Lobbying Wyoming game and fish negatively affecting non-resident elk hunters

[Bighorner]

Is there a difference between privately owned land in a state and federally taxpayer funded land ?

I hope that is sarcastic or a legit question. There is not a fundamental difference regarding game laws. The main difference is access, some tag allocations/restrictions and predator hunting after dark. Atleast in wyoming

 

[tdhanses]

Is there a difference between privately owned land in a state and federally taxpayer funded land ?

One is assessed property taxes and one is not.

 

[BuzzH]

Ok just sell USFS and BLM lands, keep the rest the majority use. Only a minority of people utilize these lands and they would be more productive for society in private hands. Oil, gas and lumber production for one thing would have far less red tape.

Of course you’ll say I’m wrong but those that don’t utilize USFS and BLM lands wouldn’t agree with you, progressive left politics and republicans could easily agree to sell and WY residents don’t vote in 49 other states that make decisions.

Just think what the dept of interiors budget could be used for in NY and CA.

And for those that are pro public because they hike, atv ride, fish etc, 20% of USFS land would easily accommodate these users, keep the water ways public as well.

You are wrong, the land management agencies have been in existence for over 100 years, FS starting in 1905, BLM since 1946.

The American Public made a decision long ago to fund these agencies and have been ever since. They obviously see the value or they would no longer exist.

There is a huge economy based on public lands, from resource extraction to outdoor recreation to tourism, clothing companies, yada yada.

Those industries recognize and know full well that keeping federal public lands in public hands is their only path forward.

Further, there is more financial support from industry, state partners, county partners, even city planners for public lands than anytime I've seen. That is pretty obvious with the funding levels the land management agencies have picked up recently. The taxpayers and business partners and cooperators are pressuring congress to fund public lands, research, and management.

I also contend that the reason that the last public land transfer non-sense has stopped is because of the pressure applied by the voters, the constituents of those representatives that wrongly thought public land transfers were a good idea, as well as the consumptive and non-consumptive users.

Any politician, no matter the party, is in for a short political career pushing for the divesture of our public lands.

Its exactly why the Republican party doesn't even talk about the non-sense of peddling federal public lands, its a non-starter and a way to find yourself voted out of office. The people made that point very clear. For the record, some of the most fierce critics of doing away with public lands, both as citizens as well as members of Congress....came from states with very little federal lands.

So as such, I don't find your conclusions to have much, if any, merit.

 

[BuzzH]

One is assessed property taxes and one is not.

PILT...you're wrong again.

 

[tdhanses]

You are wrong, the land management agencies have been in existence for over 100 years, FS starting in 1905, BLM since 1946.

The American Public made a decision long ago to fund these agencies and have been ever since. They obviously see the value or they would no longer exist.

There is a huge economy based on public lands, from resource extraction to outdoor recreation to tourism, clothing companies, yada yada.

Those industries recognize and know full well that keeping federal public lands in public hands is their only path forward.

Further, there is more financial support from industry, state partners, county partners, even city planners for public lands than anytime I've seen. That is pretty obvious with the funding levels the land management agencies have picked up recently. The taxpayers and business partners and cooperators are pressuring congress to fund public lands, research, and management.

I also contend that the reason that the last public land transfer non-sense has stopped is because of the pressure applied by the voters, the constituents of those representatives that wrongly thought public land transfers were a good idea, as well as the consumptive and non-consumptive users.

Any politician, no matter the party, is in for a short political career pushing for the divesture of our public lands.

Its exactly why the Republican party doesn't even talk about the non-sense of peddling federal public lands, its a non-starter and a way to find yourself voted out of office. The people made that point very clear. For the record, some of the most fierce critics of doing away with public lands, both as citizens as well as members of Congress....came from states with very little federal lands.

So as such, I don't find your conclusions to have much, if any, merit.

Tell that to 10 million plus kids that their parents can’t even afford internet.

 

[tdhanses]

PILT...you're wrong again.

What amount is the property taxes the feds pay WY for USFS and BLM lands?

 

[BuzzH]

What amount is the property taxes the feds pay WY for USFS and BLM lands?

Information age and I'm not a secretary.

 

[BuzzH]

Tell that to 10 million plus kids that their parents can’t even afford internet.

Musk is working on that...give it time.

 

[realunlucky]

Tell that to 10 million plus kids that their parents can’t even afford internet.

Why is this a public lands issue? We just gave away 14 billion to another country. Seems like plenty of money floating around to solve social issues without selling federally owned lands off. Besides those lands value continues to grow the longer the government owns them, you know their a finite quantity. Why sell to the Wilks Brothers now when in even just a decade they'll be worth 10x as much?

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

 

[tdhanses]

Musk is working on that...give it time.

So are others but funny you think they’ll care about USFS and BLM lands.

 

[tdhanses]

Why is this a public lands issue? We just gave away 14 billion to another country. Seems like plenty of money floating around to solve social issues without selling federally owned lands off. Besides those lands value continues to grow the longer the government owns them, you know their a finite quantity. Why sell to the Wilks Brothers now when in even just a decade they'll be worth 10x as much?

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

Look at out national debt though, do we really have that kind if money to give away?

 

[realunlucky]

Look at out national debt though, do we really have that kind if money to give away?

What makes you confident this sale would be different? Sell all your assets and don't pay your bills and then nobody will loan you any more money to waste on failed social programs.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

 

[tdhanses]

What makes you confident this sale would be different? Sell all your assets and don't pay your bills and then nobody will loan you any more money to waste on failed social programs.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

These lands don’t generate near the wealth for this nation that they could, it in itself is a social welfare program.

What it comes down to is most nonresidents do not live in states with vast holdings of public lands and they have a large base in the fed gov, yet those that do always ask for support, especially orgs such as BHA and when a politican does try to sell them, they ask nonresidents to plead to their elected officials.

The more hunting becomes a greed trophy sport the more it’s base will erode and the fewer supporters we’ll see.

Those that experience these lands once or if ever will be a hard sell, same goes for the future of hunting.

 

[BuzzH]

Why is this a public lands issue? We just gave away 14 billion to another country. Seems like plenty of money floating around to solve social issues without selling federally owned lands off. Besides those lands value continues to grow the longer the government owns them, you know their a finite quantity. Why sell to the Wilks Brothers now when in even just a decade they'll be worth 10x as much?

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

Or why sell them ever when they can generate income and drive economic growth into perpetuity?

Selling makes no sense, fiscally, economically or for future generations.

Only the truly selfish would ever want to squander the birthright of future generations... incredibly short sighted.

 

[repins05]

following...

 

[Gerbdog]

Dang, pretty shocked how many people would be willing to sell off our public land.... you may not hunt on it every year.... but its actually there, in huge quantities, to be enjoyed for a relatively low price.... sure the out of state hunting tag is gonna run you some money but if you just wanna go camping with your family? Its available...... to everyone (not just those who own it, or got permission, or paid the trespassing fee?)

My worst nightmare is the selling off of public land... i dont make millions / billions / never will that would be required to purchase a big chunk of land so my grandchildren could ever enjoy the wilderness? Yikes. I dunno. No thanks, for the little guy like me the public land is about the only way i can ever tell a grandchild we will come back here and look for elk, go fly fish, go camping, and the lessons you learn now will be there for you in 40 years when im gone......

Maybe i need to save more money so i can get in on the land rush? Sure hope not.

I get it, its frustrating the out of state tags are getting harder to come by, but as people pointed out... i dont think its the states fault so much as its the popularity of the sport? Demand seems much higher. I know they say people getting into hunting is dropping year over year but... especially since covid hit.... sure seems like the interest in the outdoors and the hunting therein is at an all time high. Thats just my personal evidence, i cant back that up at all.

My brother is a resident in NM and hasnt drawn an elk tag in 7 years..... there is just that much demand even for residents.

 

[tdhanses]

Or why sell them ever when they can generate income and drive economic growth into perpetuity?

Selling makes no sense, fiscally, economically or for future generations.

Only the truly selfish would ever want to squander the birthright of future generations... incredibly short sighted.

If they are so profitable then why doesn’t WY take them over and manage them themselves?

 

[realunlucky]

Dang, pretty shocked how many people would be willing to sell off our public land.... you may not hunt on it every year.... but its actually there, in huge quantities, to be enjoyed for a relatively low price.... sure the out of state hunting tag is gonna run you some money but if you just wanna go camping with your family? Its available...... to everyone (not just those who own it, or got permission, or paid the trespassing fee?)

My worst nightmare is the selling off of public land... i dont make millions / billions / never will that would be required to purchase a big chunk of land so my grandchildren could ever enjoy the wilderness? Yikes. I dunno. No thanks, for the little guy like me the public land is about the only way i can ever tell a grandchild we will come back here and look for elk, go fly fish, go camping, and the lessons you learn now will be there for you in 40 years when im gone......

Maybe i need to save more money so i can get in on the land rush? Sure hope not.

I get it, its frustrating the out of state tags are getting harder to come by, but as people pointed out... i dont think its the states fault so much as its the popularity of the sport? Demand seems much higher. I know they say people getting into hunting is dropping year over year but... especially since covid hit.... sure seems like the interest in the outdoors and the hunting therein is at an all time high. Thats just my personal evidence, i cant back that up at all.

My brother is a resident in NM and hasnt drawn an elk tag in 7 years..... there is just that much demand even for residents.

Only kind of people that want to sell public lands are people that don't live in the west and politicians that personally profit thier sales.



Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

 

[BuzzH]

If they are so profitable then why doesn’t WY take them over and manage them themselves?

Public lands support multi- billions in economic impact to the entire country, in all sorts of business sectors.

No reason to change any of that.

 

[sasquatch]

Public lands are the biggest accumulation of undistributed wealth the country has ever seen.

They need to stay public and grow not shrink!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro