Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

Hunting landowners vs non-hunting landowners

Discussion in 'Out of State Hunts' started by bluedog, Apr 15, 2017.

  1. Here's another piece from the UK. With all the talk on a different thread about loss of habitat due to farming, I found this short reference to a study of landowners who hunt vs those that don't rather interesting. I wonder if this true in the U.S. too.

    "This isn’t speculation, this is demonstrable fact. A study undertaken in 2003 compared the conservation work undertaken on farms belonging to landowners who shot or hunted with farms belonging to landowners who did not. The hunting, shooting farmers planted more trees, maintained more woodland and managed more hedgerow than their non-hunting colleagues."
    Deehntr56 and Wildman18 like this.
  2. Hunting and shooting in GB have a much different definition than here.
    I suspect that landowner habitat improvements are often aided by the wallet of the hunter and the shooter, syndicate-involved or not.
    That said, good for them and however it occurs.
    As each of those activities are under constant scrutiny and assault over der...if habitat is one way to improve the face, good good.

    The old days, pre-Mixy, saw beagles, cockers and ferrets hitting the hedgerows hard for bunnies.
    Lot of good books around about the better days for rough shooting across the british isles.
    Last edited: Apr 15, 2017
    bluedog likes this.

  3. Deehntr56

    Deehntr56 Staff Member Mod

    Another solid report- and good information.
  4. Yep I do understand the wide differences in hunting/shooting there and here. However, the article got me thinking about my own little circle so I'll use the examples that came to mind. Sample size 4. Hahahahaha!

    1. There's my husband and I. We hunt. We farm. OK maybe we don't count so much because we have off the farm income too. But we make brush piles. We let old fence rows grow up. We could do more but we certainly try to leave brushy places and edges for the critters.
    2. There's the farmer that plants our corn/soybean acres. He hunts. On his own farm he has areas of brush and woods. He has often told us that he will never use crop damage permits because he just could not stomach shooting does was fawns during the summer. He accepts crop damage as part of doing business in a world where wildlife live.
    3. There's the farmer friend who doesn't hunt. He maximizes his use of crop damage permits. He won't let anyone shoot coyotes on his land because the eat all the things that cause crop damage like groundhogs, deer and rabbits. He would be happy if all plant eating animals were off his farm.
    4. There's another young farmer I know. He does not hunt. Farming is his main business. He rents a lot of ground. Anytime he rents a new piece, the bulldozers come out to clear all possible brush and trees. The brush piles and tree piles are then burned to the ground. If it is tillable, it is in production.

    So a small sample size I know. I also know there will be farmers who hunt and farmers who don't hunt on each side of the equation. But I do wonder if in general, farmers who hunt see the world just a bit differently. Food for thought.
    Deehntr56 and thornton like this.
  5. My earlier note on "hunting" was only that hunting there specifically implies running with hounds, normally foxes, over comparably large areas...which would seldom fly over here other than in portions of VA, for example.
    And that "hunting" is ever under assault and much more than our hunting here and so, various ways are used to blunt that assault...i.e. that article, imo.
    Shooting....would be driven birds of various kinds.
    Neither would apply to the majority of those who farm, full or part-time, in this country, imo.....some, just not the majority.
    If british farmers "hunt" or "shoot" they may be in a much different situation in what they have to work with in all ways than farmers in this country.

    I'm sure tho that many hunting farmers in this country do see the world differently and with perhaps, a bit wider responsibility than their fence often sees that re pheasant cover farther west.
    And not, as people are much the same all over......I have encountered some farmers who do and some who do not.
    Same as with those who are in jobs which depend upon or service farmers.
    Hunters, anyone, be they farmers or barbers or equipment operators, may simply be more exposed to issues that give rise to more than that which affects their own bottom line.
    That exposure will, at times, open a door to allow each of them to go "hmmmm."
    Habitat and critters benefit from "Hmmmmm."
    sd136405 likes this.
  6. Considering further, I suspect what is most valuable is a farmer who first thinks of the land rather than a farmer who hunts that thinks of the land.
    The hunter aspect does not appear to be all that important, comparably.

    I know a farmer in Iowa, we will call him Vic, whom I never saw or heard him speak of hunting...deer or pheasants. Nor heard stories of his sons hunting.
    Never did he want to hunt with us....just not his interest....he would rather talk as he was a fella interested in many things. I sent him a book on appalachian logging that he enjoyed. Vic enjoys learning and ideas, I think.
    I suppose that at one point in his 60 years or so he would have swatted a pheasant or went out for an obligatory Thanksgiving day hunt but...hunter?, not Vic to my note.

    Yet, from his farming practices and choices resulted swell weedy beans and a "special" corn patch that was indeed special for ringnecks and, waterways that were beauts....all benefitting many critters.
    Perhaps his Iowa State eddycation pushed the land importance, soil protection idea or he discovered it himself...or his niche in a competitive world of mega-farmers simply and automatically resulted in advantages for wildlife.
    I suspect each advantage resulted from a bit of everything in his world..... asked for, designed or just lucky.
    Being a hunter seldom hurts but I doubt it drives as much as may be comfortable to believe.

    Additionally, one must accept that there are farmers who use hunting as an income stream(which is fine) and so develop their land in that incentives, guvmint programs and all.
    Their hunting, if any, may be most a customer draw rather than illustrating a hunting life or a hunting lifestyle.

    Regardless, dem aforementioned advantages are nice when you find them and nicer still as the country, et al benefits from them.
    Last edited: Apr 21, 2017
    bluedog likes this.
  7. As a farmer who hunts and depends on ground to make payments I know why a lot of farmers who don't share a love for hunting would be tempted to break out the bulldozer. Unfortunately it does come down to cash flow. If you are buying farmland for 6,000 dollars an acre you can't afford ground that doesn't produce. I have only girdled honey locust on our farm because flat tires suck. Other than that if it's not dead it's generally safe. I do miss the big CRP fields that used to be around pheasants provide great memories.
    HillbillynOhio and Deehntr56 like this.