Federal Public Land at risk again!

[packgoatguy]

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.

I appreciate your perspective, and as I mentioned above, I personally would be willing to pay a few more bucks with my tags as a user fee for what I "take" from the landscape. However, I think your numbers proposed are way high considering that our tax dollars already support the management and maintenance of these resources. And certainly some portion of my Federal tax dollars that I pay living here in in Idaho will be used for some project or program in an Eastern state that I will never benefit directly from... but that is the nature of our union. Furthermore, every time I fill up my gas tank and head to the hills... the government gets a cut. Every time I buy a hunting product from a company in Pennsylvania or NY or anywhere, the income generated there pays for jobs, tax revenues, and so on.

The bottom line is, we are already funding the federal govt's management of Public Lands through our collective tax dollars and economic interactions.

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

 

[Chris in TN]

And, again, there’s a degree of devil’s advocate in what I’m saying here. I don’t like the concept of government land ownership (I’m a ‘forts and ports’ guy) but I believe that any attempt to ‘fix’ it would be much worse, if it involved sales or transfers to states or private interests. The leeches would show up to rent-seek and middleman the process to death. So, no.

But overcrowding is ultimately an economic problem, a ‘tragedy of the commons’ and when people complain about it, I’ve been there and seen the problem, that’s why I prefer paying for private access, I went back this year and it was even worse, but, again, if people are going to recognize the problem, let’s discuss solutions. Transfers to the state is basically piracy. Transfers to private hands would be a trainwreck. The only way to preserve any semblance of the western life people love is to recognize that the resource at issue isn’t just the animals, it’s also the land, and the majority of the land is involved is federal. Every US citizen is a stakeholder and hunters are the minority and I don’t for one minute think the average stakeholder (who probably doesn’t hunt but might hike) would push back against user fees for hunters. Hikers tend to not like hunters. They’d be happy to see us less.

Then if the state wanted to use those outrageous nonresident license fees to mitigate land access costs for residents, paid we could see a tag reallocation - residents might get fewer tags but they could quite easily do side work as guides for nonresidents (which probably pays enough to buy beef instead of shooting an elk….) and nonresidents would be thinned out by the costs of hunting - but even then, that’s not terrible. The people still paying would be the guy who actually saw the value in the experience and was willing to shoulder the costs of federal land administration. Hunters would gain a politically stronger voice in federal land management decisions (wolves, anyone?).

Residents might see fewer nonresidents. But those that came, would be paying land fees that trickled down through local work contracts. Higher quality federal land hunts could at least possibly ease pressure on private land hunts and mitigate price hikes. It wasn’t long ago we could find $5000 bull hunts. Two years ago I paid $6500. Now anything less than $10k is rare.

That doesn’t even begin to address the plagues of social media, which has implications far beyond hunting.

I’m all ears for better ideas. I’d genuinely like to see better experiences for everyone. I just don’t know how without moving to a pay to play model and honestly don’t understand why people hate that. For most of my life most of my hunting has been pay to play. Reality is, culture has changed. We’re a minority now, I know very few actual hunters in person anymore, but there’s less huntable land in the east and greater demand (in absolute numbers) across the west.

I don’t see how we fix this without paying for it. I just don’t. And in saying all that I deeply appreciate the idea of the western way of life and hunting. I just don’t know how to preserve it in the face of an increasing population where hunters are greater in number but lesser in political power.

Perhaps a hybrid system experiment could work where some reduced number of tags was available and nonresidents had to pay for federal access, to subsidize residents. But to actually reduce the crowding, that would have to involve reducing the tags overall, but that’s no worse than if CO created more ‘quality’ units with limited entry.

I am slightly hopeful that CO will be more huntable in the future hybrid draw system but don’t see it as a cure-all.

 

[Chris in TN]

I appreciate your perspective, and as I mentioned above, I personally would be willing to pay a few more bucks with my tags as a user fee for what I "take" from the landscape. However, I think your numbers proposed are way high considering that our tax dollars already support the management and maintenance of these resources. And certainly some portion of my Federal tax dollars that I pay living here in in Idaho will be used for some project or program in an Eastern state that I will never benefit directly from... but that is the nature of our union. Furthermore, every time I fill up my gas tank and head to the hills... the government gets a cut. Every time I buy a hunting product from a company in Pennsylvania or NY or anywhere, the income generated there pays for jobs, tax revenues, and so on.

The bottom line is, we are already funding the federal govt's management of Public Lands through our collective tax dollars and economic interactions.

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

To be clear, my numbers were spitballs. Price discovery takes time. You just have to start somewhere.

 

[3forks]

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.

The premise of national parks is to provide egalitarian access.

Limiting crowds through making the cost of entry prohibitive for some people so others who are willing to pay/can pay more is the antithesis of the what the national parks are about.

I love Dolly Parton as much as anyone, but you’re really stereotyping yourself when you compare national parks to anything related to Dollywood.

 

[Chris in TN]

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.

They already pay to hike national parks.

Give them a bumper sticker to virtue signal their support for hiking access and they’d pay for it in a heartbeat.

But in fairness, their use is less extractive/consumptive than ours. So maybe $100/annually for a federal hiking pass? Maybe bundle it with NPS passes?

Again, I’m spitballing here.

Someone somewhere on this forum maybe in a different thread mentioned states making a compact where nonresidents could only get one elk tag across the compact area per year. Heck, make it every two or three years. Extend it to deer and goats.

I would *happily* do that. But only if they also decreased resident tags. If residents get the majority of tags, slashing NR access still doesn’t materially improve the experience when we get a tag.

Also - states could easily cut tags in half across the board and double tag fees across the board. Then if that doesn’t allow them to hit harvest objectives, they could do more late season antlerless hunts. Doubling the price of a resident tag is peanuts.

There are ways to skin this cat. People just have to be willing to recognize it would impact us all.

 

[Chris in TN]

I love Dolly Parton as much as anyone, but you’re really stereotyping yourself when you compare national parks to anything related to Dollywood.

Both are destination experiences citizens tend to place value on.

Whatever you want to assume beyond that, I don’t care.

ETA: and having been to Dollywood, yes the stereotypes are true. It’s still fun.

 

[3forks]

Both are destination experiences citizens tend to place value on.

Whatever you want to assume beyond that, I don’t care.

ETA: and having been to Dollywood, yes the stereotypes are true. It’s still fun.

I knew what you meant.

The point I’d make is that states and parks already use permits to limit the amount of visitors to highly trafficked locations in an effort to not exclude anyone economically.

As long as we’re fantasizing about strategies that would reduce crowds on federal lands and national parks, I’d like to propose an intelligence test for visitors. However, I doubt that would ever be implemented.

 

[Brap01]

But overcrowding is ultimately an economic problem, a ‘tragedy of the commons’ and when people complain about it, I’ve been there and seen the problem, that’s why I prefer paying for private access, I went back this year and it was even worse, but, again, if people are going to recognize the problem, let’s discuss solutions.

I thought we were discussing ways to make federal land sustainable. Discussions on overcrowding, out of state tag prices and the cost of guided hunts don't seem relevant to losing public land or how to make keeping public land publicly held a sustainable goal.

 

[Brap01]

They already pay to hike national parks.

Give them a bumper sticker to virtue signal their support for hiking access and they’d pay for it in a heartbeat.

But in fairness, their use is less extractive/consumptive than ours. So maybe $100/annually for a federal hiking pass? Maybe bundle it with NPS passes?

Again, I’m spitballing here.

Someone somewhere on this forum maybe in a different thread mentioned states making a compact where nonresidents could only get one elk tag across the compact area per year. Heck, make it every two or three years. Extend it to deer and goats.

I would *happily* do that. But only if they also decreased resident tags. If residents get the majority of tags, slashing NR access still doesn’t materially improve the experience when we get a tag.

Also - states could easily cut tags in half across the board and double tag fees across the board. Then if that doesn’t allow them to hit harvest objectives, they could do more late season antlerless hunts. Doubling the price of a resident tag is peanuts.

There are ways to skin this cat. People just have to be willing to recognize it would impact us all.

You're correct that the REI guys pay for federal parks but those are PARKS. Things that parks have that Forest Service and BLM lands do not:
-Unique / special scenic qualities
-Animals aren't afraid of people because they're not hunted, which means lots of wildlife viewing
-Much better roads and trails
-Limited access points and more law enforcement
-Nicer facilities
-Guided tours

I don't think paying for access on National Parks is comparable to access on other public lands

 

[Chris in TN]

I knew what you meant.

The point I’d make is that states and parks already use permits to limit the amount of visitors to highly trafficked locations in an effort to not exclude anyone economically.

As long as we’re fantasizing about strategies that would reduce crowds on federal lands and national parks, I’d like to propose an intelligence test for visitors. However, I doubt that would ever be implemented.

Ehhh, Yellowstone sort of already does that with the Bison they have wandering around.

 

[Customweld]

We might see 2 things coming from charging access to NF ground
1. Sagebrush Rebellion #2. With the anti-gov mindset in western states, it's definitely in the realm of possibility.
2. The mass migration of folks to western states might slow down

One would be interesting to watch, the other would be welcomed.

 

[Chris in TN]

I thought we were discussing ways to make federal land sustainable. Discussions on overcrowding, out of state tag prices and the cost of guided hunts don't seem relevant to losing public land or how to make keeping public land publicly held a sustainable goal.

I’d say they’re not only relevant but central to the discussion.

There’s no sustainability without economic sustainability.

 

[glock233]

Land owners dominate states. It won’t be managed for conservation. It will be managed for short term exploitation. We don’t want that.

One of the best features of federal ownership is neglect and mismanagement, which tends to work out fine for nature.

 

[Chris in TN]

You're correct that the REI guys pay for federal parks but those are PARKS. Things that parks have that Forest Service and BLM lands do not:
-Unique / special scenic qualities
-Animals aren't afraid of people because they're not hunted, which means lots of wildlife viewing
-Much better roads and trails
-Limited access points and more law enforcement
-Nicer facilities
-Guided tours

I don't think paying for access on National Parks is comparable to access on other public lands

Having done both, your points are pretty minor.

I have seen great scenery on USFS and even BLM lands. I’ve seen undisturbed animals (before season), and never needed or wanted the nicer facilities or extra LEO presence. Sure, there are people who value those things. Those same people can also be found on USFS trails closer to towns.

The core is still paying for access to federal lands held in trust by a government that’s accountable to stakeholders. People do it in national parks, federal recreation areas (see: land between the lakes), and state or locally held lands (many states including CO and SD and TN allow limited controlled hunts in parks; even some city/local governments do, such as Ft. Collin’s/Larimer county CO).

 

[Chris in TN]

One of the best features of federal ownership is neglect and mismanagement, which tends to work out fine for nature.

At the end of the day that point shouldn’t be lost. Benign neglect is a thing.

 

[packgoatguy]

Does anyone know if this is the correct email address to reach Representative Fulcher without going through his website portal?

[email protected]

 

[mike.adams.467]

I live in Idaho and work for a federal agency as a Forester. I've worked as a Forester since 2008 in Private, State and Federal jobs.

Federal land management is inefficient, mostly due to environmental law, federal regulations and agency internal policy. Some of this is to give the public a chance to be involved in the decision making, and the anti management crowd puts their money where their mouth is. They sue all kinds of forest management, road building, and recreational projects to stop that work. I don't like it but this is "the public" being involved in the process.

I think IDL (the state timber management agency) could do a better job managing SOME of the Forest Service lands (lands that have good timber and access to sawmills within a reasonable haul distance).

The state would lose money on virtually ALL BLM lands and the majority of lands in Eastern / Southern Idaho. The ground is not productive, very remote, with poor infrastructure. Not to mention wildfires. On a recent big fire the was $6,000 per acre burnt just for suppression. That doesn't include fixing roads, planting trees, cleaning up fuels etc.

I fear the state would try to sell land or make citizens pay for access to state lands (like Washington State does).

I don't know what the answer is but there are some things to consider.

I live in Island Park 6 months a year. There are 3 state trust lands (lands deeded to the state by the federal government and designated as school trusts 100 plus years ago) in the vicinity of the most populated section of this region. These are sections of land 1 mile square that the have been used as public land adjacent to federal parcels for decades.

The state decided to make a little money by leasing the parcels to some guy with a Pakistani name for glamping sites. They are now full of portable toilets, metal storage buildings, shacks, signs, roads, etc. All so some dude from out of state can "manage" them and give the state a cut. They add to the crowding in the area, are an eyesore, and do nothing to improve the environment. I wouldn't trust the state to management a rest area.

 

[Customweld]

I live in Island Park 6 months a year. There are 3 state trust lands (lands deeded to the state by the federal government and designated as school trusts 100 plus years ago) in the vicinity of the most populated section of this region. These are sections of land 1 mile square that the have been used as public land adjacent to federal parcels for decades.

The state decided to make a little money by leasing the parcels to some guy with a Pakistani name for glamping sites. They are now full of portable toilets, metal storage buildings, shacks, signs, roads, etc. All so some dude from out of state can "manage" them and give the state a cut. They add to the crowding in the area, are an eyesore, and do nothing to improve the environment. I wouldn't trust the state to management a rest area.

As the recent state tax cuts really start to bite and the school districts keep voting down levies, you are going to see more of this. A large portion of Idaho school revenue comes from Idaho Endowment Land. That land is mandated by the state constitution to return the maximum financial return to the state. I'm not saying I agree with it, but that's how it's written.

 

[S.Clancy]

I live in Idaho and work for a federal agency as a Forester. I've worked as a Forester since 2008 in Private, State and Federal jobs.

Federal land management is inefficient, mostly due to environmental law, federal regulations and agency internal policy. Some of this is to give the public a chance to be involved in the decision making, and the anti management crowd puts their money where their mouth is. They sue all kinds of forest management, road building, and recreational projects to stop that work. I don't like it but this is "the public" being involved in the process.

I think IDL (the state timber management agency) could do a better job managing SOME of the Forest Service lands (lands that have good timber and access to sawmills within a reasonable haul distance).

The state would lose money on virtually ALL BLM lands and the majority of lands in Eastern / Southern Idaho. The ground is not productive, very remote, with poor infrastructure. Not to mention wildfires. On a recent big fire the was $6,000 per acre burnt just for suppression. That doesn't include fixing roads, planting trees, cleaning up fuels etc.

I fear the state would try to sell land or make citizens pay for access to state lands (like Washington State does).

I don't know what the answer is but there are some things to consider.

All this is true PLUS every administration changes the goals of the agencies. We literally had millions of dollars of funded conversation work halted because of top-down direction from DC. This is years of public scoping working with ranchers, logger, outfitters, etc. all canceled. No one sees this.