc. I do, however, make contributions to these organizations because they do other good things.
RK Special K
New member
Haymaker,
No additional taxes or borrowing. Simply a re-direction of priorities from abroad and back to home. I'm completely, totally sick of paying for other countries problems. Isolationist in politics, wars, and "other tragedies" and "foreign do-goody-good-bs". Gonna go broke chasing all those problems and concerns that are not ours, no way. We're probably broke already, so it may be too late to even consider a shift in priorities - kaput, busted, nothing for anything, home or abroad. I do, however, believe in strong private international commerce.
Bring every one and everything back home. TIGHTLY secure our borders and put our massive militay might WITHIN our country under this edict: You do as you please in your country - we'll leave you alone, BUT, touch me, I KILL'YA. Don't mess with the U.S. And, by the way, good luck with all your affairs "overthere", we wish you all the best. We're not an enemy, just a decent customer for your oil - if you decide not to sell to us that's a big problem FOR BOTH OF US. The perfect recipe for good negotiation between trading parties. Rest assured, the oil is yours and we'll NEVER bomb you to obtain it. Not how we do business here.
No additional taxes or borrowing. Simply a re-direction of priorities from abroad and back to home. I'm completely, totally sick of paying for other countries problems. Isolationist in politics, wars, and "other tragedies" and "foreign do-goody-good-bs". Gonna go broke chasing all those problems and concerns that are not ours, no way. We're probably broke already, so it may be too late to even consider a shift in priorities - kaput, busted, nothing for anything, home or abroad. I do, however, believe in strong private international commerce.
Bring every one and everything back home. TIGHTLY secure our borders and put our massive militay might WITHIN our country under this edict: You do as you please in your country - we'll leave you alone, BUT, touch me, I KILL'YA. Don't mess with the U.S. And, by the way, good luck with all your affairs "overthere", we wish you all the best. We're not an enemy, just a decent customer for your oil - if you decide not to sell to us that's a big problem FOR BOTH OF US. The perfect recipe for good negotiation between trading parties. Rest assured, the oil is yours and we'll NEVER bomb you to obtain it. Not how we do business here.
quanah labs
New member
I couldn't agree more!
Very poor hunting spots that are so far spread out chances are they are very few places close to you and again the hunting land is so poor it's not worth driving a long way to. They got my $48 a couple of times in the past but unless the land set aside improves they won't get another permit out of me!
I understand the need to increase revenue from out of state hunters, but I can tell you it is already so expensive to go on a out of state hunt that if there are anymore fees associated with the trip this poor Texan is going to have to pass.
Last edited:
I am uncomfortable about this dicussion. I seems like it always comes up in the Kansas forum, maybe it's because this is a state with a lot of foot traffic from out of staters, crowding the land owners and resident sportsmen alike. South Dakota has a scheme to lighten the load of non-residents, Kansas has never had the pheasant hunting to justified the cost, in my opinion. I all ways hunted quail, and found pheasants. We now have an increase of usage on a resource which is mightly strained. Either here or in South Dakota. 6 years ago go nobody from Iowa went to Kansas, a few to South Dakota. Now it's Iowa cars in lonely towns in western Kansas. Texas too, they don't have public hunting there. haven't had since the late 1960's. Iowa by lack of opportunities, Texas buy lack of access. Lack of opportunites is the problem. One we need to solve, or we will loss what we have, and become become like the British empire, no game, and an extreme lack of oppotunities, lack of interest in wildlife propagation. Thirty years is all it took, they are basically out of the sporting life. It all began with the birds, lack of opportunity, blame all around, it was the farmer, the government, the slob hunters, in the end, (which is now), it was all three. So antipathy to each other, does not solve the issue. as said here before, it makes us vunerable to outside interests, who want to make the demise of hunting sooner rather than later.
Cobblestone
New member
When it comes down to it. If it were legal to hunt on someone's land. I still wouldn't do it w/o permission from the owner. It's just not right,extremely disrespectful.
SetterNut
New member
Exactly. :thumbsup:
Bilbo Baggins
Active member
Exactly, you are correct in what you think.
RK Special K
New member
I see absolutely NO anti-landowner sentiment here. But I do see a lot of pro-hunter sentiment.
I'm both pro-landowner and pro-hunter. As a landowner, I'm simply a temporary steward of it - holding it not only for myself but also for the good of all respectful, law abiding hunters who wish to enjoy hunting our "national treasure" on it.
I'm both pro-landowner and pro-hunter. As a landowner, I'm simply a temporary steward of it - holding it not only for myself but also for the good of all respectful, law abiding hunters who wish to enjoy hunting our "national treasure" on it.
onpoint
Active member
Amen! In Scotland. They have trails across the country where you cross many farms. You have to open and close gates, be respectful, Etc. It's kind of refreshing to see such a thing, instead of NO TRESPASSING SIGNS. Kind of makes a person think folks are more friendly. Not saying they are hunting but still. They are crossing private land. Really, America has to much ME, ME for this to happen here.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifes...ttish-highlands/2011/03/12/ABCINzT_story.html
I believe the access across private land in Scotland and much of GB is more related to ideas regarding travel/tourism in a very small country than anything....and often over ancient travel routes in fact.
That concept would simply not work here for many reasons.
Ramblers like it...many others do not....it would be worse in the USA.
An end to gamebird hunting will not originate(other than on a very local level) with a farmer or whether a birdhunter is a state's resident or not...it will tho decline from an increased sense of hunter competition principally involving Locate, Lease and Lock Up; a narrowing focus upon measurable species and, a shift in habitat to favor those few species or a political shift in order to court voters who are oblivious to the importance of habitat diversity.
Hunters, capital H, tho will play a prime role in the decline of hunting by their selfishness and increasingly fixed focus on their favorite while not understanding how all species, game and not, are interrelated....it will not only be the acronyms who oppose hunting or those who carry agendas related to the world as they believe it best built wearing the black hats.
Last edited:
Im a little late to this party and thread as I just ran across it today. So Im just randomly quoting you Setternut as you were one of the ones who took offense to some of the landowner comments
I think......well believe....that many dont necessarily have the anti landowner sentiment, but that their point is, that if you get govt subsidies (ie govt sponsored crop insurance, crp payments, artificially low property tax rates among a host of other things) then maybe the argument could be made that you wouldn't necessarily control nor should control everything on the property. Not saying the argument is correct, however I believe the argument could be made.
From the landowner perspective I fully understand why they utilize the incentives/subsidies as it helps them stay competitive, it makes economic sense in the realm of habitat and everyone else does as well.
Im not a landowner (just own my house, well make mortgage payments and own a rental house) so Im speaking mainly from the non landowner side....but I have taken issue with farmers getting the govt benefits then leasing the land out to the highest bidder. Im guessing thats where a lot of other guys are coming from as well. The leasing and the selling of trophy deer hunts is the only thing that seems to chap my butt.
I fully support private landowner rights but I do think its a little hypocritical to say you deserve all of these rights when you are getting tax dollars paid by all.
If someone were to truly take no govt tax dollars or benefits then Im all for saying do whatever the heck you want.
I think there needs to be some common ground and a spot where everyone can meet in the middle - but as many others have stated, the access problem and money problem is a slippery slope which we are sliding down fast and it will lead to the killing of our sport in the distant future I predict. I dont like saying it but it sure seems as if history is repeating itself as it has in Europe in the US.
fsentkilr
Active member
KsHusker can I come use your house whenever I want? I'm sure you use the mortgage interest rate deduction on you taxes which is a govt. subsidy. Its money you would have to pay in taxes but don't because you write it off. The crp payments aren't a good argument. The last few years farmers would make much more farming the ground than having it in crp. Thats why so much of it is getting farmed when the contracts expire. Personally I wish the govt. would do away with all ag subsidies, but it will never happen because they want control. Btw, farmers don't just get these payments for doing nothing, they have to stay in compliance and jump whenever Usda tells them to. I just went through a FSA audit and it wasn't a lot of fun I can tell you for sure.
Yes I take advantage of every tax loophole that is avail for me including depreciating my investment property and a 1031 exchange should I ever face a large capital gains tax bill in the future.
I dont think you can argue with crop subsidies, subsidized crop insurance, artificially low property tax rates for ag land and a host of other things. Im not demonizing anyone for taking advantage of them as I would and can empathize with you on the hoops you have to jump through for the USDA as a couple friends have had land in CRP before.
Just stating my opinion that if you want to sell access to wildlife I believe that you should only be able to do so if you are subsidy free. I doubt anyone can state that. As a farmer you would take advantage of the same tax loopholes I utilize on my personal residence and rental property.
If you read the Wichita paper they had a couple of articles on the Koch brothers...this is kind of another topic, but I dont like them much and their stranglehold and influence they hold on politics, however one thing I do agree with Mr Koch on is that he wants to eliminate all subsidies and has set up several special interest groups to try and do so. Interesting discussion point anyways.
One thing that I believe neither one of us will argue on and a point others have made is that access to hunting ground and lack of opportunities will lead to a public that is not sympathetic to our causes and will eventually lead to wildlife, hunting ground and access being put on the bottom of the list. It serves to the benefit of no one, landowners included. I really dont want our sport to die off and maybe Im sounding a tad negative but it sure seems to not be moving in a positive direction as a whole.
Last edited:
fsentkilr
Active member
I have never charged anyone to hunt on my land and I hopefully never will. I really don't have any problem with allowing access to Crp land if its part of the contract and understood when the contract is signed. There won't be very many crp acres enrolled however, I know none of mine would be. Also are you going to allow access to all the public? You can't just allow hunting because all the taxpayers will want equal treatment. Hikers, horse riders, people flying kites. A lot of those activities won't go good with hunting. I don't agree with you on property taxes, they are high and going higher on farm land all the time. They shouldn't be as high for farm ground as commercial land or houses because its well.... farm ground. My property taxes average around 10 dollars an acre or around 1600 bucks per quarter. In closing again, nobody wishes all the ag subsidies would disappear any more than me. Crop insurance subsidies, csp, direct payments the whole bit. It won't hurt farmers in the long run anyway. Grain prices would go up to offset the money not coming from the government. Again its never going to happen because the government wants to have control over the food supply, and without dangling the carrot in front of the farmer they will lose the control.
Last edited:
nwkansnative
Active member
Kshusker you need to never show up anywhere close to my land wanting to hunt. Good luck to you sir.
Another quarter sold this week for 2300 an acre. Y'all don't realize it but "free" hunting is going to go away. I have my land. Good luck on getting yours.
Another quarter sold this week for 2300 an acre. Y'all don't realize it but "free" hunting is going to go away. I have my land. Good luck on getting yours.
No need to be sensitive sir. Wasnt trying to ruffle any feathers.
I dont think I was being festicious or trying to incite anything in my comments. Just trying to state where others might be coming from and to state the obvious about participation and access problems. Never said people should automatically have access to the land if you are taking subsidies, simply stated it might be a reason people get frustrated when others charge for the access and are taking the subsidies.
We have an access and a participation problem. With limited or pay to play access your participation goes down. Less participating = less voters concerned with your needs/wants etc.
I believe its a slippery slope, one we've been skating on for a while. Im only 32, very few of my friends hunt. My brother is 23, even fewer of his friends hunt. The younger you go the less participation there is. Thats not a good thing.
Last edited: