# Legislators hurting farmers and ranchers



## Old Hunter (Mar 8, 2002)

My construction projects cover a pretty good area in central ND. Kulm,Napolean,Gackle,Streeter,Medina Cleveland. are all areas where I work. Its about 50/50 situation with about 1/2 being farms and the other 1/2 in towns. Often when working on farms the folks insist on feeding you, its a very nice job perk to build friendship and oh yes hunting opportunities. When the timing is right I direct the conversation towards the hunting world to get their opinions. At least once a year I am told by a farmer/rancher how they are priced out of land they needed for their operation by nonresident hunters buying the land. My present job is in Medina, a young fellow (about 25 )working very hard to build himself and his new wife a farm/ranch operation. He told that last summer he was out bid on some land that was very important to him, it was adjecent to his and was grazing and had good water. When I told him that it looked like the commercial interests are going to open the flood gates and between 3 weeks of waterfowling and pretty much unlimited pheasant hunting he could expect thing to get worse, he was very unhappy with this information.He said sure its good for gas stations and cafe's but its very bad for him.
The legislators are listening to the tourism dept but turning their backs on the concerns of the the farmer/rancher.
Neither myself or this young farmer are anti nonresident, we just dont want you here all year.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

CRP not NR did the damage to the next generation of farmers. I preached and begged for people to wake up but its to late. Next!!!


----------



## Maverick (Mar 4, 2002)

buckseye said:


> CRP not NR did the damage to the next generation of farmers. I preached and begged for people to wake up but its to late. Next!!!


So are you saying that NR buying up AG land for hunting purposes is not affecting the farmers?


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

> So are you saying that NR buying up AG land for hunting purposes is not affecting the farmers?


Maybe a handful. :wink:

Unless you are talking about the possibility of the inflated rec. land prices affecting our working land property taxes. This is a good subject that needs to be discussed though, the separation of rec. only land and working land. Primary intentions will be tricky I suppose.


----------



## Maverick (Mar 4, 2002)

> Maybe a handful. :wink:


In your area maybe.... :wink:

So with your ability to look into the future you don't see this as a problem. Becasue it is a problem in my area. Farmers are being out bid at land auctions for land to go into hunting by guides(Res.) and NR as well. I can drive you around an area where this is affecting my local farmers if you want!


----------



## swift (Jun 4, 2004)

I'm sorry Old Hunter but you are dead wrong. Longer license periods will not have an effect on land prices. It is the residents of ND that support guiding and outfitting that are driving the cost of land up for recreational purposes.

You will say residents don't use guides, but they don't do anything to hold them accountable for the decrease in land access, which adversly affects others that use to come and hunt, and now have to buy land to hunt on.

People have been coming to ND from out of state for decades without buying land. Then the outfitters swooped in and access dwindled, more people R and NR were forced onto less space which fueled the disdain for NR. A couple of very wealthy people bought some land and the legend started.

If people really want to stop the perceived land grab by NR take down the posted signs. Your grandparents didnt see a need to post the land and when it came up for sale they were only competeing with other farmers not hunters too. The no hunting signs are the underlying cause of the problems.


----------



## dblkluk (Oct 3, 2002)

> Longer license periods will not have an effect on land prices


You could not be more wrong. The ability to hunt ND three weekends (3-5 day periods) is an incredible incentive for NR's to come in and purchase land/homes for recreational use.


----------



## KurtR (May 3, 2008)

if they had land to hunt why would they buy it for 3 weeks of hunting. I have not seen it discribed as swift did before but i think he made great points.


----------



## blhunter3 (May 5, 2007)

swift said:


> If people really want to stop the perceived land grab by NR take down the posted signs. Your grandparents didnt see a need to post the land and when it came up for sale they were only competeing with other farmers not hunters too. The no hunting signs are the underlying cause of the problems.


The reason for posted signs is because people abuse the land. Or some people provide a refuge for the animals.


----------



## PSDC (Jul 17, 2003)

Why not ask the seller? Farmer/ranchers get upset with out of area 
individuals purchasing ag land, but then have no problem selling land
at an inflated price when it's there time to get out of farming.

Can't have it both ways folks!


----------



## Maverick (Mar 4, 2002)

KurtR said:


> if they had land to hunt why would they buy it for 3 weeks of hunting. I have not seen it discribed as swift did before but i think he made great points.


Because it is still cheaper than the areas that some are coming from. Plus the guarantee of land to hunt when you get here.


----------



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

PSDC said:


> Why not ask the seller? Farmer/ranchers get upset with out of area individuals purchasing ag land, but then have no problem selling landat an inflated price when it's there time to get out of farming.
> 
> Can't have it both ways folks!


Well put. For a non-resident to buy land for hunting a *Farmer/Rancher* has to *sell* it to them.

If the people in the farming community were so concerned about this, they'd only sell their land to area farmers and not to anyone from out of state (or out of the area).

So I would argue that legislators are not hurting all farmers and ranchers...some of them are making a very good profit from this.

Farmers are like most people in this country meaning they're all for capitalism when it's in their favor and they're all for socialism when it's in their favor. In the case of land sales, they favor capitalism.


----------



## Maverick (Mar 4, 2002)

Not all auctions are like this though. For example ND largest land auction was last week in Jamestown. The farmer had no family to give the property to so the state sold it to the highest bidder. So to say all auctions come from the farmers or even families is just not true.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> The farmer had no family to give the property to


Not true. Walter had no children, but he has nephews etc. The land was sold the money I am sure will be divided among relatives. Walter lived about three miles from the hydrology site I worked on during the summer from 1980 to 1995.

The young farmers want to buy land, but the guy selling the land will perhaps move to Arizona so he doesn't care what the local community thinks. They are not going to pass up an extra $100 an acre for the young couple next door. It's everyone for themselves in a free for all.

When this is all over the township and county taxes are going to hurt. It will not be turned back like CRP could so the implement dealers will hurt. If your in a small town and you think this fall influx of business is going to help, sure in the short run. If you plan to retire within ten years keep it up, if you plan to make a living in that area for the next 20 years, well, good luck with that.


----------



## bholtan (Aug 10, 2007)

> Not all auctions are like this though. For example ND largest land auction was last week in Jamestown. The farmer had no family to give the property to so the state sold it to the highest bidder. So to say all auctions come from the farmers or even families is just not true.


This land was not sold by the STATE, it was sold by his ESTATE.


----------



## Maverick (Mar 4, 2002)

My bad. I was told by others that he had no living family so there was no beneficiary. 
Still in this case the selling did not come from the farmer/rancher.


----------



## FlashBoomSplash (Aug 26, 2005)

Did anyone go to that auction. I went and the only reason the land sold as high as it did was one guy ran the bids up. Bitz must of paid him off. The land would of went way less without that guy. Did I mention he was from LA. But he did grow up around here.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Yes, I think it's Haybusters that the guy owns. He spent 2.8 million I think it was on 4000 acres that surrounds his grandfathers old homestead.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

I hear ya Mav... I wore myself out on this subject long time ago. This is a problem brought on by the relatively new be a sportsman rave. We've lost a few thousand acres around here too and probably wont loose much more because we don't have the ditch chicken market here. We have a fine man on here who is NR and has bought rec. land, ask Taddy if it's acceptable. I have to say I welcome the people such as Taddy and hope they can find happiness out here on the windy prairie. I guess is how I look at it. :beer:

And besides all that whats the difference between a Res. who owns land and a non Res. who owns land if neither live here year round.


----------



## Old Hunter (Mar 8, 2002)

I heard the story of Walters life yesterday from one of his neighbors, very interesting.
I dont blame the person who is selling their land. I would try to get as much as possible myself. I'm not angry with the nonresidents that have purchased land . Commercial interests take many forms,realtors,hardware stores ,outfitters, anyone can make a buck off the wild life. The problem is that the legislature has given so much to the nonresident hunter that land purchase for that reason is much more attractive. I had realtors tell that when waterfowl had a cap of 30,000 hunting land didn't move well. Now a nonresident landowner can pretty much hunt everything all fall and get a gratis deer also. They just gave too much away. There is really no reason to be a resident for hunting purposes any more. Yes it does drive land prices and it is bad for the small and young cowboys.
I know it gets old but if I didnt post this stuff you guys wouldnt have any thing to talk about :beer:


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

If the wildlife wasn't here in abundance to "give" away I know for sure we wouldn't be "giving" it away. Trends in nature go up and down making for fun discussions and crazy ideas. No one to blame. :beer:


----------



## taddy1340 (Dec 10, 2004)

buckseye said:


> I hear ya Mav... I wore myself out on this subject long time ago. This is a problem brought on by the relatively new be a sportsman rave. We've lost a few thousand acres around here too and probably wont loose much more because we don't have the ditch chicken market here. We have a fine man on here who is NR and has bought rec. land, ask Taddy if it's acceptable. I have to say I welcome the people such as Taddy and hope they can find happiness out here on the windy prairie. I guess is how I look at it. :beer:
> 
> And besides all that whats the difference between a Res. who owns land and a non Res. who owns land if neither live here year round.


Thank you David. Yes, this discussion is near and dear to my heart. I bought 80 acres in buckseye's neck of the woods. I overpaid compared to the appraisal. I also paid more than the local rancher was willing to pay. It's a very slippery slope that has caused some angst in the neighborhood. One neighbor thinks the land should be sold first to young ranchers, even at a lower price. I understand his thinking, but can you blame a 70 year old rancher with no pension, 401k, Roth, etc. for taking the money? This land is their retirement.

With all that said, I'm very conscious of the relationship with my neighbors. Yes, I post my land. But I've also not refused anyone that asks. I've been thinking about selling my 80. My first call was to a local rancher and I told him that I'd be willing to offer it to him/his son first and at a decent price...not the highest I could get. Why? Because in 4 years they've been great to me.

Lastly, I buy land in ND for a number of reasons:

1. Honestly, it's cheap compared to WI, MN, IA, etc and has much more to offer. I own 50 acres in WI. I can buy about 5-10 acres in ND for every acre in WI. Do the math.

2. I want to retire in ND. I loved being stationed there. I love the area where my land is...absolutely beautiful country. I want my kids to grow up in a safe, hardworking environment.

3. Someday, I hope to own enough in all areas of the state and I will just leave it open to hunters. My next purchase will be some CRP land...something I can get paid from, but does good for wildlife. Call me stupid or don't believe me, but if I was that jacka$$ from LA at that auction, I'd buy it all and leave every acre open.


----------



## Old Hunter (Mar 8, 2002)

Mike you are centainly a gererous person. I would think that when the locals get to know you they will accept you very well. Its takes time.You are definatly the exception to to what I have found to be the norm. You will make a great neighbor for the locals.
Here is the rest of the story: The young cowboy that was priced out of the land didnt hold any grudges.He meet the new owner and they made a deal.The farmer doesnt hunt pheasants or waterfowl but if he has time he likes to take a walk and do a little deer hunting.So the deal was the new owner could hunt birds on the farmers land if he could walk the new owners crp. The new owner hunted as he pleased, when deer hunting came the farmer called him to reconfirm his permission to hunt. HE WAS TOLD NO! The new owner had leased the deer hunting rights to another person. I asked the young fellow what he was going to say to this fellow if he comes to his house next year for permission. No reason to type what he said, the words will not be printed by the site filter. Needless to say this fellow is going to be chewed out like never before. North Dakota is one big small town word gets around.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

> Needless to say this fellow is going to be chewed out like never before.


And that there is the problem! This youngster is actually dumb enough to burn bridges and will then probably spend the rest of his life blaming the other guy. Money talks and bull**** walks!! :beer:


----------



## Maverick (Mar 4, 2002)

buckseye said:


> > Needless to say this fellow is going to be chewed out like never before.
> 
> 
> And that there is the problem! This youngster is actually dumb enough to burn bridges and will then probably spend the rest of his life blaming the other guy. Money talks and b#llsh*t walks!! :beer:


Not true.......the problem was in his words and the point that the agreement (verbally) was not honored. That is the real problem.
With that kind of an attitude you are saying the problem is the NR because that is where the $ is coming from. If there were more land owners like Mike this would not be an issue, but unfortunately he is very unique. I guess you could say fortunately he is unique.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

> Not true.......the problem was in his words and the point that the agreement (verbally) was not honored. That is the real problem.


So you think its better to be enemies with your neighbor than to just let bygones be bygones. When you are neighbors in the country you always end up face to face, it's best to grin and bear it. You know the old saying .. honey catches more flies than vinegar.



> With that kind of an attitude you are saying the problem is the NR because that is where the $ is coming from. If there were more land owners like Mike this would not be an issue, but unfortunately he is very unique. I guess you could say fortunately he is unique.


I have never said anything bad about NR's.

And around here Taddy is the norm for the NR's that bought rec. land. Not a single NR landowner is without a network of friends here. I think alot of the problems people have must be where its more populated or something, we sure as hell don't resent a private individual investing in our State. But CRP tax dollars are a different story. People that throw their land into CRP then move south are talked about much worse than a NR who owns land here for recreation.


----------



## taddy1340 (Dec 10, 2004)

Thanks for the kind words gentlemen. I think that it helps that my "roots" are embedded in growing up in a very small town and working on a dairy for 8 years. I was raised much like you fellas...appreciate what you have, appreciate those who help you, etc. I can say I've developed some great relationships in ND. I'm excited to move there again.

Unfortunately, many NR landowners come in the wealthy variety...and guess what...the same things that got them rich, also makes them a$$es. With that said, that only applies to some.

Mike


----------



## swift (Jun 4, 2004)

As ND law stands a NR hunter can buy as many small game and waterfowl licenses as he wants. So lets say its a warm fall and the ducks are still hanging around over Thanksgiving, I can buy a 2 week license for opener around Oct 1st and subsequent 2 week licenses through Thanksgiving by buying 4 licenses total. That will come to $320 which is less than the yearly taxes on a quarter of land. If you really think that having a season long license will curb NR rec land buyers your just not thinking logical. If I drop $100,000 on a quarter just to hunt on license fees are a very small drop in the bucket.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Swift

One correction and a comment

You can only buy one waterfowl license per year legally.... Upland (small game) is unlimited licensing.

Comment... Many chunks of land are not purchased "only for hunting" There are shelters, investments and any number of reasons why land is purchased. Hunting and CRP payments are often fringe benefits. I know of several fairly large chunks of land that were purchased by some decent guys from the Chicago area. They rent the land to a farmer/rancher collect the CRP payments and hunt it for a couple of weeks a year and lease the land to a third party for deer hunting. It costs them no more than the trip out to own the land. It used to be land that i was allowed to hunt on. It is no longer. It is their right to do as they please with their land and there is no ill feelings on my part, Just an example of how some very good land was taken out of the system.

Regards

Bob


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

> It is their right to do as they please with their land and there is no ill feelings on my part, Just an example of how some very good land was taken out of the system.


Obviously you mean it was taken out of your system, I had no noticable repercussions over here.


----------



## Maverick (Mar 4, 2002)

As you said before, without the ditch chicken market out there, you probably have less pressure as well (with less pressure for the land). Well in my area there is a waterfowl, upland, deer market. Not just deer as in your area. 
Yes honey does work better than vinegar to catch your common fly, but not all flies like sugar some want blood. I do understand what you are saying but I am talking about agreements going sour (the sugar was thrown away and vinegar was used by the new land owner not the farmer). Maybe this isn't a problem in your area, but I will take you for a drive in my area where it is. So for you to say there isn't a problem just isn't true.


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

There has been a butt load of land taken out of "my" system as well. Non-residents locking it up and bringing more non-residents. This cycle is not going to end in our lifetimes, unless of course the resource for sale runs out.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

> Obviously you mean it was taken out of your system, I had no noticable repercussions over here.


Not at all David. There were many people that hunted that land. I did not have and did not ask or expect to have exclusive hunting rights to any of it. I asked for permission to hunt it just like anyone else. It was posted land with "ask for permission first" signs.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

Ya Bob but you are only one person and you talk about this stuff like its everywhere for everyone. You guys are just like kids you never get tired of asking for more. :beer:

You guys might make somebody who doesn't know better think we are all a bunch of ******** here in ND.. well I'm not and you don't represent even a small fraction of the population. So there blah!!! :lol:


----------

