Rude land owners. Here we go again.

Boy, you sure can tell who doesn't own land in this thread.

City slickers have a sense of entitlement towards us country folk.
Those are the ones who don't understand a simple "no", and get told to Fcuk Off.

Here's a pic of a dude who left here without his deer. It's in my freezer. Mmmm, good.

sspx0097.jpg
 
Vincent Vega said:
This made me laugh.

You've just made it clear that you don't know much about this topic, so you should probably sit this one out.

Oh, and it's "cheque", not check.
Click to expand...

I know enough to know that farmers don't need anymore Welfare handouts....stand on your own 2 feet.

Do you KNOW enough about that topic???

Trouble is Farmers have become like every other special interest group who thinks the taxpayers or the world owes them a living because they cannot make an honest living farming.

No more handouts please.....
 
People should be entitled to maintain the ownership and integrity of their property. Nobody wants trespassers and hooligans on your land regardless if you own 1/2 an acre or 1000. However, if they are going to claim government money for crop damage, one of the conditions should be whether or not a farmer considers alternative means of crop-damage prevention (ie. allowing hunters). It just doesn't make sense to keep handing out cheques when a cheaper and more practical solution exists.

IMO, if a farmer/landowner isn't willing to explore these options and make REASONABLE accomodation, there should not be a crop-damage subsidy made. Just as a landowner is 100% entitled to deny hunting, the government is 100% entitled to deny subsidy. If a landowner is not interested in the subsidy, he/she has no concern then.
 
mat2312 said:
People should be entitled to maintain the ownership and integrity of their property. Nobody wants trespassers and hooligans on your land regardless if you own 1/2 an acre or 1000. However, if they are going to claim government money for crop damage, one of the conditions should be whether or not a farmer considers alternative means of crop-damage prevention (ie. allowing hunters). It just doesn't make sense to keep handing out cheques when a cheaper and more practical solution exists.

IMO, if a farmer/landowner isn't willing to explore these options and make REASONABLE accomodation, there should not be a crop-damage subsidy made. Just as a landowner is 100% entitled to deny hunting, the government is 100% entitled to deny subsidy. If a landowner is not interested in the subsidy, he/she has no concern then.
Click to expand...


Pretty logical argument....but it is amazing how many imbeciles on this board think taxpayers should compensate farmers year after year....all the while those same farmers won't allow anyone on their land.

Definition of Stupidity....doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.
 
mat2312 said:
People should be entitled to maintain the ownership and integrity of their property. Nobody wants trespassers and hooligans on your land regardless if you own 1/2 an acre or 1000. However, if they are going to claim government money for crop damage, one of the conditions should be whether or not a farmer considers alternative means of crop-damage prevention (ie. allowing hunters). It just doesn't make sense to keep handing out cheques when a cheaper and more practical solution exists.

IMO, if a farmer/landowner isn't willing to explore these options and make REASONABLE accomodation, there should not be a crop-damage subsidy made. Just as a landowner is 100% entitled to deny hunting, the government is 100% entitled to deny subsidy. If a landowner is not interested in the subsidy, he/she has no concern then.
Click to expand...

I understand your point of view, but crop damage from animals isn't the only problem.....

So for a farmer to be eligible for a subsidy for crop damage from animals he should have to allow hunting? So then unlimited hunters have free reign on his land to go hunting. Now some, not all, but some hunters cause damage to his crops as well, or leave ruts that the farmer has to deal with, as well as other damage that may occur. Who's responsible for that? The hunters should be held responsible, right? What if they're not caught? How do you know who did it? Sounds to me that there should be a government subsidy for property damage caused by hunters since the government made it a stipulation that they have to be allowed access.

It is what it is, why change it? Hunt crown land, hunt land that you gain permission to hunt on (there's lots of land owners that don't say no to anybody), or buy some land for yourself. You can rent it out to a farmer if it's agricultural land, or keep it specifically for hunting. There's a lot of options for hunters, but this whole idea of forcing farmers to allow access due to government programs is BS.
 
I have 1 quarter section and have never been subsidized in any way by the government. It is constantly being tresspassed by guys who think a hunting license gives them the right to go wherever they want. Trail cameras are in place this year and I will be pressing charges on anyone I catch. I have given access in the past to everyone that asked, but no more. Guys like rosco and 350 are the reason. You are your own worst enemies.:slap:
 
joe m said:
I have 1 quarter section and have never been subsidized in any way by the government. It is constantly being tresspassed by guys who think a hunting license gives them the right to go wherever they want. Trail cameras are in place this year and I will be pressing charges on anyone I catch. I have given access in the past to everyone that asked, but no more. Guys like rosco and 350 are the reason. You are your own worst enemies.:slap:
Click to expand...



LOL,

Because I say farmers shouldn't get a handout I am a BAD GUY?

I did NOT say a hunting license guarantees me access to private land?

I simply made a point that farmers that get Government bailout for Crop Damage caused by Elk or any wildlife for that matter should not restrict access to hunters?

I hunt Crown Land anyways....and in Northern Sask....EVERY single acre is CROWN land(except for Reserves). So it makes little difference to me what you or any other farmer does with his land....just don't expect a Welfare handout at taxpayer's expense....we have quite enough leeches allready.
 
The farmer has the right to freedom of expression. This means it's perfectly ok to be as #####y as one pleases. Especially on his own property.

And you are entitled to Freedom of thought. You can consider his #####iness rude.

Freedom. It's all good.
 
350 Mag said:
LOL,

Because I say farmers shouldn't get a handout I am a BAD GUY?

I did NOT say a hunting license guarantees me access to private land?

I simply made a point that farmers that get Government bailout for Crop Damage caused by Elk or any wildlife for that matter should not restrict access to hunters?

I hunt Crown Land anyways....and in Northern Sask....EVERY single acre is CROWN land(except for Reserves). So it makes little difference to me what you or any other farmer does with his land....just don't expect a Welfare handout at taxpayer's expense....we have quite enough leeches allready.
Click to expand...
If you hit an elk with your vehicle, is the cheque for damage a welfare handout?
Farmers pay insurance to protect their investment. It isn't a handout.
 
joe m said:
If you hit an elk with your vehicle, is the cheque for damage a welfare handout?
Farmers pay insurance to protect their investment. It isn't a handout.
Click to expand...

WRONG...get your facts straight before you put your mouth in gear...

Maybe in YOUR province.

In Sask they do NOT have to pay for Wildlife damage insurance.

They can buy crop insurance for Hail and what not but that is a different story.

Most Farmers cannot afford to insure all their land...it would be too expensive.

I am not begrudging them getting the money....

Simply don't like the fact they refuse access to hunters and then WHINE to the government to get compensation when an herd of Elk walks through their crop.
 
You should look into it a little more, check your facts.

If your neighbors kids break your window, do you ask that the repairs be paid for?

How about if they destroy the hanging flower basket you have hung by the entrance.

The Sask Government says it owns the Elk. If the Elk do damage, and it's proven, the assessor will make a recommendation for a payout. Mostly though, they start with a plan to either keep the Elk off the crops (lure crops elsewhere, scarecrows, cracker shells,etc) or they start issuing out depredation tags that the farmer can use, or hand out to whom he pleases, only valid on that farmers property.

Some guys are refused damage payouts, if they have not been allowing hunters in, Seen that firsthand.

The Sask. farmer is also a Sask. taxpayer. Imagine. A taxpayer wanting some tax money spent on him or his interests. Whoodathunkit!

All told, from what I have seen, the payout for crop damage beats a kick in the balls, but it's not ever been enough to cover the actual losses caused by the visitations of a herd of wildlife. Around Moose Jaw I saw deer eat entire quarters worth of swathed crops, as well as destroy stored bales, between eating them and urinating on the stuff while they were there. Most of that damage goes unclaimed.

Really. Whining to us here about how the Sask. Gov't spends it's money does you little good. Whine to them. See if that works like you claim it did for the farmers.

Cheers
Trev
 
trevj said:
You brought it up.

You were too, asking him for something.

You were asking to be able to use HIS property. He said no.

Boo Hoo.

Don't like his answer. Too bad. Buy your own land. It's not about whose geese they are.

Your fault. You should have done better groundwork before the season started.

Quit whining. Go hunting. Tell us about that instead. :D

Cheer
Trev
Click to expand...


Do you even read this stuff before you type or what man?

Like I've said many times, if you do read, A "no" is fine with me and I am not whining at all. I'm just sharing my experiences with folks who may or may not have had similar ones. People seem to think that because I was complaining about how needlessly rude he was that somehow I feel entitled to hunt his land or I'm crying that he said no. Not the case at all.

About my "ground work", you say. The guy I hunt with was a longtime scout for a professional outfitter, he showed me how it's done and we get tonnes of positive response all the time. I don't care if a guy says no.

Stranger: Hey mister, can you spare a dime?
Me: Go F**K yourself.

The above is within my rights, but uncalled for.

So hunting stories instead of whining? ok.

Hours after that run in with cranky farmer we got permission on another spot and knocked down these honkers. Look at my face, you can almost see the tears I cried over cranky farmer's treatment. :p
Looks like we're doing something right I guess.

hunt_sept_09-036.jpg
 
trevj said:
Nice haul!

Good looking herd of mutts there too, for that matter.

Cheers
Trev
Click to expand...

Thank you sir.

The dogs belong to my 2 hunting partners. My pup is too young for geese. But is learning to mark ducks like a pro.

Whack em and Stack em.
 
I have been on both sides of the fence. Once I was working in the woods and had a guy watch me through his scope on his rifle. Not much fun at all. Were I live land owners get little to no respect. I have asked to hunt and have gotten my share of "No's". If the guy is rude just let it roll off your back and try the next guy. You never know the history behind his actions. Nice haul by the way
 
joe m said:
I have 1 quarter section and have never been subsidized in any way by the government. It is constantly being tresspassed by guys who think a hunting license gives them the right to go wherever they want. Trail cameras are in place this year and I will be pressing charges on anyone I catch. I have given access in the past to everyone that asked, but no more. Guys like rosco and 350 are the reason. You are your own worst enemies.:slap:
Click to expand...

If you had the same group of regular hunters allowed to hunt every year, they would police your land for free everytime they were out there making sure others would not trespass on your land. Allowing every door knocker permission without taking there name, address, and telephone number is what's causing you grief. You can tell a pig from a good honest man in the first 10 minutes of a conversation. Tell them what you expect from them and most will follow the rules to be able to hunt again.
 
Why is everyone arguing that the landowner had the right to be rude? That's silly. Rights are no reason to ignore common courtesy. When your son or daughter comes knocking on my door selling cookies I should tell em to "F%ck off!" because I have the right to be rude as a landowner?

Bullocks. The owner should handle himself like an adult. I expect kids to behave like that.

And by the way, nice set Roscoe. Good hunting.
 
He has the right, and may have a pretty good reason for it, or not.

Should he be rude? Maybe not. Does that change anything? Nope.

Like it or don't, some folk are like that. Move on.

Cheers
Trev
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom