Nowhere to Hunt!

[fatlander]

This thread in a nutshell:

"Resident hunters were mean to me so f*&% the national forests"

I don’t know. . .

I read it more of something along the lines of “hey, non resident flatlander here. I did my part, again, to ensure access in the west. Next time you want to throw nonresidents to the wolves, can you remember this?”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Baddog]

I do not like the idea of selling off public ground but most states have been doing it for decades.
Is there a list of potential lands to be sold or is this like a blanket ability to sell?

 

[KurtR]

More NR hunting taking place today, than ever.

Maybe so but opportunity isnt

 

[Jethro]

I don’t know. . .

I read it more of something along the lines of “hey, non resident flatlander here. I did my part, again, to ensure access in the west. Next time you want to throw nonresidents to the wolves, can you remember this?”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I took it more this way…

If I can’t get the tags I want, when I want, I won’t help preserve hunting or public land.

 

[KurtR]

I took it more this way…

If I can’t get the tags I want, when I want, I won’t help preserve hunting or public land.

No its what he said. I have signed all the letters and made the calls. Its a view point that needs to be addressed before its to late.

 

[HNTR918]

If you live in Alaska, Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Iowa, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Missouri, Mississippi, Montana, North Carolina, North Dakota, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Wisconsin, West Virginia, or Wyoming, you better call your senators!

 

[Poser]

I do not like the idea of selling off public ground but most states have been doing it for decades.
Is there a list of potential lands to be sold or is this like a blanket ability to sell?

States haven't been selling off National Forrest and BLM lands. They don't own it and can't sell it.

Here the map: https://wilderness.maps.arcgis.com/...XBAU8prO_849wYtPNr_aem_gNtnXThPssZQb2hImokv8g

Here's the list that's making the rounds. I don't believe there are any specific areas or parcels cut out specifically for sale as of yet -only what is available to potentially be sold.

 

[HairyScandinavian]

States haven't been selling off National Forrest and BLM lands. They don't own it and can't sell it.

Here the map: https://wilderness.maps.arcgis.com/...XBAU8prO_849wYtPNr_aem_gNtnXThPssZQb2hImokv8g

Here's the list that's making the rounds. I don't believe there are any specific areas or parcels cut out specifically for sale as of yet -only what is available to potentially be sold.

View attachment 894850

@Baddog, to answer your question 0.5% to 0.75% from the list above will be selected BY the BLM and USFS staff. This is just a list of stuff owned that's not specifically exempted like national parks and such. It's really a clickbait scare tactic so Newberg and Rinella get more traffic to their pages. I'd rather not get rid of any of it, but I trust the BLM and USFS to not get rid of wintering grounds or prime habitat or whatever, they know what they're doing for the most part. Also the sales are to go to local municipalities and governments so they're still sort of publicly owned.

Having said all that, people in Mike Lee's district need to rally around and get rid of that tool when he's up for primaries.

 

[Dawg In Montana]

Not really hunters if we don’t get the chance to hunt. That’s why more hunters are worried about their back yard and not yours.

What you are missing is that this is all part of the same backyard.

 

[Lawnboi]

The unfortunate part of these lands they are talking about is they are largely only valued by hunters and rich developers. Most other recreational activities don’t care about a block of blm with no trails or water on it. Because of this hunters really need to look beyond residency status.As someone who hunts my own state along with others arguments like this are irritating, both ways and sours my desire to put in effort or money to help in all the ways I maybe can. This attitude does spill over to commission members and elected officials too, I don’t contact many people anymore because frankly they told me I don’t matter. With population growth this isn’t going away.

Especially when your driving on forest service roads seeing hunt your own state signs. Makes me want to put up some hunt your own land signs next to it. And makes me want to help residents save what they have even less.

You guys out west have it good right now. Hopefully we can keep it that way.

 

[Baddog]

States haven't been selling off National Forrest and BLM lands. They don't own it and can't sell it.

Here the map: https://wilderness.maps.arcgis.com/...XBAU8prO_849wYtPNr_aem_gNtnXThPssZQb2hImokv8g

Here's the list that's making the rounds. I don't believe there are any specific areas or parcels cut out specifically for sale as of yet -only what is available to potentially be sold.

View attachment 894850

yes not federal lands but Oregon sells off public state owned lands fairly regularly, just recently down the road from me to build 1000 new track homes and I understand other states sell of land as well.
I’m assuming a lot of these organizations against this sale, are pro solar farms, pro immigration, etc. You gotta put these people and things somewhere I guess.
I’m personally against it and would love to go back to 1983 but times are changing unfortunately.

 

[Poser]

Also the sales are to go to local municipalities and governments so they're still sort of publicly owned.

If BLM land is sold to a city, you most likely won't be able to hunt on it. You will definitely lose the ability to shoot on it.
If BLM or NFS land is sold to a tribe, which is also provisioned, you may lose access to it entirely unless you are a tribal member.
If BLM or NFS land is sold the state, could be any outcome, but, at a minimum, you'd likely lose the ability to target shoot. You may lose the ability to hunt or you could lose public access altogether.
*some variance here from state to state.

 

[Jethro]

Pick BLM land that is currently landlocked by private

 

[KurtR]

What you are missing is that this is all part of the same backyard.

No its not and that is a huge oversite that people just dont want to admit. So how do you get the guy who is a whitetail hunter in Iowa on board who will never cross the Mississippi. Or the guy in Arkansas that is more worried about putting his time and money into the ppr region so he has more ducks in the fall and could care less about elk or mountains. There will still be national parks they can go for a week see the mountains and hike around. There is a bigger picture that is being missed and even amongst people that used to go west to hunt they are getting more disenfranchised with the plight of the western public land big game hunter.

I dont want anything sold but with out a national view the support is getting harder to come by as more people get disconnected from western public ground for a multitude of reasons.

Another facet is the complete lack of trust in the federal govt to do any thing right and thats not a partisan issue they all are like a monkey screwing a football every last one of them. So convincing the general public it should stay under Fed control is an up hill battle.

 

[HairyScandinavian]

If BLM land is sold to a city, you most likely won't be able to hunt on it. You will definitely lose the ability to shoot on it.
If BLM or NFS land is sold to a tribe, which is also provisioned, you may lose access to it entirely unless you are a tribal member.
If BLM or NFS land is sold the state, could be any outcome, but, at a minimum, you'd likely lose the ability to target shoot. You may lose the ability to hunt or you could lose public access altogether.
*some variance here from state to state.

Sure, or the cities may make a city park for residents to enjoy with a walking path, who knows but if a city buys the property it's likely to end up being beneficial to the locals nearby and some dude from TX can find somewhere else to go. Keep in mind that the BLM and USFS get to choose the lands they get rid of. I think if they're forced to offload .5% of their lands they'll likely choose the headaches that will improve their management for the stuff they keep.

 

[Andrew12gauge]

@Baddog, to answer your question 0.5% to 0.75% from the list above will be selected BY the BLM and USFS staff. This is just a list of stuff owned that's not specifically exempted like national parks and such. It's really a clickbait scare tactic so Newberg and Rinella get more traffic to their pages. I'd rather not get rid of any of it, but I trust the BLM and USFS to not get rid of wintering grounds or prime habitat or whatever, they know what they're doing for the most part. Also the sales are to go to local municipalities and governments so they're still sort of publicly owned.

Having said all that, people in Mike Lee's district need to rally around and get rid of that tool when he's up for primaries.

Everything I’ve seen and heard is land is to be sold to highest bidder with 90% of funds to pay down debt, 5% to managing agency that sells and 5% to local government


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[OneGunTex]

I took it more this way…

If I can’t get the tags I want, when I want, I won’t help preserve hunting or public land.

Nah you're not getting it. The NRs (and the Rs) with money will always get to hunt. Look at Texas - more hunters than any other state in the country, and with little to no public land to do it. Pocketbooks come out. Y'all have it free. And you want to make NRs pay for the opportunity while defending your right to do it for free.

Like someone said earlier, I've called the senators and signed the petitions, please don't slash my tires the best time my TX plates are at 'your' trailhead

 

[mostlybirch]

No its not and that is a huge oversite that people just dont want to admit. So how do you get the guy who is a whitetail hunter in Iowa on board who will never cross the Mississippi. Or the guy in Arkansas that is more worried about putting his time and money into the ppr region so he has more ducks in the fall and could care less about elk or mountains. There will still be national parks they can go for a week see the mountains and hike around. There is a bigger picture that is being missed and even amongst people that used to go west to hunt they are getting more disenfranchised with the plight of the western public land big game hunter.

I dont want anything sold but with out a national view the support is getting harder to come by as more people get disconnected from western public ground for a multitude of reasons.

Another facet is the complete lack of trust in the federal govt to do any thing right and thats not a partisan issue they all are like a monkey screwing a football every last one of them. So convincing the general public it should stay under Fed control is an up hill battle.

Whether the land is mismanaged by the feds or not, its an access issue. I would hope that even hunters out east who don't have any inclination to go west to hunt would still be see the benefit of keeping land owned by us in public hands. I understand that is idealistic. There are a lot of places in the west I will never make it to, but I want others to still be able to enjoy the land. Not to mention the myriad of other users including mining and O&G. Once that BLM sage ground is a slapdash tract home its gone forever.

 

[Jethro]

Nah you're not getting it. The NRs (and the Rs) with money will always get to hunt. Look at Texas - more hunters than any other state in the country, and with little to no public land to do it. Pocketbooks come out. Y'all have it free. And you want to make NRs pay for the opportunity while defending your right to do it for free.

Like someone said earlier, I've called the senators and signed the petitions, please don't slash my tires the best time my TX plates are at 'your' trailhead

I get it more than you know. 15 NR elk hunts in row. Nothing to do with pocketbooks. Whatever is going on in TX is irrelevant to this discussion. Wouldn’t think of messing with you or your rig just cause you’re from TX.

 

[pacoalcracker]

We are 6 million homes short of needs and rising quickly, and 37 trillion in debt. Hardworking families can't even afford to buy a home as the shortage runs prices sky high. The current debt cost nearly a trillion a year just to pay the interest on it plus adding 2 trillion of debt every year.

So, something has to change and there is going to be compromises and consequences. I say sell as much public land in the wide open west as is necessary to solve these two issues. There is plenty of public land to go around and 50 million acres won't be missed except by a handful of greedy people. Solving these two major issues are FAR more important to the country than some hunting grounds being taken from residents there.

I will hunt my Pa farm and pay to hunt a private ranch whenever I need to hunt out of state just as I have done in the past in Montana. When I pay, I know I am welcome there.