I propose the “Fair opportunity in America’s Outdoors Act”

[Rich M]

Why does it have to be 10%?

Make it at least 25%.

 

[bsnedeker]

Do you do this all on your own land?

While I agree it might be time to limit NR tags I also agree it’s time to look back at selling off 80% of public lands and look at keeping only the most utilized places that are multi use.

All the residents talk about the state owning wildlife and then get all butt hurt at the concept of selling off public lands, I think it’s great many made a choice to sacrifice for hunting and all, as long as they have free land to do it on, the land welfare concept.

If you don't see the benefits of public land for any use other than hunting I feel bad for you...I truly do. What a sad way to look at one of the most amazing things about this country.

Sent from my SM-G998U1 using Tapatalk

 

[sndmn11]

Plenty of folks are doing this. They are mostly from california though. Enjoy.


Handing things out to non residents...that is a good one.

I would describe it as handing things out. There is literally an infinite amount of opportunity in Colorado for a non-resident. Buzz Lightyear catered to both residents and non-residents with the opportunity. ANYONE can hunt elk from the highest population of elk IN THE WORLD for two weeks; EM011o1R EF011o4R. That person can then buy a literal inifinite amount of tags (opportunity) for EITHER SEX elk in a season from 9/1 to 01/31 EE087U5R.

So, opportunity at the largest elk herd in the world, and a five month season with infinite tags.

If this thread is about opportunity, what more can you guys be asking for that doesn't equate to a handout?

 

[ShakeDown]

I grew up in NM in the Gila. I took for granted my resident status and all the opportunity living in a Western state afforded.

I moved to IN for undergrad and FL for grad school... after 10 years, two degrees, a wife and two daughters, I moved back West.

You cannot create paternalistic laws to micro-manage state resources. BUT you can control your own life.

 

[tdhanses]

If you don't see the benefits of public land for any use other than hunting I feel bad for you...I truly do. What a sad way to look at one of the most amazing things about this country.

Sent from my SM-G998U1 using Tapatalk

I see plenty of selfish reasons but 99% of those that use the lands only use 10% of public lands. Kinda funny you want continued land welfare because you made a choice where hunting is priority but yet want taxpayers to prop up your choice by providing free land. Most land owners in the west are all for selling public lands.

 

[3forks]

This won’t be too popular, but I doubt a resident of a western state could ever come to terms on this argument with someone who willingly chooses to live in a state like Ohio.

This isn’t a criticism of the people who live in Ohio. I contend that there’s just fundamental differences in what someone who chooses to lIve in Ohio prioritizes in their life over what a resident of a western state does.

Also, a quick Google search found that more people are leaving Ohio than moving there.

There’s a reason that western states are facing a huge increase population growth, and a state like Ohio is seeing people leaving it.

 

[CJ19]

If you don't see the benefits of public land for any use other than hunting I feel bad for you...I truly do. What a sad way to look at one of the most amazing things about this country.

Sent from my SM-G998U1 using Tapatalk

Please tell me how i am supposed to enjoy the public land that my tax dollars pay for. I think you should be able to enjoy the federal land without hunting on. Go ahead and turn all your tags in. Lead by example.

 

[WiscoHoundsman]

there are a lot of places to hunt in Ohio? Federal tax dollars go to Oho. How do I get a whitetail tag to hunt trophy whitetails and have a right to say what happens in your community and chase them like out west

I’m not sure about Ohio but you can come hunt Wisconsin and there is plenty of state public land scattered throughout the state and some large chunks of federal. Go online and buy a license for $160 and get 2-4 tags depending on what county your looking to hunt or pick up additional for tags for $20. Pretty easy. No draw, no application just go hunting with the 564000 other hunters during our one rifle week season.

 

[diamond10x]

OP like someone else said earlier, save your breathe. There is a huge disconnect in all of this. If you disagree with the new changes in WY and the direction things are headed then all the professional hunters on this forum who took huge pay cuts to live in a van down by the river with their family so they can hunt mule deer and elk you’re automatically an entitled city slicker brat apparently. Never mind you may have been hunting out west long before they ever moved there or that your family has been hunting out west before they were even a thought in their daddy’s mind. Never mind the fact they’re complaining you take their tags in the unit they want to hunt because it’s close to a population center and they’re too lazy to put in for something 2 hours away instead of 20 min down the road, and you’ve been waiting and playing the game by their states rules and drove 15 hours.

A lot of these responses aren’t surprising one bit especially after dealing with a number of residents on public land when I’m out of state. Heck I propose any resident who wants non residents to be kept out should therefore forfeit their right to hunt any other state, it’s only fair right?Soon enough they’ll all be asking for help and money for public lands they like to call THEIR’S and nobody will pay them any mind or attention.

 

[bsnedeker]

Please tell me how i am supposed to enjoy the public land that my tax dollars pay for. I think you should be able to enjoy the federal land without hunting on. Go ahead and turn all your tags in. Lead by example.

camping, biking, hiking, atvs, snowmobiling, hiking, snowshoeing, fishing, hunting for basically everything except for critters with shit growing out of their heads. That's just a start.

I do enjoy federal lands year round in ways that don't even resemble hunting and so can you! The only thing you can't do is hunt animals with shit growing out of their heads. But of course that is all you care about so you are throwing a temper tantrum.

Grow up.

Sent from my SM-G998U1 using Tapatalk

 

[CJ19]

camping, biking, hiking, atvs, snowmobiling, hiking, snowshoeing, fishing, hunting for basically everything except for critters with shit growing out of their heads. That's just a start.

I do enjoy federal lands year round in ways that don't even resemble hunting and so can you! The only thing you can't do is hunt animals with shit growing out of their heads. But of course that is all you care about so you are throwing a temper tantrum.

Grow up.

Sent from my SM-G998U1 using Tapatalk

I do too. And if it makes you feel any better, im going to come and do all those things AND hunt those federal lands while i support those lands being transfered to the state. Afterall, im paying for them so i might as well enjoy them as you say.

 

[bsnedeker]

I do too. And if it makes you feel any better, im going to come and do all those things AND hunt those federal lands while i support those lands being transfered to the state. Afterall, im paying for them so i might as well enjoy them as you say.

lol... you see the value in federal lands and enjoy them but still want them sold off to wealthy individuals so the public can't use them anymore simply because you can't have your way regarding other states tag allocations... again I'll say "grow up".

Sent from my SM-G998U1 using Tapatalk

 

[wytx]

So the "my tax dollars pay for federal land management" comes up all the time. How much do we really pay between the 306 million folks in this country paying for 640+ million acres of public land ?
Someone with the knowledge enlighten me please. I would love to see the numbers on just how much we all pay in tax dollars for public land management, per tax payer.

 

[tdhanses]

camping, biking, hiking, atvs, snowmobiling, hiking, snowshoeing, fishing, hunting for basically everything except for critters with shit growing out of their heads. That's just a start.

I do enjoy federal lands year round in ways that don't even resemble hunting and so can you! The only thing you can't do is hunt animals with shit growing out of their heads. But of course that is all you care about so you are throwing a temper tantrum.

Grow up.

Sent from my SM-G998U1 using Tapatalk

So truthfully sounds like you utilize federal land more then you do actually hunting?

Just a hypothetical but if you had to give up hunting or federal land use, which would it be?

 

[tdhanses]

So the "my tax dollars pay for federal land management" comes up all the time. How much do we really pay between the 306 million folks in this country paying for 640+ million acres of public land ?
Someone with the knowledge enlighten me please. I would love to see the numbers on just how much we all pay in tax dollars for public land management, per tax payer.

I guarantee a lot if the inner city individuals would see that number as one that could go to programs that served people more so then the rich white guys.

How many of our lower income individuals across this nation get anything from having these lands, think they would prefer that welfare go to groceries for their kids?

 

[bsnedeker]

So truthfully sounds like you utilize federal land more then you do actually hunting?

Just a hypothetical but if you had to give up hunting or federal land use, which would it be?

So, again, those two things are completely unrelated. That is my primary point.

That said, I do think it's an interesting question. Hunting is incredibly important to me and, I'm assuming, everyone else here. In the big picture federal lands benefit everyone, while hunting benefits a few. In the hypothetical world where we were asked to choose I think I would pick the land for the sake of my family... none of whom hunt, but all love public land.

Sent from my SM-G998U1 using Tapatalk

 

[beauhunter]

Bottom line the federal government has no right to come in and tell a state what to do with its management of wildlife outside the bounds of the ESA.

Help me out here because I'm neither a lawyer nor a politician but I'm pretty sure that PR funds are "outside the bounds of the ESA". If I am correct in my thinking then it seems that you would believe that the federal government has "no right" to limit how much funding a state receives when it comes to "management of wildlife." Please let me know if I am incorrect because I don't want to be spreading bad information concerning PR funds, the ESA, and state management of wildlife.

I'm surprised that there hasn't been much discussion on the point that @5MilesBack brought up... there are more people hunting more states these days and it has exploded with social media. I'm not going that make an argument that it is bad/good because it is what it is. Hunting has become more popular in the last 10 years than it has ever been before. We have all experienced it. If I continued to hunt the same areas in the same fashion that I hunted them 20 years ago I would be lucky to walk out of the woods with anything better than a forkie (on a good year). I tried hunting new areas and guess what? There's a bunch of people there as well. Is it frustrating, yeah, but it also makes me a better hunter. It forces me to think outside of my own established skill set and adapt.

Yeah it's a real bummer that tags are getting harder to draw but that is the cost of having more people in the field. I do wish that it was easier to get tags but with hunter numbers increasing (in the west, not trying to get into an argument on whether hunter numbers are increasing/decreasing/staying steady across the nation) and game numbers not increasing at a similar rate, then opportunity will be limited and it should be. Do I think that any other states besides MT owe me a license, not at all, and to be honest just because I'm a resident of MT does not mean that MT owes me a license either. What I do have is the "opportunity" to apply for a license wherever I so choose to do so. A lot of people these days seem to confuse privileges and rights. Honestly, I think it is ridiculous that a deer license costs me $16 here in MT and an elk license only $20, OTC guaranteed every year. I do feel that us residents should be willing to chip in more money for something that we care so much about.

 

[tdhanses]

So, again, those two things are completely unrelated. That is my primary point.

That said, I do think it's an interesting question. Hunting is incredibly important to me and, I'm assuming, everyone else here. In the big picture federal lands benefit everyone, while hunting benefits a few. In the hypothetical world where we were asked to choose I think I would pick the land for the sake of my family... none of whom hunt, but all love public land.

Sent from my SM-G998U1 using Tapatalk

So if you lost all federal public land would you still have places to hunt?

Federal public lands benefit the few in the grand scheme, yes they are open to the many but not used by the many, those with the ability to use public lands overall are a minority of our population.

 

[Traveler]

I see plenty of selfish reasons but 99% of those that use the lands only use 10% of public lands. Kinda funny you want continued land welfare because you made a choice where hunting is priority but yet want taxpayers to prop up your choice by providing free land. Most land owners in the west are all for selling public lands.

I think that depends on who the land owner is. If local “generational” owners want public land to be sold it would only benefit the local land owners for a short period of time, it wouldn’t take long for them to priced out the same way they are being already.

If large tracts of public land go on sale it won’t be locals buying them.

 

[tdhanses]

I think that depends on who the land owner is. If local “generational” owners want public land to be sold it would only benefit the local land owners for a short period of time, it wouldn’t take long for them to priced out the same way they are being already.

If large tracts of public land go on sale it won’t be locals buying them.

I agree, it would be investors.