South Dakota antlerless deer program

[publichunter]

LB I support somer of the Farm Programs I never said I supported the producer who plants corn, beans Etc and has them insured (FederaL Farm Program) or receive cylindrical payments for them, this part of the program I dont support.
I support the CRP because it idles poor land out of production, I support all programs that help protect and maintain wetlands, buffer strips around wetlands, I support CSP, EQUIP, and the state of SD really needs to create a CREP program. I believe in a Farm Bill that pays farmers to be good conservationists instead of the way they are now, I dont support many of the payment programs now in place. But like ANYTHING in politics the people with the most money, power, clout ETC. usually wins.
I support the new concept of SODSAVER .


LArry: before you comment on something here in South Dakota you should know the facts, our GF&P Wildlife division is funded solely by license sales and matching Federal dingall/Johnson monies. There is not one penny of tax payers dollar spent on anything the Wildlife Division does. As I have stated before "open Fields" i beleive is here to stay.

Perhaps LB that explains my stance more on the Farm Bill if not feel free to ask....

 

[Larrry]

If you put all your land into CRP, the taxpayer footed most/all the cost to plant this habitat and then you turned around and started a "family" hunting business, would you consider that right?

I guess we both have to defer back to the CRP contract. I believe that the landowner is selling SOME of his rights on this land NOT ALL. If it was all I am sure they would not have enrolled their property.

South Dakota numbers. The land purchases come from licensing fees, grazing fees, sales of BLM/School land. You have no idea how much $ GF&P takes in do you? Think about it, if 10,000 out-of-state pheasant hunters hunt every year, there is a million dollars of free revenue right there. That doesn't even begin to scratch the surface.

You are right I do not have SD no's. I am talking about a state where I have property. You see they have been buying property and just one was over three mil. I also looked at their ooperating budget. I digress as I am not talking SD. This one is yours.

personal note, I have never been given a dime for any hunt. Have you? I would like to get signed up for that program!

Huh, I have no clue what you are saying as I impied nothing remotely along this line.

Sure their are some bad wardens. Answer this though, when was the last time this specifically happen to you on your land while you were hunting?? I don't want to hear you heard it from a neighbor, or friend, or friend of a friend. Specifically that it happened to you!

Last fall
On a side note, my son is a friend with a game warden. The GW invited my son to go hunting. They went to a property and there were a couple other Wardens there hunting. This property was recently acquired by the Wildlife and it seems that they had not told anyone.

 

[P Joe]

If you put all your land into CRP, the taxpayer footed most/all the cost to plant this habitat and then you turned around and started a "family" hunting business, would you consider that right?

I guess we both have to defer back to the CRP contract. I believe that the landowner is selling SOME of his rights on this land NOT ALL. If it was all I am sure they would not have enrolled their property.

No answer? Here I'll bold it for you so you can reread it.
No rights are sold with CRP. You enter into a management plan when enrolling CRP. You can always do what you want, they might just take all the money they paid you back, but you retain full rights.

On a personal note, do you know anything about CRP programs or such. Seems to me you spouted off without a ounce of knowledge! :wink:

You are right I do not have SD no's. I am talking about a state where I have property. You see they have been buying property and just one was over three mil. I also looked at their ooperating budget. I digress as I am not talking SD. This one is yours.

Regardless of state, where do you think the million of $'s that your GF&P raises go to every year?? In SD our GF&P is mainly funded by revenue they generate. Not to mention that any game violation fees are paid to the county and school district in which they were fined.

 

[Larrry]

You enter into a management plan when enrolling CRP. You can always do what you want, they might just take all the money they paid you back, but you retain full rights.

Exactly you enter in a management plan, and nowhere in that contract does it say you give up hunting rights. Period end of case closed. They didn't buy hunting rights so the landowner still has those rights to do as HE pleases.

On a personal note, do you know anything about CRP programs or such. Seems to me you spouted off without a ounce of knowledge!

Yes I do, I looked at buying CRP land and had an atty. look at it. It was not feasable to buy and then buy out the contract for grazing purposes. Seems you spouted off without knowledge.

Regardless of state, where do you think the million of $'s that your GF&P raises go to every year?? In SD our GF&P is mainly funded by revenue they generate. Not to mention that any game violation fees are paid to the county and school district in which they were fined

Maybe your state is different but mine has a budget for G&F, that sir comes from the taxpayers Fines here do not go to the county or the schools.




Your question

If you put all your land into CRP, the taxpayer footed most/all the cost to plant this habitat and then you turned around and started a "family" hunting business, would you consider that right?

As I stated the gov is not buying my hunting rights so it would be my choice to do as I wanted with hunting. Since I am not putting my land or have any CRP it is a mute point.


Question
If a farmer enrolls his land into CRP should he be obligated to let you hunt there free of charge?

 

[Brad S]

"No rights are sold with CRP. You enter into a management plan when enrolling CRP. You can always do what you want, they might just take all the money they paid you back, but you retain full rights.

Your right ...for example to plant wheat during the contract is sold. If a produer is caught violating the sales contract the contract can be nullified or penalties attached. Sorry to weigh in on SD law P Joe - no wait, this is FEDERAL law Einstein


The way I understand our crp contracts(I've not looked at them in years) , fee hunting is either prohibited or discouraged which makes sense as double dipping. I know fee hunters that allow free access to crp lands to those thyat purchase access to supportive and adjacent farmlands (sort of a bogus sidestep of what is right).

I'm inclined to oppose nearly all government programs - I've long held traditional programs depressed prices and favored giant corporate agriculture over single propritorship ag. CRP on some scale has been very cost efficient at cleaning up waters and propagating wildlife without draconian intervention. I'm now of the opinion that fee hunting/haying is sufficiently profitable to be the most profitable enterprise on fragile lands to render the crp contracts less necessary

 

[Goodpasture]

Since I am not putting my land or have any CRP it is a mute point.

MUTE /myut/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[myoot] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation adjective, mut·er, mut·est, noun, verb, mut·ed, mut·ing.
–adjective
1. silent; refraining from speech or utterance.
2. not emitting or having sound of any kind.
3. incapable of speech; dumb.
4. (of letters) silent; not pronounced.

MOOT /mut/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[moot] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
1. open to discussion or debate; debatable; doubtful: a moot point.
2. of little or no practical value or meaning; purely academic.
3. Chiefly Law. not actual; theoretical; hypothetical.

Moron.........

 

[Larrry]

Brad it has been years since we looked at contracts so I am not positive but from my recollections there was no stipulation on hunting restrictions. Of course they could have revised the contracts by now. I know there are requirements on wildlife habitat. If the new contracts state that there is to be no fee hunting, then that is the way it should be. Sign a contract, then you better abide by it. If someone charges and it is not allowed then I don't see why we have to cry about it, the CRP holder has to pay back the money with penalties. Case closed.
It is really of no interest to me as I have no CRP and other lands are for family and select others. Jerks or people with a chip on their shoulder need not ask.

 

[kolanuraven]

Since I am not putting my land or have any CRP it is a mute point.

MUTE /myut/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[myoot] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation adjective, mut·er, mut·est, noun, verb, mut·ed, mut·ing.
–adjective
1. silent; refraining from speech or utterance.
2. not emitting or having sound of any kind.
3. incapable of speech; dumb.
4. (of letters) silent; not pronounced.

MOOT /mut/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[moot] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
1. open to discussion or debate; debatable; doubtful: a moot point.
2. of little or no practical value or meaning; purely academic.
3. Chiefly Law. not actual; theoretical; hypothetical.

Moron.........

!!!! BURN!!!!!!! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[Larrry]

Not only is gp a LIAR he is a stalker. I know kola will not condemn me for my mistake as she doesn't like people running around checking her posts for mistakes. Only a hypocrite would do that.

gp(the LIAR) you made my day if that is the best you can get me on. I didn't know I struck such a nerve with the Liar as is he is still dwelling on getting caught LYING

GP could you do me a favor and check on the correct spelling of LIAR

 

[Goodpasture]

I know kola will not condemn me for my mistake as she doesn't like people running around checking her posts for mistakes. Only a hypocrite would do that.

Only a moron is going to try to excuse illiteracy in that manner. A hypocritical moron at that.

 

[Larrry]

Only a moron is going to try to excuse illiteracy in that manner. A hypocritical moron at that.

Is this a LIE, only GP the LIAR knows for sure.

 

[P Joe]

Exactly you enter in a management plan, and nowhere in that contract does it say you give up hunting rights. Period end of case closed. They didn't buy hunting rights so the landowner still has those rights to do as HE pleases.

Boy you have a knac for putting words in people's mouths! I have never said that the public should be allowed to hunt CRP land. Here, I'll put it very blunt for you. If you are going to run a pay for hunt operation, build your own god damn habitat.

Question
If a farmer enrolls his land into CRP should he be obligated to let you hunt there free of charge?

NO, NO, AND NO. Get it thru that thick skull of yours. I have never said anything of the like. A farmer isn't enrolling their whole ranch into CRP. A farmer isn't running a pay for hunt business. Maybe he does charge for acess, I still don't consider it a business like the many outfitters that stretch between Mitchell and Pierre. If your sole income and business is pay for hunting, and the land is used solely for that, then why should they be able to build their business on the taxpayers dime???!!!!!!!!!

LB, I give up. Jump in here, maybe you can set old Larry boy straight. For some reason he can not comprehend the point I am making.

 

[Goodpasture]

LB, I give up. Jump in here, maybe you can set old Larry boy straight. For some reason he can not comprehend the point I am making.

A suggestion.....don't use words with more than two syllables. Pretend you are talking to someone with the language skills of a 4 year old, and the intellectual capacity of a mud fence.

 

[Happy go lucky]

CRP is a good program, it has helped with corn prices through the years as ground idle is ground that isn't being planted. Many will say it is all marginal, well I can tell you that marginal has been and will be planted to corn,beans or wheat if the prices stay at the levels we have now!

CRP not only helps with cover for wildlife in harsh conditions, it creates edge and that is a major factor in itself to boost wildlife numbers of many species. Mono habitat can not have near the carrying capacity of "edge" habitat! You can have a lot of corn and have pheasants, but without that edge as all crops are harvested the cover disperses the wildlife, if the cover is close the dispersal is less. If you have 4 tracts of edge cover within 1-2 miles of the crop source your numbers/ density will remain higher than having less or no edge features.

If your going to charge for hunting IE: pheasants then you will need to spend some of your own money and be real creative with the programs available to you. Deer are no different, you need quality management and habitat and food sources to keep a good paid to hunt deer program successful. It takes time and a money investment, many don't realize this and are marginal at best and then fold within a few years to a decade at most.

The sportsman are still the best bang for the tax payers dollars to control wildlife that is a fact!

 

[Liberty Belle]

Happy, explain how sportsmen are the taxpayer dollars at work? I always assumed that hunters paid for their own licenses, but are you trying to tell us that they are subsidized by the taxpayers?

As a life-long rancher, I can also tell you that the only "management" of wildlife we get out here is a hard winter. Hunting has never cut down the population of anything except big horned bucks.

 

[Southdakotahunter]

I dont know how you can say that LB.. Your case is different. If you allowed hunting on your land, you wouldnt have the game refuge you have now when all your neighbors animals come over to your joint to munch and crunch some grub. It may seem like there are more animals, but really, YOU just have more. There is no way you can say hunting has "never" cut the population. Thats pure wrong. Hunters over hunted in the past which brought times of very few deer around. My father tells me of hunting in the 50s when they rarely saw a deer. You were lucky to draw a license at times and lucky if you got a deer. Those times were not because of the winters (exclusivly anyway) but hunters back in the old days killed out of necessity to eat. What the winters didnt take, the homesteaders did.

I dont dispute that the bad winters do more to control, but my figures from the gfp web site shows for Harding county, there were 3400 chances to draw a tag. each and every one of those chances are double tags, so i fugure 6800 total deer that can be harvested. this is in the west river firearms season only. not to mention archery, muzzleloader etc. Usually the hunters have about 60 or 65 percent success rate. Now im guessing they have not sold all those licenses.

Thats alot of deer that now do not have the chance of pulling up to the dinner table at the LB ranch. How about antelope?

 

[Happy go lucky]

Simple LB without sportsman, the states and feds would have to do more to control wildlife, costing ALL taxpayers more dollars no way around that!
Without control ie hunting,trapping etc you would have more disease issues meaning more tracking and controlling and monitoring. The pittman/Robertson is a self imposed tax on all weapons,shells, hunting items paid for by the US sportsman, that money comes back to each and every state, lessening the tax burden on all tax payers.
You say the hunters do nothing to control deer numbers, I say take off what gets harvested every year in every state and see how much more cost involved for state,local and federal Gov there would be without the deer harvest,antelope harvest,Elk harvest etc, etc. See what your car insurance would be with millions more deer and others species would be hit by cars, see how much more crop depredation many would have without a deer harvest. See what disease and over browsing would take place in rural and urban settings alike. Look at what the herd would be like genetically and how without harvest the landscape would change not only for those species but others would effected as well. Wildlife doesn't live in a vacuum LB, you balance all or you have in balance to a degree the majority would not like to see.

 

[Liberty Belle]

Southdakotahunter: I dont know how you can say that LB.. Your case is different. If you allowed hunting on your land, you wouldnt have the game refuge you have now when all your neighbors animals come over to your joint to munch and crunch some grub. It may seem like there are more animals, but really, YOU just have more. There is no way you can say hunting has "never" cut the population. Thats pure wrong. Hunters over hunted in the past which brought times of very few deer around. My father tells me of hunting in the 50s when they rarely saw a deer. You were lucky to draw a license at times and lucky if you got a deer. Those times were not because of the winters (exclusivly anyway) but hunters back in the old days killed out of necessity to eat. What the winters didnt take, the homesteaders did.

I dont dispute that the bad winters do more to control, but my figures from the gfp web site shows for Harding county, there were 3400 chances to draw a tag. each and every one of those chances are double tags, so i fugure 6800 total deer that can be harvested. this is in the west river firearms season only. not to mention archery, muzzleloader etc. Usually the hunters have about 60 or 65 percent success rate. Now im guessing they have not sold all those licenses.

Thats alot of deer that now do not have the chance of pulling up to the dinner table at the LB ranch. How about antelope?

SDH, I hate to disappoint you, but in the four years since we have been locked out we haven't noticed any change in the numbers of either deer or antelope. The only game that have increased in number are some impressive bucks with really big racks!! The last time we had an appreciable decrease in deer and antelope numbers was the bad winter of 1996/97.

 

[Liberty Belle]

Happy Go Lucky: Simple LB without sportsman, the states and feds would have to do more to control wildlife, costing ALL taxpayers more dollars no way around that!
Without control ie hunting,trapping etc you would have more disease issues meaning more tracking and controlling and monitoring. The pittman/Robertson is a self imposed tax on all weapons,shells, hunting items paid for by the US sportsman, that money comes back to each and every state, lessening the tax burden on all tax payers.
You say the hunters do nothing to control deer numbers, I say take off what gets harvested every year in every state and see how much more cost involved for state,local and federal Gov there would be without the deer harvest,antelope harvest,Elk harvest etc, etc. See what your car insurance would be with millions more deer and others species would be hit by cars, see how much more crop depredation many would have without a deer harvest. See what disease and over browsing would take place in rural and urban settings alike. Look at what the herd would be like genetically and how without harvest the landscape would change not only for those species but others would effected as well. Wildlife doesn't live in a vacuum LB, you balance all or you have in balance to a degree the majority would not like to see.

So if we had no hunters at all, the wildlife would overrun the country and put all of agriculture out of business unless the state and the feds stepped in to save us… and they would need a lot more of our tax money to do it, have I got that right?

Guess you've never been out here in the real world, have you? Do you think for one minute that we are not perfectly capable of controlling wildlife on our own? It was farmers and ranchers that saved the antelope back in the twenties. It wasn't a bunch of hunters who captured the few antelope left and built the herds up, it was ranchers. It was ranchers Pete Dupree and Scotty Phillips who saved the buffalo from extinction. Ranchers managed the game then, and we can manage it again if need be.

If there were no hunters to sell licenses to, there would be no need for GF&P. The states would be more than happy to have us eliminate anything that causes problems so they wouldn't have to pay to do it. There would be no need for a game department at all and that alone would be a substantial savings to the taxpayers.

 

[Happy go lucky]

Lb did you know that until fences where built the antelope was a migrating species?

People use to control the wilflife and it was each to his own where did that take us? Go back to those days and have things with a $$$ value and populations wouldn't be stable, for many species are not self regulating or can take hard harvest levels year in and year out! The entire reason for game wardens, was to look after the abuse of wildlife, not all did the abuse but the market hunters did and throw in todays technology and monatary gain and many species could be on the short end of the dollar stick. Your dreaming if any state would take the chance at self regulating of wildlife and no one to enforce those actions, the majority of americans would not let that happen, not to mention the feather in the cap and the dollars that would be pumped into the anti coffers, could you imagine the ad's those groups could do with self regulation as the norm?


LB again the vacuum issue comes into play in your posting! Your lock out in SD is every neighbor in say 6-8 townships all locked out? The people around you allowing hunting are keeping your numbers stable.

Harvest goals are never set to reduce the herd by 70-80%+ through a hunting season, as all states have to take into account weather and disease related factors, to shoot for a harvest in that 70-80% range could mean a disaster to take place in a winter or bad reproduction year or a disease that pop up. That would really put the fuel to the fire for an ti's and the light in which sportsman would be seen.
Population and harvest rates are really hard to base as if you ask 5 people from different user groups you will get 5 different answers to what that goal should be. From kill them all to protect them all and everything in between. You must average out the expectations and carrying capacity of an area. It will change with geographic region and what the people would "like" to see the numbers at. I will say many areas of the US have higher than "normal" ungulate populations, but many are finding ways to combat this with hunter mandated "doe" take and keeping license prices in check for doe tags.
If you would have asked many states 15-20 years ago if they thought they could ever see selling the number of tags they do today many would say No Way! The adaptation and the breaking of ground has made many species populations increase for sure.