Article: Federal vs. State Controlled Public Lands - Thoughts?

[gelton]

It's not state land. It was, and has since been, federal land. As a condition of a territory being granted statehood, they were given a percentage of the federal land within the territory to do with as they wish to fund state government & schools. Mostly the states sold this. An additional condition in each state's constitution says they will now and forever disavow any claim on federal land within the new state.

Re: private landowners sometimes being better wildlife managers. It's always easier to do something as a dictator than a democracy. Federal land managers have a lot more people and varied interests to consider. Ted Turner (or the Mormon church, or the Wilks) ultimately only has one person's interests to consider.

Id like to see those numbers. Not saying they're wrong, but I think it might be an apples to oranges comparison.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Google is your friend for the numbers. Texas combines residents and non residents then lumps them into "wildlife activities" generating 6.2 billion. Colorado doesn't combine them and only includes hunting licenses for $38 million. I would have to say Texas is outpacing Colorado for non resident hunting but there isn't an exact comparison I could find.

 

[gelton]

Did find this 1.38 $Billion compared to $38 Million from Colorado and our non resident licences are about 1/5 the price of colorados. Conservation at its finest.

Texas hunting, fishing generate huge revenue for state economy

 

[parshal]

I'm not sure I buy the resident vs. non-resident and the cost of hunting out of state vs a lease. I'm a Colorado resident. I pretty much hunt only elk in this state. Everything else I hunt is out of state. I hunt only wild game on public lands. I don't pay trespass fees. The day I must pay to hunt is the day that I stop hunting.

 

[Bonedalien]

Horrible idea for anyone that values open spaces, public access and the North American model of wildlife conservation.

everything I wanted to say, spot on..

 

[gelton]

I'm not sure I buy the resident vs. non-resident and the cost of hunting out of state vs a lease. I'm a Colorado resident. I pretty much hunt only elk in this state. Everything else I hunt is out of state. I hunt only wild game on public lands. I don't pay trespass fees. The day I must pay to hunt is the day that I stop hunting.

I budget about $1800 per year to hunt Colorado for two weeks:

Gas $280
Tag $650
Hotel $140 x 2 = $280 (one on the way there one on the way back 18 hour drive solo)
Food = $150
Packout if needed = $350

$1710

Now for $800 more you can get on a pretty decent lease where you can hunt hogs year round - unlimited, doves twice a year, Javelinas-3 in possession, whitetail-4 per year in most counties and plenty of other critters too.

That is not to say that the Feds should transfer, only to state that you pay to play in both instances, and given the longer seasons and bigger bag limits the trade off is about the same. Dont misunderstand the comparison as pointing to my personal enjoyment of hunting out west...there is nothing like it and these large tracks of land are a true blessing, chasing elk is way more fun than sitting in a deer blind, but financially the commitment is about the same.

 

[LostArra]

I'm not sure I buy the resident vs. non-resident and the cost of hunting out of state vs a lease. I'm a Colorado resident. I pretty much hunt only elk in this state. Everything else I hunt is out of state. I hunt only wild game on public lands. I don't pay trespass fees. The day I must pay to hunt is the day that I stop hunting.

Bank it. One non-res elk hunting trip for a week costs more than a good deer lease (3 1/2 month bow season) including small game and year round hog hunting. No brainer on the math especially if you drive 800-1000 miles to get to the elk woods. After Colorado sells off their transferred land I would expect your elk leases/trespass fees will be sky high though.

Unfortunately the land transfer to the states will happen. Money talks. It will probably happen in small doses like a vile medicine we are forced to choke down over time but there are too many folks on both sides of the legislative aisle who want this. The resident ranchers want it, the logging, energy and mining people want it. It will take a lot of work by some strange bedfellows to stop it. Think RMEF, Sierra Club, Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, etc.

I agree with gelton. In spite of the cost I love chasing elk in the mountains in addition to deer hunting close to home. That's the reason I spend my elk days in Wyoming. So I can hunt bow and rifle seasons on the same tag.

 

[parshal]

Here's a different take on everyone's math. You guys are all talking about big game hunting. I hunt more upland game which requires lots and lots of land. I hunt at least two weekends a month in Wyoming, Kansas, the Dakotas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Oregon and Nevada from September to February. For example, having tens of thousands of acres to hunt desert quail gives me plenty of places to see and different options so I'm not hammering all the coveys into oblivion. If I were limited to leasing ground I'd be hunting much smaller ground and, most likely, the entire lease wouldn't be ideal habitat. Not only that, there'd be a lot of hunters trying to do the same which would increase prices. To top it off, I'd be hunting the same ground for one State's season. Already the Dakotas have the trespass fees from $100 to $300 per gun per day which I refuse to pay.

I prefer to hunt often throughout the seasons rather than do it all one or two weeks a year.

 

[gelton]

Here's a different take on everyone's math. You guys are all talking about big game hunting. I hunt more upland game which requires lots and lots of land. I hunt at least two weekends a month in Wyoming, Kansas, the Dakotas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Oregon and Nevada from September to February. For example, having tens of thousands of acres to hunt desert quail gives me plenty of places to see and different options so I'm not hammering all the coveys into oblivion. If I were limited to leasing ground I'd be hunting much smaller ground and, most likely, the entire lease wouldn't be ideal habitat. Not only that, there'd be a lot of hunters trying to do the same which would increase prices. To top it off, I'd be hunting the same ground for one State's season. Already the Dakotas have the trespass fees from $100 to $300 per gun per day which I refuse to pay.

I prefer to hunt often throughout the seasons rather than do it all one or two weeks a year.

That last sentence is exactly what we are trying to convey - 2 weeks vs year round. I lived in North Dakota as a kid and all we had to do was knock on farmers doors and we had access all year, I was young but I don't think we paid anything and if so it was not much. Most farmers just want to keep the game from eating their crops.

The large tracks of land is a valid point but again the budget is about the same. However, the driving up prices part is not true because the pricing we are referring to is current prices, apples to apples. Then you have to add in that you are competing with hunting area from other public land hunters. I cut my teeth on Fed and State owned land in Texas and when the gates opened it was like a Nascar race. Same is true opening morning of muzzle-loader or 2nd rifle in Colorado. On a lease, all of this is coordinated so you don't ruin others hunts.

As I said, both are a trade off, both have their advantages and disadvantages, and when the dust settles there isnt much difference aside from someones personal preference of sitting in a deer blind or chasing elk, especially when it comes to financial commitment. Like I stated earlier non resident elk licenses in CO are 1344% higher than residents to hunt what everyone calls "our" land.

 

[IdyllwildArcher]

Bad idea for most western hunters. This will eventually squeeze the majority of us into an even smaller area.

 

[airlocksniffer]

Even though we are all hunters, public land is about all uses. Hiking, birdwatching, backpacking, responsible resource extraction. PLT will affect all uses. Inspired by something I heard Steve Rinella say on the MeatEater podcast, why can't a mountain just be a mountain? Why do some people think it has to be making money for them? At the core PLT is all about money. Let wild country be wild, allow people of all stripes and income levels enjoy that land for multiple uses. We are unique in the world with our public lands where anybody (even non-US citizens) can come and enjoy it. Why would anybody think not having that public land would be a good thing? Boggles my mind....

 

[cuerro viejo]

I grew up in a state that was deeded out long before it was even a state. Any federal land was bought not taken.

I hate the comparisons I hear about Texas, its annoying and usually mis-stated anyway. Even in my own state I get tired of the "no public" which is stupid since we have 2million acres not including coastal tidal lands, and cheapest draw hunt program in the country. For the record I hunt private and public here. I'm blessed and own a ranch but I also lease. I live in one of the largest cities in TX and have three public places to hunt with in 30min. One is 15mins(ironically produces outstanding whitetails with a 180-200 taken ever year by someone that put in the work). Fact is there is public hunting with in two hours of any major city in Texas. People are just lazy and like to B.....


I don't want to see some states get federal land, thier track records speak for themselves. There are a few state that would do a good job but that's far and few between.

With that said out of state DIY Mulie and elk hunts costs me more then my lease that I and my family have 365days a year access to and its a prime Stx lease. In fact we probably spend 100plus days a year down there. Our whitetail season is almost 4 months long, and I have 5 deer tags, my wife has the same, unlimited/year round exotics & hogs, 4 turkeys, 2 Javi's, and daily limit of waterfowl and quail.

Not having public hunting land is bad, very bad. With that said worst case you adapt. I'm fortunate Texas has a long history of very strong hunting rights, property rights and a very in tune elected legislators. I image that will change someday but we will be the last hold out(I pray) most likely.

Texas does a great job Infact a better job managing state land then the Feds do federal land here but you are only looking at little less then million acres so they better be able to handle it especially with our Pittman tax revenue and license sales.

In closing comparing Texas to western states is moronic . Only correlation is they are part of the Union. Texas was a Republic long before it was a state. Just can't compare a state that was deeded out by Spanish/Mexican land grants to settlers almost 80-100 plus years before most western states entered the Union. It's just a dumb comparison.

Sorry for the rant but it is annoying. I vote no to federal land transfer to the states at this time.

 

[Trial153]

If we loose this fight we will loose a part of the American experience. The opportunity that these lands represent transcends the monetary examples that I cringed while reading in some of the above posts. Think about a signed lease in your hand and putting a check in the mail. Can you really equate that to the freedom and opportunity afforded to us in wild places? What price do we put on the foresight of our forefathers who set these lands aside so we can experience what they did? What do want to pass onto your children? The freedom and opportunity that comes from the wilderness and open spaces or a check and lease on kitchen counter?

 

[tipsntails7]

I don't disagree but what about non residents? It takes money for a non resident to hunt "our" federally controlled lands. Out of state licenses in Colorado are 1344% more expensive than for residents. Like I said, at the end of the day its almost a wash between hunting federal and private lands for out of staters.

I have seen Newbergs video series and I think he should combine them into a documentary but the one thing that I cant understand is the question I posed earlier. I would ask directly on his youtube videos but I have never commented on youtube and don't plan on starting.

Here is my earlier question:

One thing I have never understood, and this is a real question. People always compare what happened to the State trust lands given to the states upon statehood. Wouldn't all the land in the state not belonging to private individuals be owned by the State? And if so, why would the Feds have to bequeath something to them that would have already been theirs?

It was given to the states when they joined the union, all the land was originally owned by the Feds, they were given a certain number of parcels when their state was formed.

On your other points it costs what? 1500 bucks to do a Diy elk hunt out of state if you live quite a distance away. If all land was private I'd wager the cheapest land owner tag would be 4-5 times that amount, probably even more if there was zero public land, and that would be the very very affordable side. 10-15k would end up being the norm I bet. It costs me less than 3k to hunt Idaho, Oregon, California, Washington and Nevada if I wanted to.
That's not even including offseason time in the mountains, scouting, fishing, backpacking. I don't get to do any of that if it's all private.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[cuerro viejo]

It was given to the states when they joined the union, all the land was originally owned by the Feds, they were given a certain number of parcels when their state was formed.

On your other points it costs what? 1500 bucks to do a Diy elk hunt out of state if you live quite a distance away. If all land was private I'd wager the cheapest land owner tag would be 4-5 times that amount, probably even more if there was zero public land, and that would be the very very affordable side. 10-15k would end up being the norm I bet. It costs me less than 3k to hunt Idaho, Oregon, California, Washington and Nevada if I wanted to.
That's not even including offseason time in the mountains, scouting, fishing, backpacking. I don't get to do any of that if it's all private.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Can't compare the two states, Texas animals don't migrate, have winter die offs etc.
A TX lease say a 1000 acres and that property may support and house 60-120 deer(and you have to take a 1/3 of those every year to maintain carring capacity). 1000 acres in mountains might have one deer or maybe an elk on it...might.

 

[tipsntails7]

Can't compare the two states, Texas animals don't migrate, have winter die offs etc.
A TX lease say a 1000 acres and that property may support and house 60-120 deer(and you have to take a 1/3 of those every year to maintain carring capacity). 1000 acres in mountains might have one deer or maybe an elk on it...might.

I Didn't mention Texas at all. Colorado was the only state mentioned. I compared a DIY elk hunt to current landowner tags and what guided elk hunts cost. Last time I checked Texas didn't have wild elk herds.

It depends on where the 1000 acres is at.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[cuerro viejo]

I Didn't mention Texas at all. Colorado was the only state mentioned. I compared a DIY elk hunt to current landowner tags and what guided elk hunts cost. Last time I checked Texas didn't have wild elk herds.

It depends on where the 1000 acres is at.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Need to check again Texas got wild Rocky Mountain elk same time central and southern NM did. Where did all the merriams go?

 

[tipsntails7]

Need to check again Texas got wild Rocky Mountain elk same time central and southern NM did. Where did all the merriams go?

Do they currently have wild elk herds in Texas? I stand corrected, Texas has 1600 elk currently

 

[cuerro viejo]

Do they currently have wild elk herds in Texas?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes Texas was restocked with RM elk same time NM and parts of AZ where stocked in the 20's after the Merriams went bye bye.
What states are Rocky Mountains native to?

Texas actually has draw hunts where elk can be taken on public.. Buddy killed a 387" bull.

With that said I stand corrected on the lease part I mis-read.

 

[Bonedalien]

Can't compare the two states, Texas animals don't migrate, have winter die offs etc.
A TX lease say a 1000 acres and that property may support and house 60-120 deer(and you have to take a 1/3 of those every year to maintain carring capacity). 1000 acres in mountains might have one deer or maybe an elk on it...might.

hunting aside, you can come up right now and camp and hike and backpack for free!
PLT will end this.
this is a hunting site, but this issue is way bigger than hunting, and certainly way bigger than out of state tag squabbles.

 

[gelton]

Do they currently have wild elk herds in Texas? I stand corrected, Texas has 1600 elk currently

I don't understand your pissing contest attitude whenever someone speaks the word Texas. I didn't say Texas, I didn't quote your post about Texas and I didn't compare Texas to any other state.

Why yes. Yes we do. Currently.

I guess the antagonism comes from everyone always comparing Texas as the worst example of hunting in the nation when in reality the opposite is true. This isn't the first time it's happened and won't be the last. As I have stated we are blessed to have such large tracks of land but the differences are minor compared to a hunting lease or public land both budget and otherwise. Not pointed at you specifically but folks should choose another state if they want to compare privately managed land vs publicly managed land.