Utah- what the hell?

[Jason Snyder]

Yup but states need to fund their own wildlife management and most of these funds should go back to the state the transaction was created in, states should receive only their portion from goods sold that created a tax collection for this fund.

I’ve heard it many times, most western states could easily make up any deficiency y slightly raising residents tag fees, ow I guess residents might not buy a tag if they don’t have anywhere to hunt but hey they still would have the right to the tag.

We’re clearly going to agree to disagree.

Here is a short read about PR monies for those interested.

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF12229#:~:text=Each%20fiscal%20year%2C%20FWS%20allocates,Hunter%20Education%20and%20Safety%20Program.

 

[tdhanses]

We’re clearly going to agree to disagree.

Yeah, I also don’t live next to millions of acres of public land, I’m sure my view would change if I had this vast area to enjoy right outside my driveway.

But the reality is, the way nonresident hunting keeps getting more and more limited, I would be better off if the feds sold the land and I just paid to hunt an area with easy access to tags and the more federal land that becomes private the cheaper and easier it’ll be to hunt for a nonresident.

 

[Jason Snyder]

Yeah, I also don’t live next to millions of acres of public land, I’m sure my view would change if I had this vast area to enjoy right outside my driveway.

But the reality is, the way nonresident hunting keeps getting more and more limited, I would be better off if the feds sold the land and I just paid to hunt an area with easy access to tags.

Suit yourself.

 

[tdhanses]

Suit yourself.

Guess we’ll see in time but my guess is, in the next 10-15yrs there will be far less federal public lands then there are today, the western states have really worked hard to isolate themselves with a tiny population of the voting public.

 

[Jason Snyder]

the western states have really worked hard to isolate themselves with a tiny population of the voting public.

I won’t dispute this but I’m also not willing to cut off my nose to spite my face. Many folks across the US benefit from our public land trust. Local economies benefit. Local ag producers benefit. Local mills, outfitters, you name it.

I’d like to think I’d have a more empathetic viewpoint towards impactful decisions to your community than “screw it, I get no benefit”.

 

[tdhanses]

I won’t dispute this but I’m also not willing to cut off my nose to spite my face. Many folks across the US benefit from our public land trust. Local economies benefit. Local ag producers benefit. Local mills, outfitters, you name it.

I’d like to think I’d have a more empathetic viewpoint towards impactful decisions to your community than “screw it, I get no benefit”.

Many in a small isolated area and all use it cheaply, ranchers don’t pay going rates for grazing, the majority of the public do not benefit, remember there are 330 million people, maybe 10% have even been to federal public lands once in their life and of that maybe another 10% has enjoyed them more then a few times in their life.

There are probably a large percentage of residents in these states that don’t even utilize public lands.

Then I also wonder what percentage mainly goes to national parks vs BLM lands.

Also who is to say the new owners would stop leasing grazing rights, allowing outfitters to hunt their land etc, most of the industries would still be viable if the lands were private.

 

[Jason Snyder]

Many in a small isolated area, the majority of the public do not benefit, remember there are 330 million people, maybe 10% has even been to federal public lands once in their life and of that maybe another 10% has enjoyed them more then a few times in their life.

There are probably a large percentage of residents in these states that don’t even utilize public lands.

Then I also wonder what percentage mainly goes to national parks vs BLM lands.

You’re putting out a little bit of fake news in this thread. Try 160+ million visitors.

Loading…

www.fs.usda.gov

 

[svivian]

Guess we’ll see in time but my guess is, in the next 10-15yrs there will be far less federal public lands then there are today, the western states have really worked hard to isolate themselves with a tiny population of the voting public.

Lol to think hunters is the #1 user of public lands across the western united states.

Meanwhile cities like Denver, Boseman, etc.. are booming with people moving in who.... surprisingly... like to recreate on said public lands.

 

[Mbogage]

There plenty of people coming out west to enjoy there public lands from the east! Camping, hiking, dirt biking, sxs, etc. hopefully they understand the benefits, or else only the rich will be able to enjoy this type of access. Can I buy meat from the store, yes. But I choose to hunt our public land to get that meat , with tons of others who can’t afford and don’t believe that you should have to pay for “land trust” access.

 

[tdhanses]

You’re putting out a little bit of fake news in this thread. Try 160+ million visitors.

Loading…

www.fs.usda.gov

Yup and zero duplicates within that number I bet, 160 million individual people, highly doubt it.

Also doubt we’d ever sell national parks monuments etc, usfs and blm lands I bet the majority would be ok with selling.

 

[Jason Snyder]

Yup and zero duplicates within that number I bet, 160 million individual people, highly doubt it.

I’m sure enough duplicates to drop from 50 to percent. Just like counties don’t get money in lieu of taxes for public land.

Plus, I didn’t add in the 65-70 million annual visitors to BLM land. But yeah it’s a small percentage who use them…

 

[tdhanses]

Lol to think hunters is the #1 user of public lands across the western united states.

Meanwhile cities like Denver, Boseman, etc.. are booming with people moving in who.... surprisingly... like to recreate on said public lands.

They are not but they utilize most of the acreage, I bet we could sell off 90% of lands and still retain the lands the majority of recreational visitors use.

 

[tdhanses]

I’m sure enough duplicates to drop from 50 to percent. Just like counties don’t get money in lieu of taxes for public land.

Take away all the people that visited these places outside 5 western states, so 160 million people went to WY? Doubt it, take WY, CO, MT, ID and UT and show us the number of people that utilized USFS and BLM lands, probably not even 10 million of the 160 million.

Pretty easy to pad that number with East coast national parks and monuments, which no one wants to sell these.

 

[svivian]

They are not but they utilize most of the acreage, I bet we could sell off 90% of lands and still retain the lands the majority of recreational visitors use.

You're dreaming or ignorant of all the multiple different recreational users. Or your purposely putting your head in the sand because you see personal gain if states sold off land.

 

[tdhanses]

You're dreaming or ignorant of all the multiple different recreational users. Or your purposely putting your head in the sand because you see personal gain if states sold off land.

I see personal gain for everyone, just because lands become private doesn’t mean we can’t pay to access them.

Some would lose out but if we retain 10% of USFS land we could keep more then 50% of users happy, which would be a majority.

Dump all BLM land.

Also many owners would create business ventures off access to their land, creating jobs and growth.

 

[svivian]

I see personal gain for everyone, just because lands become private doesn’t mean we can’t pay to access them.

Some would lose out but if we retain 10% of USFS land we could keep more then 50% of users happy, which would be a majority.

Dump all BLM land.

I appreciate your consistent stance on this topic over the years Dotman.

Cheers

 

[tdhanses]

I appreciate your consistent stance on this topic over the years Dotman.

Cheers

Haha, have to stay consistent

 

[tdhanses]

I will say this, I see selling off public land as being no different as residents continuing to fight to reduce nonresident hunting opportunities for their own increased gain.

At some point federal lands won’t matter to those that can’t hunt them but once or twice in a lifetime without being a resident. Yes move there is what many will say, well my only response is then buy your own land to hunt.

I personally would tell my congressman to sell them as all I see is a dwindling opportunity to utilize these lands in a manner I’d like, yup greedy I am, no different then any resident in how they want all the wildlife to themselves other then to allow a few nonresidents to fund their wildlife departments so they can have cheap tags that cost less then a meal out.

I do see as federal lands become private, there will be way more opportunity to hunt if you want to pay the price to do it. Which for many that only do it a few times, that would be very appealing to have an easier chance at an opportunity.

 

[Hnthrdr]

I understand your points, but in my opinion, the vast swaths of public land that are available to EVERYONE to recreate on however they want, within boundaries, is one of our countries greatest assets.

Let the states own it, and I'd be willing to bet my life that all the above would change drastically for the worse.

Humans, especially Americans, have historically been fantastic at destroying wilderness through extraction or consumptive resource use, without anyone holding those parties' feet to the fire in restoration and damage mitigation. I believe that would be even worse under state and private ownership.

You are 100% correct. All these guys better have deep pockets, otherwise they won’t be hunting out west anymore. Mark my words…

 

[tdhanses]

You are 100% correct. All these guys better have deep pockets, otherwise they won’t be hunting out west anymore. Mark my words…

It’ll be interesting to see how deep you’ll need, if residents don’t have a place to hunt there will be thousands of tags available for land owners to sell, prices will not skyrocket for nonresidents, just everyone will pay the same price to hunt and many will not be willing to pay $5k -$10k to hunt but a large portion of nonresidents would as most already spend close to that annually.