Land prices...thoughts on future of WIHA

RK Special K said:
These easements would, of course, be valid only during open hunting seasons. I would further restrict them to foot traffic ONLY. No camping, no permanent blinds, no tree stands, no baiting - ABSOLUTELY NOTHING except hunter, weapon, and ammo.
Click to expand...

If you spent federal money on that would not it need to be in compliance with ADA?:D--just kidding but there could be serious issues---and I'm betting it would be the end to small operators with land next to roads having any thing to do with it.
 
Seems like the the public access senario in North Dakota is a great test tube scientific experiment . There has been some amelioration lately, bit the it seems like a law that everybody was accustomed to. In my area, I don't hear of farmers with suicide notes declaring that hunter trespassing was the last straw! So my deduction, is it's like the destruction of the earth predictions, we went off the gold standard, we survived the millineum, vaccinations of children to some creepy disease, flouridation of drinking water, might even survive Obamacare! I doubt that the overwhelming hoard of hunters will upset the true orbit of the globe.
 
No bird dogs. Gotta truely learn to hunt'm up on your own. I almost never hunt with dogs so I can say this. Ok, you can take Fido but he must ALWAYS stay within 35 yards of you, point or flush ALL birds in range and find and return to hand all cripples.
 
RK Special K said:
The basic principle is this: Wild game animals are not owned by private landowners - they are part of the public domain. One can debate that an implied easement already exists to allow the public to obtain what is theirs. This principle DOES NOT apply to just any recreation on private property.

Assuming a need to purchase these easements, the money would come from reducing or eliminating "foreign welfare" and redirection of revenue to things that directly benefit us AMERICANS.

I'm not for any additional taxes or borrowing.
Click to expand...

I completely agree that landowners do not own the wildlife, you the public does. So therefore your wildlife is trespassing on my land. I will expect the first money that comes out of that pot to pay the damages that they do. If there is not enough money to pay for all the damages you can raise a tax on hunters to make up the difference. Another possible solution is that you take all your wildlife and keep it on public land. Or we could leave it as it is and if you want to you can rent my habitat so that you can hunt your wildlife.
 
Yeah and since the public owns the wildlife, why don't they pay all the vehicle damage the deer do? The state sure doesn't claim them then.
 
Since you are a part of the "public" , that wildlife on your private property is part yours too. But you would certainly have the right to keep it out - then no one would hunt your property. Problem solved.

The car owner who hits a deer IS part of the "public", not separate from it. Ownership of wildlife offers benefits AND detriments. Usually the benefits of wildlife exceed the costs.

Look, here's my point: We no longer live in the 17th or 18th century when wildlife habitat was as free and accessable as the air we breath. It's now a ralatively scarce commodity. To sustain it takes effort and money. I don't expect private landowners to shoulder the burden of this habitat for public benefit. Therefore, it stands to reason that the public(government) pay landowners for easements and habitat projects and set-a-sides on private property to maintain the public wildlife. Isolated islands of state and federal land is a "drop in the bucket".

I support open hunting everywhere AND public payments to private landowners to privide habitat and allow public hunting of public game animals.

Access to good hunting land is THE most frustrating part of hunting. This will continue to wear down the tradition of hunting and it will eventually become a pastime of the very few. Everyone else will be resigned to the skeet and trap range or a "virtual reality" hunting game. PETA and the Humane Society can't hardly wait for that day.
 
Does anyone know of anyone who had purchased hunting rights? I'm not talking about temporary leases, I'm talking about purchasing the hunting rights the same as purchasing mineral rights. I have never heard of it, so I'm not even sure if its legal or not. It looks like if it was legal it would be happening.
 
Fishing rights

Does anyone know of anyone who had purchased hunting rights? I'm not talking about temporary leases, I'm talking about purchasing the hunting rights the same as purchasing mineral rights. I have never heard of it, so I'm not even sure if its legal or not. It looks like if it was legal it would be happening.


I know of a place that sold their fishing rights to a pond.

The land sold, but some guy was still able to access the pond and fish it because it had bought the rights to the pond.
 
RK Special K said:
My position on hunting is precisely this:

1.Wild game animals are part of the public domain and no "person" owns them.

2. There should be an implied easement to enter private property for the purpose of obtaining what is owned NOT by the landowner but by the public at large, under the following conditions:

1. The hunter(s) do not cause damage to the property or interfere in other activities of the landowner.

2. Stay a determined distance away from occupied structures based upon the projectile and firearm used.

3. Notify the landowner prior to entering the property.

4. The principle of first come-first enter and reasonable and safe separation from other hunters.

Free ranging wild game is NOT owned by the landowner NOR is it a "crop" of the landowner to be autioned off for personel financial gain. That's sad and perverse.

Under this scenario, farmers would go back to farming - NOT policing restriction to public game animals. And hunters would simply go hunt.

Hmmmmm..... just like it should be...... AND used to be.

Ahhhh..... farmland, free from the ugly litter of posting signs.
Click to expand...

Since the landowner don't own the free ranging wildlife and they are just passing through, feel free to hunt them when they pass through your own backyard. I recommend working on your habitat to attract them (you might want to check with the city regs on what's allowed). Also, you might need to get a few rules changed for hunting, if you live in town. Or better yet, purchase your own piece of ground in the country and concentrate on habitat improvements like you hear folks on here doing. Then after you have spent countless hours, dollars and weekends improving habitat for the free ranging animals, you can let all the strangers you want, hunt on your new piece of ground.
 
fsentkilr said:
Does anyone know of anyone who had purchased hunting rights? I'm not talking about temporary leases, I'm talking about purchasing the hunting rights the same as purchasing mineral rights. I have never heard of it, so I'm not even sure if its legal or not. It looks like if it was legal it would be happening.
Click to expand...

I 'm sure it could be done. Just like mineral rights, etc. The Nature Conservancy and Ducks Unlimited, and actually WRP does the same thing, buying sensitive areas, restrict them to easements, no developement, usage requirements, then sell them on to some one else, with those restrictions on the title. Maybe it's the a new novel idea, but it might be worth exploring. This includes all members of the land-owner/hunters in the same circle. We won't go back to free range hunting, it died with the buffalo, but access, with conservation ehics might make worthwhile. I guess the landowners are doing that with leasing CRP ground. getting the crp payment and hunters paying access fees.
 
oldandnew said:
I 'm sure it could be done. Just like mineral rights, etc. The Nature Conservancy and Ducks Unlimited, and actually WRP does the same thing, buying sensitive areas, restrict them to easements, no developement, usage requirements, then sell them on to some one else, with those restrictions on the title. Maybe it's the a new novel idea, but it might be worth exploring. This includes all members of the land-owner/hunters in the same circle. We won't go back to free range hunting, it died with the buffalo, but access, with conservation ehics might make worthwhile. I guess the landowners are doing that with leasing CRP ground. getting the crp payment and hunters paying access fees.
Click to expand...

Even though the mineral rights might not be with the ground, the oil company must lease the rights from whomever owns them. The lease isn't ever open ended.The surface owner is still compensated for any surface damages if he owns the mineral rights or not. It just seems strange that with all the leasing of hunting rights, that some would have been sold of if it was legal.
I own 240 acres of WRP. I still control all the access to the property. I still have the mineral rights although you cant drill on the property. I own the adjoining ground also, and they can horizontal drill under the WRP. I just leased all of it to an oil company. They also allow haying or grazing of the WRP in disaster years, or every few years to maintain the health of the native grass. I will never hay or graze it however, because I bought it to hunt on.
 
fsentkilr said:
Even though the mineral rights might not be with the ground, the oil company must lease the rights from whomever owns them. The lease isn't ever open ended.The surface owner is still compensated for any surface damages if he owns the mineral rights or not. It just seems strange that with all the leasing of hunting rights, that some would have been sold of if it was legal.
I own 240 acres of WRP. I still control all the access to the property. I still have the mineral rights although you cant drill on the property. I own the adjoining ground also, and they can horizontal drill under the WRP. I just leased all of it to an oil company. They also allow haying or grazing of the WRP in disaster years, or every few years to maintain the health of the native grass. I will never hay or graze it however, because I bought it to hunt on.
Click to expand...

First there were oil consections that are nearly an eternity, most contracts done in the 1800's, some bought outright. Oil leases transend later sales, so you can own the ground, the oil will go right on out, with the royalties paid to someone else, or some percentage to you, by agreement of a fractional share of their percentage, they still own. This is done by agreement between parties. You might find it interesting to know that Manhattan, Island, (not Manhattan Ks), the property under most skyscrapers is leased, 100 years at a time. You can arrange anything legal to conform to a lease, including land useage, hunting rights, etc. It could include on lump sum payment in advance , could ensue annual payments, or any agreed upon terms. Nature Conservatory does this. This also how the Rockefellers, made the begining of Teton National Park, and a large chunk of the Catskills State Park. I am surprised at you, you own the land, think you should own the game because they eat your crops,( I call that hazard of the game), hate "city slickers", I would assume you would think a land owner could sell anything he has a desire to sell, which is what we are talking about here. By the way, you better have a title endorsement for surface destruction for mining/ oil drilling, on your policy. I do this a few times a year, on property that has oil horizontal drilling underneath. Sometimes they make a mess.
 
I don't care if a landowner sells his hunting rights for a permanent easement or not. I'm just not sure its legal. Even if it is, its not a very good idea. Just as selling the mineral rights off, it will forever make the land less valuable in the future. I don't care what anyone does with their own land. What I do have a problem with is somebody suggesting the government has the right to confiscate some of their private property rights. I bet some of the same guys suggesting that they should have access to my private property to hunt wildlife they say the public owns, would get madder than hell if I shot a squirrel at their bird feeder in their yard. It is no different except a yard is a smaller tract. Private property is private property I don't care if its a house, a business or a farm. The owner has control of who is welcome and who isn't, not the government and thats how it should be.
 
fsentkilr said:
I don't care if a landowner sells his hunting rights for a permanent easement or not. I'm just not sure its legal. Even if it is, its not a very good idea. Just as selling the mineral rights off, it will forever make the land less valuable in the future. I don't care what anyone does with their own land. What I do have a problem with is somebody suggesting the government has the right to confiscate some of their private property rights. I bet some of the same guys suggesting that they should have access to my private property to hunt wildlife they say the public owns, would get madder than hell if I shot a squirrel at their bird feeder in their yard. It is no different except a yard is a smaller tract. Private property is private property I don't care if its a house, a business or a farm. The owner has control of who is welcome and who isn't, not the government and thats how it should be.
Click to expand...

I don't think you are directing this to me. I have NEVER indicated that we should trample over land owner rights that have been here for 200 years. I will point out, and have said here, that the amount of rights which were given to everybody in the beginning of the country, should have been long term limited leases, If the government has a the ground in production in the country getting rent, it would probably balance the budget. They would own the ground, subject to a 100 year lease with options to do it again. They could require conservation measures, allow for hunting rights, and get payment for that. Most of the ground was given to the original holders, some my relatives, they also defended it from Indians, Grifters, natural disasters, pests and plague. I am sure the Indians felt the same ways. You can go back. A new idea is needed, no offense, but the PF is a long way off, certainly past my lifetime. DU fought this battle in the 1930's when everyone assumed ducks were gone, now 80+ years later we have the greatest flock of waterfowl winging their way down the continent since the late 1960's, might even be forever. I realize you give to conservation, I wish there were lots of others, even if you never allow any hunting, at least there a repository of wildlife in the area. Just a thought, we didn't have cell phones till a few years ago, is that because we assume that we didn't want them or we had to master the technology? Technology advances with intellectual properties.
 
Old and New I wasn't directing that at you, but there have been some on here that have suggested that since the public owns the wildlife, that they should have access to private property to hunt it. I have a huge problem with that kind of idea, and thankfully its not very widely shared.

As far as allowing hunting, I have always allowed the neighbors and friends to hunt, as well as people that stop and ask if they present themselves well.

I hope I don't ever let someone hunt by chance that has the attitude that its their right to hunt my ground because they own the wildlife. I can guarantee that if I know they have this opinion, they will never set foot on my place.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top