RK Special K
New member
Haymaker, I agree, but my record is not broken into as many pieces as yours. Only time will tell if mine will become as broken as yours.
Unintentional Genocide
- Thread starter oldandnew
- Start date
I do not disagree with the pronouncements that a certain percentage of ground should have been owned and leased long term to the farmer. As lease terms came up, revisions could have been amended. This would have kept more farmers farming now! Own 160@ with many acres of federal leased ground with minimal rent, by the way! No scary land prices, lower debt, lease payments could be forgone in bad years, crop protection could still be included. They do it out west, cattlemen lease huge tracts of BLM ground, get subsidies, rent is almost laughable. You see that the product is the ONLY thing of value....that's what it was before, not the net worth of land, which will rise and fall, with the whim of the financiers. If we were real bright, we might have done this, being an agricultural society was what Thomas Jefferson envisioned. Dispersing our citizens and new arrivals to take up space and dissuade rivals was a serious hurdle. Rather than "forced ruralfication" like the soviets in 1918, we used the " a better life, land ownership, despite the difficulties. This in a time where the government owned 75% of all the land, coast to coast! Only problem is the horse bolted the barn door, 200 years ago! Currently, it's an exercise in history revisited. "What If", What if the French reserves were not committed at the battle of Waterloo, they would have won and we would all be speaking French! If we could remake the world, what a perfect place we would have! Here's the solution, pay now or pay later, only voluntary purchases are available, this without some sort of revolt, is the solution. Land prices are up, but they won't forever, despite the enthusiasm of " they don't make anymore faction", U.S. government bought the Grasslands of the original dust bowl area, SW Kansas, SE Colorado, NE New Mexico, Oklahoma panhandle, and some of the Texas panhandle, all national grasslands from willing sellers, the government is not selling it back! They do lease it, based on multiple use basis. Duck Unlimited created a lot of refuge ground for ducks, Most when ground was cheap in the 1930's. They still buy ground today, lobby for government support and restrictions, ( some make more enemies than friends), but duck populations are higher than ever in our lifetimes. Pheasants are a farm bird, wouldn't be here at all without farmers, it will be at the discretion of the farmers and their choices of land use. I am not saying that voluntary purchase, or voluntary easement, by the government is not a bad idea, it might even be prudent. But a forced mandate is not a good idea, not for you or anybody else!
Has anyone heard much on the EPA/Army corps of Engineers "clean water act" proposal? I just caught wind of it. Don't know much about it--the good, bad, and the ugly
I went to a meeting in ST. Paul last wednesday to meet with the EPA. Administrator Gina McCarthy was there and told us that this was not an expansion but more of a clarification. I was told that by statute ag land and local roads were exempt. I told them that I did not believe that it would work out that way. They then repeated that they could not expand it by law. I then referred them to the law that said we were to stop illeagal immigration and that that was not happening aaccording to law and I did not think this would either. They lowered their heads and looked down at their feet. I won the debate but I don't know if I made any difference. In my opinion it is another attack on citizens by the federal government.
Has anyone heard much on the EPA/Army corps of Engineers "clean water act" proposal? I just caught wind of it. Don't know much about it--the good, bad, and the ugly
That one clause the farmer and sportsman clause seems odd! I am not certain the goals of the clause? Except decrease the USFWS impact. And give it to the "farmers" who approve tiling and cost sharing for it. If there is benefit, it probably does no good to the average citizens, both farmer and sportsmen. I mistrust these ideas, I like to see who shows up to sponsor this in the end. Most of the legislators will have never read it, only the lobby who probably wrote the bill!
How bout a national law to "hold harmless" farmers if some hunter gets hurt or liability if a hunter does anything to cause damage. We hunters could even buy a government policy for liability, not unlike crop insurance, underwritten by the government. Probably would be self sustaining. My guess it would open quite a bit of hunt-able ground, which would dove tail naturally with the "open access" acreages, which are available in states with the "hold harmless" statutes.
RK Special K
New member
Oldandnew - First, I want to commend you for supporting a National Agricultural Liability Policy for hunters/sportsmen. It would be an important part of preserving(actually, restoring) our NATIONAL HUNTING HERITAGE.
BUT...... your previous post states many good reasons why WE THE PEOPLE should have retained property under a "what if" scenario. So your conclusion that somehow today it's essentially not good for anyone floored me. You did not offer any reasons why it's magically a bad thing now.
It's a FAR better idea today than it was even then.
Our Founding Fathers, in their great wisdom, provided WE THE PEOPLE with many checks and balances. One tool in that pursuit is the RIGHT of the people to exercise eminent domain for the benefit of the many but with just compensation to the few who feel it's a sacrifice of private rights.
You imply that farmers are and farming is completely exempt from any check and balance to their activities. Whatever they want to do with land, they'll do. That's NOT how it works in America. Not if WE THE PEOPLE are doing our job right. But to clarify my point, I think farmers SHOULD do almost anything they want to on 85-90% of what they now have. They can do their free enterprise thing on that - it's a part what makes America great. The other 10-15% should be set aside for the broader good of WE THE PEOPLE. That's the other part of what makes America great.
To your point that " pheasants wouldn't be here at all without farmers" is only half true. A car without wheels goes nowhere - a car with wheels but no engine goes nowhere. Farming without grass produces no pheasants. 100% prairie grass from horizon to horizon produces no(or VERY few) pheasants. Let's be honest - we NEED BOTH to produce excellent numbers of birds. One without the other is NO GOOD.
Here's why having WE THE PEOPLE own 10% of "pheasantland" is good for just about everyone:
1. WE THE PEOPLE use 200 billion in cash to purchase 60-70 million acres of land. This is NOT an expense. We are purchasing a HARD asset. Most of it would be some of the worst, highly erodible land out there. Just needs to grow CRP type grass. 60 million acres of CRP type would fill Pheasantland with birds from the Texas Panhandle to the Canada border and from eastern Colorado to eastern Iowa.
2. Rural America would thrive in the fall with hundreds of millions(a billion?) of dollars deposited in those economies.
3. Less land to grow crops on - higher crop prices to farmers. The price of retail food is affected much more by the processing, packaging, and delivery. In the field crop prices have a negligible effect on retail food prices.
4. Ag land prices would rise because of higher crop prices and demand by hunters.
5. Higher land values helps school funding.
6. Air and water quality improves. Environmentalists love that. We all should.
7. Oh, that 200 billion investment we made in land? Its value is increasing. Finally!!!!!! The government does something right with OUR money.
Wow. We've got something running on ALL cylinders here.
BUT...... your previous post states many good reasons why WE THE PEOPLE should have retained property under a "what if" scenario. So your conclusion that somehow today it's essentially not good for anyone floored me. You did not offer any reasons why it's magically a bad thing now.
It's a FAR better idea today than it was even then.
Our Founding Fathers, in their great wisdom, provided WE THE PEOPLE with many checks and balances. One tool in that pursuit is the RIGHT of the people to exercise eminent domain for the benefit of the many but with just compensation to the few who feel it's a sacrifice of private rights.
You imply that farmers are and farming is completely exempt from any check and balance to their activities. Whatever they want to do with land, they'll do. That's NOT how it works in America. Not if WE THE PEOPLE are doing our job right. But to clarify my point, I think farmers SHOULD do almost anything they want to on 85-90% of what they now have. They can do their free enterprise thing on that - it's a part what makes America great. The other 10-15% should be set aside for the broader good of WE THE PEOPLE. That's the other part of what makes America great.
To your point that " pheasants wouldn't be here at all without farmers" is only half true. A car without wheels goes nowhere - a car with wheels but no engine goes nowhere. Farming without grass produces no pheasants. 100% prairie grass from horizon to horizon produces no(or VERY few) pheasants. Let's be honest - we NEED BOTH to produce excellent numbers of birds. One without the other is NO GOOD.
Here's why having WE THE PEOPLE own 10% of "pheasantland" is good for just about everyone:
1. WE THE PEOPLE use 200 billion in cash to purchase 60-70 million acres of land. This is NOT an expense. We are purchasing a HARD asset. Most of it would be some of the worst, highly erodible land out there. Just needs to grow CRP type grass. 60 million acres of CRP type would fill Pheasantland with birds from the Texas Panhandle to the Canada border and from eastern Colorado to eastern Iowa.
2. Rural America would thrive in the fall with hundreds of millions(a billion?) of dollars deposited in those economies.
3. Less land to grow crops on - higher crop prices to farmers. The price of retail food is affected much more by the processing, packaging, and delivery. In the field crop prices have a negligible effect on retail food prices.
4. Ag land prices would rise because of higher crop prices and demand by hunters.
5. Higher land values helps school funding.
6. Air and water quality improves. Environmentalists love that. We all should.
7. Oh, that 200 billion investment we made in land? Its value is increasing. Finally!!!!!! The government does something right with OUR money.
Wow. We've got something running on ALL cylinders here.
RK Special K
New member
You might ask - where do we stop? When we achieve a reasonable balance. Right now things are out of wack in favor of the private sector.
But I'm all FOR oil drilling and the Keystone Pipeline. Those activities won't materially affect hunting. I do think that the oil industry should give something back by requiring every new(and existing) well site to be surrounded by 15 rows of shelter belts. Far enough away so as to not create a snow drift problem. Same with the Keystone - 15 rows of shelter belt along both sides for its entire length.
But I'm all FOR oil drilling and the Keystone Pipeline. Those activities won't materially affect hunting. I do think that the oil industry should give something back by requiring every new(and existing) well site to be surrounded by 15 rows of shelter belts. Far enough away so as to not create a snow drift problem. Same with the Keystone - 15 rows of shelter belt along both sides for its entire length.
Uncle Buck
New member
South Dakota actually has a type of this law, IF THE LANDOWNER IS NOT CHARGING TO HUNT.
1pheas4
Moderator
I believe Illinois does too. It's a good law to have. I'm not sure how much of a difference it made as far as getting the "okay" from land owners to hunt on their land, but to protect the land owner from a lawsuit seem to make sense
.