Rich Man's Sport

Sevens

WKR
Joined
Apr 14, 2020
Messages
509
Location
Dallas, TX
How is that no income tax in Texas? How are you housing prices compared to western states?

The no income tax is great, but the property tax is killer. Housing prices used to be very affordable, but those have skyrocketed in recent years. If you live around one of the major metroplexes, the 2.25% property tax on a $500K - 2,500 sq/ft house gets a little pricey, especially since they assess it annually. There is a 10% cap on growth per year for your primary residence if you "homestead" it, but you cannot carry that basis over to a new home if you moved (think Prop 13 in CA).

Every state has there way to extract their pound of flesh.

And no disagreement on Texan's pay less for gas than a state that doesn't produce it/refine it. I think the difference between gas and say a non-resident elk tag is you can count on filling your tank with gas, can't count on the elk tag, let alone filling it.
 

CorbLand

WKR
Joined
Mar 16, 2016
Messages
7,793
The no income tax is great, but the property tax is killer. Housing prices used to be very affordable, but those have skyrocketed in recent years. If you live around one of the major metroplexes, the 2.25% property tax on a $500K - 2,500 sq/ft house gets a little pricey, especially since they assess it annually. There is a 10% cap on growth per year for your primary residence if you "homestead" it, but you cannot carry that basis over to a new home if you moved (think Prop 13 in CA).

Every state has there way to extract their pound of flesh.

And no disagreement on Texan's pay less for gas than a state that doesn't produce it/refine it. I think the difference between gas and say a non-resident elk tag is you can count on filling your tank with gas, can't count on the elk tag, let alone filling it.
That’s my point. Every state does things differently and it’s their right to do so, including the way the allocate/charge for NR tags.
 
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
7,571
Location
In someone's favorite spot
A person can always do what I did and just move to a place with more available public land.

But like Sam Colt said - even in a state like Texas where things seem ridiculous, just $48 can get you access to plenty of land. And it's been $48 since I can remember. If you can't make memories on 1M acres, I don't know what to tell ya.
 

Marbles

WKR
Classified Approved
Joined
May 16, 2020
Messages
4,458
Location
AK
My God am I sick of you western state guys whining about too many hunters and access to land. Hunt PA,WI or MI. We probably have half the land and 5x more hunters. We pretty much get to hunt whitetails. No moose, elk, mule deer or antelope. You've had what, 4 or 5 years of hunting pressure. It's been a lifetime here. Most of you live in areas people only dream of hunting. I see your photos of the landscape and it is amazing. You guys should come east next year. Hunt PA,NJ,MD. Once you see how much that sucks compared to your home state, you'll be grateful.
Yeah, a high density moose area has 5 moose per square mile, a low density area is 1 moose per 30 square miles. PA has 30 deer per square mile. Some parts of Texas have close to 90 deer per square mile. So, if PA will let me shoot 20 deer per season I'll consider it comparable.

I think this comment needs some further discussion. Natural resources are natural resources. It could be deer, elk, sheep, oil, gas, uranium or whatever. Why should one group be penalized more so than another just because you live in a certain state? This goes back to the old resident and nonresident allocations and fees arguments. This will be a hot topic but is a valid argument. I live in Texas. We have an abundance of oil and gas. If you live in a state without this resource, based on some of these comments, shouldn’t you be required and willing to pay more for the resource?
Texas flexed its oil muscle when it shut off natural gas to other states due to being too cheap to winterize its grid. It (like Alaska) makes lots of money off of oil it sells at market price. Your argument is groundless, and to be comparable would be if Texas was not allowed to tax oil production (which increases market price for everyone).
 

cmahoney

WKR
Joined
Jun 18, 2018
Messages
2,450
Location
Minden Nevada
Maybe we can have an honest conversation about tag allocation when we stop comparing hunting an animal with a population density of 15-25 per square mile to an animal with a population density of less than 1 per square mile. I know plenty of guys that hunt whitetails very successfully and selective on 5 acres or less.

Grateful is a poor choice of words. Noone is born with lead in their shoes. Everyone is free to make a priority list and move to wherever they feel best suits them. I guess I am grateful God gave me the stones to leave the nest for a place with better opportunities that align with my priorities.

Hard pass on stepping foot east of the Mississippi. You don't have to convince us that it sucks. We know it sucks, that's why we choose not to live there.....

Man you are hard core, where’s your compassion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

eye_zick

Lil-Rokslider
Joined
Jan 17, 2020
Messages
161
Location
Idaho
That’s not true. A know it all blowhard who is now rightfully banned from this place just repeated it enough that everyone takes it for established fact.

https://www.umt.edu/bolle-center/federal-lands-wildlife/faqs.php
First off - sorry for the long response, but this article is worth discussion, and cannot be summarized in a sentence or two.

Zero cases in this article is a US Court (District, Appeals, or Supreme) deciding "the feds own the fish and wildlife, the states do not." Instead these cases deal with supremacy of the US Constitution to enact laws to require the states to follow. "The problem is that states seem to most frequently reference ownership and a public trust in wildlife when declaring broad powers to manage it in opposition to federal (or tribal) interests." That's what all these cases have decided, that the federal government can tell the states what they cannot do with wildlife on national land. This cannot be construed as the federal government claiming ownership of all wildlife within US borders.

Specifically - Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416, a case referred to in the article, in a 7–2 decision, the Court upheld the Migratory Bird Act as constitutional, since it was enacted pursuant to the federal government's express power to make treaties and to enact laws pursuant to treaties, which the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution elevates above state law. The purpose of this case was not to declare federal ownership of wildlife, but to coerce Missouri to uphold the Act in the nations best interest.

This article is an attempt to undermine the statutes of the 48 states' ownership of wildlife, but ultimately takes a stance we all know, just because you own the land/property on it, doesn't give you the right to do whatever you please.

Yes, wildlife management is largely left up to the states. Yet the ESA is very much a thing and prevents WY/MT/ID from having a grizzly season. If what you are saying really was true, the ESA would have zero authority.

The FWS and states enter into a cooperative delisting strategy as required by the ESA. The power struggle of authority is a nonissue as states enter into the agreement in exchange for federal funding.

The struggle for grizzly bears specifically, is the delisting requirements agreed to back in the 70s when the grizzly was listed, those delisting requirements have undergone definition changes, but the grizzly listing wasn't grandfathered or updated creating a gray area.
 
Joined
Jul 30, 2015
Messages
6,312
Location
Lenexa, KS
Why not? Grandpas land becomes their land eventually. #luckyspermclub

Usually grandpa gives it to the kids that want to keep farming. Or it gets sold off to fund retirement.

My wife is 1 of 17 first cousins from 7 kids that grandpa had. Things get carved up and squabbled after pretty quick.
 

eye_zick

Lil-Rokslider
Joined
Jan 17, 2020
Messages
161
Location
Idaho
It varies from state to state, but my sense is there is a balance that needs to be struck. My point was that NR participation and keeping R fees low are linked and not one or the other.

I saw something online that WY under 80/20 received ~77% of its revenue from non-resident hunters. It will be very interesting to see how WY's budget changes in the coming years given the shift to 90/10 for some specifies and the expected change from preference to bonus points which will disenfranchise many who have been in the PP game for a long time. Will those changes precipitate a future increase in R tag/license fees to replace lost NR revenue?

77% of license revenue, not of total Fish and Game revenue. IN FY 2020, total revenue for WY F&G was 88M, and 43M was NR license revenue.


In Idaho NR license revenue is 26% and resident is 15%.

 

HornPorn

WKR
Joined
Oct 7, 2020
Messages
320
Usually grandpa gives it to the kids that want to keep farming. Or it gets sold off to fund retirement.

My wife is 1 of 17 first cousins from 7 kids that grandpa had. Things get carved up and squabbled after pretty quick.
I know plenty of people who kept land in the family after not just 2 generations. Usually a sibling or two has to be bought out, or you can horse trade for other things. Just like anything else, you gotta want it, and make it happen.

7 kids.....yeah that's a sure fire way to make sure it wont stay in the family
 

eye_zick

Lil-Rokslider
Joined
Jan 17, 2020
Messages
161
Location
Idaho
You sir get my point. I'm doing the same but I'm really concerned for my kids and grandkids.
This is the quintessential definition of conservation. That our future will have the same opportunity as we do.

Unfortunately, we are doomed as we have not chosen anything but revenue, or cheaper expenses. Look at the salmon. We have the power to correct the future, but choose ourselves over the future.
 
Joined
Oct 2, 2016
Messages
2,856
Location
West Virginia
There's many reasons to live in a particular state. Some of us do it for different reasons. I hate my state's politics, but we still have decent hunting and fishing. I pay a grand and some change to hunt Idaho and a couple hundred to hunt my home state.

People always ask me why I pay for Idaho. The truth is that I like to hunt. If I break it down to hours per dollar, Idaho beats my home state.

If I break it down to animals per dollar.....it's a bust.

All about perspective.

If you want to make more money, do it. If you want to hunt more, do it. I made very little money for the beginning of my hunting career and still did very well. I slept in a tent, drove very little and saved everywhere I could.

Today I still have never purchased a new vehicle, own everything outright and hunt at least 90 days a year.

You gotta celebrate your successes not compare them to others and if you are not finding the success you want.....fix it.

Comparing situations with some of the gear whores on this site will make you feel pretty poor. Really all you need is a single weapon and proficiency with it. Make time to use it and get it done.
This is great advice. In all of life. Not just hunting.
 
Joined
Jul 30, 2015
Messages
6,312
Location
Lenexa, KS
I know plenty of people who kept land in the family after not just 2 generations. Usually a sibling or two has to be bought out, or you can horse trade for other things. Just like anything else, you gotta want it, and make it happen.

7 kids.....yeah that's a sure fire way to make sure it wont stay in the family

I just think, generally, farms that used to be places for folks to hunt go through changes that impact that. It takes more farm ground than ever to support a family, and that also correlates to less people farming. There is consolidation at play. Also, smaller landowners are leasing their ground to larger farmers.

My buddy has a quail lease here in Kansas and his deal is with grandpa who owns all the land, and grandpa's kids lament that they can't even hunt their own land. Grandpa's got bills to pay!

I know a lot of people like to grind on farmers, that they're rich, etc. My experience is that on paper they are rich, and they'd be richer if they sold everything and bought the S&P 500.
 

bsnedeker

WKR
Joined
May 17, 2018
Messages
3,019
Location
MT
Usually grandpa gives it to the kids that want to keep farming. Or it gets sold off to fund retirement.

My wife is 1 of 17 first cousins from 7 kids that grandpa had. Things get carved up and squabbled after pretty quick.
I always thought my extended family was pretty close. When my grandpa passed away at 93 years old (after spending the day driving the combine!) I was shocked at how quickly I was disabused of that notion. Sad stuff man.
 

TheTone

WKR
Joined
Mar 4, 2012
Messages
1,783
Or is that a resident problem since the nr tag allocation hasn’t changed for years. While the resident population has exploded
Didn’t help at all when people were allowed to outfit on private land without a license. The amount of private land runs not outfitters leasing up ground is growing rapidly. Often ground that a person probably could have hunted by simply asking
 

ChrisS

WKR
Joined
Sep 19, 2013
Messages
860
Location
A fix back east
I always thought my extended family was pretty close. When my grandpa passed away at 93 years old (after spending the day driving the combine!) I was shocked at how quickly I was disabused of that notion. Sad stuff man.
I have a family friend whose father ran a sawmill and millwork shop for 40 years. When he and his wife passed from cancer, their youngest daughter and her husband (who worked with/helped out the old man for 10 or so years after he started getting too old to catch hardwood boards off the machines) inherited the house and shop and tools. She has two older sisters who her father built homes for, but they were pissssssssed that the house, shop, and lumber wasn't sold at auction and divied up. Two of the sisters don't speak to each to this day - 12 years later. I don't think there is anything more sad than a family being split up over inheritance. That said, at this point, no one is living up there and everything is starting to fall apart because of a nasty divorce. Shrug.

Hunting has historically been a sport of kings. Read medieval history and there are a lot of laws about hunting rights. Colonialism was expanded in North America over hunting. Daniel Boone packed up and left Kentucky because the hunting pressure was too much and started hunting Native land set aside by treaties.

The circle of life.
Boone rejoiced in a peace which put an end to his perils and anxieties, and which now gave him full leisure and scope to follow his darling pursuit of hunting. He had first been led to the country by that spirit of the hunter, which in him amounted almost to a passion. This propensity may be said to be natural to man. Even in cities and populous places we find men so fond of this pastime that they ransack the cultivated fields and enclosures of the farmer, for the purpose of killing the little birds and squirrels, which, from their insignificance, have ventured to take up their abode with civilized man. What, then, must have been the feelings of Boone, to find himself in the grand theatre of the hunter - filled with buffaloes, deer, bears, wild turkeys, and other noble game?

The free exercise of this darling passion had been checked and restrained, ever since the first settlement of the country, by the continued wars and hostile incursions of the Indians. The path of the hunter had been ambushed by the wily savage, and he seldom ventured beyond the purlieus of his cabin, or the station where he resided. He was now free to roam in safety through the pathless wilderness - to camp out in security whenever he was overtaken by night; and to pursue the game wherever it was to be found in the greatest abundance.
 

MattB

WKR
Joined
Sep 29, 2012
Messages
5,743
77% of license revenue, not of total Fish and Game revenue. IN FY 2020, total revenue for WY F&G was 88M, and 43M was NR license revenue.


In Idaho NR license revenue is 26% and resident is 15%.

Thanks for clarifying, I found that stat on another website and it didn't include the qualifiers. It is interesting when delving into the numbers that non-resident preference point fees make up 21% of license revenue which speaks to the point I had previously made.

When one looks at where the ~$32M in non-license dollars come from, it looks like an even larger majority of that is directly or indirectly funded by non-residents. Federal Aid such as PR/DJ ($19.4M), grants ($6.4M), interest ($2.7M), and other ($3.7M).

As I stated previously, a number of western states have a very high degree reliance on non-residents for their funding, so they have to strike a delicate balance if they want to keep those dollars flowing in for the benefit of residents.
 

SDHNTR

WKR
Joined
Aug 30, 2012
Messages
7,080
Maybe we can have an honest conversation about tag allocation when we stop comparing hunting an animal with a population density of 15-25 per square mile to an animal with a population density of less than 1 per square mile. I know plenty of guys that hunt whitetails very successfully and selective on 5 acres or less.

Grateful is a poor choice of words. Noone is born with lead in their shoes. Everyone is free to make a priority list and move to wherever they feel best suits them. I guess I am grateful God gave me the stones to leave the nest for a place with better opportunities that align with my priorities.

Hard pass on stepping foot east of the Mississippi. You don't have to convince us that it sucks. We know it sucks, that's why we choose not to live there.....
This nails it.

Enjoy your whitetails. We don’t want them here either.
 
Top