More public land...how?

[Scott Eveland]

Since this is always a fun, lighthearted, and non-controversial topic, I thought I start a new thread!

There are a lot of people who share the opinion that there needs to be more public land in Nebraska. Being out west, I don't see the need as pressing as those in the east, but then again, we have more land and fewer people.

Nebraska lacks the expanses of federal land that many of our neighbors, particularly SD, CO, and WY have, and I don't see the feds in the business of expanding land much anymore. I don't see the feds helping the cause anytime soon.

CRP-MAP enrollments have declined as the price of corn goes up.

NGPC is outbid in their attempts to buy land, but does manage to pick up a few parcels here and there, and has had some land donated to them recently.

Despite the fact the "state" has a surplus, that money is not available for NGPC to spend, and money is tight with the cost of fuel, employee insurance, etc. cutting into budgets. Federal dollars are getting fewer, and we've seen the decline in permit sales (2008 deer permits notwithstanding).

The state did recently announce an increase in habitat stamps to help fund a "pay for access" program that would pay for access to private land, but that doen't really constiture "public" land.

So, how should NGPC obtain more public land with shrinking budgets and competition for land?

Rather than make this a BMG session, lets hear some SPECIFIC ideas. How to fund? What land? How much are YOU willing to pay to see more public land? What changes in the laws would have to be made?

Aaaaaaaaand, GO!

[OldBaldGuy]

The answer is staring at us from our counterparts in Missouri:
Would You Pay 1/8th of a Penny for Better Hunting & Fishing?

This, of course would never work among those Nebraskans who are convinced someone else (out-of-staters?) should pay for Nebraskans' hobbies, nor those who believe NGPC is totally incompetent because the agency can't/won't cater to everyone's sense of entitlement.

One of life's great disappointments is the realization that you almost always have to pay for the things you want.

[Alex T.]

CASINOS. It will be very difficult to get more public ground in eastern nebraska with the price of land and urban expansion.

Alex

[Red]

I'm with Rog on this one.

[AnglerX]

This is quite the interesting topic. The first problem I see is leased land. Some of leases are only hunted on opening day, holidays and maybe a few vacation days by the leaser. Maybe have a tax incentive or land management assistance for leasers/owners who allow access to these areas when they are not being used by the leaser. A work trade program for access to hunting land,ie:" in exchange for hunting deer for a week, the hunter runs the fence line in the off season" There should a name exchange between the LO and the hunter and if the hunter does NOT perform tasks by said day, they have to pay the fee for someone else to do it. Or maybe a
"meal on wheels " for those elderly or in hard to reach remote areas so the landowner has plenty of canned/dry goods to get through the winter. Some of us can not afford $4000 for lease but could spare $40 for canned goods.Another problem is for an agency that tries to educate, the press releases are pretty vague. Just some examples that need to be covered: Is the agency trying to reach landowners some how with information on allowing access to property, what’s the incentive? How can large amounts of deer cause crop damage? Why geese don’t migrate anymore? Basically the problem I see is there’s a lot of game to hunt but some many landowners doesn’t see why having a special wildlife refuge can be bad. Some areas we get large concentrations of geese, or deer but there’s not a balance between them. There’s a need to educate these landowners that 10,000 geese on a 40 acre tract is not healthy. There’s plenty of deer around also but some areas have huge herds, maybe making certain units strictly archery or muzzle loading? To help access in assurance that a high velocity bullet is not got to be flying thru an acreage that is daycare center also. The range and velocity of these weapons need to be explained so that landowners are more comfortable with allowing hunters on their property. Also help educate landowners on where to allow hunters to set up. A landowner may own a tract of land by a highway or paved well traveled road may not allow access in fear that hunter well shoot towards traffic. My worst fear is coming into play that hunting is no longer a heritage, but a business. It's ironic that a group that is more than welling to give out of pocket expenses to help save conservation, is the same group that is ending the hertiage that they fought to protect.

[thedarkarcher]

well said X.

[Scott Eveland]

Nice post X! But wrong thread!

Landowner leasing is a whole 'nother issue. The topic here is public land and how to get more of it. Go start your own thread, this is my sandbox.


Sorry, just feeling a little surly today... Don't take me too seriously.

[AnglerX]

Not a problem Mr. Boating Officer, but I think I did try to help. Where's the land going to come from, Is Nebraska invading Kansas and Iowa now? Because I don't see many unowned tracts here in Nebraska? There's land here inside Nebraska, we just need access to it.

[thedarkarcher]

X's point is relevant, problems with leasing and private land access directly affect the crowds and pressure on public land. the more one or two day annual hunts on leased ground, the more hunters turned away to public land and thus the need for more public land. however, this is just one factor.

[Scott Eveland]

Originally Posted by AnglerX

Not a problem Mr. Boating Officer, but I think I did try to help. Where's the land going to come from, Is Nebraska invading Kansas and Iowa now? Because I don't see many unowned tracts here in Nebraska? There's land here inside Nebraska, we just need access to it.

I think Kansas and Iowa are in the same boat. Let's invade Wyoming! I heard that coal miners and oilfield workers aren't that tough...

PS- Please see the end of my post about "not taking me too seriously." Just giving you a hard time. I know it is all related.

[DiggerDog]

Originally Posted by OldBaldGuy

The answer is staring at us from our counterparts in Missouri:
Would You Pay 1/8th of a Penny for Better Hunting & Fishing?

This, of course would never work among those Nebraskans who are convinced someone else (out-of-staters?) should pay for Nebraskans' hobbies, nor those who believe NGPC is totally incompetent because the agency can't/won't cater to everyone's sense of entitlement.

One of life's great disappointments is the realization that you almost always have to pay for the things you want.

It worked for Mizzou I really don't see why it wouldn't work here.

I also think the NGPC should inform all landowners that complain about too many deer that the solution is to let people that ask permission to hunt gain access to the land to do so.

I would say put their names on a list and have the NGPC send out the information to those of us that request it. However based on first hand experience, they don't seem too keen on sending that information even though they said they would. Right Pat?

The NGPC is partially in business to provide all hunters, not just a few, with the best possible hunting experience and opportunities the state has to offer. So far they have fallen way short of this task.

[AnglerX]

Originally Posted by Scott Eveland

I think Kansas and Iowa are in the same boat. Let's invade Wyoming! I heard that coal miners and oilfield workers aren't that tough...

PS- Please see the end of my post about "not taking me too seriously." Just giving you a hard time. I know it is all related.

Maybe we can just take back what Ted Turner has bought, because that's really to far to drive

[Willhuntforfood]

Casinos and Cathouses.

[uglymike]

Land procurement stamp? How far would a $20 stamp go?

[Sandbilly]

Originally Posted by AnglerX

Maybe we can just take back what Ted Turner has bought, because that's really to far to drive

[Red]

How much does the NGPC try to spend on land in a year?

[Alex T.]

I also think the NGPC should inform all landowners that complain about too many deer that the solution is to let people that ask permission to hunt gain access to the land to do so.

maybe under crop loss it should be required to allow access before any crop loss payment is given. Or at least to be put on a contact list so a hunter could have a chance to at least ask to gain permission to hunt.

Alex

[Semper Paratus]

Regarding the side-bar discussion about lease versus own, I have a couple thoughts. When I think of the CRP MAP properties I think of them as "public" because the access is open to the public. There are substantial differences between those properties and the State or Federal lands that we all 'own', some of these are; property taxes paid/or not paid, who pays for upkeep, who cleans up trash, who performs wildlife management practices (if any) on the land and other practices like thistle and other noxious weed controls (and I'm sure plenty others). The basic thing is for a fee we get to hunt there without the various other expenses of owning the land.

That program wouldn't work without the already substantial payments for CRP enrollment. A separate discussion could go on about why we don't just buy these properties when 10 years of CRP payments would pay for (some of) them. For now just let me note that then the Department of Agriculture would be taking them out of the property tax base and incurring all of the expenses of owning/managing them. In many western states the Federal and State governments do have large holdings and while great for hunting access there are down sides. One of these is that when the Federal government owns it the State and Local governments are neighbors not landlords (regardless of how they act -- and for good reasons they are allowed a lot of input into decisions). Anyway if you want lots of Federal land to hunt on you need to move - it won't be happening here any time soon.

The farmer with a piece of land enrolled in the CRP program receives additional income for allowing access but retains ownership of the land (and keeps paying property taxes on it) he or she can pull it out of the program if or when it appears to him or her that it is not working out. To me those that participate are basically leasing their land for hunting but they are leasing it to the general license holding public and not just an individual or group (obviously through the NGPC as a go-between agency collecting and dispersing the money and handling the legal paperwork). Another key point is that the access payment comes on top of the CRP payment which is why they aren't intensively using the land (so called "emergency" grazing and haying are glaring exceptions) and that may well be why they agree to allow the access. With crop prices being what they are access to actively farmed land (especially with just the access part of the payment) might be much less likely.

The proposed new access program seems to be a follow-on to the CRP MAP program but information is pretty limited at this time. One notable difference is that this would likely not be just CRP land but any land with good hunting potential. To me that is a step in the right direction as a lot of good hunting land will likely never be in the CRP program and it certainly won't be bought by the State or Federal government. Land acquisition will at most be incremental (a little at a time in any given year) for those units of government and the cost of maintaining what they already have generally exceeds the available funds on an annual basis. If we just want to hunt on the land we (the public/government) do not really need to own it we just need permission, permission that can be pre-granted in a general way to all (legal hunters) through payment of a fee (leasing).

The program will need a funding source and that is supposed to be the increase in habitat stamp costs. It will also require some talented personnel to get the 'right' properties and balance them geographically throughout the State. Good signage, readily available and readable maps and a really good (still waiting) initial public relations effort (on par with 57 yard field goals -- exquisite and rare) will be the only other things needed. I guess some way of allocating 'time shares' could also be desirable, especially for duck and goose areas, to allow quality hunting instead of 'combat' or 'firing line' experiences. If the Agriculture Department (Forest Service including National Grasslands), Interior Department (FWS, BLM, National Parks) and Nebraska Game and Parks Commission aren't going to be buying a lot of land this may be a way to get public access to more.

Lastly, I'm not affiliated with the program and I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night. I do hunt almost exclusively on public land these days and I'm not the type to turn up my nose at new opportunities. My opinion is that we have some good public or public access land already and that more would be very welcome.

After-lastly, I almost forgot that I don't think the idea mentioned up thread of seldom used 'private' leases being opened up to sub-leases (?) would work very well. In most of those instances I expect that the lease holder would not be very excited about someone else hunting the land when they aren't hunting it. The exclusive aspect and opportunity to pursue un-pressured game are some of the main reasons for such leases at least to my understanding. I also am going to guess that the NGPC will never have enough money to out-bid the current lease holders on most of the better examples of such properties. One danger I see is that the NGPC program may only run a short time (proposed for two years?) -- just long enough to identify some good and at present un-leased properties -- and then well I guess most of you know the story about "Well now that we know what you are, all we have to do is agree on a price ...".

[laughingwatr]

I'm a rancher so the ever complicated farm payment sysytem is somewhat foreign to me but I can't figure out what payment exists for deer crop damage that people keep talking about. The G&P will give you permits for depredation but our biologist hates to give them out even though their antiquated permit system has let the central Niobrara get way out of whack again. Also, with the exception of the CRP-MAP I don't belive there are any farm payments that are from the state. Good luck getting the Fed's and the state on the same page. The concept of the state leasing land for public access is not new, Smith Falls State Park is a leased property

[Alex T.]

Laughingwatr,
If you own land and need deer harvested,wouldn't allowing a forum member or two access to your land be a good way to lower your deer population a few more each season? Or, if you know landowners that need deer harvested,do you encourage them to join this forum and allow access to harvest some deer? I think there are plenty of landowners needing deer harvested and plenty of guys wanting to harvest deer that could help each other out if there were ways of contacting each other.

Alex