# Kiss public hunting lands good-bye



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Western lawmakers gather in Utah to talk federal land takeover


http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/5 ... l.html.csp

If states take over federal owned land they will lease to ranchers. If ranchers lease rather than pay grazing fees they will be able to post. Crazy on the political left, and crazy on the political right. The left has no morals and the right worships money.

Can you see the full development of this folly. Lease to ranchers and it's posted or pay to play. Pay to play will reduce hunter numbers by 80%. Most of America doesn't understand that the second amendment is for protection against tyranny. Reduced hunter numbers will reduce political clout. No hunters to worry about their guns and the second amendment is in danger. The nation was stupid to elect Obama, but if conservatives turn over federal land to states it will be just as big a mistake as Obama. Two groups of fools destroying our nation. One group so same sex can marry and they can steal from fellow Americans through taxes, and the other group so they can steal public land from fellow Americans. We are becoming sicker by the day.


----------



## Habitat Hugger (Jan 19, 2005)

I sure agree with you on the land leasing. I'm ok with leasing, but only if it includes multiple use. If the public loses access to public land, it would be a disaster! Teddy R would roll over in his grave!


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Habitat Hugger said:


> I sure agree with you on the land leasing. I'm ok with leasing, but only if it includes multiple use. If the public loses access to public land, it would be a disaster! Teddy R would roll over in his grave!


Dr. bobkat,

Plainsman is feeling sicker by the day. You got a pill for that?


----------



## blhunter3 (May 5, 2007)

It a tough deal. When you leasing it, you are responsible for your animals. So of course if I leased some land, I wouldn't want people out hunting while I had cows out there, because they could get shot, or someone could leave a gate open and that open gate could cost me hundreds of thousands of dollars.


----------



## oldfireguy (Jun 23, 2005)

As far as I know, federal lands leased for grazing may not be closed to hunting. North Dakota state lands may not be posted without special permission...and I have been told that is rare.

Does anyone here know which states allow a renter to close the land?

That said, I have no problem in avoiding areas with cattle present. 100 head spread out over 30,000 acres should still present a hunting opportunity.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> As far as I know, federal lands leased for grazing may not be closed to hunting.


That's true, and that's why I don't want that federal land going to states. In North Dakota they could post state land up until about 15 or 20 years ago. Now they can post for I think two weeks if they have cattle in the pasture. I don't know what would happen in some of those states if they took over the land. I think many of them let people post. Utah will be the state to watch.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

This is scary.... Here is another thing that could happen or is happening.

A friend of mine told me this (so it is a second hand story). He was out in Montana last year elk hunting. He was out there 4 days before the opener to do some scouting on Public land and pack his camps in. Anyways... Two days before the season the rancher who leases the land for "pasture" went up and did a "cattle" drive to get all of his cattle back to his property which happens to be next to the public land. This also drove all the elk onto his property which he has a guide operation set up.

Again i don't know if this is 100% true or what. But this is what I was told.


----------



## Habitat Hugger (Jan 19, 2005)

Yes Chuck. That sort of thing happens all to frequently. There's always someone who can figure out some kind of loophole in laws expressly designed to stop this sort of thing. I know first hand of this happening with state land in ND.
I'm sure not against leasing grazing rights to ranchers, BUT grazing rights must only include the right to graze the land and Nohing else, NO loopholes to preclude hunting, hiking, birding, fishing or any other legitimate legal public activity!
Tough rulesthatmake it impossible to have some sneaky leas see turn out some cattle in a leased area, then hunt it yourself or guided hunters while kicking everyone else off, If for some reason a rancher's particular operation cannot legitimately allow hunting for some really good and well justified reason, fine, but no hunting means NO HUNTING for everybody, not only the public! Applies to the grazing leasee too! 
From the ranchers point of view, there are too many slob hunters out there which tends to make the problem for access for the public much worse, Sometimes I truly think we hunters are our own enemies, Sometimes we hunter Ed instructors look at these young fresh faced kids and wonder what turns some of them into selfish slobs when they get a bit older. Their parents, friends, peers, the outdoor channel, etc???? My soapbox- it's incumbent on every one of us to confront in a nice way, any and every bad doer we see out there. Whether to give friendly advice to someone not knowing any better, or calling the RAP number when necessary. We all have the RAP number programmed into our cell phones don't we!!???!!!


----------



## duckp (Mar 13, 2008)

If this many people are calling the 'shots',who's fault is it?
http://www.bls.gov/ooh/management/farme ... nagers.htm


----------



## johnr (Sep 29, 2011)

Public land should be for the public, and thats me :beer:


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

johnr said:


> Public land should be for the public, and thats me :beer:


The keystone for protecting the public's resources under the public trust doctrine is that the State must administer its trust interests consistent with trust purposes and values. The duties imposed upon the State are those of a trustee, not simply the duties of a business manager trying to cut a deal. The key to carrying out the public trust duties of the State are its powers to regulate as well as protect the State's fundamental rights in trust properties and the use of those properties.

Had to see if Dwight was awake yet.


----------



## walleyecandy (Aug 6, 2012)

There are way too many hunters that are 'entitled' to hunt public land. My point is- leased land, whether public or private is not only the best answer- it's the future. Go ahead and ignore the inevitable freight train coming if you want but however you want to look at it- you already pay to play! So do a million other weekend warriors-who's vote counts just as much as yours, who elected these people who are deciding to lease this ground, and also the farmer/rancher who pays to graze his livestock on this land that you wish to hunt.

Theodore Roosevelt refers to public land in reference to National Parks. Not implying Joe Public's right to go squirrel hunting with his dog....

Ever notice that public land by and far is never as good as private? ..... There is a reason- cause the public isn't out there! If anyone at any time could go hunting anywhere at anytime- there would be a lot less game to hunt. So I'm assuming that just because you pay a quarter in taxes towards a piece of property- the entitled public assumes they have every right to go takes any and every thing they want from it? Public land leased to whomever holds the lease for that period of time- has control over that land-period. Depending on lease stipulations! Of course.

Start a hunting group- raise $- lease the ground! Simple. Or someone else will..... I'm not entitled to hunt your back yard because you own, lease, or rent it right? Why do you think you are entitled to hunt where a rancher has leased? Change the way public land is managed and you will change the way you might get to hunt... You aren't paying enough $ to convince me you deserve to tell the state it can't lease the ground- period.

You can sit on your hands and pi$$ and whine all day-or you can do something about it....


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Public land leased to whomever holds the lease for that period of time- has control over that land-period.


It's clear you do not know what your talking about. Federal land is multiple use land. The rancher leasing it has a right to graze the grass, but others have a right to hunt, fish, camp etc. The rancher who leases it only has the right to the grass. The problem is they see this public land which is public supported as another way to make money if they can shut the hunting down. The problem is the landowners are all of us and they want the owners booted off. Thinking like yours walleyecandy is going to turn the public against you.

Ranchers pay so little for federal land that they don't cover the cost of administration. The management of the land is paid more by taxpayers than the people who lease it. That means the owners that ranchers want to dump on are paying most of their way.


----------



## walleyecandy (Aug 6, 2012)

Nice try! The grazing rights are not in any way cheap, the money being spent is not just for grass, and the majority of the financial cost of maintaining federal property is NOT paid by hunters.

Federal properties are funded with money coming from everything from fuel tax to cigarette tax...

Cattle take more than just grass to survive. Anyone that says otherwise is pretty naive. .. Check out what a 300 pound feeder calf cost, than do the same for a replacement cow that the coyotes are eating cause Billy-bob's buddy put 15 holes in it- then tell me after the rancher pays to lease the grass that that is a legitimate deal for the rancher.

Go west the Missouri River 100 north or south of the north dakota/south Dakota line and explain to them that federal ground should be left to the hunters... They will either laugh you off the property or flat out slam the door in you face.


----------



## walleyecandy (Aug 6, 2012)

I've avoided reading these hot topics cause there are 4 main whiners that cluck and snivel on it. Do something about it! Don't sit and whine. Does this seem like a forum or discussion?


----------



## walleyecandy (Aug 6, 2012)

I think I will revise my statement-and that's all this is; just my opinion! Haha eace:

Kiss public hunting goodbye? Sure will, cause I will be more than happy to pay to play. There are a lot of farmers and ranchers that will let honest, respectful hunters hunt/fish. Then I don't have to wonder if 30 weekend warriors will be camping in the parking lot the day I hope to hunt.

Just cause Joe Public pays $100 a year in taxes, that in no way, shape, or form gives them an entitlement to whatever/wherever besides Open-to-Public. Go ahead and hunt public dirt-more power to you! But don't blame me if the Feds leased it and the guy leasing it herded up his livestock to get them out of the shooting gallery. .. Even if he has a guide service- they create jobs and revenue also, and pay taxes.

Have a nice day everyone! Good luck! :beer:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> cause I will be more than happy to pay to play.


John are we still talking about hunting, or are you turning our sport into something that sounds different?



> Nice try! The grazing rights are not in any way cheap, the money being spent is not just for grass, and the majority of the financial cost of maintaining federal property is NOT paid by hunters.


The grazers pay so little that it requires more money from the public than the people leasing. That includes all American taxpayers some of which happen to be hunters. So the multiple use federal land is open to hunting, but it's also open to other recreation. If some decide not to participate that's their choice, but the person leasing the grass has no right to keep anyone out.



> Go west the Missouri River 100 north or south of the north dakota/south Dakota line and explain to them that federal ground should be left to the hunters... They will either laugh you off the property or flat out slam the door in you face.


I don't need to talk to them if it's federal land. It's open for everyone. The more the greedy ranchers (for the record not all of them) try to get all the rights to the land (even though they pay a pittance) the more the public will turn against them. Sort of like that thief Bundy in Nevada. That bunch of idiots set public opinion back for ranchers. I respect those who deserve respect. Anything else is not respect it's simply kiss a$$. So for the Bundy attitudes out there don't expect me to pucker up for you. For those who lease and understand that they get the grass, John Doe gets to hunt, Jane Doe gets to watch wildlife, Bill Doe gets to hike, and the whole family can camp my hats off to them and they have my respect, and support.


----------



## walleyecandy (Aug 6, 2012)

Why do ranchers have to pay? It's open to public? Just saying. ..
I'm sure you aren't talking out you non-puckering a$$- but do you know what happened to get Bundy ****** in the first place? Yes, he got behind but he tried paying it....then the Feds tried to make an example of him! He has a lot of support. ...

On a side note, 16000 posts?! Why aren't you a politician. ...


----------



## walleyecandy (Aug 6, 2012)

What's the difference between Bundy in Nevada and Native American Indians?

Besides his poorly vocalized reference to porches and Africans- which isn't profiling if it's accurate, a LOT of people support him...


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Bundy didn't seriously try to pay. It is federal land and he tried to pay the state or county I forget which. Either way it was a lame attempt to disguise dishonesty.
Side note: I have been on the site for over 11 years. I am interested in hunting, fishing, rifles, archery, the second amendment, etc and anything that endangers those thing whether a slime ball politician or a greedy person trying to corner a public resource for personal profit.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Walleye....



> Why do ranchers have to pay? It's open to public? Just saying. ..


Because ranchers are profiting from it.... ie getting feed for cattle that they sell. Hunters/fisherman, campers, hikers, etc. are doing it for recreational uses. That is why ranchers have to pay and others don't.

Also when you say people are not paying their fair share.... you mentioned fuel taxes, federal taxes, cigarette taxes, etc all go towards federal land management and paying to have these lands. So everyone is paying not just hunters and people using the lands. People who might never set foot on these lands are helping to pay for them. that is why everyone should have access to these lands. If someone wanted to take a hike to get some exercise they should be able to strap on the boots and go for a walk on these lands. If it is hunting season they just need to meet the orange requirements or what ever requirements that the law states. So if a hunter gets pi$$ed off because a tree hugger is out for a hike (not harassing hunters) and that buck, elk, etc catches their wind and takes off before a shot.... Well that is the price you pay because that person has the right to that land as well. I would tell them the same i thing I am telling you. It is that persons right to be there as well and enjoy it.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Like I said Bundy's actions and attitude are poor public relations for ranchers. So is this:


> Go west the Missouri River 100 north or south of the north dakota/south Dakota line and explain to them that federal ground should be left to the hunters... They will either laugh you off the property or flat out slam the door in you face.


----------



## Habitat Hugger (Jan 19, 2005)

Though I hate to sound wishy washy and on the fence, but all of you guys IMO have some good points. Like Chuck says, the rancher makes a profit by it and thus should pay his/her fair share for grazing rights. 
BUT, walleye sweet has a point. I wouldn't be against all users of public lands paying their fair share for the use of it. Campers, birders fishermen, you name it! A good argument can be made that hunters and fishers already pay their way in excise taxes, and while true to an extent, is it or will it be enough! I don't know........All I know is that every sport. Or activity I participate in costs me money one way or another, and as far as I'm concerned if I choose to do something I'm prepared to pay! My share, no more or less.
I often ask the questions on outdoor websites that if some use excise tax was brought up today, in 2015, if it would be as enthusiastically supported by outdoorsmen as it did back in my grandfather or my Father's Day and age!? I dunno but I don't have the faith in present day outdoors lovers than the ones way back in the 1920-30 s! Call me CYNICAL but I truly believe that though we outdoorsmen like to yell at the antis how generous we are, that if everyone, including ourselves were somehow asked to pay equally for public land use, there'd be hell to pay on outdoor websites. Farmers ranchers faced with a grazing fee increase would be no different! Everyone wants the other guy to pay........
I once proposed that consideration for PLOTS land usage might be paid in part by a voluntary pay-as-you -go thing, by purchase of a PLOTS stamp like a trout stamp in some other states. If you don't fish trout, or in this case, use PLOTS, you don't need the stamp. Hunt PLOTS land you'd better have the stamp! A sort of if you use it, you pay to play, and if you don't then you don't need the stamp! I was called every name in the book, including being a "commie" simply for offering to pay my share, though I'm pretty stupid and could never understand how offering to chip in and pay my share had anything o do with communism, fascism or any other political thing!?!?! 
So IMO, walleye candy uh has a bit of my support, BUT only if he would agree to pay the grazers share for their use, too! IMO everyone should pay to play their own share, though every group has their own ideas how this should be apportioned. That's the question of the day, IMO.......


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

HH..... good points.

And you are suggesting or commenting if you hunt on Federal lands you need to purchase a "stamp" and that gives you access. That is interesting and valid point.

One major question... Would that cover the costs of those lands?? Or how high would these "permits" cost for people to use the land?

I would beat dollars to donuts that it would not even come close or it would be so outrageously high to purchase a permit.

That is why fuel taxes, cig taxes, federal income taxes, etc all in some way shape or form goes towards these lands. because just like state parks don't generate enough money from parking and camping permits to stay afloat and that is why they get money from taxes. The one thing that people don't see is all the behind the scene people that work for certain federal lands. These are the desk people in Washington or said federal building in the state. They draw up plans for usage.....ie: grant grazing permits, hunting permits, which lands need to be burned or trees cut down, maintaining of trails (cutting down trees that have fallen, mowing, etc), maintaining of parking area's, or building new ones, etc. All the red tape and planning that goes into these things. Then the actual workers who do these things and are on premise of the park grounds.

Lets just use this as an example. If Teddy Ros. National Park has 25 people working for it. That is those people behind the scene and actual park workers/maintaince crews. And average salary is $40,000. That is $1,000,000 needs to be raise just to pay for salaries of the workers! Not to mention the cost of the work....ie fuel, supplies, buildings, electricity, plumbing, etc. So does that park get over a million users every year??? So you see the issue with just making the park self sufficient on just stamp or usage permits would be a nightmare. It would lower the quality of the actual park itself!


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I would have no problem paying for an annual pass just like I do for the national parks. However, some people can not afford to do that and the land is as much theirs as mine and yours. I personally know people who hardly have a pot to whiz in, but they scrimp and save and get a deer license. Two or three share a vehicle and they get some hunting done. Most of it on private land where they have friends, and a lot on waterfowl production areas which are prevalent here in Stutsman county. Like I said I would not mind paying, but by promoting that would I be shafting a person with less income who also has a right to the land?

Grazing on the other hand is making a profit from public land. When a federal employee rents a government owned house the regional people come out and look at ten comparable houses in the community and the employee pays an average that is comparable. I think grazing fees should be the same. The Forest Service should look at comparable land and charge those same fees for a lease. More would cheat the grazer, and less cheats the American people.

Chuck, back in the 1980's it was proposed an 11% excise tax on binoculars and camping equipment. Hunters promoted the 11% tax on their equipment, but others who claim to like the outdoors had a fit when the proposal come out for a tax on their equipment.


----------



## walleyecandy (Aug 6, 2012)

You all have good points, I'm probably just being jaded or doing a poor job of playing the devil's advocate.

I like the idea of there being a place that is open to the public to do what they like to do but I refer to them as parks, which in no way are free. I can't understand why anyone would pay to pull a camper into nowhere and fire up a generator so they a/c and tv/dvd player works...and Don't get me wrong-I love camping (except for bugs, too hot/cold, sleeping in a tent, and sleeping on the cold hard ground) other than that it's great. But I still go camping and they charge everywhere I go-including the Boundary Water Canoe Area, which happens to be restricted use and you have to buy the permit.

From what I read on Bundy, if he believes he had been insulted or assaulted-then he has the same rights to make a statement and go to court... But he sounds alot like Native Americans to me (my grandfather's grandfather argument. ...) but I wasn't there, I don't know, just read what I read-and media is not exactly honest so....

I believe in pull you weight and contribute, not in handouts-welfare-freeloading. So when I see how the rancher is being bad mouthed because he pays to have his cattle graze the grass in a safe habit-meaning: shelter, water, food, predator/harassment free areas- it does annoy the crap out of me.... Charge more until the poor won't go-joking! But some people have to get over their entitlement issues. .. has anyone paid any attention to this next generation? They aren't going to give a crap whether or not you get to hunt, fish, or hike- or at least not enough of them will to continue the sport or activity as we know it.

100 years ago, it was a way different world.... 100 years from now,,,,,, what do you think it will look like? I know that my little slice of outdoors will be fine and there for at least 92 more years- it's in a program to stop development. Yes I was paid-the payment bought 16,000 trees, the birds seem to appreciate it-but you can't trust those refugee and freeloaders either cause they will crap on me too and not act one bit sorry!

Public land is for the public but that's kinda the problem-too much public! Don't worry, you won't have to compete with me out there-they don't make enough orange clothing for me to throw a shadow during hunting season on public land.... and good riddance right!?! One less right....


----------



## walleyecandy (Aug 6, 2012)

Anyone interested and having spare time should watch on YouTube the ammo nation interview on cliven bundy.

If I knew how to attach the link- I would- but since I don't. ...sorry!

If you don't agree with his opinion and the facts presented by that video-in my humble opinion- you don't belong in this discussion or in this country.

Domestic terrorism happened, disband the blm is necessary, and compensation to him for his lost revenue and for the antagonist constitutional infringement of his rights are in order.

Saying Bundy is wrong in how he handled the matter is the difference between entitled and deserving! What a heaping helping of horse manure...

But anyways, just how I see it. You pass judgment however you like.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> I can't understand why anyone would pay to pull a camper into nowhere and fire up a generator so they a/c and tv/dvd player works...and Don't get me wrong-I love camping (except for bugs, too hot/cold, sleeping in a tent, and sleeping on the cold hard ground) other than that it's great. But I still go camping and they charge everywhere I go-including the Boundary Water Canoe Area, which happens to be restricted use and you have to buy the permit.


Actually when we went to Arizona three years ago I pulled over in Colorado on Yellow Jacket pass. I went a mile up a prairie trail and camped with our 5th wheel. I grilled outside in the snow, and watched elk, mule deer, and coyotes while I cooked. When we went through Utah I camped on public land there. Mostly we stayed out in country campgrounds in Arizona.

I have liked tenting it in the past, but if I sleep on the ground now it takes me an hour after I take my medicine to get to my feet.


> From what I read on Bundy, if he believes he had been insulted or assaulted-then he has the same rights to make a statement and go to court...


I read a lot from both sides. First I read about the snipers at the Bundy ranch. Then I read that the snipers were actually at the government camp to protect them if any of the ranchers went nuts.
What convinces me Bundy is wrong is the fact he didn't try pay the actual agency in charge of that land. He tried to pay local people. Anyone with half a brain wouldn't do that unless they went looking for trouble. Bundy went looking for trouble and like everyone who does that he found it.



> I believe in pull you weight and contribute, not in handouts-welfare-freeloading


I knew we could find something to agree on.



> Charge more until the poor won't go-joking!


I'm not sure, but I think your referring to my comment about some people can't afford to pay to hunt public land. I look at it just like the liberals outlawing cheap "Saturday night special" handguns. I guess they are saying the rich are entitled to self defense, but the poor are not. I don't think many people noticed the hypocrisy of that law.



> They aren't going to give a crap whether or not you get to hunt, fish, or hike- or at least not enough of them will to continue the sport or activity as we know it.


I'm afraid I have a more pessimistic view about the future. They will care. They will hate us for hunting, and they are also going to go after ranchers. It's not going to be a good time for our descendants walley.



> But some people have to get over their entitlement issues.


Do you think it's an entitlement issue for hunters to think they should have access to public land? Some may look at ranchers who think they have a right to graze as an entitlement attitude. Some say they paid for the grazing rights. That's an 18th century idea. Would you want to bet that grazing will be prohibited on public land within 50 years? I'll take that bet. To bad too, because grazing is a good management tool when done moderately. Unfortunately the public land I have seen has often been overgrazed because the guy who had the lease for 200 AUM was grazing 300 AUM. Then the same rancher would complain about the government land. One fellow thought we should spend about $18 an acre to spray for grasshoppers and broad leaf herbicide. He was getting 21 acres for hmmmmm, I think it was $2.68 AUM or something in that area. There are good and bad hunters and good and bad ranchers. All each of us can do is the best were capable of. Unfortunately the level headed are seldom heard, it's always the trouble makers and the loud mouths. Squeaky wheel gets the grease theory I guess.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

walleye wrote,



> On a side note, 16000 posts?! Why aren't you a politician. ...


Bruce couldn't garner 3% of the vote and he knows it.

Grazing fees are an old saw with Plainsman. He beleives it should go to the highest bidder. So if it is dry in Oklahoma, a rancher who needs pasture bad for one year can out bid everyone. That is a bad idea. The local ranchers have a special cow that knows where the water is and how to survive. When the first snowflakes come she goes home even if she is co-mingled with other herds.

A rancher simply can't sell her when he gets outbid and then the next year if/when he does get the bid again go to some feedlot and buy back other cattle. Things have to be constant and consistant. A rancher should not be whipsawed back and forth by people who don't know livestock. If it is dry, beaucrats hollar sell'em and then when it is wet simply buy some back. It doesn't work that way.

The cow is a walking mini factory. She gets her grass on this side of the hill and her water on the other. The Law says other parties cannot impede her. I believe that right there is the source of most angst.

Plains likes to bring up Bundy. It is obvious that someone had designs on that property and they wanted the cattle off.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Shaug you don't tell the truth and you know it. I have never advocated grazing rights to the highest bidder. Show me where I have. I have advocated grazing fees being set by the local going rate. So now show me where I have said highest bidder. You know the old cliché "put up or shut up". Your a champion bs shoveler.


----------



## walleyecandy (Aug 6, 2012)

Plainsman, I wasn't making a joke of what you were saying. .. I don't see you as an idiot or champion bs artist yet. I get the drift that you are educated but have never grown up on a farm and have never looked across a desk and tried to get a loan to make ends meet so you can keep the family farm either... but that doesn't make you the but of any jokes, just me being sarcastic.

I believe Bundy truly sees the BLM as someone who has no authority to charge him anything and he has plenty of support! Somebody wants his dirt, that's obvious. He now has a voice that can't be ignored- which is exactly what sportsmen and women need.

But in the end, if the public paid for it-the public has to maintain it, or hire it done.

I personally don't associate a retiree with a trailer grilling in the snow with a photographer in a tent. .. Public hunting and camping aren't the same either to me. The difference between using public property under a grazing contact and buying an over the counter license to shoot for entertainment- something both apparently are going to have to accept under protest obviously.

I hope we have a surprising crop of new ambitious hunters up and coming! What I see is entitled, spoiled, unethical mama's boys.... These kids will decide the future of this public land, I'm betting that not only will there be grazing on public land- the public land will be owned by that rancher. This system isn't working and while we argue over the price of rice- big brother will sell to pay off a debt.

Hopefully I'm wrong.


----------



## Habitat Hugger (Jan 19, 2005)

My Pay to Play concept is only a concept. It would have to be too complicated for out west public lands, but for something statewide that benefits only a relatively few select people, in PLOTS case, hunters, I'd sure have no philosophical objection to chipping in and paying for a stamp to help fund it. If me neighbor hunts only private land, he doesn't need the PLOTS stamp so doesn't have to contribute. Could be same for purchasing hunting access on private land everywhere, such as the BLOCK management system in Montana! 
I pay to do fun stuff every day, so why not chip in and pay for land access? A lot of hunters do that privately right now, much to the chagrin of the cheapskates who rail on and on about " I'll never pay a penny to hunt, I'll quit first!" Why not say " I'll never pay a penny to golf on a public golf course, etc?" Want to use it, you support it! If it's not important enough to pay your share, then don't use it! And enough people chip in, your own fair share is not that much.

Plainsman,I hear that bit about poor people not being able to hunt, etc. In the first place, I've never seen anyone in the field who doesn't have as good or better equipment as me, or a reasonably new truck, the usual non essentials like chew, tattoos, etc. seems at least in ND people find the money to finance what they feel is essential. The cost of a PLOTS stamp of a few buck would NOT stop anyone from hunting! People would whine, like they do when deer licenses were raised, but less applications? I think not.......price raising of gas doesn't seem to keep people home, either. Nor does the price of cable, satellite, satellite radio, smart phones with hookups for a jillion apps, etc. for every family member it seems. Disclaimer - not in this household. I've worked hard all my life, been pretty frugal, so now can afford to retire with a few things now affordable that everyone else had taken for granted. We do have ONE smart phone in the household. So IMHO if someone wants to hunt, they'll find the cash, and if necessary cut the funding to pay for it somewhere.


----------



## walleyecandy (Aug 6, 2012)

Hh, I'd agree to voluntarily pay extra. I already give extra for Habitat Plates on both my truck (neither are newer than 2002). I do own a smartphone- 3 shotguns, 2 rifles, very nice optics, the extras that make things nicer-so why not give back a little?

Fair warning, people are going to be hostile over this idea! They own $1000th in fishing gear and $1200 guns but $25 extra for limited access permit!! Get that guys and load it....


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Habitat Hugger said:


> My Pay to Play concept is only a concept. It would have to be too complicated for out west public lands, but for something statewide that benefits only a relatively few select people, in PLOTS case, hunters, I'd sure have no philosophical objection to chipping in and paying for a stamp to help fund it. If me neighbor hunts only private land, he doesn't need the PLOTS stamp so doesn't have to contribute. Could be same for purchasing hunting access on private land everywhere, such as the BLOCK management system in Montana!
> I pay to do fun stuff every day, so why not chip in and pay for land access? A lot of hunters do that privately right now, much to the chagrin of the cheapskates who rail on and on about " I'll never pay a penny to hunt, I'll quit first!" Why not say " I'll never pay a penny to golf on a public golf course, etc?" Want to use it, you support it! If it's not important enough to pay your share, then don't use it! And enough people chip in, your own fair share is not that much.
> 
> Plainsman,I hear that bit about poor people not being able to hunt, etc. In the first place, I've never seen anyone in the field who doesn't have as good or better equipment as me, or a reasonably new truck, the usual non essentials like chew, tattoos, etc. seems at least in ND people find the money to finance what they feel is essential. The cost of a PLOTS stamp of a few buck would NOT stop anyone from hunting! People would whine, like they do when deer licenses were raised, but less applications? I think not.......price raising of gas doesn't seem to keep people home, either. Nor does the price of cable, satellite, satellite radio, smart phones with hookups for a jillion apps, etc. for every family member it seems. Disclaimer - not in this household. I've worked hard all my life, been pretty frugal, so now can afford to retire with a few things now affordable that everyone else had taken for granted. We do have ONE smart phone in the household. So IMHO if someone wants to hunt, they'll find the cash, and if necessary cut the funding to pay for it somewhere.


HH,

I can't believe you just said that. Plainsman has to be clutching/grasping at his chest looking for a defribultor.

HH, over on FBO you were accussed of being a socialist. The above proves otherwise. Everything/everybody needs to pay its own way. Pure Capitalism.

Plainsman's utopia with public land everywhere subsidized by everyone is the last bastion of socialism.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Plainsman,I hear that bit about poor people not being able to hunt, etc. In the first place, I've never seen anyone in the field who doesn't have as good or better equipment as me, or a reasonably new truck, the usual non essentials like chew, tattoos, etc. seems at least in ND people find the money to finance what they feel is essential.


Isn't that the truth. I have a relative that owns most of a township, goes to Europe, multiple times a year to Vegas, but complains about the price of a deer license, and that was when it was $15. Go figure.



> Plainsman, I wasn't making a joke of what you were saying. .. I don't see you as an idiot or champion bs artist yet. I get the drift that you are educated but have never grown up on a farm and have never looked across a desk and tried to get a loan to make ends meet so you can keep the family farm either... but that doesn't make you the but of any jokes, just me being sarcastic.


You make a habit of jumping to conclusions. I did grow up on a farm. I did sit in the bank with dad looking for a loan. When he had a heart attack I took care of the farm. The farmhand broke down, but I couldn't sell a cow and fix it because the bank owned the cows. So I forked hay in the morning for a couple of hours before school, and a couple of hours after school. I was in the seventh grade. Didn't loose a single calf that spring, but I did have to get up at 1:00am to check because it was darn cold. I did loose the ears, tail, and one rear foot off one calf.


----------



## walleyecandy (Aug 6, 2012)

And plainman, you make a habit of siting alot of irrelevant facts that isolate problems but don't cure them...

I've lived on farms my whole life with lots of great stories too. I get it.

The bank never 'owned' that cow you refer to-because if it died, you still had to come up with the value of that cow.... The value of the cow was collateral for the money you owed- correct?


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Walleye....

Grazing rights = Profit (or possible depending on market) for the Farmer/rancher.

Hunting, camping, etc = entertainment.

That is the difference. that is why one should pay and other not.

Now the concept of paying a stamp, fee, etc to get access to this land is a debatable thing. But doesn't the hunter already purchase a license to hunt?? Doesn't some of that fee go towards public lands?? Also the other taxes they pay ie: fuel, property taxes, income taxes, cig taxes, etc. goes towards FEDERAL lands?? the answer to all of my questions is YES. So they do pay for the usage and maintaince of that land already.

Now when you talk about paying to play.... What about that 16 year old kid that is getting into hunting....his parents don't hunt but he scrapped up money to buy a rifle and ammo and a tag. where does he go??? Pay to play hunting will kill hunting. That is the main point people are trying to state. That is why we need FREE PUBLIC LAND for people to hunt and use as recreation.


----------



## walleyecandy (Aug 6, 2012)

No argument here when it comes to the 16 year old kid. I was that kid at one point! I'd support the kids urge to hunt but I would direct him towards making friends with a private land owner and urge him to help the farmer/rancher out-because farmers/ranchers have neighbors and friends that own farms and ranches.

They talk.

Public ground should be open to the public and not leased to anyone- but if they are, then the lease holder has to get what he or she paid for, without issue. Otherwise, we are back at each others throats-and that's how the anti hunting groups will divide and conquer us.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> The bank never 'owned' that cow you refer to-because if it died, you still had to come up with the value of that cow.... The value of the cow was collateral for the money you owed- correct?


Everyone knows that. The point is since the bank holds the lien one can not kill it to eat, or sell it to fix machinery. At least not back in those days. I know today you can nearly have your cake and eat it too.



> Public ground should be open to the public and not leased to anyone- but if they are, then the lease holder has to get what he or she paid for, without issue.


Do you understand that the person who has the lease is getting what he paid for. Don't you know that they only pay specifically for grazing rights? If you lease hunting rights from your neighbor do you think you also have the right to plant and harvest the same land? I don't think your neighbor would agree.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

> No argument here when it comes to the 16 year old kid. I was that kid at one point! I'd support the kids urge to hunt but I would direct him towards making friends with a private land owner and urge him to help the farmer/rancher out-because farmers/ranchers have neighbors and friends that own farms and ranches.
> 
> They talk.


Agree 100%.... but what if they get turned down?? Where should they go?



> Public ground should be open to the public and not leased to anyone- but if they are, then the lease holder has to get what he or she paid for, without issue. Otherwise, we are back at each others throats-and that's how the anti hunting groups will divide and conquer us.


Like plainsman stated. They are leasing grazing rights. Isn't that what they are getting.... the right to let their cattle graze?? Again they are not getting the right to shut others out, hunting rights, putting in a crop rights, wind rights, mineral rights, etc. They are getting the right to graze.


----------



## walleyecandy (Aug 6, 2012)

Keep asking and offering to help... It's extremely effective to offer to help out or instead of being payed, trade for hunting-if they don't hunt or lease it, you are in.

There is no argument that the ranchers cows eat the grass- but somehow this is interpreted as the rancher gets hunting rights.... Grazing is not hunting. But is the rancher a moron because he gets his cattle out before the guns show up? Public hunting land shouldn't be grazed. Problem solved.


----------



## walleyecandy (Aug 6, 2012)

Some will say no, but what if they see you are respectful and honest? Keep asking-someone will say yes.

Public land probably shouldn't be grazed, it apparently bothers the public.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> There is no argument that the ranchers cows eat the grass- but somehow this is interpreted as the rancher gets hunting rights....


Walleyecandy I have never met anyone who thinks that. Reading your posts I actually thought that's what you were trying to get at. I appeared to me that you thought the person leasing should have all rights. Happy if I am wrong.



> Public land probably shouldn't be grazed, it apparently bothers the public.


I run into people all the time that think ranchers should be booted off public land. I try to tell them there are two important management tools to maintain the quality of much of that land. Those two things are fire and grazing. The study I worked on was not just waterfowl production. It was Burning and Grazing, and waterfowl production in the northern Great Plains. Grass also is stimulated when grazed at a low rate.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

> There is no argument that the ranchers cows eat the grass- but somehow this is interpreted as the rancher gets hunting rights.... Grazing is not hunting. But is the rancher a moron because he gets his cattle out before the guns show up? Public hunting land shouldn't be grazed. Problem solved


that was the whole thing that started this post!! If the state got control of Federal land then a farmer could possibly post the land. Even though that is a case by case situation. But it is a possibility. The farmer would control that land. Which he doesn't own or have all the entitled rights to. THAT WAS THE ISSUE WITH THIS POST!!!

Now you say don't graze the lands?? I agree with you....and Interesting? You just flip flopped BUT now.... You go tell the rancher that right now who owns those grazing rights. You want to help him pay for the hay or other pasture land he will need to rent??


----------



## walleyecandy (Aug 6, 2012)

If the rancher has cattle on the property, and he posts it as no hunting because his cattle are at risk-then he doesn't hunt it either. None of these outfitters hunt it subcontracted or otherwise either.

Land for public use doesn't belong to anyone except the public, vote democratically and make the decision that way to lease or not-then accept it, right or wrong.

I'm not the governing body here- it's just my apparently outspoken option. I phase things specifically to antagonize others into thinking outside there comfort zone... If that hurts feelings- fine. If it riles people up and gets them involved-better yet. One man's voice can be heard!


----------



## walleyecandy (Aug 6, 2012)

Finding food for the rancher's cattle is entirely his problem. .. I guess I don't know why I would pay for his cattle feed. I will eat the cattle, does that help? I love steaks and hamburger. ...


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Plains wrote,



> I run into people all the time that think ranchers should be booted off public land.


Bruce's coot and carp crowd.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Not really shaug, a lot of them are grain farmers who see the rates paid as to low, however a lot of them from what I have gathered are clueless to carry capacity and limits that go with the lease. A number of them though have had just way to many unfriendly encounters with ranchers on public land and roads open to public use.

Ran into this issue last fall in the Sandhills with one lease holder making the claim he owned the land, left when we decided to call the Sherriff to settle the issue.

So it comes down to perception, outside of the cattle producers, I would venture high wager that the public sees the lease holders in a dim light!


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

walleyecandy said:


> Finding food for the rancher's cattle is entirely his problem. .. I guess I don't know why I would pay for his cattle feed. I will eat the cattle, does that help? I love steaks and hamburger. ...


Mmmmmmmmme too.


----------



## oldfireguy (Jun 23, 2005)

The "what if the states got control of federal lands?" Question has been debated for decades. It's just not going to happen. But that doesn't make the discussion less interesting.


----------



## walleyecandy (Aug 6, 2012)

Steak and beer is proof god loves us and wants us to be happy! Ha!


----------



## walleyecandy (Aug 6, 2012)

I'd bet if the state takes over, sd residents will move north with their long underwear- nd residents would say aye alot more-mn wouldn't know the difference cause we already know how screwed up it is....

Come over for pheasant opener some time... I don't hunt opener cause I'm usually farming or I don't hunt pheasant till after deer hunting. And I don't like Joe Public armed....

Im aware you mean public land! But the state can screw up cereal so, I can't imagine they hunt or fish much...


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Ron wrote,



> Ran into this issue last fall in the Sandhills with one lease holder making the claim he owned the land, left when we decided to call the Sherriff to settle the issue.


Ron, with you in the near proximity, everything always seems to escalate. Given your temperment, I can understand why that always happens.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

No shaug, as usual you are wrong, my temperament is what kept it from escalating into something. The lease holder was trying to deny us legal access to the land. NO CATTLE STILL USING LEASE!!!! Now do you get it!! but hey after all he is a cattle producer so he is always right and never in the wrong!!


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Ron Gilmore said:


> No shaug, as usual you are wrong, my temperament is what kept it from escalating into something. The lease holder was trying to deny us legal access to the land. NO CATTLE STILL USING LEASE!!!! Now do you get it!! but hey after all he is a cattle producer so he is always right and never in the wrong!!


Ron, I have run into the same thing in the Badlands. As a matter of fact when the grazing associations pushed for more control a few years ago I testified in Lisbon. At that time Hoven was with them. After the public hearing closed this big fat rancher cornered me in the parking lot, bellied up to me, and told me I would never hunt east of the Missouri again. I guess he was real important. Guys like him are terrible public relations for our ranchers and farmers. Shaug is just as bad when he comes on sites like this and actually says things that slanderous and not true. As a matter of fact I proved to everyone that the one about me was not true.



> Ron, with you in the near proximity, everything always seems to escalate. Given your temperment, I can understand why that always happens.


Shaug your insinuation in the above post are not civilized. If you really care about farmers and ranchers you would change your ways. I'm sure you were the class bully in school, but I don't think anyone here cares about or admires that nasty mouth of yours. You may have some admirers on farmerbuddy where there are few standards, but try to act civil here.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Plainsman wrote,



> As a matter of fact when the grazing associations pushed for more control a few years ago I testified in Lisbon.


You left your comfort zone (nodakoutdoors) and stood up at a public forum in Lisbon and testified. I'm going to have to wave the BS flag on that one.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Wave the bs flag all you want I traveled there with three other people from Jamestown who also testified. I felt sorry for the professor from NDSU that I suspect was forced to testify on behalf of the grazers if he wanted to keep doing research in the sandhills. I believe he duplicated our grazing research at the NDSU Streeter station.


----------



## walleyecandy (Aug 6, 2012)

I will believe you plainsman! Why would you be lying? !

Aren't there laws against hunter harassment in the dakotas and west? I mean- as in, when you are actually hunting and a rancher says: get out, that's my ground. ...

If he is harassing you-settle it with the law. The fines eventually will add up to habitual offenders- even though I'd prefer to antagonize till the rancher swings, just because that's the most effective way to deal with bullies... yes, I am condoning violence-but only towards an a$$ that has gone too long between kicking. ..


----------



## zatoan (Sep 12, 2014)

As far as I know, federal lands leased for grazing may not be closed to hunting. North Dakota state lands may not be posted without special permission...and I have been told that is rare.

Does anyone here know which states allow a renter to close the land?

That said, I have no problem in avoiding areas with cattle present. 100 head spread out over 30,000 acres should still present a hunting opportunity.


----------

