Opening Weekend Results?

I guess this is what we disagree about: you say, "This WE THE PEOPLE property would be purchased from the private sector at fair market value. A mere $200 billion would purchase about 60 million acres."

I'm opposed to taxpayers underwriting the activities of farmers at the level we underwrite them now. It would be hypocritical of me to ask the taxpayers to pay "a mere $200 billion" to enhance my hunting opportunities. I'd rather see the market be corrected by pulling the subsidies that have jacked up land prices to, in some cases, all time highs. Then those of us who care about hunting could put OUR money (not other taxpayers' money) where our mouths are -- into developing good hunting habitat, on small parcels we could afford to buy or lease. It's those small parcels that have disappeared because of excessive subsidies and relatively recent economic decisions to buy up any excess land, even if marginal, because of the market value of crops, driven artificially high.

I also believe that to the extent some farmers care nothing about wildlife management (and you're right, plenty don't), then they don't have any wildlife on their property to speak of. But there remain a few -- fewer and fewer all the time -- who have resisted farming or tiling every last inch of tillable land because they want to have some wildlife. Your plan of a government taking (to the tune of $200 billion of Other People's Money) of land would capture those guys, too. I would rather disincentivize the border to border farming of marginal ground for the purpose of creating unneeded (and therefore subsidized) ethanol products, than create a new federal subsidy program, for hunters.

Your father and uncle had success in the 1940s in a free market system, and it's that system that's going away, to the detriment of hunting. I'm for it, and against new federally-funded substitutes, just because those substitutes might serve my own interests, rather than farming interests. And to be blunt, if I had to choose whether there's more public good in farming subsidies or hunting subsidies, I'd have to admit that farming would win out. But I don't think that is, or should be the choice. I think hunters should have a fair opportunity to buy property and improve it, without having to "farm the government" in order to make their payments on that property.
 
The problem is WAY, WAY, WAY too big for a few(2000?6000?) individual landowners and hunters to grasp and solve. It would be like Eisenhower saying "look, a freeway system will benefit us Americans - I'm looking for volunteers to sell their land for this purpose." It would never get done - WAY too big of a project for that to ever work. EXACTLY the same with what I'm talking about - the past and current system of asking individual landowners and hunters to fund habitat is futile and is a proven failure. It's a "dibble-dabble" approach, and using my freeway example, we would have 3% of the freeways built and only random, unconnected strips of concrete strewn about the country and doing no good. That is what we have for habitat and land quality today. And, except for CRP, it's RAPIDLY getting worse.

The benefits to WE THE PEOPLE by our owning 60 million acres of grassland far exceed those that a hunter obtains. Soil quality, air quality, water quality - are all enhanced. And a big economic boost to rural America. An all-around benefit to ALL Americans. This is a quality of life issue for Americans - not a subsidy to anyone. A re-directing of foreign spent money back to American soil.

But how many landowners are going to volunteer 10% of their property even if paid the right price for it. Very few. The private sector, by its very nature and definition is selfish and short-sited. The profit motive gets a lot of good things done and to a large degree this is not a bad thing for most things. But it's not suited to handle things that have vague(but real) long-term benefits to the majority. It's the 2% that have a stranglehold on the 98%. I hope this is still a country that governs "of the people, by the people, and for the people".

My father and uncle hunted during the soil bank boom years. Soil Bank - WE THE PEOPLE program - not the free market. Oh, throw in some ragged, less aggressive, low-tech farming methods during that time also but mostly the soil bank.

And it's not "Other People's Money" - it's OUR money to do with it what the private sector CANNOT and WILL NOT do. Not their responsibility nor are they motivated to do it. Taking away all farm and land subsidies may help but I doubt it would be nearly enough. Farmers didn't voluntarily take soil out of production and let it go fallow during the soil bank - and I certainly don't think they will today. With how efficient farming is today, they will blacken up anything that holds a tractor. They will just get better at doing it. Believe me, the free market will figure that out in short order.
 
RK Special the original topic has really gotten hi-jacked/derailed, ranting on here is not going to accomplish much in my opinion.
 
RK Special the original topic has really gotten hi-jacked/derailed, ranting on here is not going to accomplish much in my opinion.

Not many people contribute in this Nebraska forum anyway, so I for one like hearing RK's ideas. He is on the money in many of the points he makes.

If you want to read more posts about actual hunting go to the Kansas or even Colorado forums. Never thought I'd see the day where there seems to more interest and enthusiasm about pheasant hunting in Colorado than Nebraska :confused:
 
Bird Buster you are busted.

This forum is for the exchange of ideas, experiences and stories that support those ideas. That IS what this forum is largely about. That IS what this forum accomplishes. This thread began, in part, with references to declines in habitat. I gave my ideas on what is needed to solve those problems. But I am catching on to your lingo:

I don't agree = rant

I do agree = good discussion

Got it.

But if you don't add materially to the discussion by giving reasons why you agree or disagree, you contribute nothing.
 
Getting back to the subject

I hunted Nebraska opening weekend and had a good time. Never kicked up a single bird in one and a half days of hard walking. Saw one rooster and four hens off in a distance. The habitat where I hunted has really improved this year and should be good for next year's hatch. Maybe there will be a few more birds one of these days. Lots of corn planted in Nebraska.
 
I hunted Nebraska opening weekend and had a good time. Never kicked up a single bird in one and a half days of hard walking. Saw one rooster and four hens off in a distance. The habitat where I hunted has really improved this year and should be good for next year's hatch. Maybe there will be a few more birds one of these days. Lots of corn planted in Nebraska.

That's what I think! Good times. better than sitting home fretting. Better times ahead. I still see the ground and places where I harvested a bird over a new pup, many years ago, the same charming towns I have been past for years. It's an adventure, like to see some more birds for the young dogs, but the at this time of year, there is no place else I would rather be!
 
That's what I think! Good times. better than sitting home fretting. Better times ahead. I still see the ground and places where I harvested a bird over a new pup, many years ago, the same charming towns I have been past for years. It's an adventure, like to see some more birds for the young dogs, but the at this time of year, there is no place else I would rather be!

Ditto OldAndNew
 
Bird Buster you are busted.

This forum is for the exchange of ideas, experiences and stories that support those ideas. That IS what this forum is largely about. That IS what this forum accomplishes. This thread began, in part, with references to declines in habitat. I gave my ideas on what is needed to solve those problems. But I am catching on to your lingo:

I don't agree = rant

I do agree = good discussion

Got it.

But if you don't add materially to the discussion by giving reasons why you agree or disagree, you contribute nothing.



I didn't say I disagreed with you, simply I think you hi-jacked this thread from the original topic. I did not hunt opening weekend so no I didn't have anything to add myself. You have some good points but I would start a new topic on the subject in a different thread.
 
The problem is WAY, WAY, WAY too big for a few(2000?6000?) individual landowners and hunters to grasp and solve. It would be like Eisenhower saying "look, a freeway system will benefit us Americans - I'm looking for volunteers to sell their land for this purpose." It would never get done - WAY too big of a project for that to ever work. EXACTLY the same with what I'm talking about - the past and current system of asking individual landowners and hunters to fund habitat is futile and is a proven failure. It's a "dibble-dabble" approach, and using my freeway example, we would have 3% of the freeways built and only random, unconnected strips of concrete strewn about the country and doing no good. That is what we have for habitat and land quality today. And, except for CRP, it's RAPIDLY getting worse.

The benefits to WE THE PEOPLE by our owning 60 million acres of grassland far exceed those that a hunter obtains. Soil quality, air quality, water quality - are all enhanced. And a big economic boost to rural America. An all-around benefit to ALL Americans. This is a quality of life issue for Americans - not a subsidy to anyone. A re-directing of foreign spent money back to American soil.

But how many landowners are going to volunteer 10% of their property even if paid the right price for it. Very few. The private sector, by its very nature and definition is selfish and short-sited. The profit motive gets a lot of good things done and to a large degree this is not a bad thing for most things. But it's not suited to handle things that have vague(but real) long-term benefits to the majority. It's the 2% that have a stranglehold on the 98%. I hope this is still a country that governs "of the people, by the people, and for the people".

My father and uncle hunted during the soil bank boom years. Soil Bank - WE THE PEOPLE program - not the free market. Oh, throw in some ragged, less aggressive, low-tech farming methods during that time also but mostly the soil bank.

And it's not "Other People's Money" - it's OUR money to do with it what the private sector CANNOT and WILL NOT do. Not their responsibility nor are they motivated to do it. Taking away all farm and land subsidies may help but I doubt it would be nearly enough. Farmers didn't voluntarily take soil out of production and let it go fallow during the soil bank - and I certainly don't think they will today. With how efficient farming is today, they will blacken up anything that holds a tractor. They will just get better at doing it. Believe me, the free market will figure that out in short order.

Many modern farm techniques cause pollution (especially water). Perhaps some hefty fines would convince some of these greedy farm corporations to modify their farming techniques.
 
Back
Top