Preemptively contemplating the responses was pretty easy, and accurate. Yes, I know what the 'intention' of CRP type programs is/are. What I 'witness' is something else. (In fact, I feel it's almost promoted here.)Did you even read or contemplate the responses or did you just come back with your pre planned comment/ opinion? The crp program is not about creating hunting paradises even if that's what many end users are doing. Most CRP acres would go away along with all the intended benefits of the program.
That is fine , but you’d lose at least half the acres in sign up. So it would end the program . A few non hunters might sign up, and some out west guys that have big open CRP farms .. they do sign up for walk in programs .If land owners are taking tax $ to make a hunting / fishing paradice for themselves, on their own private property, then said private property should be available for public use to fellow tax payers.
If ya'll can buy tens or hundreds of acres, but take tax $ to create your own private play area, that just ain't right.
Just sayin.
Iowa has a voluntary program such as this. There is not a reservation system though. I think it is called IHAP. There are some good pheasant properties in story county (Ames) under the program.That’s not why crp exists. The fsa, a govt agency, encourages landowners through payment to save habitat. Improved hunting is a by product of the program not the intent. The dept of agriculture and the fsa are responsible for the program. If they deem it’s abused they should end it.
25 years ago Illinois had a program, maybe it still exists, where landowners who allowed hunting registered with the dnr. You could view the list, available weeks and apply to hunt a farm. There was a fee but it was minimal compared to outfitting. I hunted a farm for one week two years in a row. Had a blast. Maybe Iowa could develop a similar program???
These are winning proposalsJust like the ISC poll - what is best for deer is likely not best for deer hunters and what is best for deer hunters is likely not best for deer.
1) Revert back to legal weapons from 10 years ago (no straight wall rifles, no smokeless muzzleloaders, no crossbows in the future)
2) Fully fund the DNR to allow them more time and resources for: acquire more public land, more COs/Rangers, more public and private lands biologists/techs, more habitat improvement on public lands - plots/prairie restoration/invasive species removal/FSI/ect.
These are winning proposals
There’s a guy from near Boone. He’s put in a ton of CRP and a few restored wetlands….its a gorgeous property! I stopped a few years ago and asked for permission to hunt. I was granted permission….for $50 a gun per day. Something about that didn’t sit right with me, I never went back.If land owners are taking tax $ to make a hunting / fishing paradice for themselves, on their own private property, then said private property should be available for public use to fellow tax payers.
If ya'll can buy tens or hundreds of acres, but take tax $ to create your own private play area, that just ain't right.
Just sayin.
There’s a guy from near Boone. He’s put in a ton of CRP and a few restored wetlands….its a gorgeous property! I stopped a few years ago and asked for permission to hunt. I was granted permission….for $50 a gun per day. Something about that didn’t sit right with me, I never went back.