Access to private lands that receive public subsidies?

[SFC B]

Here is a question that has been brewing in me for a while. What do you all think about requiring agricultural landowners (farmers and rnachers) that receive government subsidies to allow public access for hunting/fishing? What sparked it this time was a mention of the farmland conservation bill but for me it is close to home when I speak about WT hunting back home in IN. Access is a real pain in the butt these days. There is very little public land to hunt, especially in Northern IN where my family is, and with the onset of "leases" due to the quality of deer you are hard pressed to find somewhere decent to hunt unless your family has land. It used to be that you could trade farm work for access and gained friends as well as opportunities but the $$$monster is turning it into big business for farmers. It is disappointing. When you couple that with the fact that many of these farmers are receiving various forms of subsidies it begins to make me heat up. Here is the top ten recipients in just ONE zipcode near my family: Rank Name Location Subsidy Total
1995-2011
1 Yeiter & Son Inc Warsaw, IN 46580 $ 1,080,058.09
2 Independence Cattle Farm Warsaw, IN 46580 $ 662,531.23
3 Thomas Price Warsaw, IN 46580 $ 534,558.81
4 Curtis C Miller Warsaw, IN 46580 $ 438,801.63
5 Jessica E Miller Warsaw, IN 46580 $ 422,105.21
6 Charles D Krieger Warsaw, IN 46580 $ 346,459.27
7 Vana Dell Farms Inc Warsaw, IN 46580 $ 322,147.78
8 James Earl Warsaw, IN 46580 $ 295,630.49
9 Doyle Munson Farms Inc Warsaw, IN 46580 $ 260,428.70
10 Merl Heckaman Warsaw, IN 46580 $ 243,487.76

These folks also get relaxed licensing rules and can take deer that are "destroying" their crops. Doesn't seem like requiring at leas SOME access would be a bad idea. What do you all think?

 

[smalls]

No.

 

[Hof]

It doesnt make sense to get compensated for the deer destryoing their crops if they are not going to allow access.... If these are crop damage subsidies then I would say they need to seriously re-evaluate priorities. If you allow a certain number of hunters and are still recieving crop damage thenyou should be subsidized. If you do not allow hunters to help you control the problem then you ARE the problem. You can't refute the solution and then beg for help.

Hof

 

[jlmatthew]

Just wait until you start researching the perks Colorado Landowners get

 

[sticksender]

No.

Those aren't wildlife damage subsidies, they're payments like DCP's which are roughly 12.00 per acre for farmed ground. That tiny amount wouldn't even pay half of the annual property taxes on farm land. They also can include farm disaster payments, although those are now rare in this day and age. Those payments have nothing to do with wildlife management or crop damage. They're an attempt to help stabilize commodity prices for the benefit of everyone.

 

[Nemont]

Little more complex than just putting a number of subsidies and expecting public access. Using the same theory you should open your home to who ever wants to spend the night if you bet subsidized by the taxpayers and EVERYONE get subsidizes in some way.

Also have you taken a look at what exactly those subsidies were paid for? Is it CRP payments? or WRP payments? or Drought/Disaster payments? LDP's? etc, etc.

So the short answer is no.

Nemont

 

[RUT JUNKEY]

Kosciusko County. . .about 4 counties north and east of me. I totally agree that it is getting tough to find a place to hunt without having to lease it and Im sure it going to get worse. I really can't blame the farmers for leasing the ground they can't till and plant, but, I do have an issue with them getting all of the depredation tags every year and also cashing in on the crop damage. . .especially the ones who don't allow hunting. . .makes no sense to me. We have a few down here too. What upsets me is that they can shoot any deer at any time of the year with any weapon. . .a local tree farm owner has gotten out of hand with all of this. SFCB, I don't think that the farmers should have to open up their land though, but, I would like to see some rules placed on the money amount etc. something needs to change for sure. ( maybe you should buddy up with all of the Amish in that area, they surely own a ton of the land) I think the Amish here are even into leasing their land now to be honest.

 

[SFC B]

No.

Those aren't wildlife damage subsidies, they're payments like DCP's which are roughly 12.00 per acre for farmed ground. That tiny amount wouldn't even pay half of the annual property taxes on farm land. They also can include farm disaster payments, although those are now rare in this day and age. Those payments have nothing to do with wildlife management or crop damage. They're an attempt to help stabilize commodity prices for the benefit of everyone.

I am no sure where you are but with respect to taxes, in IN ag land is barely taxed, let alone in comparison to residential land. The least of those in the example made almost a quarter of a million dollars in this six year period. I am interested in stable crop prices, I am not however interested in supporting farmers "way of life" as we hear all the time at home. If you cannot be viable in your business, then you need to find another job. Many of the fams in IN have been held for generations and yes I find it offensive that my taxes (both fed and state) go in part to allow these folks to retain very large tracts of land when they are not supporting themselves. Hard for me to know that these guys are being supported by us to some degree, make extra money (THOUSANDS) leasing for hunting (both deer a turkey now), pay VERY low taxes, can harvest deer almost at will AND don't have to allow any access to those paying their bills. At least CO has RFW, that is something.

 

[sweetnectar]

Listen to what Nemont said....sums it up

 

[SFC B]

Listen to what Nemont said....sums it up

Not really, my home isn't a buiness. The argument of "complexity" is no argment at all. The FACT is that in other enterprises if you take federal money you are open to large scale limitation and regulation of those enterprises. It is simple, you should not expect the tax payers to pay the bills for your land and then sit back and watch as you keep them out, make more money off the land and enjoy the recreational opportunities they can't. Don't like it, don't take tax money....simple!! These folks are getting all of what the rest of us get PLUS these huge $$. As for the the breakdown of payments, I have looked and the largest portions, at least in this county, are for Production Flexibility - Corn, Direct Payment - Corn and CRP Land Rental.

 

[sticksender]

SFCB, to answer your question, I'm a lifelong Indiana resident. With all due respect I wanted to mention a few errors in your posts. First you stated "The least of those in the example made almost a quarter of a million dollars in this six year period". You need to re-read your own posting.....the data you posted is for SIXTEEN years not SIX. Second, the average property tax on tillable acreage here in the midwest is $25-$30 per acre.

Farmers certainly aren't dependent on this tiny amount of subsidies to run their operations. Considering that the average cost to plant an acre of corn is 588.00 per acre, a DCP subsidy of 12.00 per acre is all but insignificant. As I mentioned, there are benefits to you as a taxpayer in better-stabilized food prices, and that's why your elected reps continue to authorize farm programs. The other benefits are the requirements on farm operators to abide by swamp-buster and sod-buster provisions, which protect forests and wetlands from ag development.

The last part you may be forgetting is that the farm operators receiving ag subsidies often times don't even own the land they farm. If they're cash renting the land, the landowner is getting nothing from the government. And of course a farm operator would have no option to grant access to a farm for recreational use that he doesn't own. And remember, they aren't getting any subsidies on woodlands, just crop acres. Not much hunting to be done in open crop fields.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Farmers certainly aren't dependent on this tiny amount of subsidies to run their operations. Considering that the average cost to plant an acre of corn is 588.00 per acre, a DCP subsidy of 12.00 per acre is all but insignificant.

Then perhaps a cut here in govment spending will go toward balancing the out-of-control federal budget.

 

[1_pointer]

The other benefits are the requirements on farm operators to abide by swamp-buster and sod-buster provisions, which protect forests and wetlands from ag development.

I am super glad that this was brought up! Without these provisions and with current commodity prices, there would be very, very little habitat left in much of the northern 2/3s of Indiana. It costs approx. $4000/acre to have a woods bulldozed and made ready for crops. With $8 corn, it doesn't take long for that to become good business. The amount of wetland determination requests being submitted is astounding as folks are wanting to clear this land to plant more crops. Curiously enough, a determination is not required to convert land to a subdivision or strip mall...which I think is a bigger problem facing Indiana.

Similarly, the benefits from CRP/WRP, IMO, greatly outweigh the costs to the taxpayer. Many thousands of acres of habitat in Indiana are still there or were created through these programs, some of which are open to the public (Goose Pond and 2800ac along the Muscatatuck opened this spring for example). The WRP program alone in Indiana has placed over 63,000ac in permanent conservation easement. A better move for the state would be to add to these payments to allow access through a CREP (emphasis on the E) program. South Dakota and other states have greatly increased access this way. It would take some careful planning for this to work in INdiana as the majority of the CRP is in small acreage (grassed waterways, field borders, and filterstrips) with very little whole field conversions of any size.

One of the main issues, and it's not unique to Indiana, is the issue with dealing with both the feds and the state. The subsidies being presented here are from federal programs. The shooting of deer with any weapon for depredation is authorized by the state. They are, nor do I believe they should be, inter-related.

 

[1_pointer]

Then perhaps a cut here in govment spending will go toward balancing the out-of-control federal budget.

From the analysis I've seen it wouldn't even be a drop on a drop in the bucket. Conservation/ag programs are an easy target, but like Nemont has stated many times it won't even begin to balance anything until the 4 elephants in the room are addressed. That said, I would not be surprised if the next Farm Bill does not have the DCP included as well as big cuts to other USDA programs (CRP, EQIP, WRP at the top of the list).

 

[SFC B]

SFCB, to answer your question, I'm a lifelong Indiana resident. With all due respect I wanted to mention a few errors in your posts. First you stated "The least of those in the example made almost a quarter of a million dollars in this six year period". You need to re-read your own posting.....the data you posted is for SIXTEEN years not SIX. Second, the average property tax on tillable acreage here in the midwest is $25-$30 per acre.

Farmers certainly aren't dependent on this tiny amount of subsidies to run their operations. Considering that the average cost to plant an acre of corn is 588.00 per acre, a DCP subsidy of 12.00 per acre is all but insignificant. As I mentioned, there are benefits to you as a taxpayer in better-stabilized food prices, and that's why your elected reps continue to authorize farm programs. The other benefits are the requirements on farm operators to abide by swamp-buster and sod-buster provisions, which protect forests and wetlands from ag development.

The last part you may be forgetting is that the farm operators receiving ag subsidies often times don't even own the land they farm. If they're cash renting the land, the landowner is getting nothing from the government. And of course a farm operator would have no option to grant access to a farm for recreational use that he doesn't own. And remember, they aren't getting any subsidies on woodlands, just crop acres. Not much hunting to be done in open crop fields.

I did misspeak 6- vs 16, however, I for one don't believe that the 9 BILLION dollars spent in IN on these programs during this time perod are insignifiicant. As for continuing to vote for these programs, that is a matter of political pressure. A pure market economy, as opposed to this watred-down form of socalism (remember the "stabilized" crop program of the Soviet Union?), is what will lead to a true stable and efficient farming industry instead of one where folks use emotion and their "way of life" to garner these payoffs. And I beg to differ with you but there are several programs that subsidize both woodlands and wetlands in IN through tax abatements and payments. @25-35 dollars an acre? Seriously? My last house in Indiana was new construction and the .4 acres it was on cost me $300 in tax the year BEFORE they assessed the improvements and $2200 after, so excuse those of us paying a MUCH higher cost per acre for not feeling sympathy. BTW, last 3 deer shot in IN were in the middle of cut corn fields. Some sort of access program is only right.

 

[rhomas]

Personally, I have a problem with subsidies in general. Milk prices are an example. If the Federal Government didn't subsidize dairy farmers, the price of a gallon of milk would much less than it is. The same for corn. The Feds are paying farmers to plant corn, but not as a food source, but for ethanol, which increases fuel costs to the consumer. When we consider that it takes one and a half gallons of gasoline to produce one gallon of ethanol, it's illogical. Not to mention that corn prices have more than quadrupled over the last few years due to more of the crop going into ethanol production. I used to pay $1.50 to $2.00 per bushel for corn, and now have to pay $10.00-$11.00 per bushel for my feeders and bait locations.

Deer predation permits are totally non-related to agricultural subsidies, down here, so I can't speak to the effects in the mid-West. However, it does seem idiotic to pay Government sharp-shooters to kill deer that aren't utilized, rather than allowing hunters to kill and use the deer for food.

I remember the old days of the "farm bank" program, when we were forced to set aside acreage to lay fallow and got paid not to plant crops. I was opposed to such programs then, and oppose subsidies today. I, don't see the correlation between those subsidies and loss of hunting habitat. Down here, the biggest creator of lost hunting land is non-resident hunters who are willing to pay $3,000.00 or more an acre for leased land, which has priced hunting leases out of the reach of local hunters and hunting clubs.

 

[Dave N]

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.

 

[spook12]

One of the main issues, and it's not unique to Indiana, is the issue with dealing with both the feds and the state. The subsidies being presented here are from federal programs. The shooting of deer with any weapon for depredation is authorized by the state. They are, nor do I believe they should be, inter-related.

Pointer is right IMO. If the resident hunter wants more access to better manage herds the most logical approach would be attaching strings to depredation tags and payouts.

Keep control at the state level.
A much easier sell would be .......................
If Mr. landowner wants those excess animals removed or payed for the damage they have done,give the people access to manage their herds. Tell them if you don't give us the access to our animals so that we can manage their numbers then we will not be responsible for any damage you receive. If they need extra animals removed in the spring and summer make them provide access during the hunting seasons.

 

[RUT JUNKEY]

Pointer is right IMO. If the resident hunter wants more access to better manage herds the most logical approach would be attaching strings to depredation tags and payouts.

Keep control at the state level.
A much easier sell would be .......................
If Mr. landowner wants those excess animals removed or payed for the damage they have done,give the people access to manage their herds. Tell them if you don't give us the access to our animals so that we can manage their numbers then we will not be responsible for any damage you receive. If they need extra animals removed in the spring and summer make them provide access during the hunting seasons.

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

 

[sheff]

SFC B,

What were the payments for? I find it hard to believe your information is credible since there are limits on federal farm subsidies, usually around $40,000 per person ($100,000 for disaster programs). Maybe these were from crop insurance claims or possibly loans that were repaid? If your info came from EWG, their numbers are often misrepresented.