Question for Landowners and Hunters about Conservation

If a farmer can find sumone crazy enough to pay for just having access to his farm land way not
after all many Canadians are dumb enough to pay for bottled water I will alwase drink out of the creek wear its free and taste better
 
skhunter said:
Farmers pay for access to other landowners land every year.
Click to expand...

I spent most of my life runing a way from farms and city's I never realy understood city people or formers but I com from a famly of commercial fisherman ,loggers,miners,and trappers
I don't see any thing wrong with charging people to have axis to your private land i would not pay for it but that's me and it's how I was brought up
I would imagine it would sound pretty good to city guy
 
umchorn2 said:
Scenario: You are a landowner of a piece of land or lands that total 160 acres or larger that currently has productive wildlife habitat. It may be for waterfowl, deer, the occasional elk, bear or grouse or some other species commonly hunted in Canada. You may or may not currently be an agricultural producer and you may or may not be using the land to generate income/make a living.

Landowners Question: What would it take to keep you from draining all the sloughs/marshes, bulldozing or clearcutting the bush/forest and plowing all the earth and turning your land into a canola field or a cow pasture or subdividing it for cottage lots? Basically what would you want in return for keeping the land in its natural state for wildlife rather than another use?
Click to expand...

It takes common sense.
In return I want nature to exist for future generations.
Most of the destruction done to nature is driven by greed imo.
 
BrotherRockeye said:
It takes common sense.
In return I want nature to exist for future generations.
Most of the destruction done to nature is driven by greed imo.
Click to expand...

Yes but it's not driven by a farmer's greed. Farmers farm for the lifestyle. It's in their blood, it's what they've always done for generations. The greed is from these dumbass cookie cutter housing companies like the ones in Edmonton buying up all the good farm land that was once around the city but now it's filled up with crappy houses. The money they offer for the farmland is too good to pass up for the farmers unfortunately because you'd have to have a lot of money already to refuse millions when you could take those millions and buy new farm land and still never have to worry about money again.
 
skhunter said:
So how much profit should a farmer be limited to?
Click to expand...

Limited by what, a 'special' new law (like our firearms regulations)? Why should a farmer be limited at all, it is his property (oops, forgot we don't actually own any property in Kanukistan)? Is anyone else in our society being subjected to this kind of economic discrimination? That is a very socialistic slippery slope, much like confiscation without compensation of firearms by reclassifying them.
 
Last edited:
If I'm paying tax on a piece of land, it has to provide something of value to me. My house is on a small chunk of land, and the land is the "yard", so that's easy. A second, larger piece away from the house would be a drain on the pocket, so I'd either consider that an expense to have a spot for walking or hunting, or I'd be looking to have it pay for itself.

I'm sure you could sell day passes to the land... then the lawyers can get involved with liability insurance (in case someone gets injured using your "product", etc, etc). Complicated.

But as Shawn and others say - it depends on the money. I can't spend thousands of dollars a year on land taxes, it costs too much. I'd have to recoup it, somehow. Either year-by-year, or sit on it as an investment until it can be developed.

Edit: Most destruction is in fact greed, but at the most basic level, it's government greed. A prime piece of real-estate can be purchased and developed, and that's personal greed, but even a moose-swamp costs some poor person every year to the Province. Unless its crown land, in which case, the Gov't is sitting on it until a lucrative deal comes along.
 
I'm really not sure what can be done, but a little tear of sadness always forms in they corner of my eye whenever I see a large area that I used to hunt completely brushed by farmers wanting more pasture land. Makes me wish there were laws that state only a certain percentage of land can be cleared of natural habitat. Eventually, the animals will have no where to hide.
 
play.soccer said:
Sad that people in this thread would want to limit farmers and their income. How very socialist and liberal of you.
Click to expand...

Only those farmers who want to clear every spec of land they own just so they can buy an extra cow or two. Like I said, the animals won't have anywhere to hide soon. I'd like to say that If you don't care about Canada's natural habitat and wildlife, that would be your own problem. However as loss of habitat starts killing the natural wildlife, it becomes everyone's problem.
 
Edenchef said:
Limited by what, a 'special' new law (like our firearms regulations)? Why should a farmer be limited at all, it is his property (oops, forgot we don't actually own any property in Kanukistan)? Is anyone else in our society being subjected to this kind of economic discrimination? That is a very socialistic slippery slope, much like confiscation without compensation of firearms by reclassifying them.
Click to expand...

He said farmers destroy nature out of greed, which implies money they don't need.

I want to know where he thinks necessity ends and greed starts.
 
TDizzle said:
I'm really not sure what can be done, but a little tear of sadness always forms in they corner of my eye whenever I see a large area that I used to hunt completely brushed by farmers wanting more pasture land. Makes me wish there were laws that state only a certain percentage of land can be cleared of natural habitat. Eventually, the animals will have no where to hide.
Click to expand...

Do you eat beef?
 
TDizzle said:
Only those farmers who want to clear every spec of land they own just so they can buy an extra cow or two. Like I said, the animals won't have anywhere to hide soon. I'd like to say that If you don't care about Canada's natural habitat and wildlife, that would be your own problem. However as loss of habitat starts killing the natural wildlife, it becomes everyone's problem.
Click to expand...

If its everyone's problem, then everyone can pay for it. I take cash, EMT, certified cheques, payments in kind, young maidens of virtue pure ( but not too pure) and will consider just about anything else. Oddly the deluge of donations has under-whelmed.:p
 
Dogleg said:
If its everyone's problem, then everyone can pay for it. I take cash, EMT, certified cheques, payments in kind, young maidens of virtue pure ( but not too pure) and will consider just about anything else. Oddly the deluge of donations has under-whelmed.:p
Click to expand...

I guess you could say being a landowner also carries responsibility. You have to weigh the ability to promote the health of habitat and wildlife with the ability to make greater cash flow. I guess if you think clearing those last acres of brush on your land is worth the money you'll make, then that is unfortunately your prerogative. And I'd gladly pay a monthly fee to retain good land for wildlife.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom