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

[sndmn11]

Again i have no skin in the game. When you tell someone who has been in the game for 20-25 yrs that he cant play no more, expect folks to be upset.

Those people still can apply and have the opportunity to draw tags. They also knew the rules when they began 20-25 years ago.

 

[BuzzH]

Most Americans will never step foot on BLM lands and would have zero issue selling. The 5 million that utilize public lands are a minority, even in CA. These are federal isssues and the majority of states Voters don’t care as much as you think. Historically it has been hunters voices that were the loudest, that’ll fade.

Wrong again and what Americans realize is that they don't have to physically be present on every acre of federal land to benefit from it.

It's not just hunters and angler's that benefit from public lands...it's loggers, miners, livestock producers, tourism of all types, and on and on and on.

The American public will not surrender it's birthright of public lands...just a fact.

 

[BuzzH]

Sell it Buzz!

Most folks dont care, most dont even know what blm is and that there are vast holdings out west.

The whole idea of recreation is for all to use. Not just the guys who live there day in and out while making money off that same land.

And you're as free to use it as anyone else. Your choice to do so or not...don't care either way what decision you make.

 

[tdhanses]

Wrong again and what Americans realize is that they don't have to physically be present on every acre of federal land to benefit from it.

It's not just hunters and angler's that benefit from public lands...it's loggers, miners, livestock producers, tourism of all types, and on and on and on.

The American public will not surrender it's birthright of public lands...just a fact.

Loggers, miners, livestock producers etc wouldn’t thrive if the land was private?

Your telling me the majority of tourist are hiking way back into these lands in mass?

Retaining 20% of public lands would cover 95% of current use as far as tourism goes.

Private ownership would make it easier to harvest lumber and minerals, plus states would get more tax rev.

Public land is government welfare.

 

[Rich M]

And you're as free to use it as anyone else. Your choice to do so or not...don't care either way what decision you make.

Yes you do. You want to control how many NRs huntin in WY.

 

[Lawnboi]

When hunting and fishing licenses became a thing in the 50's or whenever that started, did you begin your protest then?

No. I wasn’t born. Not against regulation of the resource but we already live in a time that if you have money, you have arguably better hunting opportunity, regardless what your license plate says.

Not here to argue anymore, if you think it’s okay everywhere turns in to texas so be it.

 

[BuzzH]

Loggers, miners, livestock producers etc wouldn’t thrive if the land was private?

Your telling me the majority of tourist are hiking way back into these lands in mass?

Retaining 20% of public lands would cover 95% of current use as far as tourism goes.

Private ownership would make it easier to harvest lumber and minerals, plus states would get more tax rev.

No they wouldn't survive. Show me a cattle operation that pencils out in wyoming, Montana, Colorado, with land purchased at today's land prices and operating 100% on private land.

That math no worky-worky.

 

[CJ19]

Land management and wildlife management are mutually exclusive.

Yes buzz, everyone knows the argument. That is how it is. Got it. You like the residents of the state managing tag allocation, but the rest of the country to pay for the habitat and public land that becomes almost exclusive to residents. I get it. Everyone gets it. Im ready for the state of wyoming to manage all that great BLM land it has. You and lots of other smart people would do a great job with it. I have all the confidence in the world in you guys. That way, my tax money can fund wildlife and habitat projects that affect me, in my state.

 

[tdhanses]

No they wouldn't survive. Show me a cattle operation that pencils out in wyoming, Montana, Colorado, with land purchased at today's land prices and operating 100% on private land.

That math no worky-worky.

They don’t have to purchase the land, get 500 people to invest $100k and form an LOA, lease out the grass to ranchers, sell the timber to keep the forest healthy and only allow the 500 investors on their land, think $50 million would buy a chunck and as soon as millions of acres are opened up for sale land prices would tank, allowing others to buy as well.

Look at how much people are willing to invest in 35 acres with a nice vacation home, wouldn’t be hard to find investors in LOA’s limiting access, yet improving the land for wildlife and bring back a small annual return on investment, if any.

Yes the math doesn’t work for a single operation where ranching is the focus.

 

[BuzzH]

Yes you do. You want to control how many NRs huntin in WY.

Right because wildlife is a state asset held in trust for the citizens of the state it resides in. Same applies to your state of residence. I won't be bitching about what your state charges me to hunt there, what tag numbers you limit me too, and surely won't ask your state to sell off federal lands because of those decisions.

That would be as outrageous as it is stupid.

 

[BuzzH]

They don’t have to purchase the land, get 500 people to invest $100k and form an LOA, lease out the grass to ranchers, sell the timber to keep the forest healthy and only allow the 500 investors on their land, think $50 million would buy a chunck and as soon as millions of acres are opened up for sale land prices would tank, allowing others to buy as well.

Like I said, Americans value public land more than divesting them to investors that want to privatize them.

Won't happen...and the last run at it failed miserably.

 

[sndmn11]

No. I wasn’t born. Not against regulation of the resource but we already live in a time that if you have money, you have arguably better hunting opportunity, regardless what your license plate says.

Not here to argue anymore, if you think it’s okay everywhere turns in to texas so be it.

I don't think that is true at all. I had 7 licenses last year and spent less than $400. I hunted all public land and didn't scratch 1% of what was available to me.

 

[BuzzH]

Yes buzz, everyone knows the argument. That is how it is. Got it. You like the residents of the state managing tag allocation, but the rest of the country to pay for the habitat and public land that becomes almost exclusive to residents. I get it. Everyone gets it. Im ready for the state of wyoming to manage all that great BLM land it has. You and lots of other smart people would do a great job with it. I have all the confidence in the world in you guys. That way, my tax money can fund wildlife and habitat projects that affect me, in my state.

Forgive me for being an advocate for your states rights, as well as mine.

Both me and the USSC are full of chit....

 

[CJ19]

Forgive me for being an advocate for your states rights, as well as mine.

What states rights are those that you advocating for?

 

[tdhanses]

Like I said, Americans value public land more than divesting them to investors that want to privatize them.

Won't happen...and the last run at it failed miserably.

Ok, be interesting to see when it comes back around, it’s kinda like WY NR allocation reductions, that failed many times previously as well.

 

[Lawnboi]

I don't think that is true at all. I had 7 licenses last year and spent less than $400. I hunted all public land and didn't scratch 1% of what was available to me.

Since we aren’t talking about Wyoming anymore and our own states, it certainly is that way here. I mean I did get a doe tag for my backyard last year if that counts .

I just see where it’s all going.

I agree Wyoming can manage it’s wildlife however it sees fit. I just find it ironic the arguments being made, on both sides. It’s bad for hunters as a whole.

 

[BuzzH]

What states rights are those that you advocating for?

The right of states to manage the wildlife within its borders for the benefit of that states citizens.

 

[sndmn11]

Since we aren’t talking about Wyoming anymore and our own states, it certainly is that way here. I mean I did get a doe tag for my backyard last year if that counts .

I just see where it’s all going.

I agree Wyoming can manage it’s wildlife however it sees fit. I just find it ironic the arguments being made, on both sides. It’s bad for hunters as a whole.

It's a balance beam between opportunity in quantity or quality. Of those seven tags I had, 6 were not in the draw and I was unsucessful. The one I snagged in the draw for 11 points was successful. Just like somewhere else you said one can hunt for the cheap in WI, but with oodles of other folks.

It cannot be both ways, and if people want to hunt a certain state they genuinely need to consider moving there. Their choice not to tells me it isn't as important as they make on about it.

 

[CJ19]

The right of states to manage the wildlife within its borders for the benefit of that states citizens.

I 100% agree with you on that issue. Its the land management part we disagree on.

 

[BuzzH]

Ok, be interesting to see when it comes back around, it’s kinda like WY NR allocation reductions, that failed many times previously as well.

There's more awareness, influence, and support for public lands now than anytime I've been alive.

It's going to thrive more in the information age....