Federal Public Land at risk again!

[Chris in TN]

In Virginia, we do have to pay a measly $4.00 for an extra stamp to hunt national forest.

I would love to see national hunting nonprofits lobby for increased tag and licenses prices with a large percentage of the increase going to public land stewardship. It’s time we brought back hunter and anglers really funding wildlife and wild land management. I paid more for a box of rifle ammo than I did for 3 buck, 3 doe, 3 turkey, and 1 bear tag in my home state.

With that said, I know there’s zero hope of that ever working. The non profits are far more concerned hawking r3 to make more customers for the gear industries. If hunters and anglers had to spend some serious coin on the most critical part of hunting and fishing, that’d cut into the industry’s bottom line.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What I'd like to see is the state running hunts on existing state lands and just minimal oversight, as currently exists, on all non-state lands - in other words not much changes on non-state lands in most states - but then see USFS charging maybe $500 per season for deer access, maybe $250 annually for small game access, maybe $1000 or more for elk hunting access to western lands. Maybe $1000 to access BLM lands for antelope.

I mean, those are just spitballs. And I think later-season cow hunts could be much less, so there was still a way for people to get reasonably priced access to 'meat' hunts (not that I really buy the modern meat-hunter arguments). Of course prices could be adjusted from there based on market reactions. Price discovery is a thing.

When we visited Yellowstone I would have *HAPPILY* paid an extra $100 per person (or more, and there were six of us in the car) to have seen a less-crowded park. When we visit Dollywood we pay maybe double or more, the base park entrance fee, for 'fast passes'. I'd like to do the same thing on public lands. I'd happily pay more, because such a hunt would be worth more, to me.

 

[Customweld]

We are morons. We’ve been convinced that voting for the same people and parties time and time again that got us 38 trillion into collective debt is going to somehow get better.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don’t think we are morons. The 2 major parties have such a strong stranglehold that it is nearly impossible for an incumbent to get primary’d ( for lack of a better term). It’s been a long damn time since Idaho has had a blue senator or congressman, and that isn’t going to change anytime soon, so we get stuck with what the red party shoves down our throats.

 

[Brap01]

What I'd like to see is the state running hunts on existing state lands and just minimal oversight, as currently exists, on all non-state lands - in other words not much changes on non-state lands in most states - but then see USFS charging maybe $500 per season for deer access, maybe $250 annually for small game access, maybe $1000 or more for elk hunting access to western lands. Maybe $1000 to access BLM lands for antelope.

I mean, those are just spitballs. And I think later-season cow hunts could be much less, so there was still a way for people to get reasonably priced access to 'meat' hunts (not that I really buy the modern meat-hunter arguments). Of course prices could be adjusted from there based on market reactions. Price discovery is a thing.

When we visited Yellowstone I would have *HAPPILY* paid an extra $100 per person (or more, and there were six of us in the car) to have seen a less-crowded park. When we visit Dollywood we pay maybe double or more, the base park entrance fee, for 'fast passes'. I'd like to do the same thing on public lands. I'd happily pay more, because such a hunt would be worth more, to me.

My family lives on game meat in a very poor, very rural county. Me and my sons killed 2 elk and 3 deer this year so far, all on public land. There are a bunch of people who are not financially well off that hunt to help pay the bills. We see a lot of people show up from out of state with pickup payments that are comparable to what we pay for housing.

I'm sure out of state people would tolerate access fees but us locals would throw a fit.

 

[Customweld]

What I'd like to see is the state running hunts on existing state lands and just minimal oversight, as currently exists, on all non-state lands - in other words not much changes on non-state lands in most states - but then see USFS charging maybe $500 per season for deer access, maybe $250 annually for small game access, maybe $1000 or more for elk hunting access to western lands. Maybe $1000 to access BLM lands for antelope.

I mean, those are just spitballs. And I think later-season cow hunts could be much less, so there was still a way for people to get reasonably priced access to 'meat' hunts (not that I really buy the modern meat-hunter arguments). Of course prices could be adjusted from there based on market reactions. Price discovery is a thing.

When we visited Yellowstone I would have *HAPPILY* paid an extra $100 per person (or more, and there were six of us in the car) to have seen a less-crowded park. When we visit Dollywood we pay maybe double or more, the base park entrance fee, for 'fast passes'. I'd like to do the same thing on public lands. I'd happily pay more, because such a hunt would be worth more, to me.

And with that cost,like I said in a different post, you just lost support in almost every corner of Risch’s district, and probably every rural congressional district in the west.That may fly east of the Mississippi, but it would never go over out west.

 

[SwampDonkey55]

What I'd like to see is the state running hunts on existing state lands and just minimal oversight, as currently exists, on all non-state lands - in other words not much changes on non-state lands in most states - but then see USFS charging maybe $500 per season for deer access, maybe $250 annually for small game access, maybe $1000 or more for elk hunting access to western lands. Maybe $1000 to access BLM lands for antelope.

I mean, those are just spitballs. And I think later-season cow hunts could be much less, so there was still a way for people to get reasonably priced access to 'meat' hunts (not that I really buy the modern meat-hunter arguments). Of course prices could be adjusted from there based on market reactions. Price discovery is a thing.

When we visited Yellowstone I would have *HAPPILY* paid an extra $100 per person (or more, and there were six of us in the car) to have seen a less-crowded park. When we visit Dollywood we pay maybe double or more, the base park entrance fee, for 'fast passes'. I'd like to do the same thing on public lands. I'd happily pay more, because such a hunt would be worth more, to me.

Yeah let’s make hunting even more pay to play…

 

[Chris in TN]

My family lives on game meat in a very poor, very rural county. Me and my sons killed 2 elk and 3 deer this year so far, all on public land. There are a bunch of people who are not financially well off that hunt to help pay the bills. We see a lot of people show up from out of state with pickup payments that are comparable to what we pay for housing.

I'm sure out of state people would tolerate access fees but us locals would throw a fit.

So eastern 'public land owners' should have to subsidize your elk hunting?

And with that cost,like I said in a different post, you just lost support in almost every corner of Risch’s district, and probably every rural congressional district in the west.That may fly east of the Mississippi, but it would never go over out west.

Then let's just sell every last acre. Privatize it all. Because states are *already* trying to steal federal lands. The whole 'if you don't let us use federal lands for free we'll just steal it all anyway' thing doesn't sit well with me.

Yeah let’s make hunting even more pay to play…

Beats government subsidizing it.

 

[Brap01]

So eastern 'public land owners' should have to subsidize your elk hunting?

Nah. You can move here and buy OTC for cheap like the rest of us locals.

Funding public land through recreation fees is impossible. There are generally 2 types of outdoors people; those who shop at REI and wear Patagonia and those who shop at Cabelas and wear camo. Neither camp will abide thousands of dollars in access fees per person annually. This is even less realistic than using properly managed natural resource extraction to pay for public lands.

 

[Chris in TN]

Nah. You can move here and buy OTC for cheap like the rest of us locals.

Funding public land through recreation fees is impossible. There are generally 2 types of outdoors people; those who shop at REI and wear Patagonia and those who shop at Cabelas and wear camo. Neither camp will abide thousands of dollars in access fees per person annually. This is even less realistic than using properly managed natural resource extraction to pay for public lands.

But if I moved there I'd be asking others to subsidize me. So, no thanks.

Also - I drove a 13 year old budget car and wore Wrangler pants this fall. I can't afford Cabelas. But I'd happily pay an access fee.

If that turned off the REI crowd I'd just call that a positive externality.

(Please understand I'm playing devils advocate to some extent here...)