Posted by my2cents (anonymous) on January 5, 2008 at 8:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If it's so hot why has my house been on the market for over 6 months?

Posted by neighbor (anonymous) on January 6, 2008 at 9:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)

If it is a rural property, advertise it as having deer hunting protential and the out of state hunters will buy it sight unseen probably. The recreational aspect mentioned in the article didn't mention deer hunting, which is why there is so much Non-resident money buying land and driving up the per acre price. Rural properties are hot, not homes in Strong and CF.

Posted by iamconcerned (anonymous) on January 6, 2008 at 2:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The farmers and ranchers of the flinthills and the state of Kansas need to wake up and contact their legislators before it is too late. Our secretary of wildlife and parks Mike Haden is selling the livestock industry to the highest bidder. Land that was meant for cattle grazing is now being turned into deer hunting for the wealthy. The farmers and ranchers are playing along with this game as a way to increase their income by leasing their land to outfitters and wealthy hunters while at the same time pricing the land out of agricultural use. Neighbor is correct the housing as well agricultural land is not selling it is land that has the possibility of holding deer that is selling for the high prices out of the reach of farmers and ranchers trying to make a living. Land is being taken out of farming and grazing to support the deer herds that the rich pay big bucks to hunt and this will come back to hurt the rural farmers and ranchers that use it to support their families as well as the small towns located in the regions that hold deer. This may seem like a good avenue for extra income but this will not last the farming and ranching industry is quickly being replaced by the hunting industry. The sport of hunting what used to be a pastime of many has now turned into the hunting industry for the chosen few who can afford to buy themselves a trophy.

Posted by neighbor (anonymous) on January 6, 2008 at 4:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

iamconcerned, glad to see someone else recognizes the long term effect of what is taking place. Mike Hayden is supportive of the measures, but Farm Bureau and Kansas Livestock Association are more responsible for getting it where it is now. The commercialization of hunting, leasing, outfitters etc has put some money into farmer's and rancher's pockets, but it's going to be the final nail in the coffin for small farming operations and for recruiting new farmers who won't be able to compete with the land prices. I hope more wake up to what has happened.

Posted by elbejay (anonymous) on January 6, 2008 at 11:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Contact our legislators? And have them do what? Pass a law that you can only sell your land to another "Farmer" or "Rancher"? That makes no sense at all. How would you define that? The answer is simple. If it is your land and you don't want it to go to a hunter, then don't sell it to him. If it isn't tyour land, what the heck business is it of yours if someone sells it to a hunter or not. I am a small landowner (40 acres) and I will decide who I sell it to, if I ever do. The state legislature has no business in my affairs in this regard.

Posted by neighbor (anonymous) on January 7, 2008 at 12:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Nobody is going to tell you who to sell your land to, how to use it, nor whether or not you can lease it. We are not talking about taking away your property rights, that should not and shall not be infringed upon. What we can do is stop liberalizing access to our wildlife resources and turning them over to people who live outside our State like they have done the last 12 yrs. The price of land has shot up ever since they started allowing non-resident hunters into Kansas to hunt deer. They couldn't hunt deer here before 1993 when the initial NR deer tags were issued. There is a big demand for non resident licenses. With limited numbers of licenses for them, they were not buying up and leasing land because they were not guaranteed a tag every year. They were not a threat to the resource either. Now that lobbying efforts have changed that and have allowed the numbers of NR licenses to shoot way up in numbers, most NR hunters will be getting a tag ever year or at the least every other year. Expect to see land prices continue to go up even more(prime deer hunting land in Pike Co Illinois sells today for $5000/acre, $1500/acre is pocket change for alot of NR Investors). Expect most of the land to go to out of state investors until the trophy deer are once again removed from Kansas like they were in the late 1800's, early 1900's. They will come here to shoot big bucks, they will not be shooting does nor allowing resident hunters in to manage the herd by harvesting does. When that happens, the deer herd will grow rapidly(think crop damage and car/deer accidents are bad now?), but the trophy quality of the herd will decline. When another state starts producing better quality bucks, they will move on to the next greener pasture, leaving us residents to pick up the pieces and rebuild the herd again, like we have done since 1965.

Posted by alfalfa (anonymous) on January 7, 2008 at 8:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Somehow, I don't think the hunters are overly concerned with the plight of the farmer. Also, hunting is not entirely the driving force in this. Very little of the land I know of has been sold to out of state hunters. Hunters only have themselves to blame for not having a place to hunt. All of us who farm and allow hunting will tell you we have twice as many friends during hunting season as we do any other time of the year. I lease part of my land to an outfitter and will lease it all next year. Quite simply, there are not as many problems. I will agree, land is too high, and I don't like Mike Hayden either. It always amuses me though when my "good buddies" start griping about the lease hunting deal, they pull up in a new pickup with a high dollar gun, then gripe because I want a couple of bucks an acre to help pay the taxes. Guess what, you can hunt with an old gun or an old pickup, but you can't hunt without land. Perhaps what you all need to do rather than try to beat us out of needed income so we can keep buying land for you to hunt on is group together and outbid the outfitters. It can be done, most of them don't pay that much. The way I see it, if someone from the east coast is willing to pay $3000-$5000 to hunt a deer on 80 or 160 acres, (of course the landowner is lucky to get $500-1000 of that) then there is no reason a few local guys can't get together and lease some land for $3-$5 an acre. Most landowners would not have a problem with that. Local hunters would then secure a place to hunt. The days of free hunting left with $400 an acre farmground. As farmers, we have to scramble to make every dime to pay for the stuff. It is big money period driving up land prices, not lease hunting to out of state hunters.

Posted by emporian (anonymous) on January 7, 2008 at 10:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Its simple supply and demand. Land is something they aren't making any more of so what you see is what you got. Add that to the fact that everyone wants there own little piece of ground. Many folks from big cities just want to have some land they can some and retreat to. THey also make substantially more than the incomes around here so they can outbid practically anyone. There are several such patches around. Supply and Demand, nothing more nothing less.

Posted by iamconcerned (anonymous) on January 7, 2008 at 7:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I agree with neighbor that no one wants to tell someone what they can do or not do with their property it is their right since they pay the taxes and own it. I also agree with alfalfa that most hunters are not concerned with the the plight of the farmers and ranchers. I was born and raised on a farm and remain involved in agriculture and depend on it as a means of supporting my family. Everyone in the state of Kansas depends on agricuture regardless if they realize it or not, (farmers and ranchers make the state tick.) I am very blessed to have developed relationships with farmers and ranchers that allow me to hunt and fish on their land. My father has had many opportunities to lease his land to both hunters and outfitters but has chosen not to because he realizes what is going on and that he is providing opportunities for both me and his grandchildren to share in an experieince that he taught me growing up. I have seen first hand how some hunters and outfitters disrespect both the land and the land owners once they secure the rights to hunt their property. I like neighbor would like peope and our legislators to look at how liberal hunting laws have become to accomodate our wealthy hunters. Before Kansas became known as a Big Buck state and allowed out of state hunters to hunt it was against the law to bait deer and it is now common practice while at the same time a hunter can't bait praire chichens or doves and other wildlife. Why?? In my opinion it is to increase the chances of the outfitters clients or the Cabelas Cowboy's opportunites of getting their trophy without putting in the work required to hunt an animal in fare chase, and thus increasing return customers for the outfitter. I agree with alfalfa that local hunters could group together to lease land to secure themsleves a place to hunt and I have several friends that have done this and it works well for. However, I know cattlemen that have lost as much as a 1/2 section of grass and timber that is known to produce large deer to the same type of tactics used by a group out of state hunters that have leased the land for more then a person can afford to run cattle on just so they can put feeders on the propery to feed and pattern the deer year round and arrive opening day to retrieve their trophy and this is taking land out of agriculture. Again, I must agree with alfalfa that hunters pay $3000.00 to $5000.00 to hunt deer but the farmer or rancher sees very little of this money. I have attemped on several occasions to buy land not for hunting but for agricultural use but have not been able to make the numbers work in order to make payments on the land let alone turn a profit.

Posted by neighbor (anonymous) on January 7, 2008 at 10:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Painting with a broad brush there alfalfa, not all hunters are as you describe. I was raised on a small farm, live in farming country, work in the ag industry, own my own land, and hunt family land that I help farm and tend to. You see, you and your commercial hunting cronies have had zero effect on my hunting access. I'm thinking about future generations of hunters, farmers and ranchers, not about how it effects me today. If the State continues down the path they have chosen, liberal access to NR hunters, the demand to hunt here will disappear as will those who are swarming in with their money. Don't expect much sympathy from resident hunters when your crop is destroyed by herds of does and little bucks your paying customers will refuse to shoot and I would'nt expect many to come help you when you need it without being paid a good wage. I used to hunt a property that a farmer leased from out of state owners. He was glad to have a responsible hunter he didn't have to worry about. I was there anytime he needed help around the place, hauling hay, burning pasture, brush clearing etc. One year a NR hunter came in and offered money to have exclusive hunting rights, he quickly accepted it. He called me and told me he had higher expenses, times were tough etc. I told him I understood, not a problem as I had other places to go. I quit hunting there with no ill feelings. He called me later that fall asking for help on the farm. I told him times were tough, I had higher taxes, fuel expenses etc, that I would require he pay me the wages I made at work to come help on his farm. He never considered the amount of help I had given him as payment for being allowed to hunt. I went and helped him that day and many others, and refused payment when done, I just wanted him to recognize that I wasn't taking advantage of his graciousness allowing me to hunt. The NR paying hunter came back the next year demanding to hunt free because he didn't shoot a huge buck the year before, felt he was taken advantage of. He of course was told to go on down the road.

Posted by alfalfa (anonymous) on January 8, 2008 at 9:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I don't have any "commercial hunting cronies". I simply am stating the obvious. Farmers are under increasing pressure to make ends meet from higher regulation and costs, such as land. Until this year, crop prices have been dismal. I don't get any sympathy from resident hunters when my crops are destroyed and never have, the resident hunters are all after trophy bucks just like the pay hunters. If the hunting community is so concerned about losing land to hunt, the thing to do is work with farmers not against them. The one thing both farmers and hunters have in common is that the high priced land is bad for both of us. Bad for farmers because only the very wealthy can afford to buy it, and bad for hunters because as a general rule, very wealthy people who buy land regardless of whether they hunt it themselves or not generally aren't liberal with giving public access. There is a long line of people willing to pay to hunt, and an even longer line of people who want to hunt for free. Up to 2007, I have allowed both. In both cases, with the pay hunters and the free hunters, I could get more money. In both cases, hardly any does are taken, the deer population continues to grow out of control and crop damage is heavy. I leased my first land in 2000, and have heard nothing since then but complaining, never once an offer to lease part of it from any of them, for any price, cash or trade in labor. The more mind boggling issue to me is I didn't lease all of it, and still allowed many of the local hunters to hunt, they just didn't have access to all of my land all of the time. After 7 years of listening to people tell me how wrong it is for me to profit from my own land, in 2008 every square inch of it is going to be leased. That trend is going to continue. I am not saying it is good, I am saying that is the way it is. Most of the guys I know doing the most complaining about paying to hunt live in a nicer house than I do and trade vehicles more than I do. Hayden is skewed toward the outfitters and so is the KWP, I know this because I inquired if there could be a website set up by the KWP to match Kansans who wanted to lease land with farmers, to cut out the outfitter who is the middle man. They will not do this. I know in my own local area there are more landowners than me who would be willing to work with local people to secure them a place to hunt, far below what an outfitter would charge them to hunt. I can't blame hunters for not wanting to fee hunt, but hunters can't blame farmers for trying to recoup some of the costs of destruction of crops, high land prices and high taxes. At the end of the day, hunters are going to have to come to grips with the fact that the ever dwindling number of local, "regular" landowners is a species they are going to have to protect along with the ducks and the turkeys.

Posted by iamconcerned (anonymous) on January 8, 2008 at 6:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

alfalfa, I can't speak for neighbor but I am definately not against farmers and ranchers and from the way it sounds neighbor is saying he is not against farmers and ranchers either. I think what both of us are trying to say is that we are against the liberal laws of big game hunting provided to the out of state hunters and outfitters and the farmers and ranchers are caught in the middle of a catch "22" of making a quick buck now or looking at the future. Again, I grew up on a farm and my father, brother and several of my uncles and cousins remain actively involved in farming and I am on a somewhat part-time basis. I have lost hunting rights to out of state hunters and outfitters yet I have established relationships with land owners so leasing has not effected me that much but I do see it coming. I for one do like to hunt for trophy bucks but make no mistake I take does as part of a way to feed my family and have freinds that do the same, TROPHY TAKERS DON'T. Alfalfa, you said yourself for the most part farmers and ranchers see very little of the big money offered by outfitters so my question is why do it if it is only helping to drive up the cost of land and giving a very short term gain that pays nothing in the long run? I agree with you that cutting out the middle man (outfitters) will help both parties as in a lot of cases not all hunters are after deer but the outfitters do not want the deer disturbed year round so other past times such as hunting dove, ducks, and coyotes or fishing in farm ponds, rivers and streams are in also denied to local residents. If land owners do wish to lease their property which again is their right I think it would be a much better alternative if local hunters had the opportunity if thats what it comes to as a means of accessing land.

Posted by alfalfa (anonymous) on January 8, 2008 at 9:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

My leasing or not leasing my land does not contribute to the rising cost of land. My lease money pays my property taxes. It should be more, based on what the outfitter is getting, and it will be more or he will not get it next year, I will bypass him. I made the decision to lease only partially because of the money. For one thing, I was getting tired of having to referee disputes between various people(friends of mine mostly) hunting on my land. My family had for years had a pretty liberal access policy(anyone who asked that we remotely knew could hunt). Each person wanted exclusive rights without paying for them. I begged the free hunters to shoot does, they wouldn't. An outfitter leased a neighboring farm, drove in while I was working cattle one day, gave me his pitch and told me to think about it, and before he was back to his pickup I yelled at him he could have 640 acres. The signs went up, the friends were all mad, but it ended a whole bunch of problems, and I got a check. As I said in the previous post, I didn't lease it all, I held land back for people I knew to hunt, but this wasn't good enough and I ended up losing a couple of friends over the deal.

I know that hunters don't like the way things are going, but I don't see them going back. Like I said before, the best thing to do is get some land leased yourself. The higher land gets, the more of it is going to sell, and the fewer people who will be able to afford it. Spending $500-$1000 a year to lease 160 or so acres wouldn't even pay the taxes on most places, and will insure you a place to hunt.