Maybe new trespass laws and waterfowl tags for Non-Res

[fsentkilr]

Almost anybody could still buy land if they really want to. They would rather spend their money on other things, cell phones, new cars, eating out ect. Some of the attitudes on here towards landowners and private property rights, almost make me want to never let anybody I don't know set foot on any of my farms. I wouldn't want some of you with the attitudes you have hunting on me for sure.

 

[onpoint]

Almost anybody could still buy land if they really want to. They would rather spend their money on other things, cell phones, new cars, eating out ect. Some of the attitudes on here towards landowners and private property rights, almost make me want to never let anybody I don't know set foot on any of my farms. I wouldn't want some of you with the attitudes you have hunting on me for sure.

So, you know of any 40 or 80 acre parcels for sale in your area?

7-8-$10,000 per acre...160 acres in many cases is as small of a track of land ever for sale in the Pheasant belt. We have all discussed the astronomical cost of land prices right now. Comparing a cell phone or eating out as the cause of not being able to purchase $300,000 to $6-700,000 or more dollars worth of property. I believe we are seriously lacking knowledge of just what the working class American can afford.

Fact is, when the scales become tipped and a majority of American's feel as though they have been pushed out, priced out or any number of other things. They will push for change to even the playing field. We been seeing the results of this for the last 5 years in the voting results. Many don't like it but many doesn't win the fight, majority does.

I said it a long time ago and many times on here. Price the people out and cut off their access. They will no longer support the actions of those who priced them out. When it comes to a candidate either helping a person's family with health insurance and keeping a roof over their head or a candidate who supports gun rights, the commercializing of the outdoor sports. The guy who feels priced out, now isn't as quick to automatically pic the gun and outdoor stuff. Maybe he slowly has been moving away from the sport because of the lack of access and the cost. It's now not near as important but keeping a roof over the families head and health insurance is.

Some should watch what they sew...they just may find themselves on the loosing team more and more. Power comes in numbers of people in the voting booth, not how thick their wallet is.

 

[oldandnew]

I would agree that the root of the evil was original land settlement. At that time, the assets we had as farmers were livestock, and crops. The ground was a necessity to keep them. That changed, we gave the railroads sections of land to finance the construction, we rounded up the indians and took their land, we oversaw the destruction of the "open range" concept to rule in favor of barb wire and a hard scrabble, barely sustainable farm. I am afraid that the battle is lost, at least as it applies to us! At the time the issue was resolved, it was not a crucial decision in the scope of the times. Can we retrace our steps? probably not. The closest we came is the vast acreage of land brought in to the control of the government, when it was nearly worthless, in the height of the 1930's depression. Increments of public access will be a bit here, a bit there, hopefully, we will help solve this issue before a carload of hunters become a remarkable conversation piece, as deer used to be in the 1960's. I have been out on Missouri's quail season opening day, and been surprised that I have seen no other hunters, I thought I might have the wrong day!

 

[RK Special K]

Haymaker......

Free? Who said ANYTHING about free. Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't our tax dollars pay for our Federal Freeway System.

Nothing is free. And our National Hunting Treasure would certainly be NO exception. Our(my) tax dollars would pay for it.

Road Right-of-Ways simply aren't enough. Too little too late. Token. I'm saying 64+/- acres IN ADDITION to this ROW. Landowners would BE PAID the fair market price for easements and acreage. Landowners were paid fairly(if not over-paid)for their property when acquired for other national projects.

I have NO idea where you came up with "free" in my last post.

All the money we spend "overseas" is not free, but it certainly is a TOTAL WASTE!

 

[haymaker]

I think you missed my point. You have access to the right of way and what ever you can reach with your shotgun. I estimate that to be forty yards, that is in addition to the right of way. That is more than 64 acres and you can hunt that now, nobody pays anything. Lots of people do that every fall, I see it all the time people walking a ditch next to a slough or CRP. Or driving on the road and getting out if they see something. Nobody spends a dime to make that avalable. Nobody has to have their land condemed and taken by eminent domain. If you add the land that South Dakota GFP has made available it is way more land than you are talking about, and it has been that way for along time. Why aren't you singing the praises of such a wonderful state that has gone to all the trouble to provide all that hunting to anybody that wants to hunt.

 

[RK Special K]

Haymaker.....

South Dakota does an excellent job of providing places to hunt. So does North Dakota. Montana, Kansas, Nebraska also make reasonable efforts to provide it.

Also, I appreciate the tax burden on landowners for providing ROW for habitat/hunting. There should be some relief from taxes for this if they pay to the centerline. And I did not mean this to be a "token" contribution by individual land owners but it still does not, by itself, provide enough habitat.

I also want to be careful not to offend those who I think do an excellent job, under our current system, in providing places to hunt like UGUIDE. He does an excellent job with habitat and provides good value for those needing a place to stay and land to hunt on. Under our current system, his operation is about as close to perfect as it gets. That is: Here's a place to stay and over there is some land to hunt, after that, you are on your own.

Hunting should be a close cousin to "survival in the wilderness". It's you, the elements, and your firearm.

I do not like this high priced lodge concept where you are led around by "guides" and "hunting" is sold like a stay at the Ritz-Carlton in New York.
It creates all the wrong image and mind-set for true hunting. Good-god, if that's what "hunting" is, then I'd rather go bowling or play darts.

CRP is a good program but it does not solve the access issue. And let's face it: The land South Dakota provides gets "pounded" because it simply is not enough. And the rest of private land is greatly restricted, controlled and patrolled.

So my point is this: I'm looking at a much bigger solution than what these "band-aid" programs offer. I'm talking about creating a NATIONAL TREASURE and preserving our hunting heritage and right to open and unrestricted(but with rules, of course) access. As with all rights, they must be PAID FOR very dearly. And I mean PAID FOR with money we waste on "foriegn do-goody-good bs".

 

[onpoint]

I think you missed my point. You have access to the right of way and what ever you can reach with your shotgun. I estimate that to be forty yards, that is in addition to the right of way. That is more than 64 acres and you can hunt that now, nobody pays anything. Lots of people do that every fall, I see it all the time people walking a ditch next to a slough or CRP. Or driving on the road and getting out if they see something. Nobody spends a dime to make that avalable. Nobody has to have their land condemed and taken by eminent domain. If you add the land that South Dakota GFP has made available it is way more land than you are talking about, and it has been that way for along time. Why aren't you singing the praises of such a wonderful state that has gone to all the trouble to provide all that hunting to anybody that wants to hunt.

Just want to ask, how do you except those ditch hunters?

Do you wave, maybe stop and chat..wish them good luck?

"or" do you imminently become un-nerved as soon as you see them walking a ditch adjoined to your property?

Please be honest...You have the right to your opinion.

 

[haymaker]

Haymaker.....

South Dakota does an excellent job of providing places to hunt. So does North Dakota. Montana, Kansas, Nebraska also make reasonable efforts to provide it.

Also, I appreciate the tax burden on landowners for providing ROW for habitat/hunting. There should be some relief from taxes for this if they pay to the centerline. And I did not mean this to be a "token" contribution by individual land owners but it still does not, by itself, provide enough habitat.

I also want to be careful not to offend those who I think do an excellent job, under our current system, in providing places to hunt like UGUIDE. He does an excellent job with habitat and provides good value for those needing a place to stay and land to hunt on. Under our current system, his operation is about as close to perfect as it gets. That is: Here's a place to stay and over there is some land to hunt, after that, you are on your own.

Hunting should be a close cousin to "survival in the wilderness". It's you, the elements, and your firearm.

I do not like this high priced lodge concept where you are led around by "guides" and "hunting" is sold like a stay at the Ritz-Carlton in New York.
It creates all the wrong image and mind-set for true hunting. Good-god, if that's what "hunting" is, then I'd rather go bowling or play darts.

CRP is a good program but it does not solve the access issue. And let's face it: The land South Dakota provides gets "pounded" because it simply is not enough. And the rest of private land is greatly restricted, controlled and patrolled.

So my point is this: I'm looking at a much bigger solution than what these "band-aid" programs offer. I'm talking about creating a NATIONAL TREASURE and preserving our hunting heritage and right to open and unrestricted(but with rules, of course) access. As with all rights, they must be PAID FOR very dearly. And I mean PAID FOR with money we waste on "foriegn do-goody-good bs".

Thank you for recognizing what the state is doing. Are you sure that 64 acres out of every section will be enough? Do we need 100 or might 42 be OK? Thank you for recognizing what places like Uguide does for relieving pressure on the walk in areas. I used to be part of the Uguide operation. I decided I could do it a little better and a little cheaper if I did it on my own, and get the satisfaction of bringing the next generation into the operation.
The difference in our philosophies is that you want to take land by eminent domain from people that don't want to sell, at considerable expense to the taxpayers. I provide an opportunity to hunt land with CRP, food plots, sloughs, shelterbelts, corn fields and that is paid for by the people that choose to use it. Heavy government intrusion or free choice, I will take the free choice every time. The public can vote on how I use my land. I can raise crops or cattle or whatever people thinks is valuable enough that I can make a living. If cattle get too cheap I will quit raisng cattle. If nobody wants to pay me to hunt, the hunting operation will go away. If you want free range chickens enough I will raise free range chickens. Everybody gets to vote, how are you going to beat that?

 

[haymaker]

Just want to ask, how do you except those ditch hunters?

Do you wave, maybe stop and chat..wish them good luck?

"or" do you imminently become un-nerved as soon as you see them walking a ditch adjoined to your property?

Please be honest...You have the right to your opinion.

The answer to your question is YES. If there is a guy or two waliking the ditch next to my CRP I will wave or stop to talk if they are done with their hunt. If they are like the group that was driving down the road while I had a group of hunters that was waiting a few more minutes to hunt beside where they were driving, when they piled out with the dogs and headed into the field I got into my pickup to confront them and long before I could get there they piled back into there vehicle and took off in a great hurry, had I cught up with them I would not have been so friendly. There was a group camped out in between a corn field and some CRP waiting for the birds to come out of the corn and head into the CRP for the evening that I was not very nice to. I would like to have a do over on that one. I would say the same words but with a different tone in my voice. So the real answer is it depends on the situation.

 

[RK Special K]

Haymaker.....

Let's not get to hung-up on the "exact" numbers at this point. That's why I added +/- after "64".

Pheasants biologists say that 25% grass and 75% crops and some shelter areas sprinkled in is the theoretical optimum. This would probably produce "way to many" birds. But 10-15% grass produces excellent hunting.

Your "philosophy" works well for you and the other landowners - IF that's what we want to make hunting. That is: a for profit, fairly exclusive, private enterprise. Ok - fair enough. I see no reason then to return back the freeway property to "its rightful owners".

Some plans need concerted, large scale, "government" coordination. BUT, I want to be careful with the word "government". Remember, the "government" is(or damn sure should be) simply a collection of us. Remember - "for the people, by the people, and of the people". So when I talk "government", I'm really meaning a collection of "private" citizens that get together to create a worthwhile project to benefit a large segment of the people(if not the overwhelming majority).

 

[onpoint]

I know people who purposely farm to make the edges of their property and the ditches so they hold zero birds. Mow the ditches flat and graze or plant other short crops that are early harvested near the roadway. I have even experienced where a farmer would stop combining because people were in bordering WPA. I have also seen people hunting legal ditches met with not so friendly land owners. I wouldn't consider hunting ditches as any kind of quality hunting and I do not participate. It's kind of like a guy eating a T-bone telling someone with little money. That there's plenty of good eating in the dumpster. Ditches should hardly be entered into the conversation of public access to hunting IMO.

 

[fsentkilr]

So, you know of any 40 or 80 acre parcels for sale in your area?

7-8-$10,000 per acre...160 acres in many cases is as small of a track of land ever for sale in the Pheasant belt. We have all discussed the astronomical cost of land prices right now. Comparing a cell phone or eating out as the cause of not being able to purchase $300,000 to $6-700,000 or more dollars worth of property. I believe we are seriously lacking knowledge of just what the working class American can afford.

Fact is, when the scales become tipped and a majority of American's feel as though they have been pushed out, priced out or any number of other things. They will push for change to even the playing field. We been seeing the results of this for the last 5 years in the voting results. Many don't like it but many doesn't win the fight, majority does.

I said it a long time ago and many times on here. Price the people out and cut off their access. They will no longer support the actions of those who priced them out. When it comes to a candidate either helping a person's family with health insurance and keeping a roof over their head or a candidate who supports gun rights, the commercializing of the outdoor sports. The guy who feels priced out, now isn't as quick to automatically pic the gun and outdoor stuff. Maybe he slowly has been moving away from the sport because of the lack of access and the cost. It's now not near as important but keeping a roof over the families head and health insurance is.

Some should watch what they sew...they just may find themselves on the loosing team more and more. Power comes in numbers of people in the voting booth, not how thick their wallet is.

Land isn't 10k an acre in Kansas. A lot can still be bought for 1500 to 2000 an acre that is very good hunting. I have two friends that work 9 to 5 jobs that both have bought land. One bought 120 acres and the other bought an 80. They drive paid for vehicles and don't blow their money. They spend it on their land payments. The rent on the farm ground helps make the payment. Actually one of them just payed off his and is looking for more to buy. I'm 43 years old and have bought a lot of ground in my life. Its about priorities. If you want it bad it enough you can make it happen. I promise you that if some of you guys on here payed for a farm or two, you would have a lot different attitude on private property rights.

 

[haymaker]

Haymaker.....

Let's not get to hung-up on the "exact" numbers at this point. That's why I added +/- after "64".

Pheasants biologists say that 25% grass and 75% crops and some shelter areas sprinkled in is the theoretical optimum. This would probably produce "way to many" birds. But 10-15% grass produces excellent hunting.

Your "philosophy" works well for you and the other landowners - IF that's what we want to make hunting. That is: a for profit, fairly exclusive, private enterprise. Ok - fair enough. I see no reason then to return back the freeway property to "its rightful owners".

Some plans need concerted, large scale, "government" coordination. BUT, I want to be careful with the word "government". Remember, the "government" is(or damn sure should be) simply a collection of us. Remember - "for the people, by the people, and of the people". So when I talk "government", I'm really meaning a collection of "private" citizens that get together to create a worthwhile project to benefit a large segment of the people(if not the overwhelming majority).

I think you need to take an approach more like DU where they buy land from willing sellers. I am not a big DU fan but it is a method of people contributing to a common goal on a voluteer basis. Taxing me to get money to pay me to take my land through eminent domain to provide public hunting for a minority of people seems unlikely and not very palatable.

 

[haymaker]

I know people who purposely farm to make the edges of their property and the ditches so they hold zero birds. Mow the ditches flat and graze or plant other short crops that are early harvested near the roadway. I have even experienced where a farmer would stop combining because people were in bordering WPA. I have also seen people hunting legal ditches met with not so friendly land owners. I wouldn't consider hunting ditches as any kind of quality hunting and I do not participate. It's kind of like a guy eating a T-bone telling someone with little money. That there's plenty of good eating in the dumpster. Ditches should hardly be entered into the conversation of public access to hunting IMO.

Mowing ditches here are a matter of state law. We have to have them mowed by the first of October. If it doesn't rain I may be grazing them this year. You tell all the road hunters that ditches aren't in the conversation. I have had guys come and pay for the priveledge to hunt on a few thousand acres of private land and then go road hunting when they got tired.

 

[moellermd]

I have even experienced where a farmer would stop combining because people were in bordering WPA.

I would too if I thought that I would put me in the line of fire of a flushing bird.

 

[RK Special K]

Creating a NATIONAL TREASURE will benefit A LOT more people than just the 100's of thousands of bird hunters. It's extremely good for the environment in general and is a HUGE boost to the economies of Rural America during the 3-month long hunting season. Setting aside property also provides price support to crops - just like the Soil Bank did.

The profit motive is highly commendable but it doesn't have to be applied EVERYWHERE. It should be applied to where "we the people want it applied" It's up to us as whole to decide.

Here's the logical end result of applying the profit motive to farming and "hunting":

First, CRP and all "farm-aid" programs would be a thing of the past. Farmers would be told to "maximize the hell out of your land - you are on your own". Hunters? - "you're at the mercy of the farmer/landowners - good luck".

Farmers would have virtually 100% of their land in high-yield crops. Hunters? -why, the market has a solution for everything! Huge corporate pheasant rearing operations(bird factories) would spring up to fill the void. These would be MUCH larger than McFarland. The dominant player would be the MEGA-PHEZ CORPORATION(a wholly owned subsidiary of Exxon/Mobil). Executives with $2,500 suits would manage these big plants. Several facilities would be built throughout the midwest. Employ a lot of people too.

For weeks prior to "opening day" orders would flood into MEGA-PHEZ from farmers ready to provide "hunting festivities" on their land. And, of course, "opening day" now would be August 1. No need to be beholden anymore to real nature. The "season" would close on April 15. The factories need 3 1/2 months to "re-tool" and prepare hens for production.

Day-after-day, MEGA-PHEZ would ship on special "live ship" trucks to farmland throughout the country. Their trademark brand would be called "WILD-PHEZ - the best rootn' tootn' rooster". For three days before shipping, these birds would be fed a special "super steroid"(patented) to "wild them up". Kinda makes em' giddy and flighty. The only downside to this treatment is that they become not suited for consumption. The market, being of course hyper-efficient, has a solution - when the days "shoot" is over, the birds are cast into a big tub grinder and recycled as fertilizer. The "hunters" can buy chickens at a Wal-Mart Super Store after the "hunt". No muss no fuss.

These pheasant factories would be so damn efficient that birds would only cost farmers about $2.50 per bird plus shipping. Farmers would charge about $75.00 per "hunter". Still a lot but cheaper than today's real bird hunts. Efficiency has great benefits - costs go down, volume goes up, prices go down, AND PROFITS SOAR! Farmers would have their operation down cold - "does your group want the 9am slot, the Noon slot, or the 3pm slot? The
3pm slot would usually offer a 25% discount - just like golf. Shotgun shells would coat the farmland - again, not a problem, shells would be made of bio-degradeable fertilizer.

The trend towards this extreme is so slow that we hardly recognize it. But the measures we are taking to prevent it are only bubble-gum and band-aides on cracking dams and eroding dikes.

Here's another example: Why not also apply the private profit motive to our State and National Parks. A relatively few of us really ever go to them or, for that matter care much about them. I would sell them off to the highest bidding developers for swanky, high-end ranchette building sites. 2-10 million dollar estate homes. Real exclusive stuff - keep your hands off of my stack. Gated and patrolled for maximum security.

If we want to preserve real, natural, true hunting in America, it's going to take A LOT more than a few landowners and PF, DU, RGS, etc. They can be part of the mix but they are not the "final solution" to preserving our hunting heritage. Gotta think a lot BIGGER than that. And I mean a LOT bigger.

 

[onpoint]

Mowing ditches here are a matter of state law. We have to have them mowed by the first of October. If it doesn't rain I may be grazing them this year. You tell all the road hunters that ditches aren't in the conversation. I have had guys come and pay for the priveledge to hunt on a few thousand acres of private land and then go road hunting when they got tired.

Don't get me wrong, I love my place in South Dakota. I enjoy fishing the Missouri river and few small lakes. I do some duck hunting on WPA's. I enjoy spending time with all my South Dakota friends and relatives.. I might buy a Pheasant license someday again. I won't rule it out completely. Just not my cup a tea. If there's even a chance of a confrontation about who thinks they own what...I'll skip it and hunt a sure thing far from the crowds. I would rather have to hunt all day for one bird and be left alone. Then risk playing mortal combat to get my share of the pie.

moellermd, nobody was in the line of fire.

 

[haymaker]

Don't get me wrong, I love my place in South Dakota. I enjoy fishing the Missouri river and few small lakes. I do some duck hunting on WPA's. I enjoy spending time with all my South Dakota friends and relatives.. I might buy a Pheasant license someday again. I won't rule it out completely. Just not my cup a tea. If there's even a chance of a confrontation about who thinks they own what...I'll skip it and hunt a sure thing far from the crowds. I would rather have to hunt all day for one bird and be left alone. Then risk playing mortal combat to get my share of the pie.

moellermd, nobody was in the line of fire.

OP that is part of the appeal of what I offer, the hunters have a place with good habitat reserved for them. A place to stay, don't have to do a lot of driving, cook your own meals, clean your own birds and hunt with your dog. The main thing is that you get to do it your way.

 

[haymaker]

Creating a NATIONAL TREASURE will benefit A LOT more people than just the 100's of thousands of bird hunters. It's extremely good for the environment in general and is a HUGE boost to the economies of Rural America during the 3-month long hunting season. Setting aside property also provides price support to crops - just like the Soil Bank did.

The profit motive is highly commendable but it doesn't have to be applied EVERYWHERE. It should be applied to where "we the people want it applied" It's up to us as whole to decide.

Here's the logical end result of applying the profit motive to farming and "hunting":

First, CRP and all "farm-aid" programs would be a thing of the past. Farmers would be told to "maximize the hell out of your land - you are on your own". Hunters? - "you're at the mercy of the farmer/landowners - good luck".

Farmers would have virtually 100% of their land in high-yield crops. Hunters? -why, the market has a solution for everything! Huge corporate pheasant rearing operations(bird factories) would spring up to fill the void. These would be MUCH larger than McFarland. The dominant player would be the MEGA-PHEZ CORPORATION(a wholly owned subsidiary of Exxon/Mobil). Executives with $2,500 suits would manage these big plants. Several facilities would be built throughout the midwest. Employ a lot of people too.

For weeks prior to "opening day" orders would flood into MEGA-PHEZ from farmers ready to provide "hunting festivities" on their land. And, of course, "opening day" now would be August 1. No need to be beholden anymore to real nature. The "season" would close on April 15. The factories need 3 1/2 months to "re-tool" and prepare hens for production.

Day-after-day, MEGA-PHEZ would ship on special "live ship" trucks to farmland throughout the country. Their trademark brand would be called "WILD-PHEZ - the best rootn' tootn' rooster". For three days before shipping, these birds would be fed a special "super steroid"(patented) to "wild them up". Kinda makes em' giddy and flighty. The only downside to this treatment is that they become not suited for consumption. The market, being of course hyper-efficient, has a solution - when the days "shoot" is over, the birds are cast into a big tub grinder and recycled as fertilizer. The "hunters" can buy chickens at a Wal-Mart Super Store after the "hunt". No muss no fuss.

These pheasant factories would be so damn efficient that birds would only cost farmers about $2.50 per bird plus shipping. Farmers would charge about $75.00 per "hunter". Still a lot but cheaper than today's real bird hunts. Efficiency has great benefits - costs go down, volume goes up, prices go down, AND PROFITS SOAR! Farmers would have their operation down cold - "does your group want the 9am slot, the Noon slot, or the 3pm slot? The
3pm slot would usually offer a 25% discount - just like golf. Shotgun shells would coat the farmland - again, not a problem, shells would be made of bio-degradeable fertilizer.

The trend towards this extreme is so slow that we hardly recognize it. But the measures we are taking to prevent it are only bubble-gum and band-aides on cracking dams and eroding dikes.

Here's another example: Why not also apply the private profit motive to our State and National Parks. A relatively few of us really ever go to them or, for that matter care much about them. I would sell them off to the highest bidding developers for swanky, high-end ranchette building sites. 2-10 million dollar estate homes. Real exclusive stuff - keep your hands off of my stack. Gated and patrolled for maximum security.

If we want to preserve real, natural, true hunting in America, it's going to take A LOT more than a few landowners and PF, DU, RGS, etc. They can be part of the mix but they are not the "final solution" to preserving our hunting heritage. Gotta think a lot BIGGER than that. And I mean a LOT bigger.

I would like to announce the early offer to buy stock in Super Phez. We will do what Mega Phez does only a little better and a little cheaper. For more information on this once in a lifetime opportunity contact my acounting firm of DEWEY, CHEATUM and HOWE at BR549.

 

[RK Special K]

Gosh darn it, Haymaker, you guys at Super-Phez must have cracked MEGA-PHEZ's steroid recipe code. Gotta be careful about patent infringement, though. I understand they have some awefully smart attorneys at their headquarters in DesMoines.

Gotta love the humor!

Seriously though, I see on page 89 of the new Summer issue of PF magazine there is a new group with a plan called The National Wild Pheasant Conservation Plan. Its stated goal is "to restore and maintain self-sustaining wild pheasant populations in each state to provide maximum recreational opportunities".

One small step for man, one giant leap for PheasantLand. Can't dibble-dabble with the problem though. As Donald Trump says " as long as you gotta think -THINK BIG!