• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

prarie dog

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Its a rock and a hard place situation. i like my food, and i know it would cost more if the payments were not there, or would it?

Yes we need food. Your right. We also need electricity. If I dont make it by myself, i go out of business. The govt is not there handing me a check. We also need heat in our homes. As a heating contractor, if you dont make it, too bad.

Hopalong, maybe in your area there are more developers buying the land, but im not seeing that in my area
 
Hey SD, did you ckeck the list to see if LB's name is on it? Did she back up her claim?

As for saying all farmers and ranchers get paid just for being farmers and ranchers is like saying everyone who lives in town is on wellfare.

Check out how the farm bill sometime. See where most of the money goes. Food stamps!

Did you go to college? Did you borrow federal money to go to school? Have you ever had a grant given to you? How about your local business. Think they ever applied for any state money or SBA loan. Look around and see who is dipping into the Govt kitty.
 
Are you telling me the payments on the site i listed have to be paid back or some do? Your not compairing ranchers and farmers to welfare recipients are you?

I did not recieve any govt assistance when i went to school. I have never recieved any moneys. When i was 24yrs old, i learned i am not gonna make it without something to fall back on. I learned farming wont work for me with the amount of land i had and such, so i went to school and got a trade. I was not eligable for any grants because i made too much, am not a minority, and have not been in prison. Luckily, i had a little saved away.
 
and yes, i have checked the site for her name. The site is there, search if you want. Im sure they also have a ranch name, probably some listed under a husband etc, but i really dont care to know.
Heck, see what some of your neighbors are getting, i have and its amazing when i see them driving a brand new truck, and buying tractors and combines and i see what the govt has handed over.
I am not blaming anyone to take what is being offered. Kind of like the dems wanting to pay more taxes. They bitch about the stimulous check, however, very few will send it back. Bush even said in the state of the union address, the IRS takes cash, check, moneyorders if anyone feels they are not paying enough.
 
I've talked to quite a few of my neighbors and with out the substities they would not be able to make their land payment.
We have one young couple who bought a neighbors place, who without the payments would not have been able to buy it. They both work in town at other jobs so they can make ends meet. I saw what everybody I know gets.
If times get really hard I have my training to fall back on to keep us going, but for now I am on the farm and ranch.

Since it is now public info I will tell you. My husband and I get $3000 a year. That barely covers the cost of insurance for hail. It does not even touch the fuel costs or anything else. We farm and ranch. There was only ONE time in which we recieved aid as ranchers. You had to pick if it was 2001 or 2002 for a drought aid package. That was a bad time. No hay, no pastures nothing. I can't remember what the exact amount was, so I am not even going to guess.

Now if all these groups and others who see AG as an old time thing that needs to be stopped and this country can import it's food they need to remember all the poisoned pets to know how easy it would be for another country to take us over.
 
question......what would happen to land prices if the payments stopped? You say this young couple couldnt buy if it wasnt for the payments. Do you think the payments may or may not have anything to do with the prices. If the farmer/rancher didnt buy it up, who would? Do you think hunting interests could or would buy it all up?
 
sdhunter, sorry for the late reply. I have a life off this computer which requires far too much of my time, tho I make an effort to respond in a more timely manner than on this one.

You just might be letting your biases against those who have what you PERCEIVE to be more than they should have, remove any common sense you may have about this issue.

RANCHERS do NOT receive subsidies just for ranching. True. Verifiable. Many of us do not like the system, understanding it is simply a 'carrot' to keep us producing food for ungrateful people who use the money saved on 'real world' food prices to buy their luxures.

People participating in farming practices controlled by the Farm Programs MAY receive SOME cost sharing for land management practices such as building dams which provide water for game as well as for cattle, SOME payments when a regulated crop market price is below a set point allowing a price to the farmer which will allow him to produce the crop slightly above the break even point, or INSURANCE for which the rancher/farmer PAYS PREMIUMS and it is those premiums which are subsidized to a degree.

There have AT TIMES, been slight subsidies for production losses due to drought. During the past several years and currently, we and many other ranchers are able to have only about 40% of the number of cows on the same land we have had, yet must pay ever higher taxes and other costs on that land (many of us have been paying off land purchased up to 40 YEARS ago, with no subsidies to help).

You claim you do not receive subsidies. Maybe not directly, but you do benefit from them. The school where you learned the electrical trade almost certainly is subsidized. The electricity, the lines to carry it and the production of it, is certainly subsidized and without it your career and business would be non-existent.

The information on ag subsidies you linked is incomplete, misleading and is published to attack farmers by groups working to end farming in the USA.

The currently proposed "Farm Bill" spends about 60% of the total costs on welfare type programs of DIRECT subsidies to people getting food stamps and other food programs from government.

mrj
 
sdhunter, you still don't get it, do you? Those "subsidies" are not to help farmers, but to keep someone able to produce food for you! Food you can then spend approximately 10% of your income to buy rather than up to 50% or more like many people in this world must spend just to eat!

Further more than 60% of the so called "Farm Bill" budget goes to direct welfare to people who use the government food programs to get their food using very little or none of their own money.

And the farmers using those "subsidies" STILL have to earn the money to pay their bills, despite what some have said about paying off land with the money. That money was not free and clear profit for anyone except retired farmers, or those who inherited farm land and rent it out.

Most working farmers would prefer first, that those people not actually working the land be eliminated from the program, and second that the programs did not exist at all!

Then there are the farmers who cheat the system and give everyone a bad name! Maybe no more nor less than in every other profession, I suppose, but sure seems it gets more publicity.

Personally, we don't farm grains and any payments we have gotten have been for conservation or for drought losses, so it all affects me very little except for the 'heartburn' over the unjust criticism and deceit about who really benefits from the programs.

mrj
 
sdhunter, you still don't get it, do you? Those "subsidies" are not to help farmers, but to keep someone able to produce food for you! Food you can then spend approximately 10% of your income to buy rather than up to 50% or more like many people in this world must spend just to eat!

Further more than 60% of the so called "Farm Bill" budget goes to direct welfare to people who use the government food programs to get their food using very little or none of their own money.

And the farmers using those "subsidies" STILL have to earn the money to pay their bills, despite what some have said about paying off land with the money. That money was not free and clear profit for anyone except retired farmers, or those who inherited farm land and rent it out.

Most working farmers would prefer first, that those people not actually working the land be eliminated from the program, and second that the programs did not exist at all!

Then there are the farmers who cheat the system and give everyone a bad name! Maybe no more nor less than in every other profession, I suppose, but sure seems it gets more publicity.

Personally, we don't farm grains and any payments we have gotten have been for conservation or for drought losses, so it all affects me very little except for the 'heartburn' over the unjust criticism and deceit about who really benefits from the programs.

mrj
 
I understand welfare folks are figured into it. I also understand the lower prices for the food, somewhat.

Its hard to understand when corn is at 6 bucks, wheat at 25 bucks.

Im glad my neighbor who has 5 new combines, drives a new ford f350, has a new 3,000 plus square foot house, just built 12 new grain bins has the 1mill plus he gets thru the subsidies. I would hate to see him have to sell one of those combines or one of his several new front wheel assist tractors or not rent the land out the little guy next door at drasticly less amounts. That would suck. I dont think it would be as bad as you say if everyone had to pay their way. It sucks to think some of the little guys and alot of the family farms will have to make some decisions. But thats life. No where does it say they must ranch or farm. Ya, the family has done it for years and years, but im sorry, things change. You see that everywhere you look
 
As your attitude demonstrates so clearly.........there are those who will take advangage of any situation. Do you truly know enough about his business to judge whether or not he needs what he has? And we have no way to know if that person even exists, or if it is a composite of 'wrongs' you perceive. Do you know he doesn't also have an investment in one of the businesses catering to the Sturgis Motorcycle Rally, for example, or in a similar 'playground' for those willing to spend tons of money on entertainment???? Why is it only food and fuel and a place to hunt that people REALLY complain about paying a fair price for???

mrj
 
mrj said:
As your attitude demonstrates so clearly.........there are those who will take advangage of any situation. Do you truly know enough about his business to judge whether or not he needs what he has? And we have no way to know if that person even exists, or if it is a composite of 'wrongs' you perceive. Do you know he doesn't also have an investment in one of the businesses catering to the Sturgis Motorcycle Rally, for example, or in a similar 'playground' for those willing to spend tons of money on entertainment???? Why is it only food and fuel and a place to hunt that people REALLY complain about paying a fair price for???

mrj


Define FAIR PRICE for hunting!

Let me clarify that, define FAIR PRICE for ACCESS
 
That surely should be up to the people involved to decide and there is no real pattern for a rate that I've seen or can imagine. Many factors such as quality of the hunt are impossible to place a value on. Guess a fair price is one agreed to by all parties involved! I might put more emphasis on quality and on liability to the landowner than anything else....others might have other things they would focus more on.

There is more involved than just price, IMO. Costs of raising the game can be at least roughly estimated, costs of landowners liability insurance, game enhancement costs, whether or not housing and meals are included, having guides who know the particular property and game patterns, time the hunter spends on the property scouting his hunt, criteria for good sportsmanship during the hunt, requirements/agreement on type, size or other criteria for game to be taken, amount of area available per hunter, liability questions, and whatever else the parties involved want discussed and agreed upon should determine the price of access and use of ones property. Maybe even the price the hunter has paid for his gear! And property taxes the landowner must pay may even be a factor. And why not? Those taxes have no basis on ability to pay and are a significant cost of doing any business requiring a land base.

Frankly, we have had some good and honorable self guided hunters......and we have had our land and our trust in hunters abused by some real slob hunters who chased deer unmercifully, who lied about access, and who claimed they were on someone elses land and wounded an animal which then entered our property......and more. All of which makes one more than a little disgusted and wary of so called 'sportsmen'.

mrj
 
mrj said:
That surely should be up to the people involved to decide and there is no real pattern for a rate that I've seen or can imagine. Many factors such as quality of the hunt are impossible to place a value on. Guess a fair price is one agreed to by all parties involved! I might put more emphasis on quality and on liability to the landowner than anything else....others might have other things they would focus more on.

There is more involved than just price, IMO. Costs of raising the game can be at least roughly estimated, costs of landowners liability insurance, game enhancement costs, whether or not housing and meals are included, having guides who know the particular property and game patterns, time the hunter spends on the property scouting his hunt, criteria for good sportsmanship during the hunt, requirements/agreement on type, size or other criteria for game to be taken, amount of area available per hunter, liability questions, and whatever else the parties involved want discussed and agreed upon should determine the price of access and use of ones property. Maybe even the price the hunter has paid for his gear! And property taxes the landowner must pay may even be a factor. And why not? Those taxes have no basis on ability to pay and are a significant cost of doing any business requiring a land base.

Frankly, we have had some good and honorable self guided hunters......and we have had our land and our trust in hunters abused by some real slob hunters who chased deer unmercifully, who lied about access, and who claimed they were on someone elses land and wounded an animal which then entered our property......and more. All of which makes one more than a little disgusted and wary of so called 'sportsmen'.

mrj

Soooo........ahh..........what is a fair price for access?? All I see here is a bunch of garbage and some crap about running an outfitter.

Let me narrow it down for you. What do you think a fair price is for access to to take 1 buck and 1 doe. No guide, no lodging, no meals, no nothing. Here are my rules and my land bounderies, have at it.
 
P Joe said:
mrj said:
As your attitude demonstrates so clearly.........there are those who will take advangage of any situation. Do you truly know enough about his business to judge whether or not he needs what he has? And we have no way to know if that person even exists, or if it is a composite of 'wrongs' you perceive. Do you know he doesn't also have an investment in one of the businesses catering to the Sturgis Motorcycle Rally, for example, or in a similar 'playground' for those willing to spend tons of money on entertainment???? Why is it only food and fuel and a place to hunt that people REALLY complain about paying a fair price for???

mrj


Define FAIR PRICE for hunting!

Let me clarify that, define FAIR PRICE for ACCESS

A fair price would be what ever two parties agree on.If I want $5000 for access and only 1 person pays then it was a fair price.I surely would'nt bother with $10 for access as I would be over ran by people wanting in.I would'nt put a price on it because I don't want hunter's running wild on any of my property.I figure if you want a place to hunt either open up your wallet or hunt public land or shut up.Do you actually think the one or two animals you may take are going to make a dent in the game population?It would be quicker and of less hassle for the land owner to just shoot all the does he see's.I pray for 40 below and 4 ft. of snow that will get rid of deer pretty quickly.
 
P Joe said:
mrj said:
That surely should be up to the people involved to decide and there is no real pattern for a rate that I've seen or can imagine. Many factors such as quality of the hunt are impossible to place a value on. Guess a fair price is one agreed to by all parties involved! I might put more emphasis on quality and on liability to the landowner than anything else....others might have other things they would focus more on.

There is more involved than just price, IMO. Costs of raising the game can be at least roughly estimated, costs of landowners liability insurance, game enhancement costs, whether or not housing and meals are included, having guides who know the particular property and game patterns, time the hunter spends on the property scouting his hunt, criteria for good sportsmanship during the hunt, requirements/agreement on type, size or other criteria for game to be taken, amount of area available per hunter, liability questions, and whatever else the parties involved want discussed and agreed upon should determine the price of access and use of ones property. Maybe even the price the hunter has paid for his gear! And property taxes the landowner must pay may even be a factor. And why not? Those taxes have no basis on ability to pay and are a significant cost of doing any business requiring a land base.

Frankly, we have had some good and honorable self guided hunters......and we have had our land and our trust in hunters abused by some real slob hunters who chased deer unmercifully, who lied about access, and who claimed they were on someone elses land and wounded an animal which then entered our property......and more. All of which makes one more than a little disgusted and wary of so called 'sportsmen'.

mrj

Soooo........ahh..........what is a fair price for access?? All I see here is a bunch of garbage and some crap about running an outfitter.

Let me narrow it down for you. What do you think a fair price is for access to to take 1 buck and 1 doe. No guide, no lodging, no meals, no nothing. Here are my rules and my land bounderies, have at it.

$1500 For the Buck $200 for the doe.
 
Denny said:
$1500 For the Buck $200 for the doe.

Your attitude is why the younger generation is chosing not to hunt!!

$1500 for a buck, you tell me how you have that much invested??

You can find plenty of outfitters in SD that will give you lodging, meals, use of the truck, atv, and guide service for that price! :roll: AND you want that much for a tresspass fee. GET REAL BUDDY!
 
fulton said:
Please name a few of these outfitters P Joe. I would love to look at their websites or call them.

Access fees only
http://www.dakotahuntingtrips.com/grasslake.html

Full meal deals @ $1500
http://www.dakotahuntingtrips.com/eastriver.html
http://www.dakotahuntingtrips.com/sdbison.html
http://www.dakotahuntingtrips.com/weidner.html

Took me 10 minutes, I'm sure there are a bunch more out there, some for more $$ some for less. My point is, it is BS for someone with nothing invested, no website, no business, no lodging, nothing to expect 1500 for a tresspass fee!!! Especially when they want the deer gone in the first place. :D
 

Latest posts

Top