DOC HARRIS
Well-known member
To preclude occurances such as that happening it would be a good idea to get it all in writing! If they won't put it in writing, chances are they would not follow through without a contract.
DOC HARRIS
SD westriver lockout- OVER??
- Thread starter Southdakotahunter
- Start date
DOC HARRIS
Liberty Belle
Well-known member
It's pretty obvious that you don't care about western South Dakota either! Eastern Montana is almost exactly like this area and we have deer and antelope populations to match. You're the one who is ignorant on this issue, not Badlands or Oldtimer. They both grew up here and know this area very well. Quit showing your ignorance.
Wow!! Its comments like these that remind us why we don't miss having hunters around. Oldtimer, Soapweed, Jinglebob, Fulton, SJ and Badlands are all from our corner of the world and as landowners, they are well aware of what it costs our bottom line to feed and house the public's wildlife.
I'm sure you meant to say "sweet cheeks", didn't you? Your gentle comments directed at the very same landowners you want to give you permission to hunt on their land says volumes about the kind of guy you are – please note that I did not call you a man. No one using this mentality deserves that title.
Whose responsibility is it to manage wildlife and pay for its upkeep? If you run your cows on my grass you have to pay me the going grazing rate or you have to get them off my grass. If you are willing to pay me your share of that grazing fee for your share of the wildlife I feed and house for you, send me your check or shut up.
Liberty Belle
Well-known member
You've lost me here, Happy. Kindly explain to me how letting you hunt on my property is going to lower my property taxes? Ranchers here see NO tax breaks or any benefits of any kind for raising the public's wildlife or from hosting hunters, unless they go to pay hunting. And if they are willing to do that, they have to be willing to turn their property rights over to abuse by GF&P, a fact that stops most of us from going that route.
What state do you live in anyway? Heck, maybe you should tell us what planet you're from!
P Joe
Well-known member
Liberty Belle said:
I only answer to this one quote, since you have missed the point on all the other things.
Whose is it then. If you beleive it is yours, lets see you degree in wildlife management :wink:
I have no problem going with a block management program like Montana has. I have no problem with the state giving ranchers something back for the wildlife. BUT then YOUR land should be open to public hunting. Why should you get a dime from us taxpayers and us get nothing back in return??
Just a question, how many members of your family work in a small town? Do you honestly think that Motel, or steak house could afford to stay open all year long without hunters using those services? How many hunters do you think are vegetarians? Most of them probably eat beef.
So the idea that you can stand on your own 2 feet without support from any one else is a joke. You need everyone to do a part to make the world go round. I only take a hard headed stance with you because you are hard headed your self. Some, not all, but some of you need to open your eyse up a little more and see the whole picture. Contrary to what you think about me, I am not totally against you, I do see some of you points and agree. But on the others, you refuse to listen to the other side and have closed your eyes to them. You revert to personal digs, when the facts are not with you. With that thinking, how are you ever going to come to an agreement so that everyone is happy.
You've said before that unless you get everything you want, you don't care if this ever gets resolved and if a hunter ever sets foot on you land again. How Selfish does that sound?? If you honestly hate wildlife that much, do yourself a favor and chase every living thing that doesn't go moo off of your land and build a huge fence so nothing ever gets back in.
P Joe
Well-known member
Badlands said:
I beleive that wildlife does take some away from the ranchers. I beleive it is an issue and agree with you, But if it is such a huge concern and such a huge issue, why doesn't some one have the answers to those questions? How can you make a good argument if you have no facts or numbers to back up what you say? Thats all I'm trying to point out. If you want to get things changed, you have to prove your case. Nobody has done that yet.
It is one thing to say that the 100 deer on your land costs you to run 20 less cow/calve pairs. But it is another prove it is a fact that you can't run 20 pairs instead of 5.
And just for the record.
I don't beleive in letting GF&P driving across the land to check for hunting.
I do beleive in letting GF&P driving across the land when, from a public place, he witnessed suspicious activity after a deer/antelope was shot.
They have some of the best optics in their trucks.. They can make that call from a few miles away.
Badlands
Well-known member
No problems here, otherwise we wouldn't need to look at the fences:
http://www.montana.edu/cpa/news/nwview.php?article=3847
Mostly elk research here:
http://www.animalrangeextension.montana.edu/articles/wildlife/big_game_influences.htm
http://www.animalrangeextension.montana.edu/articles/wildlife/ranching_and_wildlife.htm
http://www.animalrangeextension.montana.edu/articles/wildlife/ranch_mon_pop.htm
There is even an excel workbook there so you can adjust your cow herd stocking rate for elk impact.
Not whitetail, but my resource is out of town for closing weekend
, so I can't get to the information until next week.
On another point, P Joe, if you need the phone number of an aquaintance of mine who had 800 head of cattle, and over 30 years of time lost due to TB spread from whitetails, let me know. I don't know if he will want to talk to you about the impacts that deer can sometimes have, but maybe he will. Rare-true, but very real.
Badlands
http://www.montana.edu/cpa/news/nwview.php?article=3847
Mostly elk research here:
http://www.animalrangeextension.montana.edu/articles/wildlife/big_game_influences.htm
http://www.animalrangeextension.montana.edu/articles/wildlife/ranching_and_wildlife.htm
http://www.animalrangeextension.montana.edu/articles/wildlife/ranch_mon_pop.htm
There is even an excel workbook there so you can adjust your cow herd stocking rate for elk impact.
Not whitetail, but my resource is out of town for closing weekend
, so I can't get to the information until next week.On another point, P Joe, if you need the phone number of an aquaintance of mine who had 800 head of cattle, and over 30 years of time lost due to TB spread from whitetails, let me know. I don't know if he will want to talk to you about the impacts that deer can sometimes have, but maybe he will. Rare-true, but very real.
Badlands
Badlands
Well-known member
Primarily elk:
Lacey, J.R., S.B. Laursen, J.C. Gilchrist, R.M. Brownson, J. Anzick, and S. Doggett. 1988. Eonomic and social implications of managing wildlife on private land in Montana. Northwest Sci. 62:1-9.
Documented Case History
Significance: Reduced wildlife depredation of private land forage will improve elk-cattle management by reducing pressure between livestock producers and wildlife enthusiasts. This study presents results of a survey of Montana private landowner views of fee hunting and/or other recreational activities provided on private land. The survey was designed to provide information that could be used in evaluating multiple-use management alternatives for private landowners.
Methods: One thousand randomly selected members of the Montana Stockgrowers Association received a self-administered mail-back questionnaire in April 1986. A second questionnaire was delivered two weeks later to landowners that did not respond to the first letter. Members of this Association were selected because their lands accounted for a majority of the lands in Montana where hunting occurred. The questionnaires were intended to analyze wildlife value perception by private landowners, and to determine the extent of consideration for wildlife habitat maintenance in land management decisions on private land. Regional trends were accounted for by dividing the state into 5 regions.
Results: The survey consisted of 526 respondents. Regional leasing activity to sportsman depended on the proportion of private land vs. public land, and the quantity of cropland. The northcentral region was comprised of 45% cropland resulting in less incentive to lease big game hunting. Only 3% of respondents increased leasing activity to sportsman between 1975 and 1985. However, during the same period 54% of respondents leased more than one-half of their land to hunters.
Elk were reported to occur on 30 ranches in the study and consumed a total of 576 AUMs of forage. Combined mule deer and elk utilization totaled 986 AUMs. Most respondents that provided elk hunting opportunity to sportsman reported $1,000 to $2,000 of total 1985 gross income. Elk and mule deer hunting opportunities were reported as the two activities that would realize the greatest economic return. However, hunting leases provided only 5% of the respondents total annual income, and only 8% of the lessees reported a 15% or greater return from hunting fees. There was great variation in the time hunters were allowed to hunt on a region-wide basis because of the informal manner in which leases were provided.
More than half of the respondents (57% ) used management practices to improve habitat. Additionally, 14% had established food and/or cover plantings or manipulated wetlands. Only 8% of the landowners that did not lease to sportsman were aware of habitat improvement practices that could be implemented on their property. Thirty-nine percent of the respondents felt that development of a certain number of hectares was necessary for creating sportsman opportunities on their land. Thirty-four percent of lessees felt that overall habitat quality would improve with leasing.
Implications: Wildlife populations were noted as increasingly threatened by expanding urban populations in the western United States. This problem was amplified as private landowners incurred the responsibility of managing increased numbers of wildlife inhabiting their lands. A proportion of landowners attempted to incorporate sustainable wildlife management into their private operations, however, a significant proportion did not. In this situation, wildlife were considered an economic burden as competitors with livestock for forage, and agents of destruction to crops and hayfields. Without proper incentive to provide for wildlife, quality of habitat will decline. Providing economic incentives to all landowners to promote cooperation between natural resource agencies, sportsman, and landowners is critical. In this survey, 90% of all respondents felt that landowners should be reimbursed for providing opportunities to sportsman. Lack of proper economic incentive for the landowner to improve wildlife habitat on private land would be detrimental to wildlife populations.
Lacey, J.R., K. Jamtgaard, L. Riggle, and T. Hayes. 1993. Impacts of big game on private land in southwestern Montana: Landowner perceptions. J. Range Manage. 46:31-37.
Documented Case History
Significance: Reduced wildlife depredation of private land forage should improve elk-cattle management indirectly by reducing tension among livestock producers and wildlife enthusiasts. Study of big-game numbers and exact costs incurred by private landowners will also direct management toward specific needs for improving wildlife-livestock management. This study reveals big game economic impacts sustained by private landowners and possible measures to reduce the impact.
Methods: Self-administered, mail-back questionnaires were sent to 858 rural landowners of 7 southwestern Montana counties in December 1989. The study area included. The intent of the survey was to estimate the impact of big game animals on private land. Possible error in response consisted of overestimated animal densities and duration of time spent on private lands. The impacts of big game grazing on hay and grain yield or long-term range productivity were not evaluated. A rate of $11.00/month supply of forage for a 455 kg animal was used to estimate the monetary value of forage harvested by big game. Respondent acceptance of non-monetary big-game benefits was summed using an index of intangible benefits. Four categories (enjoyment of big game occupancy, family hunting, hunting by friends, and other) comprised the index. Nonresponse bias was not evaluated, nor was nonrespondent analysis conducted to ensure that only actual response was statistically analyzed. Size of private landowner acreage was treated as a control variable.
Results: A 53% response rate of useful information was attained. Large landowners comprised a majority of the respondent population. Bureau of Land Management leases averaged 437 animal unit months (AUM) and 37% of the population while Forest Service leases averaged 1,082 AUMs and 32% of the population. State administered lands accounted for 33% of the leases. Agricultural income accounted for an average of 75% of total respondent income.
Half of the respondents reported significant elk use of private lands. Big game costs, before economic returns from hunting were incorporated, averaged $6,467 per landowner. Therefore, livestock/big game interactions were adverse because of economic impacts on private land relative to forage, soil, crop, and fence damage. Elk consumed the most forage (214 AUMs) of any big game species per landowner based on animal number, duration of private land occupancy, and animal size. The cost of forage consumed by big game averaged $5,616/landowner. Haystack damage was reported by 49% of the respondents with an average loss of 7.5 tons/landowner. Other costs associated with wildlife damage incurred by landowners included fencing and labor.
The net economic cost of big game per respondent, after economic returns from hunting were incorporated was $6,353. Four percent of landowners earned $1,000-$5,000 from hunting. Big game hunting on private lands totaled 227 days. The estimated value/day of hunting was estimated at $28. Consequently, landowners incurred a cost while providing benefits to hunters because costs associated with wildlife damage were more than income gained through hunting enterprises. Some landowners requested compensation for providing wildlife habitat and recreation.
A majority of landowners (70%) in operation for more than 10 years reported increases in whitetail deer and elk on their land. Landowners that owned large parcels of land reported more big game animals. Fewer animals were desired as the economic cost of big game increased. Fewer elk, antelope, whitetail deer, and mule deer were desired by 32%-44% of respondents. Landowners less dependant on agricultural income reported less economic impact by big game. Size of landholding and income from big game, however, were not useful explanatory variables of harmful effect on crop yields. Respondents with a high intangible value index for wildlife also reported less economic impact. Half of the respondents reported that they enjoyed big game occupancy on their lands.
Implications: Big game can adversely impact landowner income. However, hunting opportunities used by landowners can reduce economic impacts caused by big game while improving cooperation among landowners, sportsman, and resource management agencies. Additionally, big game utilization of private forage supports the need to increase forage quantity and improve winter forage quality on public ranges. Such measures will reduce the potential for landowners to be affected by wildlife damage.
Badlands
FWIW, the AUM cost here were calculated at $11/AUM. When I was home last year the AUM cost was $25-$30/AUM. Costs to landowners at those rates would be $12763 and $15316. Hunters--Bring the checkbook!!!!!!
Lacey, J.R., S.B. Laursen, J.C. Gilchrist, R.M. Brownson, J. Anzick, and S. Doggett. 1988. Eonomic and social implications of managing wildlife on private land in Montana. Northwest Sci. 62:1-9.
Documented Case History
Significance: Reduced wildlife depredation of private land forage will improve elk-cattle management by reducing pressure between livestock producers and wildlife enthusiasts. This study presents results of a survey of Montana private landowner views of fee hunting and/or other recreational activities provided on private land. The survey was designed to provide information that could be used in evaluating multiple-use management alternatives for private landowners.
Methods: One thousand randomly selected members of the Montana Stockgrowers Association received a self-administered mail-back questionnaire in April 1986. A second questionnaire was delivered two weeks later to landowners that did not respond to the first letter. Members of this Association were selected because their lands accounted for a majority of the lands in Montana where hunting occurred. The questionnaires were intended to analyze wildlife value perception by private landowners, and to determine the extent of consideration for wildlife habitat maintenance in land management decisions on private land. Regional trends were accounted for by dividing the state into 5 regions.
Results: The survey consisted of 526 respondents. Regional leasing activity to sportsman depended on the proportion of private land vs. public land, and the quantity of cropland. The northcentral region was comprised of 45% cropland resulting in less incentive to lease big game hunting. Only 3% of respondents increased leasing activity to sportsman between 1975 and 1985. However, during the same period 54% of respondents leased more than one-half of their land to hunters.
Elk were reported to occur on 30 ranches in the study and consumed a total of 576 AUMs of forage. Combined mule deer and elk utilization totaled 986 AUMs. Most respondents that provided elk hunting opportunity to sportsman reported $1,000 to $2,000 of total 1985 gross income. Elk and mule deer hunting opportunities were reported as the two activities that would realize the greatest economic return. However, hunting leases provided only 5% of the respondents total annual income, and only 8% of the lessees reported a 15% or greater return from hunting fees. There was great variation in the time hunters were allowed to hunt on a region-wide basis because of the informal manner in which leases were provided.
More than half of the respondents (57% ) used management practices to improve habitat. Additionally, 14% had established food and/or cover plantings or manipulated wetlands. Only 8% of the landowners that did not lease to sportsman were aware of habitat improvement practices that could be implemented on their property. Thirty-nine percent of the respondents felt that development of a certain number of hectares was necessary for creating sportsman opportunities on their land. Thirty-four percent of lessees felt that overall habitat quality would improve with leasing.
Implications: Wildlife populations were noted as increasingly threatened by expanding urban populations in the western United States. This problem was amplified as private landowners incurred the responsibility of managing increased numbers of wildlife inhabiting their lands. A proportion of landowners attempted to incorporate sustainable wildlife management into their private operations, however, a significant proportion did not. In this situation, wildlife were considered an economic burden as competitors with livestock for forage, and agents of destruction to crops and hayfields. Without proper incentive to provide for wildlife, quality of habitat will decline. Providing economic incentives to all landowners to promote cooperation between natural resource agencies, sportsman, and landowners is critical. In this survey, 90% of all respondents felt that landowners should be reimbursed for providing opportunities to sportsman. Lack of proper economic incentive for the landowner to improve wildlife habitat on private land would be detrimental to wildlife populations.
Lacey, J.R., K. Jamtgaard, L. Riggle, and T. Hayes. 1993. Impacts of big game on private land in southwestern Montana: Landowner perceptions. J. Range Manage. 46:31-37.
Documented Case History
Significance: Reduced wildlife depredation of private land forage should improve elk-cattle management indirectly by reducing tension among livestock producers and wildlife enthusiasts. Study of big-game numbers and exact costs incurred by private landowners will also direct management toward specific needs for improving wildlife-livestock management. This study reveals big game economic impacts sustained by private landowners and possible measures to reduce the impact.
Methods: Self-administered, mail-back questionnaires were sent to 858 rural landowners of 7 southwestern Montana counties in December 1989. The study area included. The intent of the survey was to estimate the impact of big game animals on private land. Possible error in response consisted of overestimated animal densities and duration of time spent on private lands. The impacts of big game grazing on hay and grain yield or long-term range productivity were not evaluated. A rate of $11.00/month supply of forage for a 455 kg animal was used to estimate the monetary value of forage harvested by big game. Respondent acceptance of non-monetary big-game benefits was summed using an index of intangible benefits. Four categories (enjoyment of big game occupancy, family hunting, hunting by friends, and other) comprised the index. Nonresponse bias was not evaluated, nor was nonrespondent analysis conducted to ensure that only actual response was statistically analyzed. Size of private landowner acreage was treated as a control variable.
Results: A 53% response rate of useful information was attained. Large landowners comprised a majority of the respondent population. Bureau of Land Management leases averaged 437 animal unit months (AUM) and 37% of the population while Forest Service leases averaged 1,082 AUMs and 32% of the population. State administered lands accounted for 33% of the leases. Agricultural income accounted for an average of 75% of total respondent income.
Half of the respondents reported significant elk use of private lands. Big game costs, before economic returns from hunting were incorporated, averaged $6,467 per landowner. Therefore, livestock/big game interactions were adverse because of economic impacts on private land relative to forage, soil, crop, and fence damage. Elk consumed the most forage (214 AUMs) of any big game species per landowner based on animal number, duration of private land occupancy, and animal size. The cost of forage consumed by big game averaged $5,616/landowner. Haystack damage was reported by 49% of the respondents with an average loss of 7.5 tons/landowner. Other costs associated with wildlife damage incurred by landowners included fencing and labor.
The net economic cost of big game per respondent, after economic returns from hunting were incorporated was $6,353. Four percent of landowners earned $1,000-$5,000 from hunting. Big game hunting on private lands totaled 227 days. The estimated value/day of hunting was estimated at $28. Consequently, landowners incurred a cost while providing benefits to hunters because costs associated with wildlife damage were more than income gained through hunting enterprises. Some landowners requested compensation for providing wildlife habitat and recreation.
A majority of landowners (70%) in operation for more than 10 years reported increases in whitetail deer and elk on their land. Landowners that owned large parcels of land reported more big game animals. Fewer animals were desired as the economic cost of big game increased. Fewer elk, antelope, whitetail deer, and mule deer were desired by 32%-44% of respondents. Landowners less dependant on agricultural income reported less economic impact by big game. Size of landholding and income from big game, however, were not useful explanatory variables of harmful effect on crop yields. Respondents with a high intangible value index for wildlife also reported less economic impact. Half of the respondents reported that they enjoyed big game occupancy on their lands.
Implications: Big game can adversely impact landowner income. However, hunting opportunities used by landowners can reduce economic impacts caused by big game while improving cooperation among landowners, sportsman, and resource management agencies. Additionally, big game utilization of private forage supports the need to increase forage quantity and improve winter forage quality on public ranges. Such measures will reduce the potential for landowners to be affected by wildlife damage.
Badlands
FWIW, the AUM cost here were calculated at $11/AUM. When I was home last year the AUM cost was $25-$30/AUM. Costs to landowners at those rates would be $12763 and $15316. Hunters--Bring the checkbook!!!!!!
Happy go lucky
Well-known member
Badlands wrote:
On another point, P Joe, if you need the phone number of an aquaintance of mine who had 800 head of cattle, and over 30 years of time lost due to TB spread from whitetails, let me know. I don't know if he will want to talk to you about the impacts that deer can sometimes have, but maybe he will. Rare-true, but very real.
Please read the following and how the deer that have tested positive got BOVINE TB. Also note only 8 prior to 1994 ever being reported. I guess your friend lives in michigan?
Tuberculosis (TB) is a serious disease caused by several bacteria that mainly affect the respiratory system. Three main types are Mycobacterium tuberculosis, M. avian, and M. bovis. The first of these infects primarily humans, the second infects birds, but the third can infect many warm blooded animals, including humans.
TB was once relatively common in cattle in the U.S., but most states (including Michigan) are now certified "TB free" by the U.S. Dept. of Ag. (USDA). This provides important economic benefits to agriculture producers who can avoid costly quarantine and testing of livestock and ship their livestock freely to markets in and out of their home state. The value of this certification to Michigan has been estimated in the millions of dollars annually.
TB has historically been a rare disease in wild, free ranging deer. Prior to 1994, only 8 wild white-tailed or mule deer have been reported with TB in North America. One of those was a deer taken by a hunter in Michigan in 1975. In 1994, another infected male deer was shot by a hunter in Alpena County, MI. The 1994 finding caused the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) to examine over 3000 deer killed by hunters in a 4 county area from 1995 through 1996. It appears that 2% of the deer herd in the center of that 4 county area may be infected with M. bovis. Deer killed by automobiles and by hunters in the rest of the state were also examined and it appears the disease is currently restricted to the 4 counties, although 1 infected deer was found just outside the 4 county area.
The USDA did a risk assessment of the situation with the limited data available. If nothing is done, the risk of transmission to either livestock or humans is low, but increases substantially over 25 years. For example, their report estimated the probability of a cow becoming infected sometime over the next 25 years to be 5%. If the number of deer could be reduced by 10% and the probability of transmission among deer by 50%, the probability of spreading to cattle drops to .001 or .1%.
Some risk to humans also exists. Hunters and meat processors who handle deer could become infected with the disease. However, the risk is probably low. The USDA report concluded that "...the likelihood of active disease and other long-term outcomes from human infection with M. bovis is very difficult to predict."
A statewide committee was established to investigate the situation and make recommendations to the Directors of the state's Departments of Public Health, Agriculture and Natural Resources regarding a response to the problem. Representatives are included from each of the state agencies, including experts in veterinarian medicine, public health and wildlife science. Public stakeholders include recreational landowners and farm producers from the 4 county area. A wildlife specialist from the Michigan United Conservation Clubs (MUCC) represents hunters statewide. The Committee had no way of knowing where the TB originally got into the wild deer population. Two possibilities are (1) from infected cattle over 40 years ago before TB free certification was achieved by the livestock industry, or (2) from a deer released by one of the hunt clubs to improve genetic stock in the wild herd. However it originated, given that TB is extremely rare and has never been documented as an endemic infection in any free ranging wild deer herd in North America, the Committee investigated what unique features of the 4 county area might be maintaining and spreading the disease in this deer population.
Although the area supports agriculture - both livestock and grain production - soil quality varies widely in the area and many of the regions with poor soils were purchased as recreational hunting lands. Many of these purchases created large land holdings of several thousand acres which were used as hunt clubs, primarily deer hunting. Land values have increased in the area because of its reputation as a desirable region for deer hunting. To supplement natural habitat and help deer through difficult winters, a tradition evolved to feed deer artificially during the winter. This has two effects. First, for years it has maintained an artificially high deer density (perhaps 60 deer/sq. mi). However, as a result of the past two very severe winters and a very liberal hunting season in 1996, the population has dropped to about 30 deer/ sq. mi. Deer hunters, tourist-related business owners and recreational landowners in the region are already unhappy about this significant drop in deer numbers. Second, winter feeding concentrated the deer in large numbers during the winter for extended periods of time while they fed. The Committee has hypothesized that this combination of factors has created the opportunity for TB to be maintained and spread in the population.
Although the presence of TB in deer presents a risk to humans who may handle the deer and to the livestock industry in the state, it doesn't seem to be a major cause of mortality among deer. Thus far, deer have not been found dying of advanced stages of the disease. Of course, this could be for many reasons. Sick deer and dead deer may be quickly consumed by coyotes and other predators and scavengers in the area. Still, no precipitous decline in deer numbers seems associated with the presence of the TB so far.
One dead coyote which had bovine TB was found in winter of 1997, but it has not been found in any other species so far. It does not appear that there is a "reservoir host" of wildlife which would keep reinfecting wild deer in the region, although that has not been conclusively established. Monitoring of wildlife to look for spillover into other wildlife species is continuing.
The MDNR has entered into a very expensive monitoring of deer killed by hunters and automobiles to determine the extent of the disease among deer. Cost of the testing for 1996 was several hundred thousand dollars and consumed a substantial portion of the Wildlife Division budget for the year. A complete testing program of all livestock in the infected area has also been initiated by the Mi Dept of Agriculture (MDA). The testing is "free" for farmers, but they must incur the considerable cost in time and effort of handling each of their animals on two different days for injection of serum and observation of reactions.
Spread of the disease outside the four county area might have been restricted by the public lands which surround the infected region. Winter feeding doesn't occur on those lands and the hunting pressure is much higher so that deer densities have traditionally been lower. So far, the 4 county area might be somewhat of an "island". However, a wild elk herd range extends into the infected region. If elk were to pick up the disease, not only would another valuable wildlife resource be threatened, but the risk to livestock would be increased. Elk travel further and are more likely to mingle and feed with cattle. The travel patterns might escalate the risk of TB moving outside the four county area into other regions where winter feeding and deer baiting during hunting season might maintain the disease in other regions of the state.
Based on its deliberations, the Committee has drafted a set of recommendations to the directors of the three state agencies that the deer numbers not be allowed to increase in the four county area and that legislative authority be sought to prohibit aritificial feeding of deer by private landowners and homeowners in the region. It was also recommended that baiting as a hunting technique be halted, something the MDNR already has authority to do without seeking legislation. The hunt club representatives voted against the recommendations. Among their arguments were ...
a number of deer would starve each winter,
TB would continue to exist no matter how low the deer population density got,
it is possible to feed deer in the winter so that they are not concentrated nose to nose,
the state should not be able to tell a landowner what they can do on their own land regarding feeding of wildlife
residents would voluntarily stop feeding deer - or feed them "correctly" - if they understood the situation; it didn't have to be regulated.
The farmers also voted against the recommendations and surprisingly gave some of the same arguments although their greatest concern was apparently the loss of individual property that they found represented in the law restricting winter feeding on private lands. The farm producers and hunt club representatives wrote and submitted a minority report expressing their objection to the recommendations of the committee.
Public meetings were held around the state for input. Although opinions of the public outside the four county area varied widely, a majority were concerned about the risks to their own recreation, economic well being, etc. if the disease were not eradicated or at least contained in the four county area.
On another point, P Joe, if you need the phone number of an aquaintance of mine who had 800 head of cattle, and over 30 years of time lost due to TB spread from whitetails, let me know. I don't know if he will want to talk to you about the impacts that deer can sometimes have, but maybe he will. Rare-true, but very real.
Please read the following and how the deer that have tested positive got BOVINE TB. Also note only 8 prior to 1994 ever being reported. I guess your friend lives in michigan?
Tuberculosis (TB) is a serious disease caused by several bacteria that mainly affect the respiratory system. Three main types are Mycobacterium tuberculosis, M. avian, and M. bovis. The first of these infects primarily humans, the second infects birds, but the third can infect many warm blooded animals, including humans.
TB was once relatively common in cattle in the U.S., but most states (including Michigan) are now certified "TB free" by the U.S. Dept. of Ag. (USDA). This provides important economic benefits to agriculture producers who can avoid costly quarantine and testing of livestock and ship their livestock freely to markets in and out of their home state. The value of this certification to Michigan has been estimated in the millions of dollars annually.
TB has historically been a rare disease in wild, free ranging deer. Prior to 1994, only 8 wild white-tailed or mule deer have been reported with TB in North America. One of those was a deer taken by a hunter in Michigan in 1975. In 1994, another infected male deer was shot by a hunter in Alpena County, MI. The 1994 finding caused the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) to examine over 3000 deer killed by hunters in a 4 county area from 1995 through 1996. It appears that 2% of the deer herd in the center of that 4 county area may be infected with M. bovis. Deer killed by automobiles and by hunters in the rest of the state were also examined and it appears the disease is currently restricted to the 4 counties, although 1 infected deer was found just outside the 4 county area.
The USDA did a risk assessment of the situation with the limited data available. If nothing is done, the risk of transmission to either livestock or humans is low, but increases substantially over 25 years. For example, their report estimated the probability of a cow becoming infected sometime over the next 25 years to be 5%. If the number of deer could be reduced by 10% and the probability of transmission among deer by 50%, the probability of spreading to cattle drops to .001 or .1%.
Some risk to humans also exists. Hunters and meat processors who handle deer could become infected with the disease. However, the risk is probably low. The USDA report concluded that "...the likelihood of active disease and other long-term outcomes from human infection with M. bovis is very difficult to predict."
A statewide committee was established to investigate the situation and make recommendations to the Directors of the state's Departments of Public Health, Agriculture and Natural Resources regarding a response to the problem. Representatives are included from each of the state agencies, including experts in veterinarian medicine, public health and wildlife science. Public stakeholders include recreational landowners and farm producers from the 4 county area. A wildlife specialist from the Michigan United Conservation Clubs (MUCC) represents hunters statewide. The Committee had no way of knowing where the TB originally got into the wild deer population. Two possibilities are (1) from infected cattle over 40 years ago before TB free certification was achieved by the livestock industry, or (2) from a deer released by one of the hunt clubs to improve genetic stock in the wild herd. However it originated, given that TB is extremely rare and has never been documented as an endemic infection in any free ranging wild deer herd in North America, the Committee investigated what unique features of the 4 county area might be maintaining and spreading the disease in this deer population.
Although the area supports agriculture - both livestock and grain production - soil quality varies widely in the area and many of the regions with poor soils were purchased as recreational hunting lands. Many of these purchases created large land holdings of several thousand acres which were used as hunt clubs, primarily deer hunting. Land values have increased in the area because of its reputation as a desirable region for deer hunting. To supplement natural habitat and help deer through difficult winters, a tradition evolved to feed deer artificially during the winter. This has two effects. First, for years it has maintained an artificially high deer density (perhaps 60 deer/sq. mi). However, as a result of the past two very severe winters and a very liberal hunting season in 1996, the population has dropped to about 30 deer/ sq. mi. Deer hunters, tourist-related business owners and recreational landowners in the region are already unhappy about this significant drop in deer numbers. Second, winter feeding concentrated the deer in large numbers during the winter for extended periods of time while they fed. The Committee has hypothesized that this combination of factors has created the opportunity for TB to be maintained and spread in the population.
Although the presence of TB in deer presents a risk to humans who may handle the deer and to the livestock industry in the state, it doesn't seem to be a major cause of mortality among deer. Thus far, deer have not been found dying of advanced stages of the disease. Of course, this could be for many reasons. Sick deer and dead deer may be quickly consumed by coyotes and other predators and scavengers in the area. Still, no precipitous decline in deer numbers seems associated with the presence of the TB so far.
One dead coyote which had bovine TB was found in winter of 1997, but it has not been found in any other species so far. It does not appear that there is a "reservoir host" of wildlife which would keep reinfecting wild deer in the region, although that has not been conclusively established. Monitoring of wildlife to look for spillover into other wildlife species is continuing.
The MDNR has entered into a very expensive monitoring of deer killed by hunters and automobiles to determine the extent of the disease among deer. Cost of the testing for 1996 was several hundred thousand dollars and consumed a substantial portion of the Wildlife Division budget for the year. A complete testing program of all livestock in the infected area has also been initiated by the Mi Dept of Agriculture (MDA). The testing is "free" for farmers, but they must incur the considerable cost in time and effort of handling each of their animals on two different days for injection of serum and observation of reactions.
Spread of the disease outside the four county area might have been restricted by the public lands which surround the infected region. Winter feeding doesn't occur on those lands and the hunting pressure is much higher so that deer densities have traditionally been lower. So far, the 4 county area might be somewhat of an "island". However, a wild elk herd range extends into the infected region. If elk were to pick up the disease, not only would another valuable wildlife resource be threatened, but the risk to livestock would be increased. Elk travel further and are more likely to mingle and feed with cattle. The travel patterns might escalate the risk of TB moving outside the four county area into other regions where winter feeding and deer baiting during hunting season might maintain the disease in other regions of the state.
Based on its deliberations, the Committee has drafted a set of recommendations to the directors of the three state agencies that the deer numbers not be allowed to increase in the four county area and that legislative authority be sought to prohibit aritificial feeding of deer by private landowners and homeowners in the region. It was also recommended that baiting as a hunting technique be halted, something the MDNR already has authority to do without seeking legislation. The hunt club representatives voted against the recommendations. Among their arguments were ...
a number of deer would starve each winter,
TB would continue to exist no matter how low the deer population density got,
it is possible to feed deer in the winter so that they are not concentrated nose to nose,
the state should not be able to tell a landowner what they can do on their own land regarding feeding of wildlife
residents would voluntarily stop feeding deer - or feed them "correctly" - if they understood the situation; it didn't have to be regulated.
The farmers also voted against the recommendations and surprisingly gave some of the same arguments although their greatest concern was apparently the loss of individual property that they found represented in the law restricting winter feeding on private lands. The farm producers and hunt club representatives wrote and submitted a minority report expressing their objection to the recommendations of the committee.
Public meetings were held around the state for input. Although opinions of the public outside the four county area varied widely, a majority were concerned about the risks to their own recreation, economic well being, etc. if the disease were not eradicated or at least contained in the four county area.
P Joe
Well-known member
Ok, badlands, lets do some figuring. Please keep in mind I'm not against you, only trying to work with you to put a value on what it does cost to raise the wildlife.
I think the best estimate I seen in those articles was $11/month for an elk. So lets say it cost $2.75/month for a deer. I came up with that number by this. Lets say an averege male elk weighs 1000 pounds and an average male deer weighs 250 pounds. That would be 4 deer to one elk. Hense 2.75 is 25% of 11. Maybe those numbers are high, but I'm rounding for sake of simplicty.
So it would cost a rancher $33 dollars a year to feed one deer. Can we agree on that??
If so can we also agree that the average size ranch for SD is 6000 acres?? I know Montana may be bigger, but this mainly concerns SD since the topic is SD Lockout.
Can we also agree that the average ranch has 100 deer on it at any given time?
With those numbers it would cost that rancher $3300/year to support the deer.
I don't think that is a whole lot in a year value but I believe that can add up in the grand scheme of things. But there are ways to recoupe that lost value.
Lets say that GF&P will pay you $3 an acre for walk-in public hunting. The rancher could put just 1100 acres in to public walk in and make it a wash. I am not for sure on the $3, just guessing on that since I do not live there, but that number is low for where I am. GF&P will post the signs of where the public starts and ends at no cost to the rancher. The rancher can still graze this land, but must leave sufficent habbitat to support the wildlife and hunting.
Your articles also led me to believe that Montana's ranchers and their GF&P have a good working relationship. That is something our SD ranchers and GF&P lack. I blame both sides for this problem. I blame John Cooper, because of his pig headedness and I blame the ranchers who refuse to try to work out their differences with GF&P because they got burnt.
You see, there are programs and ways to offset the damage done by wildlife within our GF&P current guidelines. That is why I don't understand this point that some of these ranchers are trying to make.
I understand that some GF&P officers were rude. But why not spend the energy on removing those officers from their job? They have most of the sates support on that point. But why start this lockout group whose purpose is more than just that one point? Points which not the whole state agress with.
I don't understand why ranchers expect the state to pay them for wildlife, but not be expected to allow public hunting. I don't understand why the ranchers should designate who and who doesn't get a deer license. I agree 100% that they can say who can and can't hunt deer on their land. I understand their point about GF&P driving across their land to see IF hunting is occuring. I don't understand what the big deal is if GF&P drives across their land after witnessing from a public place, a person shooting a deer to check licenses. I understand their point that that could be eliminated by doing more check points. But I believe GF&P still needs that athority in cases where GF&P witnesses a direct violation of the law. I believe that any officer caught abusing that power should be removed. I believe that this mess is only going to get worse unless some cooperation occurs on both sides.
Sorry to sound like Larry the cable guy there :lol: , but those are just my thoughts. I "Believe" you will let me know if I am wrong.
I think the best estimate I seen in those articles was $11/month for an elk. So lets say it cost $2.75/month for a deer. I came up with that number by this. Lets say an averege male elk weighs 1000 pounds and an average male deer weighs 250 pounds. That would be 4 deer to one elk. Hense 2.75 is 25% of 11. Maybe those numbers are high, but I'm rounding for sake of simplicty.
So it would cost a rancher $33 dollars a year to feed one deer. Can we agree on that??
If so can we also agree that the average size ranch for SD is 6000 acres?? I know Montana may be bigger, but this mainly concerns SD since the topic is SD Lockout.
Can we also agree that the average ranch has 100 deer on it at any given time?
With those numbers it would cost that rancher $3300/year to support the deer.
I don't think that is a whole lot in a year value but I believe that can add up in the grand scheme of things. But there are ways to recoupe that lost value.
Lets say that GF&P will pay you $3 an acre for walk-in public hunting. The rancher could put just 1100 acres in to public walk in and make it a wash. I am not for sure on the $3, just guessing on that since I do not live there, but that number is low for where I am. GF&P will post the signs of where the public starts and ends at no cost to the rancher. The rancher can still graze this land, but must leave sufficent habbitat to support the wildlife and hunting.
Your articles also led me to believe that Montana's ranchers and their GF&P have a good working relationship. That is something our SD ranchers and GF&P lack. I blame both sides for this problem. I blame John Cooper, because of his pig headedness and I blame the ranchers who refuse to try to work out their differences with GF&P because they got burnt.
You see, there are programs and ways to offset the damage done by wildlife within our GF&P current guidelines. That is why I don't understand this point that some of these ranchers are trying to make.
I understand that some GF&P officers were rude. But why not spend the energy on removing those officers from their job? They have most of the sates support on that point. But why start this lockout group whose purpose is more than just that one point? Points which not the whole state agress with.
I don't understand why ranchers expect the state to pay them for wildlife, but not be expected to allow public hunting. I don't understand why the ranchers should designate who and who doesn't get a deer license. I agree 100% that they can say who can and can't hunt deer on their land. I understand their point about GF&P driving across their land to see IF hunting is occuring. I don't understand what the big deal is if GF&P drives across their land after witnessing from a public place, a person shooting a deer to check licenses. I understand their point that that could be eliminated by doing more check points. But I believe GF&P still needs that athority in cases where GF&P witnesses a direct violation of the law. I believe that any officer caught abusing that power should be removed. I believe that this mess is only going to get worse unless some cooperation occurs on both sides.
Sorry to sound like Larry the cable guy there :lol: , but those are just my thoughts. I "Believe" you will let me know if I am wrong.
P Joe
Well-known member
Badlands said:
I didn't see this until I reread your post, but I don't see the logic in making someone pay a fee to save you money. If you truly believe that Elk or what ever cost you 12 to 15 thousand dollars, then YOU should be paying hunters to take them away.
If something was costing me that much, I'd shoot them myself AND glady let anyone else shoot them. I'd hire hunters to shoot them if that's what it came too. I'd advertise in the paper for it.
Sounds a little greedy to me if you expect to be paid on top of it all. Please someone else chime in here. I can't be the only one who thinks that this is insane.
Badlands
Well-known member
P Joe:
From your posts, I gather than you own land. I suspect that it is either land purchased with money froman outside job, or possibly it may be "family" land that came through your family, but to you after a period of time with you working away from the land. I sense that you never made your living from the land that you own. Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but that is the sense I get.
So, maybe you are a business man of some sort. If you are a farmer, or a business man then you understand what a sunk cost is. It is an expense paid forthat you cannot recover. In a sense, supporting the grazing of deer is a sunk cost. The exact difference being that the rancher didn't actually spend money(unless the animals were destroying haystacks), but he did contribute value in terms of lost income. Sunk costs are considered unrecoverable.
So, if he pays someone to come hunt, he is acruing sunk costs plus the payment he gives; he paid twice. Not wise.
But, if hunters bring the checkbook, he actually recovers some of his sunk costs, so he is closer to a "wash" or he might make some money.
Why pay twice when he can recover some costs that he normally wouldn't? I understand your point, but what you are forgetting is that we are also dealing with human emotions in regards to ownership of the land. Plain and simple, I doubt for any cost you will let me hunt squirrels on your lawn in town, even if I did it in a manner that ensured public safety. It is your land. This land is the ranchers.
As to the costs of supporting the deer, you don't have the ability to understand the ranchers economics, so you don't get it. Let's say 6000 acres, and 30 acres to run a cow for a year. That is a 200 cow outfit. In my country it takes 45 acres, in some parts of NW SD, it takes 20, so I'll call it 30. It costs about $350/cow to operate a ranch using averages based on SPA data. With a 92% conception rate, and a 95% calving rate, we can then sell 175 calves per year based on how many cows were bred the year before. These numbers are actually higher than average, so I am assuming the rancher is a good manager.
So, that is $70,000 in cost. He keeps 40 replacement heifers, so he can sell 135 calves. Say, 550 pounds. At .90 per pound, he takes in $495 per head. So, on a tough year, he takes in $145 is he is an ABOVE AVERAGE MANAGER. That is $19575. And he worked around 3,000 hours to earn it. And you want him to give up 15% of his income for naught? It looks better on good years, of course. But until you understand the bad, you simply don't get it. And realize, I used averages in this argument. Most guys lost money through the late '90's. So, for most people in a down market, this $3000 you want to attribute to them is actually on top of the loss they already incurred.
Since you are a land owner, you should know this, but you don't. That is a very telling clue.
Badlands
From your posts, I gather than you own land. I suspect that it is either land purchased with money froman outside job, or possibly it may be "family" land that came through your family, but to you after a period of time with you working away from the land. I sense that you never made your living from the land that you own. Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but that is the sense I get.
So, maybe you are a business man of some sort. If you are a farmer, or a business man then you understand what a sunk cost is. It is an expense paid forthat you cannot recover. In a sense, supporting the grazing of deer is a sunk cost. The exact difference being that the rancher didn't actually spend money(unless the animals were destroying haystacks), but he did contribute value in terms of lost income. Sunk costs are considered unrecoverable.
So, if he pays someone to come hunt, he is acruing sunk costs plus the payment he gives; he paid twice. Not wise.
But, if hunters bring the checkbook, he actually recovers some of his sunk costs, so he is closer to a "wash" or he might make some money.
Why pay twice when he can recover some costs that he normally wouldn't? I understand your point, but what you are forgetting is that we are also dealing with human emotions in regards to ownership of the land. Plain and simple, I doubt for any cost you will let me hunt squirrels on your lawn in town, even if I did it in a manner that ensured public safety. It is your land. This land is the ranchers.
As to the costs of supporting the deer, you don't have the ability to understand the ranchers economics, so you don't get it. Let's say 6000 acres, and 30 acres to run a cow for a year. That is a 200 cow outfit. In my country it takes 45 acres, in some parts of NW SD, it takes 20, so I'll call it 30. It costs about $350/cow to operate a ranch using averages based on SPA data. With a 92% conception rate, and a 95% calving rate, we can then sell 175 calves per year based on how many cows were bred the year before. These numbers are actually higher than average, so I am assuming the rancher is a good manager.
So, that is $70,000 in cost. He keeps 40 replacement heifers, so he can sell 135 calves. Say, 550 pounds. At .90 per pound, he takes in $495 per head. So, on a tough year, he takes in $145 is he is an ABOVE AVERAGE MANAGER. That is $19575. And he worked around 3,000 hours to earn it. And you want him to give up 15% of his income for naught? It looks better on good years, of course. But until you understand the bad, you simply don't get it. And realize, I used averages in this argument. Most guys lost money through the late '90's. So, for most people in a down market, this $3000 you want to attribute to them is actually on top of the loss they already incurred.
Since you are a land owner, you should know this, but you don't. That is a very telling clue.
Badlands
Mike
Well-known member
Leasing out hunting ground or taking in pay hunters is the only way some ranchers can survive down here.
One problem though. It's getting so lucrative that lawyers and doctors are buying big sections of land and driving the price up.
Just the hunting rights on a place I know of rents for $30 an acre. :???:
One problem though. It's getting so lucrative that lawyers and doctors are buying big sections of land and driving the price up.
Just the hunting rights on a place I know of rents for $30 an acre. :???:
P Joe
Well-known member
Badlands,
I understand your numbers. But wouldn't those numbers already include the loss from the deer? Since you say that ranchers adjust their herd according to the deer populations. So my $3300 or your $15,000 would be included.
I don't argue the point that deer take RESOURCES away from the rancher. But it is resources not cash out of pocket. AND yes I understand that that idea can translate into cash out of pocket. But I view it no different than deciding to sell calves a week earlier or later. That can have more impact on the bottom line then anything.
What I am trying to get at is I would think deer would be viewed as a liability to your ranching management and not an asset. In which case, how does that justify $1500 to $2500 per animal, when the rancher is getting something in return as well? I wouldn't mine giving the rancher a little something for letting me on his land. But $1500 buys a lot of good steaks. Why should anyone spend that on a deer? Same thing with prairie dogs. They could charge people to shoot them, but they don't. They have to get rid of them, or they will expand.
I know of this dairy operation that kinda went thru the same thing. When they first started, they built a big lagoon to hold all of the manure for a year. This operation did not have near enough land to spread the manure on. But he was selling this manure to the neighbors to spread on their land. It was a win/win situation since the neighbors got cheap ferterlizer and the operation got rid or their manure. BUT the operation kept charging more and more for the manure and pretty soon the neighbors got tired of paying it. So all of the neighbors quit buying. What do you think happened after a year or so went by. The neighbors got FREE ferterlizer. Moral: Don't get too greedy.
I see the same thing happening out there. This hunting thing is a fad. People will get tired of paying that much for it. The ones in the lockout have already begun to complain about the explosion of the deer population. Some of them are letting does be shot. And when more and more people figure this idea out, the RANCHERS are going to be faced with a problem. It's not costing me money to sit this mess out. But is has to be costing them.
I understand your numbers. But wouldn't those numbers already include the loss from the deer? Since you say that ranchers adjust their herd according to the deer populations. So my $3300 or your $15,000 would be included.
I don't argue the point that deer take RESOURCES away from the rancher. But it is resources not cash out of pocket. AND yes I understand that that idea can translate into cash out of pocket. But I view it no different than deciding to sell calves a week earlier or later. That can have more impact on the bottom line then anything.
What I am trying to get at is I would think deer would be viewed as a liability to your ranching management and not an asset. In which case, how does that justify $1500 to $2500 per animal, when the rancher is getting something in return as well? I wouldn't mine giving the rancher a little something for letting me on his land. But $1500 buys a lot of good steaks. Why should anyone spend that on a deer? Same thing with prairie dogs. They could charge people to shoot them, but they don't. They have to get rid of them, or they will expand.
I know of this dairy operation that kinda went thru the same thing. When they first started, they built a big lagoon to hold all of the manure for a year. This operation did not have near enough land to spread the manure on. But he was selling this manure to the neighbors to spread on their land. It was a win/win situation since the neighbors got cheap ferterlizer and the operation got rid or their manure. BUT the operation kept charging more and more for the manure and pretty soon the neighbors got tired of paying it. So all of the neighbors quit buying. What do you think happened after a year or so went by. The neighbors got FREE ferterlizer. Moral: Don't get too greedy.
I see the same thing happening out there. This hunting thing is a fad. People will get tired of paying that much for it. The ones in the lockout have already begun to complain about the explosion of the deer population. Some of them are letting does be shot. And when more and more people figure this idea out, the RANCHERS are going to be faced with a problem. It's not costing me money to sit this mess out. But is has to be costing them.
P Joe
Well-known member
Mike said:
I'm sorry but if you can't make it on what your operation is bringing in, Why are you still doing it????????????
My wife wouldn't go to work every day if the gas cost her more than what she made while at work.
the_jersey_lilly_2000
Well-known member
P Joe said:
I've pretty much stayed out of this conversation so far, but this comment just struck me as kinda funny. Your sayin Mike shouldn't be ranchin if he supplements his income with pay hunters, and what is your wife doin??? Supplementing your income with a job in town.........(nothin wrong with your wife workin) that's not the point I'm making, just pointin out that any supplemental income comin into a ranch is helpful.
katrina
Well-known member
I agree Lilly, What works for some doesn't work for others and we shouldn't judge. I do get tired of cleaning up after turkeys on the silage pile and ground hay.... Man they are a dirty bird........
Happy go lucky
Well-known member
lb:You've lost me here, Happy. Kindly explain to me how letting you hunt on my property is going to lower my property taxes? Ranchers here see NO tax breaks or any benefits of any kind for raising the public's wildlife or from hosting hunters, unless they go to pay hunting. And if they are willing to do that, they have to be willing to turn their property rights over to abuse by GF&P, a fact that stops most of us from going that route.
What state do you live in anyway? Heck, maybe you should tell us what planet you're from!
If your state or mine has to use general funds to help support wildlife or the game depts in many facets your going to see higher taxes, you can call it whatever tax you want they will go up. Pitt/roberston money goes to ALL states and the game depts count on and need that revenue to keep every tax payer from not having to pay more into there wildlife depts.
You don't get that reguardless of any outcome wildlife will always need to be controlled and watched over for many reasons. Spread of diseases,depredation,esthectic value and recreation. Many small towns across the US make money from hunters, also many states make general fund dollars from motel taxes,grocerys,gasoline, resteraunts etc. In some states this would have less impact than others, but some small towns and governments would see and feel the impact if hunting where say cut in half or better and you would have higher taxes. Not to mention more spread of dangerous diseases. Look at in Texas when they had a rabies outbreak and look at the many states that keep and eye on public saftey in dealing with disease issues in wildlife, those funds come from sportsman, not all but a big% of them, without that your taxes would go up!
We are loosing one of the cheapest and most effective means of wildlife control ie: Hunters who pay many ways to enjoy there pursuit at no cost to the taxpayers and pay to help assure viable wildlife. We losse a % each year and we need to keep more people,YOUNG people interested in hunting or down the road things will get more exspensive.
Where not going to do this by charging a father/son or father/daughter 2500.00-3500.00 to come shoot a deer!!! There is a % of people with plenty of disposable income, but compair that to the local joe hunter and it pales in comparison, these are the people that will help you out and really make a differance in deer numbers, not the fly in richie riches, all they want is horns and could careless about shooting does or making friends. They are paying for a service and it better meet there expectations or they will go down the road, no loyalty from these types period. There not going to help fix fence,tell you if cattle are out, many won't pickup behind themselves, as there paying for YOUR services and many treat it as such.
Also do a search on your states game dept LB better yet I'l give you the website:yohttp://www.sdgfp.info/Wildlife/Wildlifeannualreport.pdf. 1.1 million spent in 04 on wildlife depredation comming straight from the sportsman pockets, also that the Missouri river brings in8- 20 million in revenue to your state from recreation. Also note that in your state a 5.00 surcharge on hunting license nets 1.9 million for landowner services, that are available if you decide to use them. Paid for by hunters!!!!
You kill the goose that lays the golden egg and many people will be paying higher taxes, I'm not from another planet at all I have a level head and do the research and know my topics. The majority of sportsman are good people and put there money where there mouth is everytime any state has a license increase, it can come from the sportsman or the general fund you can decide.
But alot of sportsman are not going to back things with the fees and self imposed taxes on there sports only to have to pay everytime they venture out to hunt.
Also remember that mono habitat will not support wildlife numbers like the era in which we live now, many governement encentives to create "EDGE" have come about in the last 25 or so years and you can look at these programs and landowners taking advanatage of them as a major benefit to wildlife, supported and paid for by taxpayers from all across the US and many wildlife orgs paying into these programs as well and many like them.
What state do you live in anyway? Heck, maybe you should tell us what planet you're from!
If your state or mine has to use general funds to help support wildlife or the game depts in many facets your going to see higher taxes, you can call it whatever tax you want they will go up. Pitt/roberston money goes to ALL states and the game depts count on and need that revenue to keep every tax payer from not having to pay more into there wildlife depts.
You don't get that reguardless of any outcome wildlife will always need to be controlled and watched over for many reasons. Spread of diseases,depredation,esthectic value and recreation. Many small towns across the US make money from hunters, also many states make general fund dollars from motel taxes,grocerys,gasoline, resteraunts etc. In some states this would have less impact than others, but some small towns and governments would see and feel the impact if hunting where say cut in half or better and you would have higher taxes. Not to mention more spread of dangerous diseases. Look at in Texas when they had a rabies outbreak and look at the many states that keep and eye on public saftey in dealing with disease issues in wildlife, those funds come from sportsman, not all but a big% of them, without that your taxes would go up!
We are loosing one of the cheapest and most effective means of wildlife control ie: Hunters who pay many ways to enjoy there pursuit at no cost to the taxpayers and pay to help assure viable wildlife. We losse a % each year and we need to keep more people,YOUNG people interested in hunting or down the road things will get more exspensive.
Where not going to do this by charging a father/son or father/daughter 2500.00-3500.00 to come shoot a deer!!! There is a % of people with plenty of disposable income, but compair that to the local joe hunter and it pales in comparison, these are the people that will help you out and really make a differance in deer numbers, not the fly in richie riches, all they want is horns and could careless about shooting does or making friends. They are paying for a service and it better meet there expectations or they will go down the road, no loyalty from these types period. There not going to help fix fence,tell you if cattle are out, many won't pickup behind themselves, as there paying for YOUR services and many treat it as such.
Also do a search on your states game dept LB better yet I'l give you the website:yohttp://www.sdgfp.info/Wildlife/Wildlifeannualreport.pdf. 1.1 million spent in 04 on wildlife depredation comming straight from the sportsman pockets, also that the Missouri river brings in8- 20 million in revenue to your state from recreation. Also note that in your state a 5.00 surcharge on hunting license nets 1.9 million for landowner services, that are available if you decide to use them. Paid for by hunters!!!!
You kill the goose that lays the golden egg and many people will be paying higher taxes, I'm not from another planet at all I have a level head and do the research and know my topics. The majority of sportsman are good people and put there money where there mouth is everytime any state has a license increase, it can come from the sportsman or the general fund you can decide.
But alot of sportsman are not going to back things with the fees and self imposed taxes on there sports only to have to pay everytime they venture out to hunt.
Also remember that mono habitat will not support wildlife numbers like the era in which we live now, many governement encentives to create "EDGE" have come about in the last 25 or so years and you can look at these programs and landowners taking advanatage of them as a major benefit to wildlife, supported and paid for by taxpayers from all across the US and many wildlife orgs paying into these programs as well and many like them.
P Joe
Well-known member
the_jersey_lilly_2000 said:
My operations can stand on it's own 2 feet. My wife doesn't have to work, she does it to stay sane
But I can tell you this. If I couldn't make a living by doing what I was doing, I'd quit and do something else.P Joe
Well-known member
Liberty Belle said:
Good luck in this endeavor. I'm betting that you will get nothing done.
fulton
Well-known member
Happy it just seems to me like you are trying to pick a fight with everybody who doesnt agree with you. Do you even have any interest in ag or are you just entertaining yourself with this. You dont even have enough guts to put where you are from.
Now, your last post you make it sound like the ranchers are against hunting and/or hunters. TOTALLY untrue. The problem is with the GF & P. If they were willing to change their policy, there would be no lockout. Dont turn around this arguement into something its not!!
How would you know if anyone around here profits from the hunters that come over to this side of the state for ONE weekend. The ones we had in the past pulled a camper out here with all their food and extra fuel. Tell me how our local merchants benefited from that. You cant. You cant because you dont live here.
And some of the other posts, (not just yours happy) saying you have the right to hunt my land makes about as much sense as me telling you i can dig up your yard to hunt nightcrawlers.
Me letting you hunt is a privledge and dont forget it. Very few people in NW SD charge a fee to hunt. From my knowledge, most people do charge a fee to hunt in eastern sd. So dont point fingers and say its about the money in this part of the state but it okay to charge east river.
Consider yourself very lucky if a rancher lets you hunt his land. You could be paying 2,500 to 5,000, sometimes even more to hunt deer in a state like wyoming or montana.
Now, your last post you make it sound like the ranchers are against hunting and/or hunters. TOTALLY untrue. The problem is with the GF & P. If they were willing to change their policy, there would be no lockout. Dont turn around this arguement into something its not!!
How would you know if anyone around here profits from the hunters that come over to this side of the state for ONE weekend. The ones we had in the past pulled a camper out here with all their food and extra fuel. Tell me how our local merchants benefited from that. You cant. You cant because you dont live here.
And some of the other posts, (not just yours happy) saying you have the right to hunt my land makes about as much sense as me telling you i can dig up your yard to hunt nightcrawlers.
Me letting you hunt is a privledge and dont forget it. Very few people in NW SD charge a fee to hunt. From my knowledge, most people do charge a fee to hunt in eastern sd. So dont point fingers and say its about the money in this part of the state but it okay to charge east river.
Consider yourself very lucky if a rancher lets you hunt his land. You could be paying 2,500 to 5,000, sometimes even more to hunt deer in a state like wyoming or montana.