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

[BuzzH]

I have a sneaking suspicion that most could careless about public, especially those worried about how they’ll feed their kids and keep them safe.

Public lands are mainly a rich white guy concept and being backed by what many would see it this way.

Wouldn’t take much for inner city people to say wtf, move those ear marked funds to where they will serve the many better and sell the lands.

Public lands are the exact opposite of a rich white guy concept, that would be what you're proposing with your LOA arrangement.

Everyone with a desire, that can walk, ride a bike, or drive a vehicle likely has access to public lands of some sort.

That's the value, all 330 million Americans have a birthright afforded them of 640 million acres of public land they're co-owners of. No matter their place in society, color of their skin, etc. It's a uniquely American concept and a great one at that. We all have access to that land.

 

[Bighorner]

Of all the NR hunter I've met the field ive have enjoyed visiting with all of them particularty the past 3 years. We have shared a common love of the outdoors and shared experience from our local neck of the woods. This gimme gimme mine first garbage is a dumpster fire. I really hope to never share a mountain with you. Go buy your commission tags, lease your dirt and have fun with your outfitters to wipe your nose and bring you chocolate when you scrape your knee.

Cut feral funding! Sell the public land! Because you are bent about a state you can literally hunt every single year for big game for species you could never hunt in your home state. Cry me a river.

I'll be sure to point out the moose to my four year old when we are up camping on public land, that he'll never get to hunt them because they are reserved for geriatric dentists from Florida because by goodness they have been buying points and they need theirs first!

 

[Gutshot007]

Using Federal land is the key bargining chip over western States law negatively affecting non resident western hunters. Various ideas have been discussed. I had said earlier sell it off . Throughout this post I personally think to not sell would be wiser. Leave it open to hikers, bikers, berry pickers etc. Heavy fees for hunters was thrown out. I think the best option is to have the Federal government severely limit access to state resident hunters if their state chooses to not follow reasonable Federal rules pertaining to non-resident hunters. It would be then a states "choice" to follow them. Heck if you don't want any non- residents in your state push for it ,BUT . . . Federal land access will significantly decreased. Numbers of acres of lost access could be negotiated. Maybe something generous like 90/10 non-residents / residents. Could throw in other bonus features like residents can only hunt the low lands /foothills during the elk rut and then up high in December

 

[Lawnboi]

The extra money for NR is in every state though. I can hunt low quality pronghorn here in CO every year on the cheap, or I can get a significantly better experience in WY/AZ/NM if it is worth the $ to me or the relocation. It isn't and I love pronghorn. It looks like Wisconsin has an elk hunt for $49 if one is lucky enough to draw. It looks like I can pay hundreds of dollars for a PA or KY elk license, I chose not to. Kansas, South Dakota, North Dakota and Nebraska exclude non-res from enjoying their elk if I am doing the googles correctly. Maybe the thousands upon thousands of elk licenses available in other states aren't so egregiously biased as they are made out to be.

Yes, it is more. That varies widely, but it’s more everywhere I know of to hunt, I’d agree. I’d even say it’s worth the current price. I said it above, I treasure the opportunity I currently have, despite the price. I pay fees and taxes on all kinds of things. It’s the world we live in I understand that.

5 years of points plus an elk tag in Wyoming is a nice chunk of change. Even more if you want to pay for the “special draw” which basically gives you an upper hand for more money. It’s expensive. Maybe if states put that money to more use than paying influencers to pimp wildlife, it would be better all around. Who knows. Dosnt matter.


WI elk is the equivalent of winning the lottery to shoot cattle on a ranch. It’s not a hunt and never will be because we cannot get rid of the wolves, and can’t keep people from shooting whatever moves.

This thread is just an example of hunters fighting hunters. I’m just an evil NR. I’m glad not everyone I run into in the woods acts Ill towards someone because of their license plate.

 

[tdhanses]

Public lands are the exact opposite of a rich white guy concept, that would be what you're proposing with your LOA arrangement.

Everyone with a desire, that can walk, ride a bike, or drive a vehicle likely has access to public lands of some sort.

That's the value, all 330 million Americans have a birthright afforded them of 640 million acres of public land they're co-owners of. No matter their place in society, color of their skin, etc. It's a uniquely American concept and a great one at that. We all have access to that land.

Public llands are a welfare system utilized mainly by rich white people, not those from the inner city no matter their race.

I can bet you those in the inner city or lower income areas of our country would prefer that welfare shift to where it has more of a benefit to society.

Yup everyone that can afford to vacation can, there are many many millions in this country that never leave where they were born and have zero clue about public lands and never could afford to even think about traveling to these places.

It isn’t welfare if you buy the land, welfare is something that is free. Investing is just that, no matter the color but anyone with $50-$100k could have private access to what millionaires have, guess your right, middle class is rich white guys but good thing investments don’t discriminate and you have a choice of how and where you want to invest your cash, many wouldn’t ever invest in it but many would.

 

[sndmn11]

Yes, it is more. That varies widely, but it’s more everywhere I know of to hunt, I’d agree. I’d even say it’s worth the current price. I said it above, I treasure the opportunity I currently have, despite the price. I pay fees and taxes on all kinds of things. It’s the world we live in I understand that.

5 years of points plus an elk tag in Wyoming is a nice chunk of change. Even more if you want to pay for the “special draw” which basically gives you an upper hand for more money. It’s expensive. Maybe if states put that money to more use than paying influencers to pimp wildlife, it would be better all around. Who knows. Dosnt matter.


WI elk is the equivalent of winning the lottery to shoot cattle on a ranch. It’s not a hunt and never will be because we cannot get rid of the wolves, and can’t keep people from shooting whatever moves.

This thread is just an example of hunters fighting hunters. I’m just an evil NR. I’m glad not everyone I run into in the woods acts Ill towards someone because of my license plate.

I don't think you are an evil non-resident, I don't think any are. My perspecitve is that non-res label themselves that because they hear the word no and then annoy the bananas out of folks trying to force their wants until they are told to shush.

I have said it many times, come to CO, we have oodles of opportunity, shoot yourself 100 elk a year. The fact that opportunity like that exists yet this thread exists is an oxymoron and proof that it isn't opportunity that is being sought, it is hand out success.

 

[Lawnboi]

I don't think you are an evil non-resident, I don't think any are. My perspecitve is that non-res label themselves that because they hear the word no and then annoy the bananas out of folks trying to force their wants until they are told to shush.

I have said it many times, come to CO, we have oodles of opportunity, shoot yourself 100 elk a year. The fact that opportunity like that exists yet this thread exists is an oxymoron and proof that it isn't opportunity that is being sought, it is hand out success.

Plenty with those sentiments, have seen it first hand, glad you’re not one of them.

Someday I’ll get back to Colorado.

 

[Bighorner]

Using Federal land is the key bargining chip over western States law negatively affecting non resident western hunters. Various ideas have been discussed. I had said earlier sell it off . Throughout this post I personally think to not sell would be wiser. Leave it open to hikers, bikers, berry pickers etc. Heavy fees for hunters was thrown out. I think the best option is to have the Federal government severely limit access to state resident hunters if their state chooses to not follow reasonable Federal rules pertaining to non-resident hunters. It would be then a states "choice" to follow them. Heck if you don't want any non- residents in your state push for it ,BUT . . . Federal land access will significantly decreased. Numbers of acres of lost access could be negotiated. Maybe something generous like 90/10 non-residents / residents. Could throw in other bonus features like residents can only hunt the low lands /foothills during the elk rut and then up high in December

Or maybe we could make it illegal to hunt state owned game on privately held lands that would be a fun idea since we're just spit balling?

 

[BuzzH]

Public llands are a welfare system utilized mainly by rich white people, not those from the inner city no matter their race.

I can bet you those in the inner city or lower income areas of our country would prefer that welfare shift to where it has more of a benefit to society.

Yup everyone that can afford to vacation can, there are many many millions in this country that never leave where they were born and have zero clue about public lands and never could afford to even think about traveling to these places.

It isn’t welfare if you buy the land, welfare is something that is free. Investing is just that, no matter the color but anyone with $50-$100k could have private access to what millionaires have, guess your right, middle class is rich white guys but good thing investments don’t discriminate and you have a choice of how and where you want to invest your cash, many wouldn’t ever invest in it but many would.

You're just wrong.

I've already given you a laundry list of direct benefits that all 330 million Americans enjoy from public lands.

Everybody even those living in inner cities enjoy public lands. City, county, federal parks, baseball diamonds, bike paths, walking paths, all of which are public lands. Many of them funded and maintained by lwcf money.

It's absolutely not a welfare situation, it's an example of the American public being willing to fund public lands. No different than how we choose to fund all sorts of other things we find important...education, defense, arts, science, research, food and drug inspections, water quality standards, etc etc etc.

Public lands are worth funding and those we elect largely agree, and if they don't we will elect people to represent us that do.

 

[tdhanses]

You're just wrong.

I've already given you a laundry list of direct benefits that all 330 million Americans enjoy from public lands.

Everybody even those living in inner cities enjoy public lands. City, county, federal parks, baseball diamonds, bike paths, walking paths, all of which are public lands. Many of them funded and maintained by lwcf money.

It's absolutely not a welfare situation, it's an example of the American public being willing to fund public lands. No different than how we choose to fund all sorts of other things we find important...education, defense, arts, science, research, food and drug inspections, water quality standards, etc etc etc.

Public lands are worth funding and those we elect largely agree, and if they don't we will elect people to represent us that do.

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.

 

[Gutshot007]

Or maybe we could make it illegal to hunt state owned game on privately held lands that would be a fun idea since we're just spit balling?

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

 

[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