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...)

 

[Brap01]

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...)

Yeah my only debt is my house, I get living cheap. I drive a 1999 Nissan. I get it.

For your plan to work you'd need the REI crowd to pay too. Both the hunters and REI crowd will reject this pay for access plan.

 

[pacoalcracker]

well, since the western state guys happen to like the large private landowners and ranchers that are already locking up millions of public acres, why not just turn it all over to them to control...since supposedly they do such a great job managing the landlocked public land. yeah, that sounds like a great plan. im sure the western state guys would just love that concept.

 

[fuzzymarindave]

As much as I don't trust the Feds to do things right... I trust the States even less. Sure, they will be well-meaning and full of promises in the beginning.. but it will only be a matter of time before they sell or lease the land to balance their budgets. And that land is MY LAND and YOUR LAND. Once it's gone, we will never get it back.

I agree 100%

 

[Brap01]

well, since the western state guys happen to like the large private landowners and ranchers that are already locking up millions of public acres, why not just turn it all over to them to control...since supposedly they do such a great job managing the landlocked public land. yeah, that sounds like a great plan. im sure the western state guys would just love that concept.

Who are the western guys that you speak of? I've only heard dudes complain about that. Never heard anyone talk about private land owners managing public land. Much less managing it well.

 

[Andrew12gauge]

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.

We just talked about being more like Jesus today in home group so I’m just gonna say “bless your heart” and move on


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[packgoatguy]

Is this real estate company wanting to develope prime Idaho waterfront property also related to/affiliated with House Rep Fulcher?

The Fulcher Organization

The Fulcher Organization is building a series of luxury residential communities all throughout Idaho with nothing but the best sites and amenities.

www.fulcherorganization.com

 

[Idaboy]

Taken at face value, he makes a lot of great points- specifically that the Feds have mismanaged the federal lands within Idaho, which I wholeheartedly agree with. Then he goes on to say this :
View attachment 982725
Sounds great but I wonder if these ideas are just a way to sell the plan to congress and Idaho citizens and then once the deal is done all of the land gets raped by commercial interests without regard or due consideration to user groups such as sportsmen, just to make up Idaho’s budget shortfalls. Sounds like potentially cashing in our children’s inheritance to benefit ourselves to some degree. Did Mike Lee use similar wording to justify his efforts?

I understand your points, but what is the comparison to "manage better"...the state of Idaho basically starts to auction off the high desired state lands...not aware of any other entity that has such vast land holdings, given the laws, amd budgets I think the federal people involved in land management do the best they can

 

[packgoatguy]

That is very true.

I worry that we can't indefinitely go into debt paying for public land. On a long enough timeline if we continue to hemorrhage money on public lands, we might be forced to sell it to help pay off our national debt.

Like you, I want the public land to be public. I just want it to more or less pay for itself because I think that is the way to keep it public so my great great grandchildren get to use it too.

Here is another way to consider the monetary value of our Federal Public Lands...

Federal Public-Land Recreation Generates $350M Daily, Creates More Jobs Than Logging and Mining Combined

The value of federal public lands is enormous. Here's how, according to a new report, conserving them can help our economy.

www.outdoorlife.com

 

[ThwhacK]

Is this real estate company wanting to develope prime Idaho waterfront property also related to/affiliated with House Rep Fulcher?

The Fulcher Organization

The Fulcher Organization is building a series of luxury residential communities all throughout Idaho with nothing but the best sites and amenities.

www.fulcherorganization.com

It appears to be headed by his grandnephew Carter Fulcher. Bootstrapping young lad of twenty years, with one company dissolved in Wyoming because it was bad optics for a campaign year….

 

[ThwhacK]

It appears to be headed by his grandnephew Carter Fulcher. Bootstrapping young lad of twenty years, with one company dissolved in Wyoming because it was bad optics for a campaign year….

Barron Trump business partner clarifies future of luxury real estate venture | Fox Business

A luxury real estate business venture that included Barron Trump will not be relaunched.

www.foxbusiness.com

 

[Chris in TN]

We just talked about being more like Jesus today in home group so I’m just gonna say “bless your heart” and move on


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Jesus wasn’t a socialist. If you want to be Christlike stop advocating for free stuff.

ETA: also, don’t trot out your Christianity if you can’t address a brother’s argument honestly. That ‘bless your heart’ barb was about the most un-Christlike attitude anyone has shown here. Articulate where I’m wrong.

 

[Brap01]

Here is another way to consider the monetary value of our Federal Public Lands...

Federal Public-Land Recreation Generates $350M Daily, Creates More Jobs Than Logging and Mining Combined

The value of federal public lands is enormous. Here's how, according to a new report, conserving them can help our economy.

www.outdoorlife.com

That is an interesting way to think of it. When I first saw that report this spring I wondered where they got the numbers from. That study was produced by Outdoor Recreation Roundtable, which advocates for policy that will benefit public land recreation and represents 110,000 outdoor businesses. I believe those numbers are biased but I don't think that means they're grossly wrong either. Our town is surrounded by federal lands, we're the most remote town in the lower 48 that has a hospital. We would be a ghost town if not for public land recreation.

In my area, there is no denying that the economic impact of that much public land is huge. I do wonder if that broad economic impact makes public ownership of the land more sustainable, since the cost of managing goes to the government but the direct economic benefit goes to the private sector (and the government gets some money back in taxes).

(edited because I fat fingered the "post" button before I finished typing)