New idea for access to private land

[30338]

So I drew a tag in an area I have hunted previously in Colorado and thought I would check in with one of the landowners I had not spoken to for a few years. I typed in their name and county on google and hit search. Up popped their government payments for the last 15 years. Starting in about 2008, they have been making around $80,000 to over $110,000 each each year for crop subsidies and other payments.

I never did call them. My thought is if farmers/ranchers want to take government payments to assist in their operations, then they should be required to grant access to any licensed big game hunters. I work very hard and pay a large amount of taxes each year. I don't receive government payments. So if a landowner takes more than say $10,000 per year in payments from .gov, then they can work with .gov on what to plant or not plant. But they also cannot let licensed hunters access their ground during any open big game season.

Tell me why that should not be proposed. I think it is a discussion that should be started. My old ideals of rugged ranchers and farmers is rapidly becoming one of corporate welfare artists.

 

[clifhunter]

let me get some popcorn for this one lol

 

[SFC B]

I will join CH in some snack items and listen intently as well

 

[WapitiBob]

Why you think those subsidies entitle a hunter to access pvt land vs tree huggers, the rainbow people, or welfare moms is a bit curious.

 

[30338]

I think any of those groups who have their hands out, deserve to lose a little of their freedoms actually. However for this conversation, I think any large landowners who benefit from large taxpayer funded payments, should allow those taxpayers unlimited access to those lands during hunting season. I'd give up say a quarter mile around any occupied houses on those ranches for a safety zone.

Why should a large corporately owned farm, or any farm for that matter, expect to receive millions in subsidies over the years and not think they owe the public access?

 

[mdunc8]

Are you also suggesting "access" to any person on welfare?

 

[1_pointer]

The subsidies come, for the most part, from the federal agencies. Hunting, and in part access, is governed by the state. Same as how federally owned land can be closed off to hunting to non-residents (ie WY wilderness law & AK guide requirements for some species).

Some states will add money to the payments recieved through some programs, namely CRP, CREP, and WRP, of the participant allows access.

Why should access only be allowed during hunting season? What about bird watchers? Folks out for a summer hike? It's a slippery slope. The idea of attaching access to farm program participation is one that never gains much widespread political traction.

FWIW, if access was tied to farm program participation, wildlife in Indiana would be greatly negatively impacted as the level of participation would drop dramatically. Lots of woodlots, creek banks, and other types of cover would disappear in a matter of just a couple of years. If it wasn't for the Food Security Act of 1985, most would be already gone! In parts of Indiana tillable ground is worth up to 5 times what wooded ground is worth; $10K/acre vs $2500/acres respectively.

 

[sbhooper]

I don't necessarily disagree with this idea, BUT, if you start that, then where does it stop? Pretty soon, every idiot in the world can just trample on private land for no good reason.

I don't agree with the massive crop subsidies, but I would rather have it going to ranchers and farmers who at least put in the work, than I would to the lazy oxygen thieves that have their hands out without even trying to earn it.

 

[Nemont]

While I agree that many of these payments may be "wasteful" spending of the taxpayers money none of the payments are for access.

Do you agree that the public should have access your house and yard due to your streets, sewer, water, garbage collections, schools, parks, highways etc, etc also being funded by taxpayers? Just curious what your definition of private property is. Everyone is subsidized in some way.

Many of those payments are rental payments to have the landowner do something or not do something the government determined. Ever read a CRP contract, not a single word about having to allow the public onto private lands being rented by the government to not grow crops and to conserve top soil.

This idea that any landowner getting a subsidy should turn around and let the public on their lands is a result of the welfare attitude in this country. Now it has started to take hold of hunters as well.

Not saying I agree with subsidies but if you expect access for those government payments wouldn't that be equal to welfare for hunters? Why should the rest of the public be excluded from this welfare?

Nemont

 

[putm2sleep]

Maybe some of the subsidy is O&G monies? - leasing the right to drill?

FYI - I have been sent 7 different leases over the past 4 years on a property I own in Windsor. The price keeps going up, so I am not signing yet but this is only on 10K ft of property, if I owned 10K acres, imagine that they would be paying a handsome sum to lease?!

>Why is wanting access to land a welfare attitude? That is BS. 'This land is your land this land is my land', is what I grew up singing, and since 50% of the US is on welfare, why don't 100% of hunters get access to private lands why there is still some land to play on?

 

[30338]

I think having your hand out for subsidies and thinking that you owe nothing to the taxpayers who are paying those subsidies is very much a welfare attitude. And many in the farming and ranching community have it. So what I want is access to the private lands that are taking my tax dollars. I want something for what I am paying into, much like I want my social security I am paying into.

My state tags are good on federally owned land in Colorado. I want those tags to be good on all land that is taking federal payments for farm subsidies. If farmers and ranchers don't like that, then they can stop taking the subsidies. Easy enough and I would not expect access to those lands.

 

[putm2sleep]

I think having your hand out for subsidies and thinking that you owe nothing to the taxpayers who are paying those subsidies is very much a welfare attitude. And many in the farming and ranching community have it. So what I want is access to the private lands that are taking my tax dollars. I want something for what I am paying into, much like I want my social security I am paying into.

My state tags are good on federally owned land in Colorado. I want those tags to be good on all land that is taking federal payments for farm subsidies. If farmers and ranchers don't like that, then they can stop taking the subsidies. Easy enough and I would not expect access to those lands.

Well said sir. I concur.

 

[Jorgy]

hunting and crop subsidies have nothing to do with each other. Normally crop subsidies have to do with not growing anything (biting lip)

If the government wanted to pay me 100k for not doing something, I would jump on that bandwagon myself, so I have a hard time blaming a rancher/farmer for that.

Now I do have a problem with ranchers/farmers who receive money for crop damage due to wildlife and then don't allow access to anyone for hunting to thin the herd.

 

[30338]

Not a difficult concept. If you accept federal funds to grow or not grow something, you have to provide the public access to hunt on your land. They must respect the land, no atv riding, no target shooting, etc. They can watch birds there, they can hike around and have a picnic, or they can hunt during open seasons. To be equal opportunity, if there are rivers there, they can also allow fishing. But if you accept money from my taxes, you will allow me access to your lands.

If they do not like that idea, they can stop accepting funds to grow or not grow stuff on their lands. They can be rugged individuals relying on their farming and ranching instincts to make a living. Or they can take subsidies and allow me on their place. Seems easy enough.

Picture this, I lung shoot a mule deer and it bounds over an adjacent fence onto the next property. I pull up on my iphone an app and sure enough, that landowner has accepted $125,000 in the last year. I happily hop the fence and collect my buck with no fear of lawsuits or hassle.

 

[Jorgy]

Ok, picture this - you have kids in public education, so now your hand is out. I guess I can walk into your house, open the fridge and have a beer. Better move over, I am couch bound and ready for some pay per view.

 

[spook12]

How are you gonna like it when other folks start recreating in your backyard? As Nemont pointed out we are all subsidized to some degree.

 

[Nemont]

I think having your hand out for subsidies and thinking that you owe nothing to the taxpayers who are paying those subsidies is very much a welfare attitude. And many in the farming and ranching community have it. So what I want is access to the private lands that are taking my tax dollars. I want something for what I am paying into, much like I want my social security I am paying into.

My state tags are good on federally owned land in Colorado. I want those tags to be good on all land that is taking federal payments for farm subsidies. If farmers and ranchers don't like that, then they can stop taking the subsidies. Easy enough and I would not expect access to those lands.

I never said there was or was not a welfare attitude for those getting subsidizes. Tell me when the taxpayers get to decide what their money is and is not spent on? Sign me up, there are a bunch of things our government pays for and I don't see a benefit from.

Are you certain you want to compare the payments for farm subsidies to social security payments?

Are you opening your house to the homeless as they are in the public and you don't pay the full cost of what all the services provided to you are so you are subsidized.

Find a contract where it states that government payments, direct or indirect, force private landowners to give up their property rights. That would constitute a taking and the it removes all the protections of private property rights that have been held as sacrosanct. A landowner would be stupid to not take money given to them but if access were part of it most would not.

If you think it is a gravy train then why not just buy some land and suck at the government teat and have the government pay for your farm and ranch. I bet you aren't willing to put your money where your mouth is, like most who come up with this argument you are not willing to risk your own capital to get in on the joys of owning land and farming and ranching.

I don't like paying for endless wars just I don't expect my tax dollars to buy me access to an M-1 Tank. My old ideas of hunters being the ones who respected private property boundaries is changing to some of them being sniveling whiners that somebody owns land.

Nemont

 

[Southwind]

Pop up some more.

We have all kinds of easements that we have to allow on our individual or business properties for purposes mainly utility and public safety access. I don't believe publicly subsidized farmers or ranchers should be required to allow hunting on their property, but if their property abuts or land locks public grounds I believe a public access easement along the edge of the property line should be allowed.

 

[Nemont]

Pop up some more.

We have all kinds of easements that we have to allow on our individual or business properties for purposes mainly utility and public safety access. I don't believe publicly subsidized farmers or ranchers should be required to allow hunting on their property, but if their property abuts or land locks public grounds I believe a public access easement along the edge of the property line should be allowed.

I have no problem with that position.

Nemont

 

[smarandr]

I think having your hand out for subsidies and thinking that you owe nothing to the taxpayers who are paying those subsidies is very much a welfare attitude.

So what's your welfare? Your house? Your kids? Student loan interest? Medical expenses? Contributions to your church?