The Welfare Cattle Empire That Controls Your Public Lands: article

[wind gypsy]

I do feel the weight of the argument that the con$equence$ would suck. Granted.

Of course, a) that could be avoided with a lottery system where you had to get drew but the actual fee was nominal/easy to swallow, like this:

https://www.larimer.gov/naturalresources/parks/red-mountain/hunting

Or, b) the state could mitgate the expensive permit fees for in-state residents by subsidizing their fees through an agreement with USFS/BLM/whatever where nonresidents paid a hiked fee for the game tag then part of that extra fee is used to subsidize a resident's USFS access permit. Also, State-owned lands could be reserved for state resident use.

Imagine you drew an elk tag to hunt on the famed Hypothetical National Forest in Colorado. There's 200,000 acres and instead of the state allowing 400 hunters to access it, let's say they are willing to issue only up to 100 permits, but the out-of-staters who apply for those permits now have to pay triple the state tag/permit fees. 75% of the fee increase goes to the USFS as an access fee, the other 25% goes to the state of Colorado who then uses it to pay the access fees for the in-state residents who also drew tags.

If it's true that 'most hunters in crowded units are nonresidents' then their high access fees would ~fully subsidize the resident fees. Every 3 out of staters, fund one in-stater. DO I like that as a nonresident? No, but I'm willing to do it if that's what it takes to Make Accessible places Huntable Again.

Would that actually work? Heck, I don't know. I just know I'd like to hunt public land and still have some measure of solitude. I think that until such a thing exists, if ever, I am very likely, once CO moves to the hybrid system, to just focus on applying for hard to draw hunts, and using private acce$$ as Plan B, and remaining easy-draw crowded units as Plan C.

YMMV, a lot.

Yeah, my mileage says that would be a cluster F and it would suck. Apply for a tag not knowing if you can even hunt the public where that makes up the bulk of the land? Are you serious?

 

[jkoehle1]

I want you to understand that the link you posted is not much more than a 'hit piece' the way it's written.

I'm not saying its wholly factually incorrect. I'm not saying I'm wholly opposed to how it's written or the concerns it conveys (because I am not). But the way it's written is intended to inflame you more than to inform you.

Also, importantly, nothing in that article would necessarily stop a private group from securing a grazing lease then simply not grazing it, or grazing it at some reduced stocking rate. And I must point out that the statistics at the end of the article paint a false dilemma (logical fallacy of the excluded middle) as if 'extractive' uses are necessarily contrary to 'conservation' uses. Not to mention that many people will (intentionally?) conflate 'conservation' with 'preservation'.

The point remains. I dont endorse/support all of the angles in the article - and its a distraction from the point i am making. I was aware of this independent of the journalism and just shared the link so people also could see.

Grazing regs on public are poorly enforced. Period.

 

[Hnthrdr]

I think that's a great idea.

I'd do the same thing with western hunting. Access should be done at market rates. Or, to be clearer - there should be trespass fees to access public lands and those fees ought to be based on what private land of similar quality goes for. No more freeloading. We're simply beyond the point where access can be free as there are too many hunters and not enough land, for that. Instead of having 800 hunters chasing after maybe 200 bulls per year in a typical Colorado unit, have 200 hunters - each paying $3000 in today's dollars - and suddenly you have less pressure on the elk, better experiences for the hunters, everyone wins.

If paying a premium for that experience doesn't result in enough harvest, make a late season cow hunt with traditional access rules.

Meh, I think this would backfire possibly harder than you imagine. This sounds far more European. Hunts would become unreachable for many, would probably result in more poaching. And if you think that you are gonna be buying all these great hunts…. I have news for ya… there is always a bigger shark haha

 

[S.Clancy]

Apropos of nothing, it is entirely within the realm of possibility that a group of sportsmen *COULD* pool resources and lease grazing lands simply for the purpose of seeing them not grazed. I don't think anything in the lease says the leaseholder must consume some minimum amount of grass.
We could also privately subsidize - uh, pay - a leaseholder to understock a lease.

Whether that's a worthy conservation strategy, I cannot say; it would undoubtedly vary from lease to lease.

Generally agencies won't allow that. If it's not being grazed they can revoke the lease to a party that will graze it.

 

[Hnthrdr]

My family owns land in banner and kimbell county. Cattle ranches are everywhere. We lease some of our pastures for grazing and the mule deer hate it when the cows come in, whitetails don’t care.

Every time I find cattle on public in mule deer county I refuse to hunt it, the mule deer imo do not tolerate them nearly as good as whitetails and the numbers are drastically lower compared to when the cows ain’t there.

Wish there was a better option. I almost never hunt Nebraska public anymore because their are more cows then anything else, it’s insane.

That’s interesting, I’ve had a lot of mule deer around cattle and they seem to be totally disinterested in each other. This is Colorado in the central mountains and low land BLM country. Elk on the other hand to seem not to play well with the cows I assume it’s forage based as elk and cows are competing more than cows and muleys

 

[KenLee]

Where are these at on a map would be interesting to see

All over the country where deer dogging is allowed. They trespass on everyone's land because their "dogs can't read property lines and no trespassing signs". Jerks

 

[Chris in TN]

Yeah, my mileage says that would be a cluster F and it would suck. Apply for a tag not knowing if you can even hunt the public where that makes up the bulk of the land? Are you serious?

1) The two applications - tag and land access - could be done collaboratively. Or the state could just say 'look, the USFS is only allowing X# hunters to access this place for this season, so whoever draws that, can just buy that particular tag OTC'.

2) But such a system - where you have to 'win' a tag then 'win' access - already happens in Larimer county.

 

[Chris in TN]

Generally agencies won't allow that. If it's not being grazed they can revoke the lease to a party that will graze it.

Fair enough, but I think that can be changed.

It would help, of course, if there was an agency that valued less grazing as a good thing for wildlife.

 

[Chris in TN]

Meh, I think this would backfire possibly harder than you imagine. This sounds far more European. Hunts would become unreachable for many, would probably result in more poaching. And if you think that you are gonna be buying all these great hunts…. I have news for ya… there is always a bigger shark haha

Yet it is precisely the model that the vast, vast majority of hunters and properties in the eastern US already operate under.



So your fear of a backfire is entirely unfounded. It works just fine. And if you're worried about costs spiraling, I have already mentioned the option of doing a lottery instead of simply bidding out access. Larmier county already does it.

 

[Hnthrdr]

Yet it is precisely the model that the vast, vast majority of hunters and properties in the eastern US already operate under.



So your fear of a backfire is entirely unfounded. It works just fine. And if you're worried about costs spiraling, I have already mentioned the option of doing a lottery instead of simply bidding out access. Larmier county already does

I don’t want to be like the majority of eastern hunters, which is why I live where I live haha

But I don’t think it’s entirely unfounded… if you lived in the west you would quickly learn that hobbies and beautiful spots have premiums that few can stomach attached to them. People will pay 7 figures to live in a cracker box in my town and then pay 6 figures to drive an old tricked out Land Cruiser… they are seemingly bottomless pits of money in pretty areas haha so if you think that it will be easy Pickens for a few grand… eh anything worth a squirt and limited would be double to quadruple what you think it is and maybe more over night…

 

[jkoehle1]

Can we not turn this into whining about a lack of access for NR to western tags?

Everyones a non resident in 49 states - and everyone chooses where they live. Better and cheaper access to recrational opportunities of state owned resources is widespread across other outdoor opportunites and pursuits.

 

[wind gypsy]

Yet it is precisely the model that the vast, vast majority of hunters and properties in the eastern US already operate under.



So your fear of a backfire is entirely unfounded. It works just fine. And if you're worried about costs spiraling, I have already mentioned the option of doing a lottery instead of simply bidding out access. Larmier county already does it.

Eastern US where whitetail can easily # in the dozens per square mile and multiple people can do fine on a 40 is a far cry from western big game hunting.. Theres like 13 licensed deer hunters per square mile in the unit I own land and hunt in MN. Compare that to the 200k acres you were talking about limiting to 100 hunters in the hypothetical scenario..

 

[Hnthrdr]

Can we not turn this into whining about a lack of access for NR to western tags?

Everyones a non resident in 49 states - and everyone chooses where they live. Better and cheaper access to recrational opportunities of state owned resources is widespread across other outdoor opportunites and pursuits.

Absolutely agree!

 

[Chris in TN]

Can we not turn this into whining about a lack of access for NR to western tags?

Nobody's whining, and the two issues are very tightly interwoven, so, request denied.

ETA: if it's true that 'we' own federal land, then perhaps residents of any given state should get no preference whatsoever in terms of accessing those lands.

Contrast that with the earlier concessions I've suggested to in-state residents and you'll see that what I propose already has massive subsidies built in for residents, so if anyone here is 'whining' it is you.

 

[S.Clancy]

Fair enough, but I think that can be changed.

It would help, of course, if there was an agency that valued less grazing as a good thing for wildlife.

Do you think Agencies get to just not enforce federal law? Or Executive Orders, etc?

 

[HunterGatherer]

1) The two applications - tag and land access - could be done collaboratively. Or the state could just say 'look, the USFS is only allowing X# hunters to access this place for this season, so whoever draws that, can just buy that particular tag OTC'.

2) But such a system - where you have to 'win' a tag then 'win' access - already happens in Larimer county.

I don’t like the notion of reducing access to increase solitude for less people, regardless of how you get there. The beauty of the US, is that not everything has been privatized, monetized and sold to the highest bidder ( or lucky lottery recipient). Relatively free access to open spaces is the best part about living here. Ever visit Europe or someplace similar where there is no “public” land ?Completely ruins it for guys like me that were raised out west with vast tracts of open land. Even places like California are mostly ruined for me as there’s almost no free camping, or even dispersed camping at all in a lot of the more desirable places to visit and everything is on a reservation system . I don’t want to get on a 2 year waiting list to go on a damn hike or pitch a tent. Is that an entitled viewpoint or is it our birthright to have access to “our public lands”. And I get your point about “public” lands being a marketing term more than a reality but if we continue to voice our opinions in favor of public access to those federal lands held in stewardship for us, we can keep them accessible to all. The more we transition to a “pay to play” model, the worse things will get IMO.

 

[Chris in TN]

Do you think Agencies get to just not enforce federal law? Or Executive Orders, etc?

Both.

The former in reality, the latter in theory. There's willful overt non-compliance, there's malicious compliance, there's slow-walking while technically complying......books, perhaps entire libraries, could be written about how federal employees have subverted various 'laws' over the years, starting with summer interns and ending with heads of entire departments and too many political figures to count.

 

[Chris in TN]

I don’t like the notion of reducing access to increase solitude for less people, regardless of how you get there. The beauty of the US, is that not everything has been privatized, monetized and sold to the highest bidder ( or lucky lottery recipient). Relatively free access to open spaces is the best part about living here. Ever visit Europe or someplace similar where there is no “public” land ?Completely ruins it for guys like me that were raised out west with vast tracts of open land. Even places like California are mostly ruined for me as there’s almost no free camping, or even dispersed camping at all in a lot of the more desirable places to visit and everything is on a reservation system . I don’t want to get on a 2 year waiting list to go on a damn hike or pitch a tent. Is that an entitled viewpoint or is it our birthright to have access to “our public lands”. And I get your point about “public” lands being a marketing term more than a reality but if we continue to voice our opinions in favor of public access to those federal lands held in stewardship for us, we can keep them accessible to all. The more we transition to a “pay to play” model, the worse things will get IMO.

OK, you don't like it.

Do the rest of us get a say? Does what you like matter more than what I like, on these lands that 'we' both own?

You say in one sentence that you dislike reducing access to increase solitude for less people, then two sentences later you're saying that without free access to open spaces (virtually synonymous with 'solitude') the whole west would be ruined. I think what you really mean is that you wish we'd all stay home in the east so you guys could enjoy your solitude and not share it with us.

The thing is, you're also creating a strawman, because I'm not advocating for privatizing the lands - I mean, I totally could - but I'm simply advocating that if 'we' own them then 'we' have a right to have differing voices heard on how those lands are stewarded, and the fact that you like one system doesn't mean that every acre has to fall under that system. And, no, I don't think free access is your birthright. At all. I paid to get into Yellowstone and nobody was standing there protesting that seeing Old Faithful was my birthright. If anything, your 'birthright' would be to share in the benefits of owning those lands, but that could be a yearly dividend check as easily as it could be free camping. If my parents leave me shares of a REIT that doesn't mean that sleeping in a house the REIT owns is my 'birthright'. At all. But.....getting a dividend check every year, then using those dividends to book a stay? Yeah, that could work.

You don't want a waitlist to go camp or hunt for free. Well, I don't want to drive halfway across the country to run a footrace to get to an elk that's being pursued by eight other dudes. We all have wants and none of them are inherently superior to the others.

And further....I'm not saying every acre should have access managed through a lottery. What I am saying, is that there are alternatives that could be tried, on some acreages, to gauge which system or mix of systems, had the broadest support/approval amongst the actual pool of stakeholders, which is all of us, not just a small group who live nearby.

Right now the closest thing I'll have, is when CO moves to a hybrid draw, and I have a chance, though small, to draw limited-access tags and go hunt in areas that aren't grossly overcrowded with other hunters. That's probably the closest I'll ever see to what I am proposing here, and I'm pretty OK with it. Apply for the hard to draw hunts, if I don't draw them, hunt private; if I can't afford private there'll still be some crowded units with easy access.

 

[jkoehle1]

Nobody's whining, and the two issues are very tightly interwoven, so, request denied.

ETA: if it's true that 'we' own federal land, then perhaps residents of any given state should get no preference whatsoever in terms of accessing those lands.

Contrast that with the earlier concessions I've suggested to in-state residents and you'll see that what I propose already has massive subsidies built in for residents, so if anyone here is 'whining' it is you.

You are whining - and theres a cohort of a chitload of people like you who embolden R to loathe NR and slash their opportunity.

Dont wonder why it dries up for you in the future - thanks for ruining a thread on an important topic for your NR wambulance call.

 

[AHayes111]

Definitely why thousands of people flock to it every year, because its such a shit hole.

There’s plenty of studies show the differences in grazing habits and the ecological benefits.

I get it though, if it’s not a cow eating it, it’s just wasted forage..

And none of those people know any different. You can see the damage in the Lamar with google earth.
Doesn't matter to me that it is not a cow, one of the reason the cow herd is so low and the price so high is because we have been cutting back on public leases. I wish that less cow resulted in more deer and elk, but it doesn't work out that way.