To many deer odnr

[Jackalope]

My farm is a registered tree farm - the idea of someone getting to hunt my farm because I get a small amount of money for treating invasives is comical. Come tote a 4 gallon backpack sprayer on the side of a hill, basal bark spraying TOH - in June, after buying the diesel and herbicide, and tell me if you think this govt. subsidy is so great.

Let us not forget the land owner is also paying taxes to support these programs, doing the work, fronting the cash, and then also is taxed again when they sell the timber (in case of a tree farm).

Even with CRP. I have buddies who drill 60+ acres in some years of crp. Anyone doing that work, with a 6ft or even 10ft drill - will tell you that the cost of it, plus the time, etc. is hardly worth the effort.

you remove those to help access and it’s simple - juice ain’t worth the squeeze. We further degrade habitat for wildlife and don’t incentivize landowners to work towards better practices for future generations.

ps. The programs not only help game species but all the way down to the watersheds.

my 2 cents.

we want better access - we push for the state to continue to buy more land, setup rules for outfitters, etc. or incentive landowners further to allow hunting through tax breaks (wildlife conservation hunting initiative - or something it could be called).

The numbers may not make sense for tax abatement programs like tree farms. Walk in access programs for CRP enrollment are quite well received and operated in a dozen or so states, North and South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Colorado, and Iowa just off the top of my head. Something tells me that a public walk in access requirement won't hurt the enrollment numbers that bad. And if the landowners decide they don't want to participate that's fine, it is after all a choice, that's just more taxpayer funding for those that do and more public walk in access for the taxpayers that fund it. May not be an acceptable offer for you, and that's okay, but someone will take it. But I'm also of the opinion that federally backed crop insurance policies should also come with public access requirements. Where does that end, IDK, but taxpayer money shouldn't be spent on lands where taxpayers don't have access. Just my 02.

 

[at1010]

The numbers may not make sense for tax abatement programs like tree farms. Walk in access programs for CRP enrollment are quite well received and operated in a dozen or so states, North and South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Colorado, and Iowa just off the top of my head. Something tells me that a public walk in access requirement won't hurt the enrollment numbers that bad. And if the landowners decide they don't want to participate that's fine, it is after all a choice, that's just more taxpayer funding for those that do and more public walk in access for the taxpayers that fund it. May not be an acceptable offer for you, and that's okay, but someone will take it. But I'm also of the opinion that federally backed crop insurance policies should also come with public access requirements. Where does that end, IDK, but taxpayer money shouldn't be spent on lands where taxpayers don't have access. Just my 02.

A few things -
1. I don’t believe any of those states are crp for access. There are a few terms thrown around that get confused such as “walk in” crp which is a federal program that helps to reduce the red tape and bureaucracy for farmers - therefore it acts as a coop. However, these are federally funded through the NRCS. I believe that there is then additional funds per the DNRs of those states that offer additional payout, for hunter access in conjunction with CRP but not exclusive to CRP.

Either way, our tax dollars are buying access or even in the case of SD, it’s CREP which is a combined federal and state funded program - which is increasing the dollars per acre for the farmer, to further incentivize access.

No one is going to put in crp and open it to the public for hunting without major dollars being allocated. The states in the West have done this through a combined effort and most are not exclusive to that crp commitment, as mentioned above but essentially are being 2x funded via our tax dollars or license sales to gain access.

if try this in the East - I’d suspect most will just row crop it and lease the deer rights out to a select few, at a premium price per acre.

In all cases our tax dollars are being used - it just a matter of what we want to support. I’d support higher license fees to aid the ODNR in the leasing and purchasing of more land for public hunting. Again this is what has been done in KS and others - in conjunction with CRP (federal program).

not trying to be a dick but just want to make sure we are comparing apples to apples, if we are truly wanting to have a discourse around a possible collaboration to aid in hunter access.

lastly - I don’t think we should look at CRP or other tax programs that are similar in nature, as a welfare. These are benefiting the entire ecosystem and tax payer albeit not directly but letting them shoot a deer off of it. There is a massive benefit to the up and downstream with these initiatives, hence why they started post Dust Bowl of the 1930s.