[nodakoutdoors.com]

Well,

I think I might've found what is the only viable solution I can come up with that could actually work as far as land access.

The subsidy dollars must be tied into land access if we're to have a future. After having a 2 hour phone discussion with a neutral party, it does make sense.

There is NOTHING we can do to stop the rich from buying up the land. A landowner must be crazy to pass up big money for land that isn't producing. It's the trend, it won't stop.

I propose that subsidy percentage increases for those allowing hunting access, and decreases considerably for those making secondary income on the land, like leasing.

You put a whole in the subsidy check, and leasing wouldn't become as great of an idea as it used to sound.

This is more important than limits, zones, or anything else in my opinion. If you want to keep hunting free, it's gotta come at the expense of the subsidies. In the last 5 years, landowners in North Dakota have received just under 5.5 BILLION dollars of taxpayers money in subsidies.

If you want to fight the money we're going to have to fight back with money.

I think this will be the angle I will take in 12 days at the Advisory Board Meeting.

 

[Fetch]

Does the State have that much control over those subsities ???

Or will that end up looking like the old trying to fight & change making CRP land open to hunting ???

If it has a legal chance - I'd say Yes ??? But at the same time it may just alienate hunters even more with landowners ???

 

[Doug Panchot]

I think that would be a bad idea to mention. Look at how much landowners have had to swallow from us easterners arleady. Mention something like that and they'll have a bounty on your head, Chris. I wish that I had the answer to this I just don't know where to go with it. I think our best bet is to go with the icreased # of zones and a cap of non-residents. I know that this does absolutely nothing for the land access issue, but with hunter/landowner relations after the last big uprising we don't want to shove anything down their throats. The big thing this coming year is to get out when scouting and talk to the landowner and discuss this issue with them and go from there. Any response?

 

[bioman]

Chris:

I don't know how you can require a state-mandated legal provision (e.g., private land access) tied to a federal subsidy. I don't believe there is any legal angle that you can even leverage to make this happen. For example, if you own a home, you are entitled to write off the interest as a direct line item tax deduction. Imagine, the Feds saying that because of this write off, you have to provide public access to your house for the use of phone lines, bathroom, etc. How would you feel? VIOLATED!!!! That is exactly how a private landowner will react. Most, if not all landowners, get extremely sensitive when the issue of government invasion via federal laws and regulations are placed on them, especially if it is a financial burden.

I think the more appropriate fight is aimed at commercial hunting and the amount of land they can lease. As I have said numerous times, how can commercial hunting exist, when the State has stringent laws that do not allow commercial farming?

[ This Message was edited by: bioman on 2002-05-09 23:32 ]

 

[TXNNODAK]

If the state is going to allow this to happen the land owners should have to buy permits from Game and Fish. Then the money should be used to improve PLOTS land. Many states who allow hunting leases already do this, and license amounts depend on how much land the is being leased.