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

[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.

 

[bsnedeker]

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

I guess I misunderstood your question...I thought you meant hunting period. Like we had to have one or the other, not just banning hunting on federal land.

That said, my choice is still the same. If they were trying to say: "We will only keep these lands public if you ban hunting on them" I'd choose the land. I'd figure out ways to hunt, even if it's just squirrels. I like hunting, don't really care what it's for.

Sent from my SM-G998U1 using Tapatalk

 

[tdhanses]

I guess I misunderstood your question...I thought you meant hunting period. Like we had to have one or the other, not just banning hunting on federal land.

That said, my choice is still the same. If they were trying to say: "We will only keep these lands public if you ban hunting on them" I'd choose the land. I'd figure out ways to hunt, even if it's just squirrels. I like hunting, don't really care what it's for.

Sent from my SM-G998U1 using Tapatalk

Oh no, just public land hunting.

We take public lands for granted when yes the subset on this forum uses these lands, majority in our country will never set foot on them or maybe they will once.

All it would take is progressive liberal politicians to see that these funds could be used elsewhere including the proceeds from the sale of the land. Then Republicans would jump right onboard.

The more and more there is less opportunities the more support will decay to keep these lands, just the way it is.

 

[CJ19]

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

Its pretty easy for you to say things like this when you pay a fraction of the tax rates a lot of NRs pay. I dont want them sold off at all. I want the states to manage them. I would be very disappointed if they were sold. Unfortunately, people like yourself and many others think that just because people enjoy using federal lands means they are automatically a priority for everyone. Some people have real choices to make financially when it comes to balancing entertainment and life.

I have always been a public land advocate. Its a shame the way things have gone the last few years have resulted in me feeling this way. Maybe i just need to crjnch some numbers. The idea of federal land being sold to some rich prick is not appealling at all. Im not trying to spite any resident of any state, but rather thinking where my money is best spent for me and my family. I dont know i really like western federal land, i might have to reconsider my position.

 

[Rob5589]

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.

Elk, and let's all be honest that's what this is all about, are a limited resource. When you have population explosions in elk mecca states, a time will come where changes have to implemented. And those changes will always favor residents.


Everyone needs to get right with the fact that OTC elk tags are coming to an end. It's pretty clear by what's happening all over the west. If a guy wants to hunt, he will hunt. Maybe not elk, maybe not out of state. There are still a lot of opportunities if you look hard enough.


I'll ask you; how's the public land opportunity in Texas?

 

[woods89]

Some thoughts on this.....

-The answer is not for everyone who wants to elk hunt to move west. I've seen how they are turning habitat into development along the front range. I've also seen all the threads on here with residents decrying the droves of people moving into their states. I think we are all better off if some of us elk hunters stay where we are at.

-Both residents and nonresidents need each other. We as nonresidents benefit greatly from the resources owned by residents. Residents get their tags heavily subsidized by nonresidents. If western states can get resident tag prices raised this dynamic will change, however, it seems the average western hunter( Rokslide is not representative of this) is not ready for $250 resident elk tags. I'm honestly happy to pay 10-15 times resident cost for the opportunity. Greed on either side will be the death of this system, and despite it's current flaws, remember that we are in a tiny minority in this world that have this opportunity.

-Stop with the "why would you live in ( insert state here). I've had absolutely amazing experiences in my home state, and if I moved to the west, I'd honestly be considering coming back to hunt as a nonresident. I'm not going to elaborate because the last thing we need is for things to be "discovered" here, but there are plenty of outdoor reasons to live in the Midwest or East.

- We all have way more in common than we realize.

 

[tdhanses]

Elk, and let's all be honest that's what this is all about, are a limited resource. When you have population explosions in elk mecca states, a time will come where changes have to implemented. And those changes will always favor residents.


Everyone needs to get right with the fact that OTC elk tags are coming to an end. It's pretty clear by what's happening all over the west. If a guy wants to hunt, he will hunt. Maybe not elk, maybe not out of state. There are still a lot of opportunities if you look hard enough.


I'll ask you; how's the public land opportunity in Texas?

The public land in TX is as it should be everywhere

 

[Bighorner]

You came at with a solution rather than just a complaint. I can a at appreciate that.

 

[bohntr]

Nobody is denying you access to public lands…..you can go anytime you want. The wildlife that inhabit those lands are managed and owned by the state…..plain and simple. I, for one, would NOT support the wildlife being managed by the feds! If you want to enjoy the higher draw rates of a said state…..become a resident. It’s what I did and so far it has paid off. JMO

 

[sndmn11]

-Both residents and nonresidents need each other. We as nonresidents benefit greatly from the resources owned by residents. Residents get their tags heavily subsidized by nonresidents. If western states can get resident tag prices raised this dynamic will change, however, it seems the average western hunter( Rokslide is not representative of this) is not ready for $250 resident elk tags. I'm honestly happy to pay 10-15 times resident cost for the opportunity. Greed on either side will be the death of this system, and despite it's current flaws, remember that we are in a tiny minority in this world that have this opportunity.

I don't buy this one bit. Animals were living long before wildlife agencies came a long. The people I know in CO who work for CPW say they spend exponentially more time trying to figure out how to spend the money than they ever did in the past looking for it. Less revenue would just mean they don't get a new kitted out truck every year and other luxuries that are a result of (over)spending in order to not profit. If you work in the outdoors industry and you want to have a banner sales day, find someone from CPW a month before the fiscal year ends and they "have to spend their budget".

A loss in revenue would result in no loss of performance, just a loss in excess.

 

[woods89]

I don't buy this one bit. Animals were living long before wildlife agencies came a long. The people I know in CO who work for CPW say they spend exponentially more time trying to figure out how to spend the money than they ever did in the past looking for it. Less revenue would just mean they don't get a new kitted out truck every year and other luxuries that are a result of (over)spending in order to not profit. If you work in the outdoors industry and you want to have a banner sales day, find someone from CPW a month before the fiscal year ends and they "have to spend their budget".

A loss in revenue would result in no loss of performance, just a loss in excess.

So if CO went to 100% resident elk tags, at $60 per, there would be no funding issues?

I'm not saying they don't have excess, and I'm not only talking about CO, but there is a lot of money being spent on tags by NR every year.

Now had you all done like MO, and funded the Conservation Dept. with a tiny percentage of sales tax..........

 

[HandgunHTR]

I don't really have a dog in this fight, but for the sake of ensuring that people have some facts behind their arguments, specifically around PR funds, the majority of PR funds are not coming from hunters. That is a fact. Sport shooters contribute well over 75% of the PR dollars. Now, there is some overlap between hunters and sport shooters (I am one), but there are a lot of folks who are clearly in one camp or another.
So, in short, those fools at the range who are constantly doing mag dumps from their budget ARs or AKs are contributing quite a few more dollars than the guy who shoots 5 rounds to make sure his rifle is still zeroed.

One more thing to keep in mind. Based on the 2020 disbursements, the Eastern states get quite a bit more funding per square mile of public land than the western states. https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/s...enerate-nearly-1-billion-conservation-funding.
For example New York got almost as much as MT. Ohio (since it is relevant to this thread) got more than NM, NV, UT, and WA. PA and MI got more than any Western state other than CA (I don't count AK as Western).

Oh, and just a personal edit. There is no way in hell I would move to CO until they man up and get their firearms laws back in line with a Free State.

 

[Rifleman86]

Nobody is denying you access to public lands…..you can go anytime you want. The wildlife that inhabit those lands are managed and owned by the state…..plain and simple. I, for one, would NOT support the wildlife being managed by the feds! If you want to enjoy the higher draw rates of a said state…..become a resident. It’s what I did and so far it has paid off. JMO

Nobody is talking about management by the feds, it’s denying federal matching dollars if certain tag allocation practices aren’t met. Goal being every state has incentive to allow non residents a small slice of the opportunity.

 

[bohntr]

Owned by the state, managed by the state. Plain and simple.

 

[280Ackley]

So we should make sure non residents get the same percentage of firewood permits and mushroom permits? Should we limit the amount of huckleberries residents can pick so there are enough for non residents? It would probably be a good idea to do a lottery system for access to high mountain lakes and streams on federal land that way we can regulate them too.

You all are wasting your breath arguing with the OP and others. They just think differently and you are not going to change their minds. Some people want to be regulated and make sure everything is “fair” and that is their definition of “fair not yours.

 

[sndmn11]

So if CO went to 100% resident elk tags, at $60 per, there would be no funding issues?

Probably would be just fine. I would personally love to see CPW defunded so that it can't afford to introduce wolves.

Remember when the government gave everyone a bunch of money in the form of stimulus, child tax credits, etc? I still heard folks talking about how they didn't have enough money for diapers and food and heat, while tweeting from their $1k iphone sitting inside their newly leased vehicle. Excess ceeates the fallacy of wants being needs.

 

[280Ackley]

Remember when the government gave everyone a bunch of money in the form of stimulus, child tax credits, etc? I still heard folks talking about how they didn't have enough money for diapers and food and heat, while tweeting from their $1k iphone sitting inside their newly leased vehicle. Excess creates the fallacy of wants being needs.

Truest statement in this thread!!!!!

 

[diamond10x]

Elk, and let's all be honest that's what this is all about, are a limited resource. When you have population explosions in elk mecca states, a time will come where changes have to implemented. And those changes will always favor residents.


Everyone needs to get right with the fact that OTC elk tags are coming to an end. It's pretty clear by what's happening all over the west. If a guy wants to hunt, he will hunt. Maybe not elk, maybe not out of state. There are still a lot of opportunities if you look hard enough.


I'll ask you; how's the public land opportunity in Texas?

Elk aren’t my cup of tea but I do hunt them every 4 or 5 years, but you’re probably right about that’s what most this probably boils down to. I understand and completely agree residents should get a higher percentage of tags. Where my gripe is (two things) states all across the board, trying to limit NR hunters to the point that unless you’re sitting on a gold mine you ain’t hunting, but yet there is federal lands being used to hunt said animals. Second, all the blame is placed solely at the feet of NR hunters when that is simply not true, it’s just the easiest place for R hunters to point their finger when they don’t get the coveted premier tag or unit tag they live in every year.

As far as public lands in TX, I use them to hunt and fish as much as I can several days a week. I wish we had more than we do as a lot of it is tied up for nonsensical things, but the little bit we do have is well taken care of. We also have ZERO caps or limitations on R vs NR draws for all species and all units. Theoretically NR hunters could draw every single permit we have in a single season but the likelihood about impossible of that possible outcome.

 

[diamond10x]

Nobody is denying you access to public lands…..you can go anytime you want.

Be honest, outside of national parks and monuments, would you drive to another state to go see their public lands?

 

[woods89]

Probably would be just fine. I would personally love to see CPW defunded so that it can't afford to introduce wolves.

Remember when the government gave everyone a bunch of money in the form of stimulus, child tax credits, etc? I still heard folks talking about how they didn't have enough money for diapers and food and heat, while tweeting from their $1k iphone sitting inside their newly leased vehicle. Excess ceeates the fallacy of wants being needs.

Yeah, no joke on your second paragraph. We pretty easily become spoiled.

I shot a 6 point bull last fall on a tag I could have grabbed off the leftover list, so the sky isn't falling quite yet.....