|
Post by Woody Williams on Feb 9, 2016 16:44:37 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by esshup on Feb 9, 2016 18:19:04 GMT -5
Sad but true.
There is less and less ground available for hunting, unless you know someone, or own it yourself.
Didn't one of the celebrities out West buy ground on both sides of a river that had good waterfowl hunting, and then proceed to feed the waterfowl along the river, effectively cutting off any waterfowl hunting in that area, even though the waterway was public?
I really think Indiana should have a program like Wi. It's called Managed Forest Croplands. Basically if you own woods and want the DNR to manage it for you, you have to have your land open for public use. Here with a lot of farmland, maybe if you are getting deer depredation tags, you have to open your farmground to "X" number of hunters that aren't family members or relatives. "X" being dependent on the number of depredation tags you get.
I think that same goes for CRP. If you want CRP money, that portion of the property should be open to hunting. That might generate more income from hunting licenses, which in turn will generate more money from the feds to the state.
One last thing - don't allow the other state agencies to rape and pillage the DNR monies. Keep their budgets separate. What money is generated by the DNR or given to the DNR by the feds should go only to the DNR, not to the general fund, where it's allocated for non wildlife related projects.
|
|
|
Post by Jamie Brooks 1John5:13 on Feb 9, 2016 18:19:35 GMT -5
Extroverted Biologist was funny.
I bet it is a tough job and sure can see how it would have change over the years.
I talked with the land manager at Atterbury last week about the handicap hunting area. I wanted to know what they were thinking as it wasn't huntable at all for me. I sure did put it in a respectful way and made suggestions to make it more accessible for the handicap. It's a great spot, but...
He was very kind and interested in what I had to say. He wants me to call him close to hunting season to remind him of my suggestions. He wants to reserve a bait pile for me. LOL
I'm sure this handicap area is more of a second thought as they only have 15 keys, but I think it could be a great place to hunt.
|
|
|
Post by throbak on Feb 9, 2016 18:24:45 GMT -5
Wildlife is a second Thot on a lot of crp Soil erosion and water conservation is what CRP is about on most practices not a good idea on opening hunting on CRP it would kill the program The Fed monies Are matching funds I think on a lot of them and very specific on their use already
|
|
|
Post by nfalls116 on Feb 9, 2016 18:30:39 GMT -5
I think that if people just had a proper perception of what the numbers really meant and what a healthy number really was then it would all be alot easier for people to deal with the numbers and information presented to us to use.
|
|
|
Post by drs on Feb 10, 2016 5:50:44 GMT -5
Sad but true.
There is less and less ground available for hunting, unless you know someone, or own it yourself.
Didn't one of the celebrities out West buy ground on both sides of a river that had good waterfowl hunting, and then proceed to feed the waterfowl along the river, effectively cutting off any waterfowl hunting in that area, even though the waterway was public? I really think Indiana should have a program like Wi. It's called Managed Forest Croplands. Basically if you own woods and want the DNR to manage it for you, you have to have your land open for public use. Here with a lot of farmland, maybe if you are getting deer depredation tags, you have to open your farmground to "X" number of hunters that aren't family members or relatives. "X" being dependent on the number of depredation tags you get. I think that same goes for CRP. If you want CRP money, that portion of the property should be open to hunting. That might generate more income from hunting licenses, which in turn will generate more money from the feds to the state.One last thing - don't allow the other state agencies to rape and pillage the DNR monies. Keep their budgets separate. What money is generated by the DNR or given to the DNR by the feds should go only to the DNR, not to the general fund, where it's allocated for non wildlife related projects. As the "Human" population increases in any State; this will translate into less and less available hunting grounds. This means that if one has no land ownership, where he or she can use for hunting, they may very well be out-of-luck. It's becoming a "norm" that if one wishes to continue to participate in the hunting sports, they must strive to own their hunting ground(s). As far as the profession of Wildlife Biology, it is unfortunate that politics has somewhat entered this important tool of wildlife conservation. Biologists are having their "hands tied" by politicians and other groups which have the power and means to influence and change policies regarding prudent conservation practices. I don't know how C.R.P. programs will benefit the amount of available private hunting grounds, as many landowners would be "turned-off" by the clause: "If you sign-up for State sponsored C.R.P. you must allow others to hunt on your property."
|
|
|
Post by dadfsr on Feb 10, 2016 6:56:45 GMT -5
I do know that IF the 4 acres of CRP I put in mainly as a cover on highly erodible ground in the middle of my property would have to have been "open to the public" I would NOT have done it!!! Come on-4 acres at the edge of cropland bordering on 25 acres of woods and creek bottom would have been a trespassers dream and a total nightmare for me!!! I already have too much trouble with trespassers from neighboring housing developments that apparently think "No Trespassing" signs don't apply to them!!!
|
|
|
Post by steiny on Feb 10, 2016 7:08:44 GMT -5
Great idea .... Open up private your ground to the public, if you receive any federal CRP income from it. On the same note ... Open up your house to the public if you receive social security, or any other form of federal compensation.
|
|
|
Post by tynimiller on Feb 10, 2016 8:57:45 GMT -5
I get the concept where if you are receiving state or federal money for your ground you should open it to the public. Me if I ever my the grace of God can own a property...anything I do habitat wise will be for the wildlife and I will not need to put it in a program or let the state or federal government assist me as then I do believe it is less private property than it really is. I don't need to take tax dollars from others to fund my habitat needs.
|
|
|
Post by tynimiller on Feb 10, 2016 8:58:59 GMT -5
That isn't to say I wouldn't pursue maybe a wildlife or forestry or DNR classification for my property to lower property taxes. That though would not be taking any money from the state or federal and putting it in my pocket, merely keeping more of what is in my pocket in my pocket.
|
|
|
Post by drs on Feb 10, 2016 10:49:51 GMT -5
I do know that IF the 4 acres of CRP I put in mainly as a cover on highly erodible ground in the middle of my property would have to have been "open to the public" I would NOT have done it!!! Come on-4 acres at the edge of cropland bordering on 25 acres of woods and creek bottom would have been a trespassers dream and a total nightmare for me!!! I already have too much trouble with trespassers from neighboring housing developments that apparently think "No Trespassing" signs don't apply to them!!!Dadfsr, your situation, concerning development, and neighbors, is quite a common occurrence these days for Folk who own property. Your neighbor sells and the buyer happens to be a developer and "B-I-N-G-O" you soon have a housing development right next to your property. Neighbors start to complaining about your hunting on YOUR LAND, that you pay taxes on. This happen to me when I lived north of Evansville. Back in 1971, when my Family moved to Evansville, my Father bought 15 acres of ground. There was two excellent wooded areas each around 90 acres one across the road and one to the east of us. THEN, in 1984, the land east of us was turned into a Housing Subdivision and a couple years later the one across the road was also built-up with Million Dollar Homes. After my parents passed-on, my Brother and I put our Evansville home and acreage up for sale, sold it in three days, and we moved to a VERY RURAL area of Central Kentucky. Now I have my own Home & 83 acres to hunt and shoot on with no one to gripe at me.
|
|
|
Post by throbak on Feb 10, 2016 11:07:14 GMT -5
You do know if the habitat money is not used they give it to someone that will ! Probably Food stamps They come from the same pool of money
|
|
|
Post by boonechaser on Feb 10, 2016 11:44:23 GMT -5
Didn't know our deer biologist counted deer? ? OOPPS Indiana doesn't have a deer biologist at this point and to my knowledge Indiana has never did a state wide deer count as well??? (Most states just guess.) Bottom line is deer will continue to thrive in areas that have rough terrain and good habitat. And will struggle in areas that do not.
|
|
|
Post by esshup on Feb 10, 2016 11:58:06 GMT -5
O.K., make it a minimum # of acres that is enrolled into the program then. Using Wi. as an example, the State is furnishing the labor to manage your woods, with no input from you. It's your choice whether you want to participate in the program or not on a yearly basis. The State arranges for the harvest, and you, not the state gets the ## from the harvest after the timber cutting company is paid. You are allowed to mark off "X" area as a no hunting/trespassing zone.
Just like Wyoming landowners gets paid per animal that is harvested on private ground if it's open to the public. There is a box at the gate, there is a portion of your license that is filled out and put in the box if you harvest an animal on that property. It's up to each landowner if they want to be involved in that program.
Social Security is a bit different - I have paid into it, it's not "free" money.
throbak, that's what I mean, leave the wildlife $$ only available to wildlife projects.
The main reason why I bought this place is that I can/could hunt deer on the back part of it. Neighbors were running ATV's and dirt bikes at all hours, and even on my place. The problem of them running on my place has been fixed, and their interests have changed too, but it's taken 2 years with no off road traffic to start seeing deer tracks again.
|
|
|
Post by steiny on Feb 10, 2016 14:37:58 GMT -5
I've got a sizable chunk in CRP ground and get a nice payment from the feds every year for it. Not as much as what I could earn off the place farming, but enough to cover the real estate taxes and defray some of the costs of my annual upkeep and habitat improvement projects. The plans I am in go hand in hand with how I want to use the property, so its a win, win deal. Silly not to take advantage of this if it works with your planned use of the property.
I agree it's not a very sensible use of tax dollars, paying a guy to grow trees, shrubs and weeds, but if they're dumb enough to give it away, I'm going to take it. When I look at all the money we shell out in various taxes over the course of a year, this is just one way to reduce that amount by a bit.
|
|
|
Post by drs on Feb 11, 2016 5:54:21 GMT -5
I've got a sizable chunk in CRP ground and get a nice payment from the feds every year for it. Not as much as what I could earn off the place farming, but enough to cover the real estate taxes and defray some of the costs of my annual upkeep and habitat improvement projects. The plans I am in go hand in hand with how I want to use the property, so its a win, win deal. Silly not to take advantage of this if it works with your planned use of the property. I agree it's not a very sensible use of tax dollars, paying a guy to grow trees, shrubs and weeds, but if they're dumb enough to give it away, I'm going to take it. When I look at all the money we shell out in various taxes over the course of a year, this is just one way to reduce that amount by a bit.
Your right! It isn't a sensible use of Taxpayers' dollars. Habitat improvement expenses should be the responsibility of the property owner. They could give the landowner a small property tax reduction, to pay for seeds & plantings, but that's all, and the landowner MUST keep it up for a certain period of years.
|
|
|
Post by throbak on Feb 11, 2016 6:19:06 GMT -5
You need to think about what your saying ! Habitat loss one of the biggest concerns and in the same breath say Forest regeneration and tree planting not good ?? Crp are cost share ! they Are 10 or 15 yr programs !You do get a tax break to be enrolled in Classified woodlands ! You do get a tax break taking it out of crop production ! There are programs where they pay for seed you supplie the work and leave it in a program for X no. Years . OnCrp all but CP38e there are acreage restrictions . Highly erodible or wetlands get prority .. Every thing you requested DRS is already in place .
|
|
|
Post by drs on Feb 11, 2016 7:10:47 GMT -5
You need to think about what your saying ! Habitat loss one of the biggest concerns and in the same breath say Forest regeneration and tree planting not good ?? Crp are cost share ! they Are 10 or 15 yr programs !You do get a tax break to be enrolled in Classified woodlands ! You do get a tax break taking it out of crop production ! There are programs where they pay for seed you supplie the work and leave it in a program for X no. Years . OnCrp all but CP38e there are acreage restrictions . Highly erodible or wetlands get prority .. Every thing you requested DRS is already in place . I understand FULLY that habitat loss in the State of Indiana is a MAJOR concern. C.R.P. is an excellent way to address this habitat loss. Also I am know about Farmers being paid for not growing crops and leaving that section of farmland idle to help with habitat conservation. Here in Kentucky your "Farm" or property must meet a certain criteria to qualify for habitat improvement. So you're correct on that stated. What I was pointing out is that some landowners use this "Loop-hole" to get a tax break or have their land "cleaned-up" at taxpayers' expense. But since they must do part of the work this might discourage possible abuses.
|
|
|
Post by throbak on Feb 11, 2016 8:12:08 GMT -5
The clean up here is squaring up fields and putting non productive area land in CP38 e And we have found out CRP pays better than most are willing to pay in rent Seen that a lot
|
|
|
Post by steiny on Feb 11, 2016 11:25:03 GMT -5
The way I understand it, CRP was put into place because grain/ crop prices were considered too low. The idea was to take some of the land out of production, and with a lesser supply prices should go up. The majority of this ground was put into grasses, etc. that could easily be converted back into productive farm ground at the end of the term. A side benefit was also environmental to create some wildlife habitat, etc.
Unfortunately, most high production farmers don't use these programs because they want as much tillable land as possible, and they could typically make a bit more farming than they can off CRP. The only folks taking advantage of CRP seem to be small landowners, hobby farmers, etc. The occasional big farmer will put junk ground, ground prone to flooding, etc. in the program.
Meanwhile the big farmers continue to bulldoze all of the woods, fence rows and thickets, and drain all of the little marshes. The few acres that have gotten enrolled in CRP can't keep up with the habitat loss, so we continue to lose more habitat each year. I don't know what the answer is, but it's not looking good for wildlife and habitat in many areas of the country.
|
|