Federal land and State animals

[Mighty Mouse]

And stay off my lawn!

Fixed it for ya

 

[Netherman]

BHA member? Sounds like their flavor of propaganda.

Nope. Not a fan of some of their positions. Particularly trying to create a wilderness area in lower michigan. As mentioned before I'm pro wilderness but removing roads and telling Jimmy down the road he can't drive to his favorite fishing hole or old Johnny that "his" hunting spot of 30 years requires a 3 mile walk doesn't seem right to me.

Bottom line is, not everyone is going to get the chance they want. In fact, very few are going to get the chance they truly want to hunt bighorn sheep, or rut-crazed mules, ect. The only solution is to lobby whoever or wherever you can to make your hunting experience the best you can. All of us would like to hunt Henry Mountains mulies, or Missouri Breaks bighorns, but most of us will be hunting the equivalent of Colorado OTC in the October pumpkin patch. Be glad these opportunities still exist and that you have the means to enjoy a Western hunt of any sort. The time will come when development, poor management, and unharnessed greed will steal most of those opportunities from normal hunters, and only then will we collectively realize "how good it was".

Unfortunately, I can't see a world where we don't end up here. "the world is a worse place every year"

 

[5MilesBack]

Great thing about fishing, I've never been at a public boat ramp on public water that residency limited the access to launch. Maybe that happens somewhere.

I've never been on public national forest that residency limited the access to.

 

[Rusty Shackelford]

Hunting is my only interest in western public land. I'm hopeful to acquire nonres tags as long as possible. I expect everyone else to also have an opinion that benefits their own interests.

Great thing about fishing, I've never been at a public boat ramp on public water that residency limited the access to launch. Maybe that happens somewhere.

I don’t expect people to have an opinion that isn’t self serving, that’s human nature. My opinion reflects my own selfish interests, knowing that I’ll never have enough money to purchase millions of acres of forest, desert, or river front property that I can hunt, hike, camp, fish, shoot, etc. on, I will vote to keep those lands federally or state held and publicly accessible. And I mean accessible (within the guidelines) to all people, not just residents or US citizens for that matter.

Also selfishly I will vote to keep NR licenses in my home state as low as possible, and I expect the same sentiment from residents of other states.

Regarding fishing and public boat ramps, you’re correct - residency doesn’t limit your access to those public boat ramps. The issue lies when the state decides to sell off that parcel with the public ramp to the highest bidder. Now it doesn’t matter which state is on your drivers license, you’re not getting in the water. It’s a very slippery slope, look at Texas’ history of sale of public lands that at the time were designated worthless in the eyes of the majority. If people suddenly get interested in that resource in the future, well it’s just too late.

 

[bluetick78]

Hunting is my only interest in western public land. I'm hopeful to acquire nonres tags as long as possible. I expect everyone else to also have an opinion that benefits their own interests.

Great thing about fishing, I've never been at a public boat ramp on public water that residency limited the access to launch. Maybe that happens somewhere.

Fishing at public boat ramps may not be limited by your license plates, but if your plates are from out of state you will pay considerably more for the opportunity to fish that water. Drive your boat (i.e. "access") that water all you want, but if you want to partake of the resource (the fish), non-residents still pay more. It may not be as difficult to obtain permission from the state to catch fish as it might be to hunt big game....but then again...elk can't be raised in hatcheries by the millions either.

 

[littlerhorner]

Do you think the federal government would be more or less restrictive if they were given the oppertunity to manage hunting on feral land vs say Wyoming or Idaho. It seems like there was just a big to do about limiting lead ammo on federal Wildlife Refuges. I think you really should be careful what you wish for.

 

[Mykolaivka887]

Do you think the federal government would be more or less restrictive if they were given the oppertunity to manage hunting ..... I think you really should be careful what you wish for.

They are much, much more restrictive and the directive from Washington DC is and has been opposed to recreational hunting.

Since 1980, the U.S. federal government has had total and complete management authority (jurisdiction) over all of Alaska's fish and wildlife, and look what's happening here when pressure is applied by non-hunting and subsistence hunting user groups.

So yes, watch out what you wish for when suggesting that the United States government and its non-hunting bureaucrats should be the ones managing America's wildlife.

 

[Laramie]

The temper tantrum entitlement attitude that this country has developed is so sad to see. Me, me, me or go f yourself will ruin this country.

Selling of public lands is something that can't be undone. This is WAY bigger than hunting. Stop and think for just a bit if you are capable.

 

[Tick]

Like it or not, team public land will lose team members if nonres hunting opportunities ever get to 0%. Saying you can still hike, camp, fish, etc., doesn't help. PETA will use that same argument to resident hunters. I see a short term gain and long term loss for resident hunters.

Hope it never gets to that point. I'll advocate for public land until then.

 

[Laramie]

I'll advocate for public land until then.

And then what? Say to hell with everyone else? Maybe to one of your kids or grandkids who may some day live out west? Who cares about the millions of people who can in one way or another enjoy the public lands? Me, me, me... smh

I am a non-resident to all western states. I completely understand that the supply is never again going to meet the demand from a big game perspective. The opportunities are shrinking as human populations grow and states really have no choice. However, those lands can be enjoyed in many ways other than hunting, by millions each year as long as they are public. That ends, immediately, when they are sold.

I know some of the threads and people have recently rubbed many the wrong way. There are entitlement attitudes on both sides of the issue. I would encourage everyone to see past the current actors to see the long term big picture. It is so much more than an elk or deer tag a guy can't get right now...

 

[EastHumboldt]

I am a resident of Nevada. Almost all of my hunting opportunities are on federal land. I am lucky to get a buck tag every other year, and sometimes two years in between. I don’t have any resentment towards anyone about this. This is what it looks like when you have a lot of people trying to use a limited resource. When all the western guys start going to Michigan and Ohio, lookin for NR tags, The same people who are screaming about lack of Western NR access Will start screaming about that.

 

[Tick]

And then what? Say to hell with everyone else?

Yes.

 

[Laramie]

Yes.

Well, at least your name fits.

 

[Rusty Shackelford]

I see a short term gain and long term loss for resident hunters.

And advocating for the sale of public land that you can’t get a tag for is an immediate loss to all. It sounds like you know and acknowledge that by your comments, but should I get to vote that your backyard public spot get sold off cause I can’t get a NR deer tag to hunt it? All of our selfish interests and opinions have to stop at some point.

 

[Fordguy]

That don’t make sense to me either. Outfitter welfare. I’d sign that petition too.

I am a resident of Nevada. Almost all of my hunting opportunities are on federal land. I am lucky to get a buck tag every other year, and sometimes two years in between. I don’t have any resentment towards anyone about this. This is what it looks like when you have a lot of people trying to use a limited resource. When all the western guys start going to Michigan and Ohio, lookin for NR tags, The same people who are screaming about lack of Western NR access Will start screaming about that.

Come hunt in Michigan. We offer the same tag opportunities on federal land to nonresidents as we do to residents. Michigan (the lower peninsula) also has a lot of deer, just not many mature deer (by percentage) compared with the western states. We offer most of the same opportunities on state owned lands as well. Will you be as successful as the average resident on private land? Maybe, maybe not, but you have otc opportunity. At some point if public land pressure increases enough that may change, but I doubt it. I remember the 90s and early 2000s when the orange army would descend on every public land parcel like a plague of locusts. Finding solitude was often difficult for the first week of the season, but I don't remember anyone proposing limited opportunity on public lands.
Disclaimer- I'm no longer a Michigan resident, but I still hunt there every fall as a nonresident. For the last several years on opening day or the day after (firearm deer season) I've driven past state land parking areas with few or no vehicles parked. It seems like an odd trend to me, but I appreciate having a large area to hunt with little or no pressure.

 

[WalterH]

Since 1980, the U.S. federal government has had total and complete management authority (jurisdiction) over all of Alaska's fish and wildlife, and look what's happening here when pressure is applied by non-hunting and subsistence hunting user groups.

This not an accurate statement.

Re: Alaska's fish and wildlife, the feds in AK have the authority to manage subsistence and "sport" hunting on fed lands only, and subsistence fishing on waters flowing through fed lands only. There is a separate set of regs for subsistence hunters on fed lands.

Regarding non-subsistence hunting on fed lands, state regs apply on fed managed lands and ADFG is in charge of population surveys and generally wildlife management in those areas.

The feds have no authority over fish and wildlife or fishing and hunting for game animals on state or private land in AK.

 

[EastHumboldt]

Come hunt in Michigan. We offer the same tag opportunities on federal land to nonresidents as we do to residents. Michigan (the lower peninsula) also has a lot of deer, just not many mature deer (by percentage) compared with the western states. We offer most of the same opportunities on state owned lands as well. Will you be as successful as the average resident on private land? Maybe, maybe not, but you have otc opportunity. At some point if public land pressure increases enough that may change, but I doubt it. I remember the 90s and early 2000s when the orange army would descend on every public land parcel like a plague of locusts. Finding solitude was often difficult for the first week of the season, but I don't remember anyone proposing limited opportunity on public lands.
Disclaimer- I'm no longer a Michigan resident, but I still hunt there every fall as a nonresident. For the last several years on opening day or the day after (firearm deer season) I've driven past state land parking areas with few or no vehicles parked. It seems like an odd trend to me, but I appreciate having a large area to hunt with little or no pressure.

My point was… I am a resident of a Western State. Our resource is taxed enough that we haven’t had OTC tags for any big game animal since 1980 or so. (Can’t remember and couldn’t find it online). So I too face limited opportunity, and the same restrictions in other western states as someone from east of the Mississippi. I will not gripe about that because I think the residents deserve first crack. AFAIK all the states give advantages to residents so I am having a hard time understanding why people are griping about that.

I'm actually more concerned that the herds are managed in such a way that they remain robust and viable, than I am whether I get a tag or not.

As far as finding solitude… hard thing to do anywhere there are a lot of big game animals being hunted. My solution is I pay an outfitter to do a drop camp in some areas that are remote and don’t have a reputation for huge bucks. I usually Have a decent shot at finding a middling buck, and I’m not in the middle of a sea of orange. I’m one of those weirdos that doesn’t care much about giant antlers. More about being out there with my family and having a good time and maybe bringing home some venison.

 

[EastHumboldt]

As far as selling federal land to the states… F¥<k that! I also fish and backpack on federal land and I want the same for my grandkids. (And yours too by the way)

 

[cuerro viejo]

Sounds like Texas

nope. Texas Federal land was purchased from the State and Landowners By the Feds. So its other way around. apparently if Texas wants your ranch to turn into a state park, they will just use Eminent Domain and buy it wether you want to sell it or not… Looks like TX is expanding public lands

history lesson - Texas was deeded out before the west found state hood. What happens when you where your own country

 

[Mykolaivka887]

Regarding non-subsistence hunting on fed lands, state regs apply on fed managed lands and ADFG is in charge of population surveys and generally wildlife management in those areas.

Incorrect. ANILCA has full authority on all federal lands in Alaska. Been that way since President Carter signed it into law.