Great outdoors looks to be turning into
a great sellout
BY LARRY WILBECK
Monday, Jan 29, 2007 - 09:41:27 am CST
Perhaps like me, more and more sportsmen are
having trouble getting access to hunting and
fishing property because of leasing or
outright purchase of recreational property
by corporations. I see by advertisements
that Cabela's is in this business.
Obviously it's legal, but for the amount of
tax breaks, incentives, etc., that Cabela's
receives, why are they doing this? Strange
way to reward modest-income citizens who
have purchased Cabela's goods and made up
for Cabela's tax deferments with increases
in their own taxes. You would think that
Cabela's would be buying recreational
property for public use as a way of keeping
sportsmen of modest means in the game.
Many of my fellow sportsmen must think that
"socializing the risks and privatizing the
rewards" is a good thing. Interesting to me
to see how we vote ourselves and values into
extinction.
Case in point: Recipients of the farm
subsidies can lease out their ground to
outfitters or corporate types, they
themselves beneficiaries of tax write-offs
and incentives.
For example, one of the biggest if not the
biggest recipient of farm subsidies in a
neighboring county of mine (Nuckolls) has
leased his ground to outfitters for years.
You would think that even though it is
legal, he would be embarrassed to do
something like that. Greed must be called
business nowadays.
Perhaps you think I want something for
nothing? In 2005 the 3rd Congressional
District where I live received $992 million
in farm subsidies, $6.8 billion over a
10-year period. You can apply figures such
as these to other districts and neighboring
states as well.
We urban sportsmen deserve access. You sure
don't have to allow hunting or fishing just
because you receive subsidies, but those of
you who receive these subsidies shouldn't be
allowed to charge for hunting and fishing
access or lease out your property for such
purposes. Imagine how many people pay
through the nose to hunt South Dakota's 2
million acres of the Conservation Reserve
Program, and land improvements for wildlife
financed courtesy of the citizens of the U.
S. of A.
Shame on the legislators on both the
national and state level for not looking
after all citizens. If we can all pay, we
all get to play.
Where is our Game and Parks Commission on
this issue? Why are we not pushing to raise
the price of the habitat stamp? Too
expensive if it's $100 a year? Try $400 a
day for hunting privileges by being forced
to hire an outfitter on leased ground.
The Game and Parks commissioners are good
people, but if you look at their portfolios,
access is hardly an issue. You suppose they
are driven by any passionate desire to
increase access when they themselves can
pretty much afford it?
Access is an issue; both directly and
indirectly we are paying for it, and yes, we
are paying for property acquisition for the
few by the many.
Larry Wilbeck lives in Deshler.
Reader
comments:
Erik
wrote on
January 29, 2007 9:36 AM:"Access
is a huge issue these days. Not being
originally from Nebraska, I grew up hunting
and fishing on public land and what I would
consider ready access. The old timers when I
was growing up talked how bad it was
compared to their day. When does it stop? I
for one would shoulder some additional cost
to guarantee that opportunities still exist
for my grandchildren. To guarantee hunting
space, one has to buy land to hunt on, or go
on high-price fully outfitted trips, and
since I am not lucky enough to host my own
hunting show, that will probably never be an
opportunity. As hunters, we need to organize
to ensure the future of our sport. If not
now, when?"
|
|
|
 |
|
