# Farm subsidies and the Future of Dove Hunting



## moore0661 (Jan 10, 2013)

Let me start by saying I am thankful to have a father that loved dove hunting and introduced me to the sport at a very early age.  I started going to the field with him at 3 years old and got to carry a single shot .410 by the time I was five.  When I turned 8, I got my granddaddy's old A-5 browning twelve gauge with a cut off stock cause daddy couldn't afford for me to shoot .410 shells anymore.  I can remember almost every dove shoot I've ever been to with him.

I grew up hunting in the late eighties and early nineties.  This was the tail end of the days of the small family farm. We went to several shoots a year.  Most of the small farmers in the area were glad to let us have dove shoots.  We'd give 20 dollars a man and they were grateful for the supplemental income.  Now a days a few farmers control most of the land. And this land is very private.  Dove shoots are very hard to come by now unless you are willing to pay crazy prices.  Just looking at the prices in the GON every august and it would seem that dove hunting has turned into a rich man's sport, when it doesn't have to be.

Now onto farm subsidies.  Here is a link http://farm.ewg.org/  to the farm subsidy database.  You can look up any farmer in your area and see what they have been given since 1995.  The biggest ones on there are the ones that control the most grain and therefore the dove migration.  The lawmakers need to make a provision in the farm bill to allow the DNR to have dove shoots on private lands if the farmer receives subsidies for the crop.  These could be paid shoots where the proceeds go to help fund the DNR.  This would be a better system than what the DNR currently offers for dove hunters.

I love this sport.  Even at an early age I realized how fortunate I was to go to so many good dove shoots. There are a lot of kids growing up now that won't have the opportunity I did.  Dove hunting is going the way of quail hunting where only a few can afford to do it anymore, when it doesn't have to be like that.


----------



## coveyrise90 (Jan 10, 2013)

Interesting post. I kinda like the idea. I'd be interested in hearing what others have to say about this.

Adam


----------



## kingofcool (Jan 11, 2013)

I hope this isn't shading too much into politics.

A few comments that are on tangentially related.

First off, I recently heard that a huge number of family farms closed down in the early '80s (I want to say 200k but it could've been more).  

Second, the only thing I know about past bird hunting is what I've read.  But with the mega farms and the current anti-public land sentiment, the future just doesn't look great and that depresses me as someone just starting out.

Third, the Fed govt attaching conditions to money can get messy constitutionally.

Fourth, thank goodness for the vast amount of public land out west.  Let's hope it remains untouched and appreciated for the opportunities it presents.


----------



## Dixiegrouse (Jan 11, 2013)

Tenn leases farms for the public to dove hunt on
I believe .


----------



## cpowel10 (Jan 11, 2013)

I think it's a terrible idea. Landowners should never be forced to allow public access to their lands.

Who will pick up all the litter (shotgun shells are litter), who will pay for items stolen from farmers and landowners, who will pay for damage to field roads, what about the idiots who would decide to drive through every mud hole on the property?


----------



## moore0661 (Jan 11, 2013)

cpowel10 said:


> I think it's a terrible idea. Landowners should never be forced to allow public access to their lands.
> 
> Who will pick up all the litter (shotgun shells are litter), who will pay for items stolen from farmers and landowners, who will pay for damage to field roads, what about the idiots who would decide to drive through every mud hole on the property?



The farmers won't be forced to do anything.  If they want to keep their land 100% private, then they can opt out of the farm subsidy program.  A lot of farmers do not receive any money from the federal government.

What I'm proposing is only for dove hunting and the shoots would be controlled by the DNR.  I'm not proposing unlimited access to their land, only the grain fields that control the dove migration.


----------



## Jim P (Jan 11, 2013)

The idea sure has it's pro's and con's, and there will always be the slob hunter like cpowel said.


----------



## BirdNut (Jan 11, 2013)

Hmm.  This is an interesting idea, I will have to ruminate...

Pros are definitely there, but also the state of society today makes me shudder at what the masses of "public" will do and in short order to the private land.


----------



## cpowel10 (Jan 11, 2013)

moore0661 said:


> The farmers won't be forced to do anything.  If they want to keep their land 100% private, then they can opt out of the farm subsidy program.  A lot of farmers do not receive any money from the federal government.
> 
> What I'm proposing is only for dove hunting and the shoots would be controlled by the DNR.  I'm not proposing unlimited access to their land, only the grain fields that control the dove migration.



It sounds like a good idea for people who want more places to hunt, but I don't think it would ever work (or should even be considered).

Many farmers don't own the land they farm. The land is leased from little old ladies, investment firms, other farmers, holding companies, etc.

IMO dnr shouldn't have any say over what happens on private lands regardless of what subsidies the farm operation receives.  Let the landowner decide who hunts.

 I'm sure anyone familiar with farming or is a land owner will agree with me.


----------



## cpowel10 (Jan 11, 2013)

BirdNut said:


> Hmm.  This is an interesting idea, I will have to ruminate...
> 
> Pros are definitely there, but also the state of society today makes me shudder at what the masses of "public" will do and in short order to the private land.



I agree. There is a reason why landowners deny access to their land.


----------



## moore0661 (Jan 11, 2013)

cpowel10 said:


> It sounds like a good idea for people who want more places to hunt, but I don't think it would ever work (or should even be considered).
> 
> Many farmers don't own the land they farm. The land is leased from little old ladies, investment firms, other farmers, holding companies, etc.
> 
> ...


So the farmers should just recieve billions of federal tax dollars and the general public shouldn't see any benefit?


----------



## grouper throat (Jan 11, 2013)

Property rights come first and trump anything else. 

In the current world, people don't let other people on their land as they're scared of being sued. Liability and government intrusion is great enough already these days. No one hunts or fishes on our land expect family or someone we take, which is different than 20-30 years ago. Times have changed.


----------



## cpowel10 (Jan 11, 2013)

moore0661 said:


> So the farmers should just recieve billions of federal tax dollars and the general public shouldn't see any benefit?



The public sees TONS of benefits. A stable food supply and an industry that drives the economy in many parts of the state.

If someone wants to hunt they have plenty of options. Lease land, buy land, make friends who own land. If someone can't afford it they can pay $19 and hunt approx a million acres in georgia.


----------



## BirdNut (Jan 11, 2013)

moore0661 said:


> So the farmers should just recieve billions of federal tax dollars and the general public shouldn't see any benefit?



I don't farm.  I know some people who do or lease their land for another farmer to work.

But if I did farm, and the government told me I had to either a) let people on my land whom they chose or b) not take a subsidy  I would go with b.

Then, run this scenario out: Now over time I am not competitive, etc. partly because I do not take the subsidy, partly for other reasons whatever they may be.    I quit farming.  One less food or product (ethanol, whatever), producer in the Good Ole US of A.  Soon, enough farmers feel the same way I do.  Soon after that, the US becomes a food importer.

Not a good strategic position.

Hmmm.  And I never thought dove hunting would cause us to become slaves to China or whomever.

Might make a good movie.


----------



## cpowel10 (Jan 11, 2013)

grouper throat said:


> Property rights come first and trump anything else.
> 
> In the current world, people don't let other people on their land as they're scared of being sued. Liability and government intrusion is great enough already these days. No one hunts or fishes on our land expect family or someone we take, which is different than 20-30 years ago. Times have changed.



Yep!


----------



## BirdNut (Jan 11, 2013)

cpowel10 said:


> The public sees TONS of benefits. A stable food supply and an industry that drives the economy in many parts of the state.
> 
> If someone wants to hunt they have plenty of options. Lease land, buy land, make friends who own land. If someone can't afford it they can pay $19 and hunt approx a million acres in georgia.



X2.

It's not your idea per se, its the attitude that you are entitled to access to private lands.  My 2 cents.


----------



## BirdNut (Jan 11, 2013)

grouper throat said:


> Property rights come first and trump anything else.
> 
> In the current world, people don't let other people on their land as they're scared of being sued. Liability and government intrusion is great enough already these days. No one hunts or fishes on our land expect family or someone we take, which is different than 20-30 years ago. Times have changed.



My father in law tells of tales when they would quail hunt essentially from one end of the county to the other as boys over several days (this would have been in the 1940's in SOWEGA).  Everyone knew everyone, and you took care of your neighbors etc.

Today if you allowed unfettered access to your land, the poor state of values, morals, lack of upbringing etc. in society would make you close it down real quick.  Go to a public place, that belongs to all of us, and observe all the trash and abuse, etc. that the place takes.  Stadiums, roadsides, whatever-they are filthy because people think nothing of littering or abusing it and leaving it for someone else to clean up.

Not to mention the litigation-happy crowd (I broke my leg while hunting on your land, you need to pay my doctor bill).

There are valid reason private landowners don't let people tresspass.  Its not just that they want it all for themselves.


----------



## moore0661 (Jan 11, 2013)

cpowel10 said:


> *The public sees TONS of benefits.* A stable food supply and an industry that drives the economy in many parts of the state.
> 
> If someone wants to hunt they have plenty of options. Lease land, buy land, make friends who own land. If someone can't afford it they can pay $19 and hunt approx a million acres in georgia.



This is debatable.  

You said earlier that this was only a good idea for someone looking for more places to hunt.  This is exactly the point.  Opportunities for dove hunting are dwindling in this state.  I've seen it for the past 20 years.  There is a lot of public land but not a lot of agriculture.  And this is not for me personally.  I have opportunities to dove hunt, but a lot of people can't afford to do what you are talking about.  The options the DNR gives to dove hunters is not a great way to promote the sport.

You said that this idea shouldn't even be considered.  Why?
If we don't promote the sport for younger generations then what's the point of doing it.


----------



## moore0661 (Jan 11, 2013)

BirdNut said:


> X2.
> 
> It's not your idea per se, its the attitude that you are entitled to access to private lands.  My 2 cents.



So the farmers want federal money with no strings attatched?  Who has the entitlement attitude?

Again, earlier i said this was only for dove hunting and DNR controlled hunts.  This isn't every redneck in the county riding through your food plots and sitting in your deer stands.

Liability issues are already covered.  The landowner is not responsible for hunters getting injured or killed.  We've done this for a long time to promote hunting in this state.


----------



## humdandy (Jan 11, 2013)

I receive farm subsidies, should I allow deer hunters to hunt my property?

Bad idea!

We are being paid NO TO PLANT, yep!  We would make more money if we leased our farm out to farmers, which we did in the past. 

We quit leasing only because there were too many people using the property when nobody was around and the cabin was at risk.  We leased to cotton farmers and seems everybody and their brother was riding through the property on a daily basis.


----------



## moore0661 (Jan 11, 2013)

humdandy said:


> I receive farm subsidies, should I allow deer hunters to hunt my property?
> 
> Bad idea!
> 
> ...



Please read the thread again.


----------



## humdandy (Jan 11, 2013)

moore0661 said:


> Please read the thread again.



I understand, however this would only open the door to other areas of hunting as well.

Bad idea IMO.


----------



## cpowel10 (Jan 11, 2013)

cpowel10 said:


> The public sees TONS of benefits. A stable food supply and an industry that drives the economy in many parts of the state.
> 
> If someone wants to hunt they have plenty of options. Lease land, buy land, make friends who own land. If someone can't afford it they can pay $19 and hunt approx a million acres in georgia.





moore0661 said:


> This is debatable.
> 
> You said earlier that this was only a good idea for someone looking for more places to hunt.  This is exactly the point.  Opportunities for dove hunting are dwindling in this state.  I've seen it for the past 20 years.  There is a lot of public land but not a lot of agriculture.  And this is not for me personally.  I have opportunities to dove hunt, but a lot of people can't afford to do what you are talking about.  The options the DNR gives to dove hunters is not a great way to promote the sport.
> 
> ...



see red.

I understand where you're coming from, and think it would benefit a lot of people.  However going after private lands by forcing the farmer/landowner choose between property rights and making a living is the wrong way to do it.  The farm bill needs to be kept separate from any state managed hunting opportunities.

IMO A much better solution would be to lease farmland on WMAs.  Have you ever been to El Model WMA?  It has better dove habitat than most private land.


----------



## Duff (Jan 11, 2013)

humdandy said:


> I understand, however this would only open the door to other areas of hunting as well.
> 
> Bad idea IMO.



Read it again


----------



## BirdNut (Jan 11, 2013)

moore0661 said:


> So the farmers want federal money with no strings attatched?  Who has the entitlement attitude?
> 
> Again, earlier i said this was only for dove hunting and DNR controlled hunts.  This isn't every redneck in the county riding through your food plots and sitting in your deer stands.
> 
> Liability issues are already covered.  The landowner is not responsible for hunters getting injured or killed.  We've done this for a long time to promote hunting in this state.



I am on the fence on subsidies, literally.  I do think it is strategically important for us to keep American farmers farming, so I lean towards continuing them.

And I have seen some super odd and reprehensible behaviors on DNR-sponsored hunts.  They are not staffed to be present on the field.  It runs the gamut from low birds, to people fighting over spots, cutting off birds, bad etiquette, whatever.  In any spectrum of society, including dove hunters, you will have enough of the dregs to ruin it for all.


----------



## cpowel10 (Jan 11, 2013)

moore0661 said:


> So the farmers want federal money with no strings attatched?  Who has the entitlement attitude?Again, earlier i said this was only for dove hunting and DNR controlled hunts.  This isn't every redneck in the county riding through your food plots and sitting in your deer stands.
> 
> Liability issues are already covered.  The landowner is not responsible for hunters getting injured or killed.  We've done this for a long time to promote hunting in this state.



Expecting the state to provide you with a place to dove hunt is an entitlement attitude.


----------



## BirdNut (Jan 11, 2013)

cpowel10 said:


> see red.
> 
> I understand where you're coming from, and think it would benefit a lot of people.  However going after private lands by forcing the farmer/landowner choose between property rights and making a living is the wrong way to do it.  The farm bill needs to be kept separate from any state managed hunting opportunities.
> 
> Imo a much better solution would be to lease farmland on wmas.  Have you ever been to el model wma?  It has better dove habitat than most private land.



x2.


----------



## moore0661 (Jan 11, 2013)

cpowel10 said:


> Expecting the state to provide you with a place to dove hunt is an entitlement attitude.



Expecting the federal government to give you tax money to maintain your way of life is Welfare.  But even welfare has stipulations.


----------



## cpowel10 (Jan 11, 2013)

moore0661 said:


> Expecting the federal government to give you tax money to maintain your way of life is Welfare.  But even welfare has stipulations.



I agree, but a stable food supply and driving the economy  for an entire region far outweighs the cost of subsidies.

Look at the farm bill if you want to read stipulations 

Depending on the government to provide you with recreation opportunities would be a form of welfare. Correct?


----------



## moore0661 (Jan 11, 2013)

cpowel10 said:


> I agree, but a stable food supply and driving the economy  for an entire region far outweighs the cost of subsidies.
> 
> Look at the farm bill if you want to read stipulations
> 
> Depending on the government to provide you with recreation opportunities would be a form of welfare. Correct?



Not if my tax dollars are used to fund it.


----------



## BirdNut (Jan 11, 2013)

I am not sure what stipulations welfare has, but the federal government providing for a military to protect is a form of welfare too.

Your idea is not totally bad-but the "force" piece of it is. Perhaps making an "option" for the landowner to host a public dove hunt. See how many of them avail themselves of the opportunity. There will be 10,000 GA dove hunters signed up to hunt the one 10 acre field that didn't make. Then what happens? 

One of the problems with dove as well as quail is that these birds were the by product of normal everyday practices.  They are still abundant in places where the normal every day practices approximate the 1950's.

The older folks I know lament that there are no doves on the farm.  Its not center pivot or super modern, but they plant really nothing but cotton now and occassionally soybeans I think.  I haven't been down there this year at all.  I asked my uncle what they used to plant and it was corn, sorghum, and peanuts.

You can go shoot doves in south Texas or Mexico (if you are brave and well armed) and see scads of them.  You don't have to go to Argentina.  They are still around, just not so much around here as they used to be.   My point is that access is not the only problem.


----------



## cpowel10 (Jan 11, 2013)

moore0661 said:


> Not if my tax dollars are used to fund it.



By your definition then if a farmer's tax dollars are used to fund farm subsidies then its not welfare either.  His taxes are paying his subsidies right?


----------



## moore0661 (Jan 11, 2013)

cpowel10 said:


> By your definition then if a farmer's tax dollars are used to fund farm subsidies then its not welfare either.  His taxes are paying his subsidies right?



Exacltly,  he can sign up to hunt just like the rest of us.

Good debate though cpowel.


----------



## coveyrise90 (Jan 11, 2013)

Don't many western states pay for public access on private farms and ranches?

How has that worked out for the landowners? Must not be too bad, considering the programs are still going.


Adam


----------



## grouper throat (Jan 11, 2013)

I don't think you quite understand that farm subsidies are used to keep a stable price for commodities/ which benefits everyone tremendously already (unless you don't eat). We as a country pay low prices overall compared to other countries for our food. Well, I retract that until the ethanol craze! lol

Not that I am siding with gov subsidies (that's a WHOLE other subject).


----------



## moore0661 (Jan 11, 2013)

BirdNut said:


> I am not sure what stipulations welfare has, but the federal government providing for a military to protect is a form of welfare too.
> 
> Your idea is not totally bad-but the "force" piece of it is. Perhaps making an "option" for the landowner to host a public dove hunt. See how many of them avail themselves of the opportunity. There will be 10,000 GA dove hunters signed up to hunt the one 10 acre field that didn't make. Then what happens?
> 
> ...



No one is forcing them.  If they want to be modern day plantation owners then they shouldn't receive any federal money in order to do so.  My business is just as seasonal and dependent on weather as farmers, but I don't have disaster subsidies if I have a bad year.  I'm not guaranteed a set price for my work.  It is dependent on market forces.

I'm not advocating doing away with subsidies either.  But the status quo in relation to dove hunting opportunities will kill the sport.  By doing nothing because of every perceived flaw in the idea is a good way to ensure future generations of hunters won't have the same opportunities we have had.

Doves aren't going the way of quail.  The same issues that hurt the wild quail population isn't working against the dove.  Their numbers are abundant, but hunting opportunities are not.


----------



## cpowel10 (Jan 11, 2013)

moore0661 said:


> Exacltly,  he can sign up to hunt just like the rest of us.
> 
> Good debate though cpowel.
> 
> This is now the longest thread on the front page of the upland forum.



Hey at least we agree the more public hunting land the better! Just different ways to go about it.


----------



## cpowel10 (Jan 11, 2013)

coveyrise90 said:


> Don't many western states pay for public access on private farms and ranches?
> 
> How has that worked out for the landowners? Must not be too bad, considering the programs are still going.
> 
> ...



It's working out great in GA. The state leases land for several wmas from private land owners. 

It's a lease between the state and a private landowner, not a stipulation in the farm bill that was proposed in the original post that would take away subsidies if the farmer didn't agree to public access.


----------



## moore0661 (Jan 11, 2013)

cpowel10 said:


> It's working out great in GA. The state leases land for several wmas from private land owners.
> 
> It a lease between the state and a private landowner, not a stipulation in the farm bill that was proposed in the original post that would take away subsidies if the farmer didn't agree to public access.



I'm curious where are these dove fields and how many acres are there?  In my area of the state, public land is few and far between.  And access to dove shoots on those public lands are hard to come by.

Why shouldn't farmers have to choose?  Stipulations are put on federal tax money all the time.  There are already stipulations in the current farm bill.  So one more in relation to dove hunting will cause farmers to not want to farm anymore?


----------



## cpowel10 (Jan 11, 2013)

moore0661 said:


> I'm curious where are these dove fields and how many acres are there?  In my area of the state, public land is few and far between.  And access to dove shoots on those public lands are hard to come by.
> 
> Why shouldn't farmers have to choose?  Stipulations are put on federal tax money all the time.  There are already stipulations in the current farm bill.  So one more in relation to dove hunting will cause farmers to not want to farm anymore?



El model wma (sw ga) has several huge fields to dove hunt on. Corn, peanuts and sunflowers usually. I live near it. Many sw ga wmas have dove fields that are great.

It's not about them not wanting to farm, it's more about private property rights. Like I said earlier a lot of farmers don't farm land the actually own.


----------



## moore0661 (Jan 11, 2013)

cpowel10 said:


> El model wma (sw ga) has several huge fields to dove hunt on. Corn, peanuts and sunflowers usually. I live near it. Many sw ga wmas have dove fields that are great.
> 
> It's not about them not wanting to farm, it's more about private property rights. Like I said earlier a lot of farmers don't farm land the actually own.



I believe very strongly in private property rights, but not when public money is used to fund those rights.


----------



## cpowel10 (Jan 11, 2013)

moore0661 said:


> I believe very strongly in private property rights, but not when public money is used to fund those rights.



How would you feel if you were a landowner and were told you had to allow public dove shoots because of the farmer's decisions?


----------



## moore0661 (Jan 11, 2013)

cpowel10 said:


> How would you feel if you were a landowner and were told you had to allow public dove shoots because of the farmer's decisions?


They always have the option of not leasing the land.  No one is forcing them into a contract with the farmer.  Both the land owner and farmer benefit from the situation.  Why shouldn't the public benefit from it too?


----------



## cpowel10 (Jan 11, 2013)

moore0661 said:


> They always have the option of not leasing the land.  No one is forcing them into a contract with the farmer.  Both the land owner and farmer benefit from the situation.  Why shouldn't the public benefit from it too?



Are you very familiar with farming/agriculture?

As a landowner I wouldn't lease to a farmer who required me to allow public access, I doubt many would.  You'd see a lot of pine trees being planted as well.

The plan to gain access to all the great untouched private dove land would backfire with much of it being converted into pine deserts.


----------



## moore0661 (Jan 11, 2013)

cpowel10 said:


> Are you very familiar with farming/agriculture?
> 
> As a landowner I wouldn't lease to a farmer who required me to allow public access, I doubt many would.  You'd see a lot of pine trees being planted as well.
> 
> The plan to gain access to all the great untouched private dove land would backfire with much of it being converted into pine deserts.



I get what your saying cpowel.  I really do. Me and you could probably argue this till we're blue in the face.

But the perceived negatives aren't as bad as you make them out to be.  Yes I know about farming and agriculture.  That's about all there is around here.  I know many people that lease their land to farmers.  This isn't about unlimited access to private land.  There won't be dove shoots on every property, every day of every week.  What I proposed was something very different.

As a landowner you get to decide what to do with your property.  If the chance of a public dove shoot on your land is reprehensible, you have the right to do with it as you please.  But both farmers and people that lease land benefit from subsidies.

This idea isn't the be all end all.  It's just another idea trying to promote the sport.  I'm glad you have ample opportunity in south georgia to hunt doves, but many parts of the state do not.  The dove hunting opportunities in the state is lacking to say the least.  Yet the doves are abundant.

Doing nothing is a great way to ensure the sport dies.


----------



## Dog Hunter (Jan 11, 2013)

moore0661 said:


> So the farmers should just recieve billions of federal tax dollars and the general public shouldn't see any benefit?



So what benefit are you seeing from all the ones that recieve monthly checks and sit on the porch all day and drink beer?


----------



## Setter Jax (Jan 11, 2013)

Why, not give the farmer a tax break if they will participate in a DNR hunt program. It could be similar to a famer placing his land in a timber program, or set aside land.  To me that would be a win win for everyone and give the farmers a choice.


----------



## Setter Jax (Jan 11, 2013)

Dog Hunter said:


> So what benefit are you seeing from all the ones that recieve monthly checks and sit on the porch all day and drink beer?



I don't know what farm you are talking about.  I grew up on a small family farm and you worked hard before sunrise and after sunset, seven days a week.  And when the crops were coming in, or you were taking live stock to market you got to sleep when the job was done.


----------



## Dog Hunter (Jan 11, 2013)

Setter Jax said:


> I don't know what farm you are talking about.  I grew up on a small family farm and you worked hard before sunrise and after sunset, seven days a week.  And when the crops were coming in, or you were taking live stock to market you got to sleep when the job was done.



I did too.  Not talking about a farm.  Talking about all the welfare payments that go to able body people to sorry to work.


----------



## Setter Jax (Jan 11, 2013)

I think that dove and quail hunters need to learn from the Pheasant Forever folks out west.  Seems like they have a working model to allow hunters access to private lands.  I don't know much about the program, just what I have seen on hunting shows (The Flush and shows like it), but it seems to be working well for them.


----------



## Potlicker60 (Jan 11, 2013)

Why does the government pay people to do something that is not profitable or to do nothing.  It seems that the real play out of the scenario is that people would not do things that need subsidizing and spend their time doing something profitable if you removed farming subsidies.  This country was not built on subsidized programs.  In response to the programs out west, the pheasant populations are being destroyed in many places due to subsidies for corn(ethanol).  My opinion.


----------



## zzweims (Jan 12, 2013)

This has bad idea written all over it.  There are programs out west where hunters are allowed access to CRP land for which the farmer receives subsidies NOT to plant.  Such land is fine for pheasant, deer, rabbit, etc., but dove prefer clean fields planted in grain.  I would be pretty ticked off if a bunch of yahoos ran amok on a field I had babied and worked for months.  Fallow land is one thing, but an agricultural field is that farmer's bread and butter.  He and only he should have the right to say who has access to it.


----------



## moore0661 (Jan 12, 2013)

zzweims said:


> This has bad idea written all over it.  There are programs out west where hunters are allowed access to CRP land for which the farmer receives subsidies NOT to plant.  Such land is fine for pheasant, deer, rabbit, etc., but dove prefer clean fields planted in grain.  I would be pretty ticked off if a bunch of yahoos ran amok on a field I had babied and worked for months.  Fallow land is one thing, but an agricultural field is that farmer's bread and butter.  He and only he should have the right to say who has access to it.



Why should he have this right when I have no right to say where my tax money goes?


----------



## coveyrise (Jan 12, 2013)

moore0661 said:


> So the farmers should just recieve billions of federal tax dollars and the general public shouldn't see any benefit?



Much of this money you see being received is for the pine tree program which actually is not your tax dollars at all but yet money paid out from a trust set up by the goverment and financed by the power companys. The power companies have to pay for all the pollution that comes from those coal burning power plants that power our homes. Those trees in the program take in the pollution that is emitted by our cars everyday also. Without those trees think how expensive building a house would be or paper that your kids use in school. Not to mention that it would probably be 90 degrees today other than 80 like it was today the 12th of January or is it May? 
This is just one benefit. I could go on and on.


----------



## moore0661 (Jan 13, 2013)

coveyrise said:


> Much of this money you see being received is for the pine tree program which actually is not your tax dollars at all but yet money paid out from a trust set up by the goverment and financed by the power companys. The power companies have to pay for all the pollution that comes from those coal burning power plants that power our homes. Those trees in the program take in the pollution that is emitted by our cars everyday also. Without those trees think how expensive building a house would be or paper that your kids use in school. Not to mention that it would probably be 90 degrees today other than 80 like it was today the 12th of January or is it May?
> This is just one benefit. I could go on and on.



This is misleading.  Most of the money goes to row croppers: cotton, peanuts, corn, grain, etc.

And like I said in another post, the benefits of subsidies are debatable.  I'm not trying to make the argument for or against subsidies.


----------



## coveyrise (Jan 13, 2013)

moore0661 said:


> This is misleading.  Most of the money goes to row croppers: cotton, peanuts, corn, grain, etc.
> 
> And like I said in another post, the benefits of subsidies are debatable.  I'm not trying to make the argument for or against subsidies.



Absolutely most of it does go to row croppers. That it the reason I said much of the money. Should have said some of the money. Maybe that would be a better word. I have pine trees planted on my land and chose not to take a dime from the gov. Also could be getting thousands for a corn allotment that I refused. I have friends names on this list that have received millions of dollars from gov. handouts. Many of them drive 50 thousand dollar pickups and go to Argentina to shoot doves every year. I think some of these programs need to be axed and some don't. Things such as milk subsidies help a lot of people and may need to be kept.
What we need to do away with is the billions of dollars that we give the oil companies. 
The DNR needs to quit planting some of the clearcuts back in pines on the WMA's and start making dove fields out of them but I don't think they have any money to do so. They could easily rent the land to local farmers and let only certain grains be planted there. For years they allowed cotton to be planted on Elmodel. Never figured that out. Think it is a thing of the past now.


----------



## duckhunter2010 (Jan 15, 2013)

If you want to really increase public hunting opportunities, the best thing to do is get out there and volunteer (with the DNR). For every hour you spend volunteering, the DNR receives a hefty amount of money to go towards improving public lands. This comes from the Pittman-Robertson fund. Every year, tons of money goes into the PR fund from excise taxes on guns and ammo and nowhere near all of it is distributed because most people want to just hunt our WMAs without offering to help improve. Now I know alot of you say "Well, what about budget cuts?". Well the budget cuts are definitely a factor but when a volunteer gives their time to improving the land, it almost forces the State and Fed Gov't to give what is owed. Now dont take this as a stab at anyone, I am just passing along that there are ways to help improve what is available. True, there will be 500 people waiting to rush onto the dove fields at 10am (and those few that try to cheat the system earlier) but that is just part of it, which I hate to say. But seriously, volunteering is the best thing we can do to improve our public hunting resources.


----------



## coveyrise (Jan 15, 2013)

duckhunter2010 said:


> If you want to really increase public hunting opportunities, the best thing to do is get out there and volunteer (with the DNR). For every hour you spend volunteering, the DNR receives a hefty amount of money to go towards improving public lands. This comes from the Pittman-Robertson fund. Every year, tons of money goes into the PR fund from excise taxes on guns and ammo and nowhere near all of it is distributed because most people want to just hunt our WMAs without offering to help improve. Now I know alot of you say "Well, what about budget cuts?". Well the budget cuts are definitely a factor but when a volunteer gives their time to improving the land, it almost forces the State and Fed Gov't to give what is owed. Now dont take this as a stab at anyone, I am just passing along that there are ways to help improve what is available. True, there will be 500 people waiting to rush onto the dove fields at 10am (and those few that try to cheat the system earlier) but that is just part of it, which I hate to say. But seriously, volunteering is the best thing we can do to improve our public hunting resources.



Great advice. I volunteer every year with Ga. DNR, Fla. FWC and Federal Fish and Wildlife. Also with Forestry service. The only good thing to come from this gun control talk is that guns are selling at an all time record. Money is pouring into the Pittman Robertson Fund. Bad thing is if debt ceiling is not raised this money could be frozen and not distributed.


----------

