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

"Sportsmen" - stop landowners from profiting!

Liberty Belle

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,818
Location
northwestern South Dakota
Game and Fish and the Tony Deans of this country sure hate to see you farmers opt out of the CRP program and earn some money off your own land. How long do you suppose it will be before they try to take your "native grass" acres away from you?

Conservation Reserve Program going up in smoke
Babe Winkelman
The Jamestown Sun
November 02, 2007


If you're taking a hunting trip this fall to any number of states in Middle America, you'll likely spy great plumes of smoke curling to the heavens.
Unfortunately, what you'll be seeing is equally great stands of grass and 20 years of unprecedented farmland conservation going up in smoke.

Indeed, hundreds of thousands of Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) acres — contracts between landowners and the federal government — were lost as of Oct. 1, and thousands of others will be lost in the years ahead as farmers opt out of the program and put their precious acres back into agriculture production.

So now the Big Burn is on, as farmers prep their former CRP fields for spring planting.

The upshot — and this is an important point — is that hunters, perhaps for the first time this fall, are going to see the spoils of farm policy gone bad. And wildlife officials predict that we hunters will be none too pleased.

"It's going to be a bitter pill to swallow, and I wouldn't be surprised if we get a lot of calls," said George Vandel, assistant wildlife director for the South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks. "Some hunters are going to go back to their favorite pheasant haunts and find out that the grass is gone and with it the birds."

South Dakota, the nation's premiere pheasant-hunting state, lost 300,000 acres on Oct. 1, reducing its total CRP acreage to well below 2 million acres. The state also could lose an additional 300,000 acres over the next few years. Translation: Less grass will mean fewer pheasants in the years ahead, impacting bird hunters across the nation, as well as the economies they support.

North Dakota, Minnesota, Nebraska and Iowa (among other states) — all serious hunting destinations — lost thousands of acres on Oct. 1 and will likely see thousands of other contract acres expire from now through 2010.

In fact, North Dakota, a major duck-producing state for the continental U.S., lost 250,000 acres and will likely see an additional 300,000 expire from now until 2010.


As I've written in this space in the past, the conversion of CRP lands to crop lands is being fueled by the false promises of corn ethanol production and higher across-the-board commodity prices. And politicians of all political persuasions are buying into it — hook, line and subsidy.

Our nation is drunk on corn ethanol, and I assure you the hangover of lost wildlife habitat will take more than two aspirins and a swig of water to cure the pain. This is but the first round of what will ultimately be a dramatic and disconcerting change to America's farm country. And the consequences will be felt not only by hunters and conservationists, but Main St. as well. Unless we change course and craft a more conservation-minded farm policy, we hunters could face some lean years, wildlife officials say.

The benefits of CRP are indisputable and well-documented. In fact, the combined size of new wildlife habitats established by the CRP is twice as large as the National Wildlife Refuge System and all state-administered wildlife areas in the contiguous 48 states combined. Which, of course, is why CRP is America's most successful conservation program — and it's not even close.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, among other agencies, have documented the successes of CRP. They're worth repeating:

* Studies have shown that CRP acreage in the Dakotas and parts of Montana add 2 million ducks to the fall flight every year, benefiting waterfowl hunters across the nation.

* CRP has seen increases in grasshopper sparrow, lark, bunting, and eastern meadowlark populations.

* CRP has helped spur of ring-necked pheasant populations across the Midwest. Many states like the Dakotas, Montana and Minnesota are poised for banner seasons.

* CRP has helped foster the reappearance of long-absent prairie chickens in Texas.

* CRP has spurred notable increases in populations of big game such as elk, mule deer, white-tailed deer and antelope.

* CRP has improved bobwhite quail numbers in Missouri and other states.

* CRP has promoted dramatic improvements to water quality. According to the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), each acre under a CRP contract reduces erosion by an average of 19 tons of top soil per year.

This reduces sediment and the amount of nutrients and pesticides being swept into our lakes, ponds, rivers and streams.

* CRP has provided ranchers with much-needed livestock forage in drought years.

Since its official inception in 1986, CRP has improved wildlife habitat and wildlife populations, bolstered water quality for our fisheries and provided numerous other public benefits.

Now many of those benefits are going up in smoke, thanks to a spineless Congress and the well-heeled agriculture interests who have bought their support.

My advice: enjoy this year's hunting season. We may be facing some lean years ahead.

Babe Winkelman is a nationally-known outdoorsman who has taught people to fish and hunt for more than 25 years.

http://www.jamestownsun.com/articles/index.cfm?id=56377&freebie_check&CFID=64116357&CFTOKEN=62493441&jsessionid=8830ee8c87f267791659#
 
well old Babe has his head up something! I guess if I was paid big bucks to hunt and fish, I would be against the removal of the CRP program too.... but as a farmer.....the $4 corn thing has guys planting things that were left alone for a long time.

private property is a thing of the past, it is all public land now.
 
Babe is from Brainerd Mn which is 18 miles from here.My wife worked for him in high school and we worked on his vehicle's where I worked in college.The guy is an asshole.
 
The SD Game and Fish need about 5000 calls per day from hunters wondering where they can hunt because the whole place is staffed with IDIOTS
I used to have my whole place in walk in hunting. I have 2 miles of creek bottom aloing with 2 more miles of draws that feed into it along with my farmground and hayground which has 2 tree groves of over 1500 feet each. For this they also had to rent 2 quarters that were pretty much flat but always had good grass and held a good population of grouse. I had at least 3 groups of hunters every weekend day from the first day of pheasant season until the last day. Add 4-10 groups that went through during the week and you had a lot of traffic. When I asked for another $500 a year I was dropped. Last year my cousin was dropped with just as good of a place. A guy 10 miles up the road with 10,000 acres of flat ground get $5.00 an acre and we get dropped because they want big chunks and don't give a damn if anything is there or not as long as they can say they have X amount of acres rented for public hunting.
 
Doug Thorson said:
The SD Game and Fish need about 5000 calls per day from hunters wondering where they can hunt because the whole place is staffed with IDIOTS
I used to have my whole place in walk in hunting. I have 2 miles of creek bottom aloing with 2 more miles of draws that feed into it along with my farmground and hayground which has 2 tree groves of over 1500 feet each. For this they also had to rent 2 quarters that were pretty much flat but always had good grass and held a good population of grouse. I had at least 3 groups of hunters every weekend day from the first day of pheasant season until the last day. Add 4-10 groups that went through during the week and you had a lot of traffic. When I asked for another $500 a year I was dropped. Last year my cousin was dropped with just as good of a place. A guy 10 miles up the road with 10,000 acres of flat ground get $5.00 an acre and we get dropped because they want big chunks and don't give a damn if anything is there or not as long as they can say they have X amount of acres rented for public hunting.

I agree with you. It's a cork of crap that some tracs of land get rented for some reasons or another and the small better places get over looked.
 
Doug not trying to start and argument but 5.00 per acre for public access? I know of No state giving out that kind of money when private interest lease in many areas isn't that high? If I remember correctly your state has a 5.00 surcharge on license sales for your public access and at that rate it would take 10,000 hunters to pay for that 1 land tract? That dosen;'t sound doable?

The problem you must look at on access is how much pressure will the area receive, how much can it handle before the ground starts to be counter productive to hunting and what kind of habitat is there. A state also needs to look at the species on that ground and what are the hunters in that location looking for on that access ground.

If you have 400 acres and marginal habitat for say pheasants how long before that ground is worked over by the farmer and hunters and the numbers dwindle? You are right that some of the most smallest access areas have some of the best hunting because many are looking at those spots of 3/4 to a section or more as it doesn't involve as much driving to and from. Habitat is crucial for areas that receive a lot of pressure and if it isn't top notch then the quality of the hunt drops as well.

In many states it is the hunters that tell the game depts on what areas are good and what areas need to be dropped or improved for use, I don't know if your game dept does surveys, I'm sure they do. After all it is the hunters dollars paying for that access in large part, but the federal gov is stepping up and taking a more proactive approach towards hunting and the dollars being spent on habitat improvement and dollars for public access to combat many areas going to pay to hunt and hurting the heritage of sport hunting.

It is a fine line keeping all happy for sure and at times impossible, but I don't think your Game Dept is full of idiots as it is one of the most respected in the nation.

I will say as CRP goes so goes many species numbers that will be a fact and so will go corn prices, as it is supply and demand as everyone knows, there are many ethanol plants that where to be built that have been scrapped due to high corn prices and the ability of large oil companies buying up the massive plants and having control on this market, it will get worse and not better, the smaller plants they have no interest in and will drive many out of business. Big oil will not tolerate the market being manipulated by smaller entities and when they all went to using ethanol as an oxygenated for fuel instead of MTB, they started the control of the ethanol, people won't buy it unless there is a savings and if you look at it the savings is less and less all the time as you must figure in 20% mileage loss minimum from using E 85. So the cost must be at least 20 cents on the dollar cheaper at the pump to break even.
 
A guy 5 miles up the road is getting 5 bucks for 10,000 acres. Lease in this area is running 12-15 for grassland. He has considerable CRP and has to keep his cow numbers at a certain number to get it. Our Game and Fish department has flat out bought several thousand acres in the last 10 years and paid at least market value for it and often half again over market value. Then they tout making relationships with the landowners as a priority. How do they think they are going to get on our good side when they run the price up on land and then take it off the tax rolls?
 
Doug you sound anti Game dept. I'm talking lease price just for hunting not for grazing or the such. lease rates in most western states for hunting rights for private is around 2.00-4.00 per acre and get's as high as 11-12.00 in states like ILL and Iowa, again for no other purpose than exsclusive hunting rights. What county are you in?
 
Doug Thorson said:
A guy 5 miles up the road is getting 5 bucks for 10,000 acres. Lease in this area is running 12-15 for grassland. He has considerable CRP and has to keep his cow numbers at a certain number to get it. Our Game and Fish department has flat out bought several thousand acres in the last 10 years and paid at least market value for it and often half again over market value. Then they tout making relationships with the landowners as a priority. How do they think they are going to get on our good side when they run the price up on land and then take it off the tax rolls?

GF&P still payes taxes on the land they buy.

I'll clue you in on something. LAND PRICES ARE ON THE RISE. It doesn't matter where you go. I've seen land that brought 1500 last year bring 2200 this year. Crazy isn't it?
 
Doug you sound anti Game dept.

No, I am for treating all alike. The rate is 1.00 per acre non negotiable unless you have 5000 contiguous acres in which case the rate is whatever you can get(3.50 is the norm) The part that gets me is 10 years ago they had probably 50 miles of creek bottom lands or other timbered draws in the walk in hunting in Haakon County(that is where I live). Add to that 90% of CRP acres were enrolled and basically all of it was at 1.00 an acre and it was scattered so you hunted an hour or two at one and moved on. Nobody knew if a patch was hunted or not so when you pulled up you had to hunt it to find out. Add to that that most of us small guys had big operators around us that was pay hunting so no matter how much pressure was on the small tracts the guys next door had very little hunting pressure so the overall success was good even on public access lands. Then comes along a big operator who has almost all flat land and has no desire to start his own pay hunting program(because he has hardly any good hunting. Maybe less than the guy with 3000 acres) and he approaches the Game and Fish offerring his place for that negotiable fee. Game and Fish wants acres so they offer 3.50. He tells all over what a good deal he got so next year 3 more guys do the same thing and now they have all their money tied up in large flat chunks of ground so they start going to the guy with 1000 acres and say sorry we don't have the money to pay 1.00 but we could pay .50. Next year it happens again so they cut everyone without 2000 off. Now you can't get on or stay on without 5000 acres and they have 20 miles of creek bottom and timbered draws and less than 50% of CRP acres. 90% of what used to be enrolled at 1.00 is now leased to a pay as you go hunting outfit of some kind or another along with that much more that they could have enrolled for 1.00. The Game and Fish has basically alienated all of us so the only ones who are not in pay hunting are those of us who have kids to hunt it and the big guys who are in the walk in program. Then they brag about public access and how they have worked to stem thew tide towards pay hunting. I have quit reading anything the Game and Fish puts out other than the regulations book. If someone wants to hunt birds after deer season, I have birds but they aren't free.
 
Doug:
GF&P by law can only pay the appraised value of the land, so how can you say they drive the price up. I am sure you beleive in Private Property rights dont you?
Then why do you have such a boner for GF&P buying land from a willing seller to them? Isnt it their right to sell land to whom the owner chooses?
I am sure their is more to your stry about you loseing your walk in lease from GF&P, there are many areas that are less than 2000 acreas leased by GF&P.
One question and be honest. When your land was leased to GF&P for walk-in did it releive some tension on yourself not having to deal with hunters asking permission, worrying about tresspasers?
 
GF&P by law can only pay the appraised value of the land, so how can you say they drive the price up. I am sure you beleive in Private Property rights dont you?

Yes it can drive up land prices....................stop and think about it and look below the surface of that statement

Let's say there is a hundred acres and a hundred buyers. Hypotheticaly each guy buys an acre..........................

Lets say there is a hundred acres and a hundred buyers. Now the G&F comes in and buys a couple acres for appraised value. Then you have a hundred buyers competing for 98 parcels.
So you have the G&F competing against private enterprise and taking land away where the income and income tax paid to the IRS made off this land is gone
 
Yep you have G&F paying appraised value and you piss of the neighbors who wanted to buy it for 50 cents on the dolle doller of the appraised price, almost sounds fair.

They still pay property taxes on all of their lands that are owned for wildlife. If there are landowners out there paying income tax on a ranch or a farm I would hire a better accountant and tax person. :oops:
 
People will always get frustated when they have to pay more for something...............no matter if the G&F is involved or not. this is irrelevant in this discussion.

When the G&F is buying land it brings in a bigger demand................demand drives prices. Pretty basic.............Supply and Demand


Yes there are people out there paying income tax on income derived from land they purchase. If you don't pay income tax on your income ...............either you have no income and you had better change..............or get ready for the IRS to come knocking on your door.
 
I think you give GF way to much credit, most properties they buy are the least desirable lands or they have been on the market for a long time, what is driving up the prices is people ( most not from SD) whom have more money then we can comprehend, and can pay what ever price they want to for the land and are not or dont need to make a profit off of the land, farming, ranching ETC. It is not the GF driving up the prices.
 
If you don't understand Supply and Demand and how Income Tax works..................well I won't waste anymore time.
 
passin thru, reading between the lines on his posts here, it could also probably be stated with reasonable accuracy that it appears publichunter is too biased against farmers/ranchers to believe any of us pay income taxes due to creative manipulation of income and expenses, as all too many non-landowner hunters seem prone to be.

mrj
 
Please post the per acre price you pay for your land? Compair that to city dwellers and see who is paying the bulk of property taxes in any state per sq ft? Yet all the people of that state benefit correct?
Most desriable lands in any state demand high price premiums from outside interest not ag related and NO, I will repeat No state Game agency can aquire such lands with limited funds, these go to private interest who have deep pockets 99% of the time or unless someone who is very conservation minded passes on a "deal" or wills it to a state agency. Staes can not or are in the land market to be able to compete with high dollar private interest people or groups, that is fact!
 

Latest posts

Back
Top