hillrunner
PMA Member
Letting one hunter in for all that would be a great deal for you. Would you allow it to be public access is a far different question??
Letting one hunter in for all that would be a great deal for you. Would you allow it to be public access is a far different question??
Highmark
PMA Member
While I'm all for more hunting access but I can imagine the trouble this will cause in some area's. I have about 135 acres that borders over 1000 acres of timber, a good portion of which has no fences or boundry markings. For the most part neighbors respect these boundries as everybody know's where they are and many of us let each other hunt each others ground. Imagine one private landowner in the middle participating, some hunters would be all over everywhere, intentional and not.
Without question it should be mandatory that the property lines be well marked. Maybe even increase tresspassing fines if they are caught off the public access. IMO too much bad to come from this to support it.
Without question it should be mandatory that the property lines be well marked. Maybe even increase tresspassing fines if they are caught off the public access. IMO too much bad to come from this to support it.
yup that's logical ...cause I'm a NR I should make my land public, do you want to borrow my car to?
I'd be more than willing to allow trusted res hunters access in exchange for helping to maintain my piece of the kingdom as long as the state allowed me to hunt as much as I wanted with my new group of "buds".
hillrunner
PMA Member
I never said you should, but that is the topic being discussed here.
Fishbonker
Life Member
Having been in some meetings with the FB in regards to deer and deer hunting, I hate to say this and I’m vomiting in my mouth a little as I think it, Northstar is right. Why take a couple of bucks an acre when they can lease it for much more to a private entity? It isn’t about liability, Iowa running out of money or access; it’s about their members making more money. It is a smoke screen for their bottom line. Protecting their member’s ability to make a buck no matter what the cost to the environment, the wildlife or you.
Let’s say Moe leases his land for 30 bucks an acre to an outfitter. Larry leases his ground to the State for 2 bucks an acre. Curly wants to go hunting, who is he gonna pay? NOBODY cause he can hunt for free on Larry’s ground, therefore the outfitter Moe leases his ground to goes broke, can’t pay Moe for his lease and Moe, perhaps a good FB member, loses money. This is the scenario FB is worried about.
I also find it interesting that nobody else heard about it yet. There are some very well connected folks on this site. How did the FB find out about it before they did?
I think those of you who say it won’t work because who wants to give up control over who hunts their land are probably correct. Those of you who say the best land to hunt won’t be enrolled are probably correct too, but there may be a few producers out there who may sign up. It works in Kansas.
I’ll take one more shot here, where do you think the FB stands on the Wildlife feeding bill? They fought the shit out of it last year and will this year too. I guess it all depends on the issue huh?
Let’s say Moe leases his land for 30 bucks an acre to an outfitter. Larry leases his ground to the State for 2 bucks an acre. Curly wants to go hunting, who is he gonna pay? NOBODY cause he can hunt for free on Larry’s ground, therefore the outfitter Moe leases his ground to goes broke, can’t pay Moe for his lease and Moe, perhaps a good FB member, loses money. This is the scenario FB is worried about.
I also find it interesting that nobody else heard about it yet. There are some very well connected folks on this site. How did the FB find out about it before they did?
I think those of you who say it won’t work because who wants to give up control over who hunts their land are probably correct. Those of you who say the best land to hunt won’t be enrolled are probably correct too, but there may be a few producers out there who may sign up. It works in Kansas.
I’ll take one more shot here, where do you think the FB stands on the Wildlife feeding bill? They fought the shit out of it last year and will this year too. I guess it all depends on the issue huh?
Fishbonker
Life Member
How regularly do you wanna hunt it? You can hunt it every year. Buy an NR doe tag for shotgun, party hunt with your buds and kill your buck. Not sure which county you are in but there were many many NR tags unsold this year just like last year and the year before and the year before.
A couple points on this proposal, I'm not supporting one way or the other. I've since deleted the email so this is just rough info from memory.
The lease payments were not $2/acre, way above if I recall correctly (over $100?), and were in addition to any CRP payments on the same ground. If IIRC it was $2.2 Million total available for lease payments.
Minimum acreage was 40.
Total amount of money/land the first year averaged about 40 acres per county.
My take was that it was aimed at upland game (pheasant) hunting acres, not deer hunting.
These are rough numbers so do your own dilegence on this one.
Everybody wants more public acres, but nobody wants them next to THEIR honey hole. Cant say I blame them.
The lease payments were not $2/acre, way above if I recall correctly (over $100?), and were in addition to any CRP payments on the same ground. If IIRC it was $2.2 Million total available for lease payments.
Minimum acreage was 40.
Total amount of money/land the first year averaged about 40 acres per county.
My take was that it was aimed at upland game (pheasant) hunting acres, not deer hunting.
These are rough numbers so do your own dilegence on this one.
Everybody wants more public acres, but nobody wants them next to THEIR honey hole. Cant say I blame them.
Last edited:
turkeyriver
PMA Member
Without reading the proposal, it's hard to know if FB is right or not. Maybe it WAS short on details in the areas they noted. One thing for sure, and you can always count on it, FB stands up for individual property rights over gov't intervention, especially when it comes to farming and making money. If you own 1000 acres of timber, they support your right to allow NO hunting, or to sell hunts to 100 NR hunters. Deer sanctuary? They also support the neighboring farmers' right to protect their crops by shooting all year long, every deer that crosses the fence onto their property. If you want to doze it and put up hog confinements, even if it's full of sinkholes and a trout stream runs through it, you should be able to do it. If you want to donate it to the Nature Conservancy, they won't stand in your way.Anything that would impose on those rights for the greater good of the people or welfare of the environment or wildlife, will be scrutinized severely and generally be opposed on principle alone. Right or wrong? Depends on the issue, and which side you're on.