Access to private lands that receive public subsidies?

[SFC B]

SCFB, your tax rate is residential, not agricultural. Try figuring out what 25-35 dollars per acre works out to when the farmer has 1000 acres! I grew up on a farm and we were by no means rich. We weren't even "well off". I imagine those folks getting all that money own SEVERAL thousand acres, not acreage of the typical farmer. Now just because someone receives money from the state or fed level doesn't mean that the rest of the public has a say about how they should act. It's still private property no matter what. Get over it.

Farmers CHOOSE to be farmers and own large tracts of land, nobody forces that on them. Taxes per acre are still HUGELY reduced compard to the rest of property owners. And I will disagree with you in the strongest terms as to where your 'private property rights" lay. If you take tax dollars to help pay your bills, the taxpayers should definitely have a say. Don't like it...PAY YOUR OWN BILLS like the rest of us not on any kind of assistance. This is simply welfare for farmers. You can' expect "social programs" and not social/public control to some degree. As for not being well off...that is a matter of opinion. When tillable acres are selling for, and I will be conservative here, $5-8000 per acre and you own hundreds or THOUSANDS of acres YOU ARE WEALTHY. It may be in land value and you may not CHOOSE to cash out but that is your CHOICE. Talk about getting over it....how about farmers stop taking tax money? How about farms operate like other businesses, on their own profits and losses? If you want to find out how really "poor" farmers are talk to financial planners and probate attorneys in farm communities.....Now that is something get over

 

[SFC B]

1pt and spook, I agree with you both. Good points from both of you.

rthomas, if non residents are willing to pay $3,000 to hunt deer down there. . .what would they pay to hunt some of the corn fed giants here? I may be able to help them for the right $$$$ . . .LOL

Those are good ideas. Currently it is a free-for-all if you own any ag land that you make income from, even small scale.

 

[Dave N]

Well SFCB, guess we know now just how you feel about farmers. I can only speak for my own family, but I don't ever remember anyone giving us any money. Life was hard and we worked hard to raise the crops and HOPE the market let us make a profit at the end of the year. There were no "hand-outs" of any kind. We helped out on the groceries by hunting and fishing. Yes, the land was worth money, but if you sold it you were out of a job as well as a place to live! What do you think would happen if all the farmers decided to chuck it and sell out? SOMEONE would buy the farms and either continue farming or build houses. So it would either continue under new owners or disappear entirely. Where would your meat, milk, fruit, vegetables, etc... come from THEN? I'm sure there are programs that SOME folks get money from but I'm sure that those "BIG DOLLAR" payments are far and few between. It is definitely not how they make their living. If you had any idea of the expenses farmers have to ATTEMPT to grow crops you would probably have to hold your jaw back up. A bad year with no rain is disastrous. As for the taxes, everything has it's own rate. You can't compare farm ground to a house lot in town. Timber acreage is considered untillable and not capable of being utilized. Farm ground is agricultural and at a lower rate than residential because it hasn't been "developed or improved" and made worth more money because a house sits on it, or even just simply having water and electricity. Commercial property is taxed at again a different rate. You can't really evenly compare one to the other as you are. Not all farmer own "huge" plots of land as you suggested. My family actually OWNED 160 acres. Minus the space for 2 houses and the farm buildings. I'm the last son in the line, and I left to get a regular job with a steady paycheck. Once my folks pass the farm will be gone. Someone else will take over and continue. They won't be getting tax dollars for it either. They have to work to make their living. Choose it or not, that's what everyone has to do.

As for accepting tax dollars and letting people tell you what you can or can't do with your land, who made you God? Should people on Welfare or unemployment open up their doors to someone who needs a place to sleep? They accepted YOUR tax dollars. Seems like they should be open for inspection to everyone, right? Forget the fact that they OWN their house. That doesn't matter now according to you. Sounds to me like you're just a pissed off guy who can't find a "GOOD" place to hunt because someone else says NO and you want to take your frustration out on someone. Join the club, pal! I have to hunt on about a 5 acre piece of timber with a ravine running through the middle. I consider myself lucky that I have a place at all. What little hunting ground is around here is locked up by the owner and their family or off limits to EVERYONE. I hunt on a small chunk belonging to a high school buddy. If he sells I'm out of luck. But you don't hear me whining about someone getting payments from the government and getting permits or leasing out the hunting rights. Guess what? It's not illegal. If you think it's just SO GREAT why don't you buy a farm and try it for yourself? "CHOOSE' to do something. You really need to stop griping, it's not making you look very good... Sounds like "I want what you have because I don't have any". Find some public ground to hunt, knock on some doors to get access, buy or lease some property, but stop whining that "those" people should have to grant access because they get a check for something. Until you've walked in their shoes you don't have a clue. I'm sticking to my "private property, I'll do whatever I want with it" feelings.

 

[sweetnectar]

Ya people don't become farmers to get rich. How it works is rich people become farmers and then make what everyone else does or less.

On another note:

Here is a caluclator I found that is kind of fun. You put your annual income into it and it tells you how much you payed for farm subsidies. http://www.foxnews.com/topics/farm-subsidies.htm
Makes me wonder how much I pay in social security and medicade.

And one of my all time favorites, and major depressent, the real time national debt calculator: http://usadebtclock.com/

 

[sweetnectar]

Oh, I found a calculator for your medicade and social security contributions. Just enter your income and puke. http://www.moneychimp.com/features/fica.htm

 

[Nemont]

getting subsidized or not getting subsidized vs gaining access to hunt are two very different issues.

I can agree with anyone who wants to cut our deficit and would have farmers take cuts or remove subsidizes all together. Sign me up.

To expect access to private property simple because tax dollars go to private landowners for certain programs is irrational. I can't wander wherever I want on a military installation, I can not go into the U.S. Capital building whenever or do whatever I want. There are many, many taxpayer funded entities that keep me out and rightfully so.

If you think it is a gravy train it should be easy to buy a few thousand acres for yourself and refuse to take a single dollar from any federal subsidy. Then you can watch your neighbors legally collect money from the government to pay for conservation programs, mitigation programs, irrigation projects etc, etc and I will bet you all the money you would give up that by owning that land, within 2 years you will be begging to participate in federal programs. After taking the money you will figure out that it doesn't buy the public access to hunt.

Don't hate the player, hate the game. Man up and put up the capital and show us how all these wealthy greedy farmers could do it without a single subsidy.

Nemont

 

[1_pointer]

getting subsidized or not getting subsidized vs gaining access to hunt are two very different issues.

I can agree with anyone who wants to cut our deficit and would have farmers take cuts or remove subsidizes all together. Sign me up.

To expect access to private property simple because tax dollars go to private landowners for certain programs is irrational. I can't wander wherever I want on a military installation, I can not go into the U.S. Capital building whenever or do whatever I want. There are many, many taxpayer funded entities that keep me out and rightfully so.

If you think it is a gravy train it should be easy to buy a few thousand acres for yourself and refuse to take a single dollar from any federal subsidy. Then you can watch your neighbors legally collect money from the government to pay for conservation programs, mitigation programs, irrigation projects etc, etc and I will bet you all the money you would give up that by owning that land, within 2 years you will be begging to participate in federal programs. After taking the money you will figure out that it doesn't buy the public access to hunt.

Don't hate the player, hate the game. Man up and put up the capital and show us how all these wealthy greedy farmers could do it without a single subsidy.

Nemont

Yup!!!

I cannot see any provision for access being a requirement of program participation ever being implemented at the federal level. So one can rant all they want and it's not going to change. That said, in areas where access is a problem there are solutions. One that I chose was to buck up and buy some ground. I now know that I will have a place to take my boys and hopefully their kids.

 

[1_pointer]

You can' expect "social programs" and not social/public control to some degree.

I suggest you read up on the Food Security Act of 1985 and any subsequent admendments. A good portion of these subsidies stem from this legislation and do have restrictions/limitations imposed upon participants. If not for these I can assure you that with today's commodity prices you'd have many times less acres to hunt or even habitat for game in Koscuisko County. Determination requests for clearing or adding crop acres in that county are probably in the 100s to 1000s of acres per year. Without these limitations those acres would be cleared without a second thought and put into production with little to no concern for wildlife habitat.

PS- The Bone Collector crew aired a show this week that took place in the county to the west of Kosciusko. Maybe you should work to disallow that as I'm sure than isn't helping access or the price for it...

 

[RUT JUNKEY]

I suggest you read up on the Food Security Act of 1985 and any subsequent admendments. A good portion of these subsidies stem from this legislation and do have restrictions/limitations imposed upon participants. If not for these I can assure you that with today's commodity prices you'd have many times less acres to hunt or even habitat for game in Koscuisko County. Determination requests for clearing or adding crop acres in that county are probably in the 100s to 1000s of acres per year. Without these limitations those acres would be cleared without a second thought and put into production with little to no concern for wildlife habitat.

PS- The Bone Collector crew aired a show this week that took place in the county to the west of Kosciusko. Maybe you should work to disallow that as I'm sure than isn't helping access or the price for it...

I think that would be the case in every county, not just Koscuisko. I see it every year in Montgomery, Parke, and Fountain counties. Every year I have a new place to cut wood because someone has cleared a 5 acre patch or more so they can plant corn. Its sad to see for sure. I can only imagine if there were no limitations.

 

[RUT JUNKEY]

1pointer, I didn't know they had any high fence up in Marshall County? LOL

 

[1_pointer]

I think that would be the case in every county, not just Koscuisko. I see it every year in Montgomery, Parke, and Fountain counties. Every year I have a new place to cut wood because someone has cleared a 5 acre patch or more so they can plant corn. Its sad to see for sure. I can only imagine if there were no limitations.

Yes it would impact most counties in Indiana.Wetland determinations, as required for program participation, are about the only thing keeping some woodlots on the landscape in the northern, flatter counties. Nearly all of these woods are former pastures or land that was too wet to farm at one time. Commodity prices and field tile technology/price have made so that these areas would now be profitable to farm.

 

[SFC B]

Yup!!!

I cannot see any provision for access being a requirement of program participation ever being implemented at the federal level. So one can rant all they want and it's not going to change. That said, in areas where access is a problem there are solutions. One that I chose was to buck up and buy some ground. I now know that I will have a place to take my boys and hopefully their kids.

I don't hate anyone, and yes I do hate the game. As for the difficulty of farming, I don't think anyone would say that it is easy. "Rant" ing is the only way to get things like this changed. If you don't agree with something or feel it is wrong and do nothing (the same with voting) you shouldn't complain. I choose to vote in a manner and attempt to bring up issues that I believe need attention. As for buying land, once I am settled for good I will. However, due to the prices being asked for land in K county it won't be at home sadly.

 

[rhomas]

Like David N., I grew up on a farm where we only had a little over 100 acres of tillable land. Today, the majority of that land is planted in Pines. The reason.......the costs of farming outweigh the profits derived. Consider that many of us plant food plots for deer. When we add up the cost of fertilizer, lime, seed, herbicides, fuel, etc. to plant and maintain those food plots, then break that cost down to a per lb average for each deer killed, it would actually be cheaper to go buy a cow and pay to have it butchered and processed. The fact is that the type of farming operations that earn these big subsidy incomes are actually corporate farming operations, and not traditional family farms. As a kid growing up, my dad had to work a regular job every day, then spend every spare minute farming our little acreage. Some years there was a little profit, but most years it was a break even proposition. Reality is that the family farm has basically disappeared today, because of the cost of farming. The corporate farms are the only truly viable farming operations in existence. The truth is that regardless of family or corporate, opening up the land to public access would mean damaged property and loss of income due to the fact that so many people don't give a damn about how they treat other people's property. If anyone is to blame for loss of public access, it's the people who seek public access.

BTW Rut Junkey, I would happily send every damn one of the non-resident folks to any other state, if they would get the hell out of South Carolina so that the natives could once again afford the leases.........and eliminate the out of state influences on DNR's proposed rule changes down here.

 

[RUT JUNKEY]

lol rthomas. We have enough problems with it starting here already. I actually got a text from a close friend of mine (and co worker for 20 yrs) last night it reads: " do you know anyone I could ask about hunting this fall? A guy that has been hunting on my aunt Virgina and uncle Bobs place ( where he has also hunted for 20 yrs) offered them money to hunt and keep everyone else out, and they took it without asking if we could match the price or anything. . .so now Cole (his son), me, Pat (his cousin) and his son havent got a place to hunt. Any help would be great." So as you can see its happening here and to good hard working guys too. . .sad.

 

[noharleyyet]

The "Texas Model", as the mountain men affectionately mention has also seen leases become corporate perk tools. A weekend of booze and bullets has convinced many a purchasing agent to do bidness with it's benefactor.A group of working stiffs ain't gonna be able to meet Acme Inc.'s leasing means.

As far as OP's thread premise....No.

 

[Nemont]

Like David N., I grew up on a farm where we only had a little over 100 acres of tillable land. Today, the majority of that land is planted in Pines. The reason.......the costs of farming outweigh the profits derived. Consider that many of us plant food plots for deer. When we add up the cost of fertilizer, lime, seed, herbicides, fuel, etc. to plant and maintain those food plots, then break that cost down to a per lb average for each deer killed, it would actually be cheaper to go buy a cow and pay to have it butchered and processed. The fact is that the type of farming operations that earn these big subsidy incomes are actually corporate farming operations, and not traditional family farms. As a kid growing up, my dad had to work a regular job every day, then spend every spare minute farming our little acreage. Some years there was a little profit, but most years it was a break even proposition. Reality is that the family farm has basically disappeared today, because of the cost of farming. The corporate farms are the only truly viable farming operations in existence. The truth is that regardless of family or corporate, opening up the land to public access would mean damaged property and loss of income due to the fact that so many people don't give a damn about how they treat other people's property. If anyone is to blame for loss of public access, it's the people who seek public access.

.

I live in an area where Ag is king and I don't know that there are many "corporate" farms and ranches. Most are still family farms but the place are getting bigger and the machinery is getting bigger and the gains and losses are getting bigger and bigger. So I don't believe the corporate model is the only viable model, at least here it isn't.

I also don't buy the argument that blaming advocates for access is the reason for less access. I grew up in an era where permission to any land was assumed and we just called the neighbors and said we would be hunting and they said great and be sure and stop by the house for lunch. Those days are gone now, not because of advocates for public access but because there is a value placed on hunting that can now be measured in dollars and cents. It didn't used to be that way but that land has to pay for itself one way or another. So if hunting is a valuable asset and access is the way to monetize that asset then that is what will happen.

SFC, when you buy your land are you going to allow public access?

Nemont

 

[SFC B]

I live in an area where Ag is king and I don't know that there are many "corporate" farms and ranches. Most are still family farms but the place are getting bigger and the machinery is getting bigger and the gains and losses are getting bigger and bigger. So I don't believe the corporate model is the only viable model, at least here it isn't.

I also don't buy the argument that blaming advocates for access is the reason for less access. I grew up in an era where permission to any land was assumed and we just called the neighbors and said we would be hunting and they said great and be sure and stop by the house for lunch. Those days are gone now, not because of advocates for public access but because there is a value placed on hunting that can now be measured in dollars and cents. It didn't used to be that way but that land has to pay for itself one way or another. So if hunting is a valuable asset and access is the way to monetize that asset then that is what will happen.

SFC, when you buy your land are you going to allow public access?

Nemont

I will say that if I got goverment assistance that would make it feasible for me to own a large bit of land (and like most Americans I do think 100+ acres is a large amount) I would not have a problem with some sort of access. There is a program here in CO, Ranching For Wildlife, which is at least an attempt. In this case the amount of access is in proportion to landowner tags issued and DOW assessments of the ranch. Many of those ranches use these tags to run outfitter operations on their ranches. I am not talking about unregulated, total access but a reasonable number based on Biologist recommendations. Also, wouldn't have a problem requiring those hunters to register and be required to follow a reasonable set of land usage rules. The RFW program requires hunters to follow ranch rules AND landowners to provide reasonable access.

To actually answer your question....I will not take government assistance, so no. It is a simple equation.

 

[smarandr]

SFC,

We've all been there. I was chastised a couple of months back on another thread when I advocated that a rancher in my area was a bit of a hypocrite for taking tens of thousands of dollars every year in CRP money, and then using that same CRP ground to lock the public out of adjoining NFS property. So, essentially we the taxpayers are subsidizing this man's private hunting preserve.

But, as others have stated, we've all been subsidized in one way or another by the government, whether it be local, state, or federal. And, since you are such a pro choice type of a guy, I'll add that we probably have all chosen to be part of whatever gets subsidized. So, as a tax paying American citizen, the next time I'm in your neck of the woods I'll be stopping by to help myself to your house/medication/professional expertise/other subsidy that you chose to obtain.

 

[Nemont]

I will say that if I got goverment assistance that would make it feasible for me to own a large bit of land (and like most Americans I do think 100+ acres is a large amount) I would not have a problem with some sort of access. There is a program here in CO, Ranching For Wildlife, which is at least an attempt. In this case the amount of access is in proportion to landowner tags issued and DOW assessments of the ranch. Many of those ranches use these tags to run outfitter operations on their ranches. I am not talking about unregulated, total access but a reasonable number based on Biologist recommendations. Also, wouldn't have a problem requiring those hunters to register and be required to follow a reasonable set of land usage rules. The RFW program requires hunters to follow ranch rules AND landowners to provide reasonable access.

To actually answer your question....I will not take government assistance, so no. It is a simple equation.

Ranching for Wildlife is a State of Colorado program, just like Block Management is in MT, have zero to do with federal farm programs.

If you own acres that are impacted by federal law due to either being subject to rules set by the BOR, Army Corps of Engineers, Farm Services Administration, or a plethora of other Federal Agencies you will probably feel different about being reimbursed for the costs those rules will have on your ownership of that land.

If you plan to farm on those acres, alter almost any stream or wetland on them, etc etc you will find out that you are subject to many costly rules and regulations.

RFW isn't the model most other states follow so if you can get your own state to offer such a plan, good on ya but again that is a State level program that has zero ties to federal farm programs.

Nemont

 

[SFC B]

SFC,

We've all been there. I was chastised a couple of months back on another thread when I advocated that a rancher in my area was a bit of a hypocrite for taking tens of thousands of dollars every year in CRP money, and then using that same CRP ground to lock the public out of adjoining NFS property. So, essentially we the taxpayers are subsidizing this man's private hunting preserve.

But, as others have stated, we've all been subsidized in one way or another by the government, whether it be local, state, or federal. And, since you are such a pro choice type of a guy, I'll add that we probably have all chosen to be part of whatever gets subsidized. So, as a tax paying American citizen, the next time I'm in your neck of the woods I'll be stopping by to help myself to your house/medication/professional expertise/other subsidy that you chose to obtain.

The difference is that while we are all entangled in the web of our goverment, in the case of farmers and ranchers that take this public assistance we as taxpayers are paying to support their business interests (much like the bailout of the auto industry) but these folks retain autonomy over the resources as if it were simply, as you mentioned above, their house. As for me, the taxpayers do get my professional expertise at a greatly reduced rate compared to what I was making in my civilian job prior to choosing to come back on active duty to serve. My VA home loan was earned through my years of service, not simply given to me. I simply don't understand how folks that pay taxes and work everyday are not bothered by the idea of their tax dollars going to support someone else's chosen "way of life". I would really like to work in a gun shop or sporting goods store or outdoor store doing what I love but cannot support a family that way. I realize this and have chosen to work in such a manner as to be self supporting. Are you and the rest of the country going to pay me enough through subsidies to allow me to do what I want? I tell you what, if you do that you can hunt in my yard anytime I will never understand how being required to share a resource with those who are helping to pay for it is a problem.