# Can you guys enlighten me???



## SHOOTINGGREENHEADS (Sep 16, 2003)

Give me the low down about the Farm Bureau. Tell me the good, the bad, and the ugly. I've heard rumblings around here in the past, but they fail to give me enough info to understand the problems caused by the Farm Bureau.
Thanks,
SGH


----------



## Drakekiller (Apr 3, 2002)

Not enough time or space! Search FB on this site


----------



## nodakoutdoors.com (Feb 27, 2002)

Good old Google....

http://www.google.com/custom?q=farm+bur ... tdoors.com

Plenty to read.


----------



## 4590 (Jun 27, 2004)

Shooting,

The problem around here with FB is they have been a defender of property rights. That doesn't play well with sportsmen that have been spoiled from many years of free access. Consequently they would like to stomp out FB so they can once again stomp all over private land for free.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Free access???

I don't know my friend....I seem to be paying for the CRP on your land,the subsidies you get,the lower taxes on farm machinery,the high cost of beef because of a ban on Canadian beef,the low cost loans,etc.This is all money from my pocket to yours.

I've stood behind farmers when they parked their tractors blocking the Peace Garden.I've thought the gov't should help and stand behind them to stop unfair dumping even though it is costing me money.Now you can say ...


4590 said:


> That doesn't play well with sportsmen that have been spoiled from many years of free access. Consequently they would like to stomp out FB so they can once again stomp all over private land for free.


Maybe it's time to get rid of those things to keep more money in my pocket.Then I might have money to pay you to hunt on your land....of course you wouldn't have anything to hunt.

Just keep in mind that the law of physics says...

a reaction in one direction mandates a reaction in the opposite direction.

Why should I go along with all those gov't programs?They do nothing for me except empty my pockets.


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

Shooter, although some may want you to think that some resident hunters are against the FB due to the posting issue, it is much more complicated than that simplification. the organization North Dakota LAND is a spin off from the Farm Bureau. they state on their website that they are strong supporters of private property rights. However, if you ask them if a land owner, or a land owner and his children taking over the farm, should be able to put a long term conservation easement on his own property, LAND is opposed. Why should the Farm Bureau oppose someone who want to exercise their property rights?

They have supported changing the posting law in ND even though legislation has always failed and supposedly a majority of farmers are against the change (unless they belong to the Farm bureau).

The Farm Bureau came out with a "database" of willing land owners allowing hunting. However, they only gave out the information to members of the bureau.

Their most recent website post was a petition one had to sign before the landowner would let you hunt. The FB claims to be supportive of wildlife conservation. However the petition advocated the repeal of federal swampbuster legislation which would result in more wetlands being drained.

The consistent pattern of contradiction about what they say and what they print is the problem with conservation minded sportsmen as well as conservation minded land owners who want their private property rights back without the FB interference.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Great post Ken, there is no end to the taxpayer funded grants, low interest loans, bailouts, subsidies, protections from competitors ect. farmers feel that somehow their entitled to, but when the taxpayer wants to hunt the publics game animals. The farmers now say "screw you pay us or stay out" and we will sell something we don't own to the highest bidder. When access goes we should all work hard at allowing the farmbills to shrink and allow corporate farms which would be more efficient anyway gobble them up. What incentive do we taxpayers have to help them with their welfare "you owe us something and we owe you nothing in return" attitude?
The farming industry is the one of if not the most heavily taxpaer subsidized segment of our economy and that needs to be changed if this access issue continues.
One good thing is there are a lot fewer farmer thans other voting segments.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

See http://nodakoutdoors.com/members/phpBB/ ... tisfaction

Notice the signature logo on the lower right corner of this sign? Sweet.

ND Farm Bureau's position on hunting/wildlife issues: "to a hammer, everything is a nail". Any hunter friendly position is pounded into the ground. Remember when you vote this Tuesday that Doug Goehring, the rep. Ag Commissioner candidate, is the vice pres of NDFB.   Your vote will count.

_A recent article in 10/18th Newsweek quotes that 15,000,000 acres of ag land have been developed for housing in the last 5 years.

25,000,000 acres of ranchland are at risk of residential developement by 2020.

Only 1,000,000 acres of ranchland are now protected by conservation easements.

Farm Bureau vehemently opposes conservation easements, yet passes themselves off as a farm organization, while millions of farmland acres go under concrete._


----------



## 4590 (Jun 27, 2004)

Wow Ken,

Seem to have pushed a button here. You of all people should understand subsidies. I am sure a lot more of your salary as a teacher is payed by taxes than mine. I guess I could say that is "money from my pocket to yours". Does that subsidy give me as a taxpayer some kind of right to you property? Absurd! I sign a contract every year (just like you do) with FSA that outlines what I must do and not do in order to be eligible for subsidies. It is my choice but the incentive is considerabe. NO WHERE in that contract does it mention that I must give up any rights to charge for access of any kind. I have said before that making open hunting an option for CRP contracts would not bother me at all. But don't try to gain some kind of entitlement because I recieve taxpayer $$$. Most people in this country benefit from subsidies of some kind. Arguably commodities are a subsidy for consumers much more so than farmers. Cheap food is what allows you to have extra income to afford recreation. If farm subsidies are so great why are so many farmers quiting. Other programs are called incentives, Bob K illuded to these. We give incentives for alot of things. We give them to business to come to our communities. Does that give us some kind of rights to access their property? We give them because we think they are worth it to benefit more than the direct receiver.

Funny you should mention the ban on beef. Let me see if I have this straight. You are not pleased that our Gov. is trying to prevent BSE from entering this country from Can., where it has been found, because it cost you allittle more at the grocery store. Yet there is grave concern over elk that may escape from a farm where we have been testing every dead animal for CWD for nearly 7 yrs. Hmmm.

Bobm

I have been farming for 27 yrs and haven't gotten one taxpayer grant. What am I missing here if there is no end to these. I could sure use one.
Like I say if farming is so great jump in and help yourself they are selling out nearly every day. Buy some land while you are at it and then you will have access too. I am no fan of subsidies, but in our global market farmers are competing with other governments that subsidize heavily. If you think you want corp. farms you better think that one through. What do you think your chances of getting free access to large blocks of land controled by corporations would be. Corps are just as "greedy" as farmers if not more and if they see a way to make a buck, they will. And more efficient, well I don't think most corporate employees would put the hrs I do most days. You say you don't get anything for your taxpayer subsidies, well I guess not, just the cheapest, safest, most plentiful food supply in world. Bargain if you ask me.

Dick,

Ya that evil FB. Funny how we can spin anything to fit our agenda. I am not very envolved in FB although I am a member. Mainly for insurance. My understanding of their position on easements is simply that they think they should have a sunset clause, I don't think they are opposed to them at all. That no land should be tied up indefinitely with an easement. Does any one really believe conservation easements are going to hold back developement of urban areas?


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

It is a tangled web to say the least, North Dakota State Representative Rodney Froelich filed suit against the State of North Dakota oto try and change the tresspass laws to make all land posted to hunting automatically. In other words if you wanted to allow hunting you would have to post your land accordingly. well the law firm behind the suit The Northern Plains Public Intrest Firm, was created by the Farm Bureau to champion this cause. The lawsuit failed.

The Governor (Mr. Hoeven) had a fund raiser with the Cannonball Company, a large Outfitter/Guide operation who admits to paying farmers and ranchers $17.00 per bird harvested contrary to North Dakota Law, and some prominent Farm Bureau members. Shortly after that fundraiser "Pheasantgate" erupted and and the early pheasant opener that the O/G's and FB wanted was shot down.

The laws that Govern O/G's in ND are full of holes, check some of the other threads here for further information.

Land (landowners association of North Dakota) id the most recent candidate to carry water for the FB.

Not enough time to give the entire history.

Later

Bob


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

4590....good rebuttle...but how about this for answers.....

Yes I am a teacher and my salary does come from taxes.BUT I work in a public building...you or your kids are not charged EXTRA money to come into our school...can you say the same thing?You recieve public funds and now you want me to pay EXTRA to come on your land.Maybe to be the same...I should charge you extra for every child you send to my school over and above what you pay in taxes.

No where did I mention access.You have the right as any landowner does to say who comes on your land.BUT I and every citizen in ND owns the wildlife on your land.You are charging me to hunt wildlife I own.If you want to deny me access fine...then NO ONE should be able to hunt that land including you and your clients.Maybe that FSA contract needs to be changed.

Since we all own the wildlife....maybe some of those fees should go to the state.

How about this....all CRP land should be open to the public to hunt.You can deny access only if NO ONE hunts it or you refund the money you recieved from the gov't.In other words all CRP would be the same as PLOTS.

I and a lot of hunters feel you should not be able to charge to hunt those animals if you recieve money from the gov't.Maybe you should refund some of those CRP payments if you charge.

As far as the BSE...that is a joke...one cow was found almost 2 years ago.That ban is purely political.Does anyone actually feel threatened by that one case of BSE.Farm state congressman will fight tooth and nail to keep it from being lifted,not because of the threat of BSE,but because it keeps prices higher.

As far as a cheaper food supply goes....consumers would be better off with imports from other countries.Law of supply and demand would lower prices big time.


----------



## redlabel (Mar 7, 2002)

KEN W said:


> Maybe to be the same...I should charge you extra for every child you send to my school over and above what you pay in taxes.
> 
> I pay taxes on my house in Grand Forks, I pay taxes on my apartment building in Grand Forks, I pay taxes on a farm in rural North Dakota.
> 
> ...


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

> I have been farming for 27 yrs and haven't gotten one taxpayer grant. What am I missing here if there is no end to these. I could sure use one.
> Like I say if farming is so great jump in and help yourself they are selling out nearly every day.


Call it what you will the farm bill is huge and farmers get most of it and taxpayers pay for all of it period so *there are huge income transfers from taxpayers to farmers*, and farmers like you should be exempted form the beifits of this bill because you don't deserve or appreciate our help. If the whole country loses access, (most of it has already) I sincerely hope the farm industry goes corporate and that all subsidization ceases. I am personally going to lobby my congressman for that from this point on. You farmers used to appreciate the help now you believe your entitiled to the taxpayers money, you've become like other welfare groups, leeches.


----------



## Drakekiller (Apr 3, 2002)

North Dakota hunters have no bigger enemy than the Farm Bureau!!!!!!! Last session we fought them on any hunter freindly bill plus killing their bad bills. Farm Bureau's Hunter access program was a complete joke it was really just a way for them to get more non voteing members plus forty bucks from hood winked hunters. They forgot to tell you that the land owners might charge you to hunt. When I get some more time I will put some more facts about Enemy One "Farm Bureau".


----------



## Remmi_&amp;_I (Dec 2, 2003)

Drakekiller, I'd like to hear more about this. Try to post more when you get the chance!


----------



## SHOOTINGGREENHEADS (Sep 16, 2003)

Thanks for all the input so far guys.

Drakekiller, I need to here your input, and facts only please.

I knew this could be a topic of debate, but I don't seem to be getting any real facts that would tell me as a sportsman not to support the FB. The reason I posed the question to this forum is because I am a FB Member. I am not a farmer and I am only a member because my wife is an employee of FBFS (Farm Bureau Financial Services). The only perk I get from them is discounted motel rooms in some rural towns when I'm out hunting.

Does FB support the commercialization of farming?
-I do not!

Does FB support landowner rights?
-If it means the right to chose who uses there land, I support this, I think?

Does FB support G/O's?
-I do not!

I just don't understand a lot of the problems that people, escpecially freelance hunters, have with the FB?

Thanks for your time and the PM's.
SGH


----------



## Nemont (Jan 27, 2004)

KenW,
I am not sure if you understand the border situation or not. Boxed beef from Canada is allowed into the U.S. It is the trade in live cattle which is currently banned. In my area we lost the single biggest market for out calves. Nearly 1/2 of our calf crop used to go to Canadian feedlots.

I cannot understand your idea of CRP payments being tied to access. CRP payments are rental payments on land that a farmer agrees to idle. As a renter the gov't can have some say but it does not mean that anyone can access the land.

For example if you rented a house and the landlord/owner had ad and came in to perform maintenance that would be acceptable. However, by granting the landlord/owner access you did not grant the general public access to your rented house.

If so much easy money out there in farming then why aren't you snapping up every acre you can get your hands on? Any banker would give you favorable terms on any loan if you proved that there is free money in farming.

As a teacher you are, most likely, underpaid and if you are a great teacher you are grossly underpaid. Unfortunately, taxpayers have to pay the teacher in the next room who has been using the same lesson plans since 1974 the same wage you are getting. What if the taxpayers used the same approach to paying teachers as you are advocating for CRP? I bet your union would scream bloody murder and have kittens that the taxpayers would dare have a say in your contract language.

I am not anti teacher either, My wife is a teacher and many of my good hunting buddies are teacher also I am just trying to point that your logic is a little off here.

Nemont


----------



## Drakekiller (Apr 3, 2002)

SGH

Facts
1) lobbied hard against HPC
2)Farm Bureau finances trespass law suit and organizes Northern Plains Public Interst Law Firm.Fargo Forum 8/10/03.Here is a great quote from Herb Manig executive Vice president FB reason for suit "The debate is not just about hunters access to private lands.Uncontrolled access could also undermine efforts to safeguard against bioterrorism." Also from Fargo Forum.
3)Froelich Law suit and Outfitting. funded by Northern Plains PI law firm. Arikara Outfitters offering 20,000 acres of land,called the Froelich Ranch.
4) lobbied against HB 1358
I also have some letters from Farm Bureau President Eric Aasmundstad that should be posted for everyone to read that would get some good comments going.By the way you said you are a member of FB,do you have a vote? or are you one of the majority of members of FB that do not have a vote?
Kevin Hayer PS more to come


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Nemont...I think I understand the BSE requirements...it is not just live cattle...the meat has to have been processed.Halves and quarters can't cross either.The head and backbone is the part that can't cross the border.This is why the Canadian Gov't has announced that they will help build proccessing plants in the praire provinces.

Just because the CRP payments are NOT tied to access,doesn't mean they can't be.Just rewrite the rules.In fact didn't our own Senator Conrad have a PLOTS kind of bill to add to CRP payments to open up more for public access?

Who said anything about easy money being out there???

How can you compare teacher's pay to CRP payments?Don't all farmers get the same per acre?Is it based on the quality of their land?

Teachers pay wouldn't necessarily be based on their abilities,but based on the scarcity of finding someone to fill that position...that scarce person might still be using lesson plans from 1974.I've seen the state bend the rules lots of times to allow schools to fill positions,it had nothing to do with their abilities.


----------



## Nemont (Jan 27, 2004)

Ken,

Not every farmer gets the land the bid into CRP. It has to be bid into the program and if it doesn't meet the criteria that the program is looking for the farmer doesn't get enrolled.

I don't see why CRP and access have anything to do with each other. Does renting any other property come with expectation that the general public has a right to access that property. Would it infringe on private property rights to it any other way? I am not being a smart [email protected]@ I just want to understand your argument of CRP being tied to access.

The CRP program was never, ever intended to help hunters or even wildlife. That became a side benefit of the program.

I also don't understand your stance on teacher pay. Doesn't bother you if someone is putting in less effort and still getting paid the same as you? Wouldn't it be better to pay teachers on merit and weed out the deadwood by making them compete for their jobs.



> Who said anything about easy money being out there???


Basically you did by saying that farmers are cutting a fat hog by having CRP as part of their income. If you tie access to CRP payments I bet the result would be less access not more. Would you allow public access if you owned valuable hunting land? When you see your neighbors making money from leasing hunting access? I am willing to bet not.

Your point that the state owns the animals is well taken but the state doesn't make any CRP payments to the farmer. Nor does the state reimburse the farmers for feeding the state owned wildlife either. Nor does the state assist in controlling access or trespass by hunters or the damage done to field and fences etc, etc. 
Nemont


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

I've explained my side...you have yours...guess we won't agree.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Nemont, may I inquire if you are involved in outfitting--fee hunting? As a farmer myself and renter and property owner it is understandable how nonfarmers would view public access to CRP. *The public pays for it. *Ususally a renter has use of the property he rents so it is an understandable position. Although previous contracts did not grant access, Open Lands would. Farmers have a curious view of acts of God, expecting to be compensated for evey slight of nature. It seems self reliance has been replaced by entitlement.

As farmers we are paid a defeciency check, a counter cyclical check, a Loan Defeciency Program check, a disaster bill check, a conservation check, and a CRP check. I left a couple out, --it's hard to keep track. Doesn't it seem that we have been *pre-paid *very well for access? I think I as a farmer have already been paid in spades. Not to mention the other bennies provided by John Q to us farmers.

But some will always have the entitlement mentality and insist on more. A hard and greedy stance by some farmers over access is going jeopardize those payments. Because the public is not happy with us farmers and we are doing nothing but giving ourselves black eyes in public relations. Farmers are slow to learn. Every successfull industry gives away some freebies.

Very doubtfull that lease hunting would compete with CRP payments as the gov payment is good for the full term where as hunting lease payments will fold when the pheasants crash like they did in '88, '93 and '96-97. Unless someone is foolish enough to pay a hunting lease for 10-15 years upfront.

The intent of CRP has seemed to change with each signup and there has been a strong emphsis on wildlife in recent ones. Farmers however have always viewed it as a hay reserve and the abuse of the haying has been widespread. And all farmers know it.


----------



## Nemont (Jan 27, 2004)

To answer you question no I am not involved in any kind of guiding or outfitting. I currently an insurance broker however, My family ranches and farms in North East Montana. We allow public access to hunters. I am trying to understand why hunters think that CRP buys access. I hunt public and private lands around Fort Peck and the Charlie M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge. I am pro access and pro hunter. Having said that I still don't understand where CRP purchases any access to private lands.

We have land in CRP and the new contract is more wildlife friendly. I have been having the CRP vs. access debate for a while now and I still can't figure out how they are tied together. I understand being frustrated with posted land.

I was actually hoping Kew would elaborate on his point so I could be better informed. I have read and reread the CRP contract my family holds. I cannot even see an inference in that contract to the land owner forfeiting the right of access.

that is all.

I won't post again.

Nemont


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Nemont...these aren't personal attacks...you sound like a nice guy.Don't leave the site just because we disagree.

You are right in that there are no ties NOW between CRP payments and access.

What I said was the law could be changed to make that connection.

CRP could be just like ND PLOTS...you want the money,then it is open to public hunting,with signs just like PLOTS.

It would still be your choice...you don't have to take the money.

What Dick and I are saying is that farmers take lots of gov't money from all of us...but that doesn't seem to be enough...now they want $50 and up for the right to hunt land they are recieving money already for and for wildlife we all own.


----------



## Remmi_&amp;_I (Dec 2, 2003)

We had a friend from Idaho up this past weekend hunting. We went to the SW corner of the state because we had been granted permission on Friday...........well, it poored the entire day there on Friday so we had breakfast in Mott, a couple beers in Mott, a late lunch in Regent, a couple beers in Regent, and then a beer and some bar pizza's in New England.

We didn't have permission to hunt on Saturday or Sunday because the landowner had other people coming those days (*FREE *hunting). One thing I had never payed any attention to is that CRP payments are federal payments. I know it is an elementary statement, but our friend from Idaho pointed that out as we drove around Saturday looking for places to hunt.

We were turned down by 9 landowners so our weekend was basically a waste from a hunting aspect......but we always have a good time when we get together.

My point is, there just has to be a better way to do it. Do I believe the landowners should get compensated for allowing people to hunt on their land? YES. Do I think posting CRP (other than around their homes/buildings/machinary) is not quite right? YES. Do we need that CRP for habitat? YES. Should the landowners be able to hay the ditches when drought conditions are affecting their livelihood? YES.

But, couldn't their be some type of fair trade-off? ABSOLUTELY YES !!!!

Just my .02 on this neverending discussion.


----------



## Remmi_&amp;_I (Dec 2, 2003)

We also filled up our gas tanks (twice) in that area.......not in Bismarck, Minot, or Dickinson....where we stayed.

3 Full Sized trucks/SUV's ! I'd call that residents helping the local economy..............wouldn't you?????


----------



## Aythya (Oct 23, 2004)

The original intent of CRP was to stem the loss of soil from highly erodible lands and prevent that soil from entering rivers, lakes, streams and exacerbating eutrophication. To almost nobody's surprise in the wildlife community, acres and acres of undisturbed grass had immense benefits for wildlife species, most notably upland nesting waterfowl.

The program was and is a great success from the soil/water conservation aspects and habitat enhancement. The issue of access seems to have gotten more controversial as the years have gone by and seems to be related to many factors.

With great respect for the opinions already expressed I would like to add my own. First, I don't think trying to compare who gets paid what, be it teacher, farmer, government employee is a valid way to make a point on access. As can be seen from the posts, everyone can make an agrument that everyone else is subsidized to some degree or another.

Second, the issue of access to private lands is extremely complex and if there were really easy solutions we probably would have found them by now. I am not a farmer so I don't pretend to fully understand the financial pressures farmers are under. But I am a taxpayer and am concerned with how my money is spent. Do I think that CRP is a worthwhile investment of my tax dollars, absolutely. Why? Because it meets the objectives for good soil and water conservation policy in this country AND is provides incredible benefits to wildlife.

As a hunter I have no illusion that CRP and its many benefits were ever designed to be related to hunting. As it turns out, a combination of factors has resulted in increased populations of wildlife species including CRP, exceptional moisture during the 90s, mild winters, etc. As a professional ecologist I am extremely pleased, for example, with the incredible increases in upland nesting duck numbers which have resulted in part from CRP. But if duck hunting went away tomorrow I would still support CRP as a valuable tool in the continued existence and well being of waterfowl species and as a means to slow down and/or stop soil erosion and siltation. The ecological benefits of the CRP program are numerous and I believe there have been benefits to farmers as well.

But, don't forget there are those who see CRP as one more reason small ND towns have died. CRP is viewed by some as taking land out of production resulting in lack of expenditures on fuel, seed, fertilizer, machinery, etc. and the demise of small towns.

Small town ND and farms are struggling for many reasons. But, putting your eggs in one (or even just a couple) baskets isn't a very good strategy. If someone is counting on CRP or non-resident hunters or gov. subsidies to "save" them or their small town they are probably already in a near death situation.

So, what does all this have to do with hunter access and CRP? In my view this. One of the strongest lobbying forces in the country could be agriculture and hunters/fishers. Together, reasonable people working together could put enough political pressure on Congress to generate programs that provide benefits to agriculture and people who hunt and fish. The CRP program could be designed to accomodate access while still providing all the other benefits. Senator Conrad's Open Fields initiative is a step in the right direction but doesn't go far enough.

In order for ag and hunting groups to make progress we have to be able to get past the historic rhetoric and mistrust. We also have to find innovative solutions to contemporary problems of land access, proper conservation measures, AND economic incentives to landowners so they don't have to foot the bill themselves. IMO, if you want conservation programs then there has to be a national ethic on this issue such that it is seen as a benefit to the nation as a whole.

So, CRP in general is seen by an apparent majority as providing national benefits or it probably would have gone away. It is not a cheap program. Where we (and I mean all of us) run into problems is when we start to dissect the issue into access vs. conservation vs. who gets a subsidy vs. who pay the subsidy, etc.

I fully support taxpayer funded programs that provide multiple benefits for all of us. That includes the people who farm the land and the people who want to hunt the land. I believe there are numerous ways to achieve mutually beneficial goals if reasonable people work togther, thus the potentially strong alliance between ag and hunters. But, in the immortal words of Mick Jagger, "You can't always get what you want, but if you try, sometimes you just might get what you need."

I have waaaay more thoughts on how to make this work than I can or should post here. I apologize for the long post. I would be happy to elaborate further if there is interest.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Aythya

Good post! would make an excellent letter to the editor. except many in the city would think CRP was related to hunting a paramedic.

I agree with your take on CRP. It has been chastised and praised in the same breath by many here including me. The Land access debate is looming in the very near future, there are many threads on this site that have "Land Access" issues debated within them. Most of the debate gets lost in the hostility involved with the shrinking quantity and quality of publicly accessable space in North Dakota.

As a hunter/sportsman CRP and good land stewardship are major factors in the continuance of the traditions and heritage of hunting that I care so deeply about. You suggest a sportsmen/farmer partnership to alleviate the friction between the two entities, that would be great if the major farmer organizations like LAND and the Farm Bureau would stop pushing the pay to play agenda every chance they get. The vast majority on this site are Freelance Hunters, I can only speak for myself when I say that I value the tradition because it gives me the freedom to access game at all corners of the state if I chose to, and I value the friendships that I have made more than paying for access to harvest wildlife. What is your proposal to implement this partnership.

When the CRP was installed on our land the seed mix was as the ASCS agent stated "Outstanding Habitat" for many species. North Dakota seems to always come into the mainstream a little late so the original intent was probably intended for erodible land but it did not take them long to realize that the major benefit was for habitat.

I have stated in many posts on this site that hunting income will not save a small town but it will help the town if it decides to save itself.

Please continue your thoughts on this subject.

Bob


----------

