They continue to impress me

[Howboutthemdawgs]

I don’t reminisce too much. It doesn’t do anyone any good. But I can say if we were like Iowa, the issue would be less impactful. Unfortunately our state allocates a higher percentage of tags to NR every year with no end in sight. It was originally supposed to be capped at 10% I think. Last year it was over 20% and the rule never changed. Combine that with reps trying to gut the departments budget and you can see where their priorities are. I’m not anti-NR, but there is a point at which we are managing a resource for “not us.” That doesn’t make any sense… At that point my use for the resource no longer exists. I’m almost there and I actually have a place to hunt.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Good point on the tag allocation. I can see where that obviously impacts residents and land values honestly. Though I’d argue iowas rec land is higher than almost any in the country and it darn sure isn’t just from locals driving it up.

 

[rocksnstumps]

Locals may not want out of town money jacking up land values beyond just the hunting aspect. It drives land valuations up in general area and makes their taxes go up when all they want to do is hang on to what they have and not sell.

 

[letemgrow]

I find it hard to believe that fragmentation isn’t affecting your area? So properties have not gotten broken up by you? If so that’s awesome.

The idea that proximity entitles someone to the land and resources in an area doesn’t make sense to me. If the local has made connections that are stronger than out of town money or if they paid for the rights themselves, great. But, if they hadn’t and a guy from seven states away valued the opportunity enough to part with their money, they shouldn’t be looked at in a negative light. Not their fault the made the sacrifice to make their dream a reality. Additionally if a guy from a different state owns and pays taxes on a substantial amount of land, I think it’s justifiable that the landowner should receive the same hunting rights as a resident but that’s just an opinion.
The local that gets upset when out of towners buy up their area that gets me. If anything the local should have more opportunities to buy local land. If some guy from where my farms are wants to buy a vacation house in my subdivision I say bring it on!

The $$$ doesn't flow there for locals like it does for OOS.

This is just the nature of the beast when it comes to capitalism. I'm not faulting the guy with the $$ for buying the land up, but it will have ripple affects later on with the changing landscapes.

It's still mainly farms and school revenue back home....you're driving 30 miles from to find a McDonald's.

Look at the average income for my home county as opposed to where I live now.....

 

[Brian662]

Locals do have more opportunities to buy land than OOS hunters/investors. So many transactions occur without ever hitting the real estate "market". Whether that's neighbors, family, word of mouth sales, etc. When a "local" wants top dollar for a recreational piece, they often take it to market where an outfitter or OOS person can buy. Why be mad at the buyer? Certainly the "local" owner who fragmented the land or sold it on the open market deserves some blame because they were greedy or didn't want to take less money than their land was worth.

I don't blame someone for that, just like I don't blame somebody for buying 400 acres for him and his kids to have a quality hunt.

Basically it boils down to if you enjoy capitalism in our society or not.

 

[Howboutthemdawgs]

Locals do have more opportunities to buy land than OOS hunters/investors. So many transactions occur without ever hitting the real estate "market". Whether that's neighbors, family, word of mouth sales, etc. When a "local" wants top dollar for a recreational piece, they often take it to market where an outfitter or OOS person can buy. Why be mad at the buyer? Certainly the "local" owner who fragmented the land or sold it on the open market deserves some blame because they were greedy or didn't want to take less money than their land was worth.

I don't blame someone for that, just like I don't blame somebody for buying 400 acres for him and his kids to have a quality hunt.

Basically it boils down to if you enjoy capitalism in our society or not.

Yep. That’s how I feel. If anything blame the local for wanting to maximize profit.

 

[Brian662]

Good point on the tag allocation. I can see where that obviously impacts residents and land values honestly. Though I’d argue iowas rec land is higher than almost any in the country and it darn sure isn’t just from locals driving it up.

When Winke's old farm sold again about 2 years ago (there was a thread here on it, I believe), the asking price was less/acre than rec land where I live in MN.
Farm land in Iowa is higher priced than farmland here.

 

[Brian662]

I'm about to close on a property in SW WI where the locals (my neighbor) who I've met, spent time with, etc called me to tell me their family member was selling. They wanted to keep it in the family but nobody in the family could afford it, so the next best thing was to offer it to a known commodity (me, an out of stater) who could afford it. Through our already established relationship, they knew I would be a steward of their family's land and continue to be the good neighbor I already am.

I paid a price that the family couldn't afford, fair market value. Who gets the blame in this scenario?

 

[letemgrow]

Certainly the "local" owner who fragmented the land or sold it on the open market deserves some blame because they were greedy or didn't want to take less money than their land was worth.

Always boils down to greed.

There's been landowners sell land to locals for cheaper to start farming and then you know what happened????

The person that got the "deal" resold the land for the going rate on the open market.

 

[Brian662]

Always boils down to greed.

There's been landowners sell land to locals for cheaper to start farming and then you know what happened????

The person that got the "deal" resold the land for the going rate on the open market.

It appears greed and capitalism aren't very far apart on the spectrum.

 

[T-Max]

I can only speak for myself, but I hope nothing I said came across as blaming the OOS (took me a bit to figure out what that meant ) hunters. They are operating within their rights. No problem with them personally. Far from it. I just don’t see a scenario where this continues on and allows hunting to be a thing.

And while I do absolutely believe in capitalism let’s be honest, if we were a true, unregulated capitalist society, none of us would have anything we have. We would all work for the Rockefellers or Vanderbilts. Our waters would be toxic waste dumps and such.

I do believe in State’s rights as well. There has to be some advantage to living in a particular state. Property taxes be what they are, maybe my income taxes should give me some leg up on a NR. I dunno. I feel like I should get something for living here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Jerry-B-WI]

It appears greed and capitalism aren't very far apart on the spectrum.

I think on a Venn diagram they overlap.

 

[Jerry-B-WI]

I’m thinking more for the common guy. Not a landowner. Part of the reason we are losing hunters is because they have no place to go. Would I rather have a NRLO or outfitter next door is kind of a non-issue if you can’t afford access. I personally would rather it was my buddy Jimmy or Brad, or my old neighbor Steve. But it’s 2 guys from Missouri, a guy from NJ and an outfitter. All of whom our state reps seem to prefer at this point.

Edit: Ag parcels in Kansas contribute Pennie’s on the dollar as far as taxes so they don’t really consider that here, but your point is valid.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They probably prefer the NRLO because they can tax them at a recreational land value (no farm land tax break) and charge them 800% more for a hunting license. Who do you think they make more revenue from?

 

[Howboutthemdawgs]

I'm about to close on a property in SW WI where the locals (my neighbor) who I've met, spent time with, etc called me to tell me their family member was selling. They wanted to keep it in the family but nobody in the family could afford it, so the next best thing was to offer it to a known commodity (me, an out of stater) who could afford it. Through our already established relationship, they knew I would be a steward of their family's land and continue to be the good neighbor I already am.

I paid a price that the family couldn't afford, fair market value. Who gets the blame in this scenario?

Last two farms I bought were locals reaching out to me. Either I was the dumb one to pay what they wanted or they valued me as a neighbor…not sure yet!

 

[rocksnstumps]

I paid a price that the family couldn't afford, fair market value. Who gets the blame in this scenario?

If you are a local the new owner gets the blame of course! They can't hunt that land asking for free anymore...

 

[Howboutthemdawgs]

I can only speak for myself, but I hope nothing I said came across as blaming the OOS (took me a bit to figure out what that meant ) hunters. They are operating within their rights. No problem with them personally. Far from it. I just don’t see a scenario where this continues on and allows hunting to be a thing.

And while I do absolutely believe in capitalism let’s be honest, if we were a true, unregulated capitalist society, none of us would have anything we have. We would all work for the Rockefellers or Vanderbilts. Our waters would be toxic waste dumps and such.

I do believe in State’s rights as well. There has to be some advantage to living in a particular state. Property taxes be what they are, maybe my income taxes should give me some leg up on a NR. I dunno. I feel like I should get something for living here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I’m curious your thoughts on why this path wouldn’t make hunting sustainable? Isn’t people buying land strictly for hunting somewhat ensuring it’s sustainability for the immediate future?

The thought about what do residents deserve is an interesting albeit philosophical one imo. Do nonresident landowners not deserve something for investing in local economies that are a lot of times depressed economically? Where would some of these places be without an investment from hunters buying land? I’m not saying it’s for the better necessarily but I’m am saying if the state is going “reward” someone it should also be those that voluntarily invest in them. States are all the time trying to attract investment from companies to relocate with subsidies. I don’t think asking to pay a resident rate for a hunting license or given the same tag opportunities as a resident IF you own land is crazy to ask. I’d say a nonresident landowner is a net positive to a states tax base and most residents are a negative. You think my kids will ever step foot in the schools I’ve paid thousands of dollars towards?!? Nope.

 

[rocksnstumps]

Always boils down to greed.

There's been landowners sell land to locals for cheaper to start farming and then you know what happened????

The person that got the "deal" resold the land for the going rate on the open market.

Can think of several instances of this happening especially when the real market value is way above the initial selling price. Most times the seller is older and a bit sentimental and out of touch with real evaluations. The buyer goes along with it with full intentions of flipping it in typically less than a year so not like it gained tremendous value after the sale.

Something like no good deed for your neighbor goes unpunished. Of course I usually hear about this from some younger relation of the seller and whether they care about that person or were hoping for a better inheritance, who knows.

 

[Howboutthemdawgs]

I will say @T-Max I absolutely think residents should get a way better situation on their state public ground. Give them every advantage they need. Federal ground should be open to everyone. I always felt like Wyoming and Alaska should be ripe for lawsuits requiring outfitters on wilderness and other federal ground. That’s my land just as much as Joe from Laramies’.

 

[BenAllgood]

I know in some states, the fish and wildlife departments are almost solely funded by license sales. Usually, non-residents pay a good bit more for a license than residents do. In some cases, residents who own the land don't have to buy a hunting license at all. I'm just glad I haven't been priced out yet for hunting on the land I own. That land was just as available to buy by me as it was to a resident.

But, I do see the other side of the coin too. I would love to buy land in my state that's comparable (wildlife wise) to what I own out of state. To do that would cost a LOT more money as there are just not as many good areas in my state, and the areas that are good are crazy expensive. So, I do feel as a resident, I am priced out of my own state. But, am I also pricing out residents of the state I bought in? Maybe.

I'm just glad I own some piece of America that I can pay the government to hunt on.

 

[T-Max]

They probably prefer the NRLO because they can tax them at a recreational land value (no farm land tax break) and charge them 800% more for a hunting license. Who do you think they make more revenue from?

They still qualify as ag. There is a classification for that scenario, but it is rarely used.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[T-Max]

I will say @T-Max I absolutely think residents should get a way better situation on their state public ground. Give them every advantage they need. Federal ground should be open to everyone. I always felt like Wyoming and Alaska should be ripe for lawsuits requiring outfitters on wilderness and other federal ground. That’s my land just as much as Joe from Laramies’.

That’s the rub in KS. 97% private and a lot of the other is under reservoirs or military installations.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk