Why the NR HATE?? Let's fix it!

[Elkangle]

Nobody is advocating for 50/50 tag splits

This random argument over federal lands and who pays for what is pointless and a distraction

The argument is maintaining the 10-20% tag allocations to keep nation wide interest in all the game species available...if it pays it stays

Oh...and stop being Dicks at the trail head to each other

It's not a complex problem, some states are 50 years behind in population development but trust me that will rapidly be changing and I assure you you would much rather have the option to hunt other states then not

 

[SteveAndTheCrigBoys]

My point is that residents are getting access to land funded by the country as a whole. If we want the country as a whole to feel that they should keep funding them we should allow them to partake in activities on that land. I'm looking for data on the funding of the lands to get numbers.

If you switched your argument around my point makes more sense. If both are paying 2 cents a year why should the resident get increased privileges on that land? They are both paying 2 cents a year. Why should the resident get more tags for access on that land?

I'm not saying at all that tags should be equal. By no means. Just that people complaining about 10-25% allocation when the residents are getting by far and away the most benefit from the deal seems ridiculous.

What if a federal bill was put out to sell some federal lands out west to buy some more out east where they don't have as much? To balance the ratio between states and improve conservation. It's a perfectly fair proposition, not one I'm in favor of, but I'm sure people would lose their minds. Why? Because people like their subsidy. I did when I lived in Montana.

As other have said in this thread, why do your tax dollars mean you're entitled to consumptive use on that federal land? You're free to visit and enjoy all that land your 2 cents paid for without killing a critter on it.

TVW mentioned another good point about utilizing state funded infrastructure to access that federal land.

It's just not an effective point to argue from the NR side unless it can be accurately quantified and balanced against all the other expenses from R's.

 

[KurtR]

My point is that residents are getting access to land funded by the country as a whole. If we want the country as a whole to feel that they should keep funding them we should allow them to partake in activities on that land. I'm looking for data on the funding of the lands to get numbers.

If you switched your argument around my point makes more sense. If both are paying 2 cents a year why should the resident get increased privileges on that land? They are both paying 2 cents a year. Why should the resident get more tags for access on that land?

I'm not saying at all that tags should be equal. By no means. Just that people complaining about 10-25% allocation when the residents are getting by far and away the most benefit from the deal seems ridiculous.

What if a federal bill was put out to sell some federal lands out west to buy some more out east where they don't have as much? To balance the ratio between states and improve conservation. It's a perfectly fair proposition, not one I'm in favor of, but I'm sure people would lose their minds. Why? Because people like their subsidy. I did when I lived in Montana.

Didnt the east sell a bunch of their land already?

 

[Bump79]

Ya'll saying you deserve equal hunting opportunity because you pay taxes for Federal Land should be thankful that residents are paying taxes to keep the State Highways & Country Roads open so you have access. It'd be damn hard to hunt without the roads that residents pay for.

Nice try - What about all of the forest service roads? Also, better look into highway funding as interstate travel is key for commerce and receive a boat load of federal funding. I work in construction and am very familiar.

I think the large fees non-residents are paying help cover the week worth of road use.

Let's also not pretend that counties aren't getting federal grants for improvements. We can wish it was different - but this is how it works.

 

[Archer86]

What ya'll are ignoring when you keep bringing up that you fund Federal Land is that all hunting doesn't happen on Federal Lands.... in North Idaho as an example, a HUGE percentage of it happens on Private Timber lands.

They other thing they forget is the other 94 percent of tax payers are not hunters and likely don't give a crap about nr ability to hunt federal land yet they like to use them in there pool of nr that pay taxes

 

[Bump79]

As other have said in this thread, why do your tax dollars mean you're entitled to consumptive use on that federal land? You're free to visit and enjoy all that land your 2 cents paid for without killing a critter on it.

TVW mentioned another good point about utilizing state funded infrastructure to access that federal land.

It's just not an effective point to argue from the NR side unless it can be accurately quantified and balanced against all the other expenses from R's.

I'd say the same back to you then. Why does your state residency allow for consumptive use on land the state doesn't own? You don't have a right to hunt on private land - you don't own it. The feds could say you don't have a right to hunt theirs either. You can enjoy and hike around it without killing a critter on it.

You're advocating against yourself and it's not consistent. I'm playing devils advocate here - not that I want to limit residents access. Just pointing out that it's silly to complain about a small allocation of tags when you're getting 75-90% of the tags and others are paying 20x the tag cost. The argument just falls flat on it's face.

If you're argument was that all federal lands should be transferred to the state for management then advocate for that. I personally doubt most states can pay for it all on their own and there have been massive campaigns against doing so as it generally leads to privatization. But as long as the land is federally owned - I say 10-20% is perfectly fair and nothing to complain about.

Why should non-residents care about checkerboard on federal lands with your argument? Why should they be in favor of even doing a land swap just so you can hunt it. They would rather just sell it off. What difference would it make to them.

 

[Bump79]

What ya'll are ignoring when you keep bringing up that you fund Federal Land is that all hunting doesn't happen on Federal Lands.... in North Idaho as an example, a HUGE percentage of it happens on Private Timber lands.

Ok. Talk to them about it? It's their land. I don't have much to say about it.

If there are issues with NR pressure the states should do so via tag allocations by unit. And tag allocations by property type. This would solve the issues more than complaining about number non residents.

 

[CorbLand]

The problem with the tic for tac with federal funding is that if we dig into we can all find something that we are paying for that we will never use. Doesnt matter what state it is.

 

[SteveAndTheCrigBoys]

I'd say the same back to you then. Why does your state residency allow for consumptive use on land the state doesn't own? You don't have a right to hunt on private land - you don't own it. The feds could say you don't have a right to hunt theirs either. You can enjoy and hike around it without killing a critter on it.

You're advocating against yourself and it's not consistent. I'm playing devils advocate here - not that I want to limit residents access. Just pointing out that it's silly to complain about a small allocation of tags when you're getting 75-90% of the tags and others are paying 20x the tag cost. The argument just falls flat on it's face.

If you're argument was that all federal lands should be transferred to the state for management then advocate for that. I personally doubt most states can pay for it all on their own and there have been massive campaigns against doing so as it generally leads to privatization. But as long as the land is federally owned - I say 10-20% is perfectly fair and nothing to complain about.

Why should non-residents care about checkerboard on federal lands with your argument? Why should they be in favor of even doing a land swap just so you can hunt it. They would rather just sell it off. What difference would it make to them.

The answer to your questions lie within many posts already made in this thread.

My point is, your argument is not effective. I don't live in Montana either, but I don't expect my federal tax dollars to entitle me to a tag there. Hell, unless my state constitution has the right to hunt enshrined I don't expect to have the right to a tag anywhere.

 

[sndmn11]

That's a great argument, I didn't think of that

This is the mind set we're fighting

It was a question. Are there states that a Resident of that state is not allowed to hunt in?

If the answer is no, can you shed some light on this statement so I can understand where it came from?

As the non res hunter goes so will the opportunities for the resident.

 

[Schoolhousegrizz]

Nobody is advocating for 50/50 tag splits

This random argument over federal lands and who pays for what is pointless and a distraction

The argument is maintaining the 10-20% tag allocations to keep nation wide interest in all the game species available...if it pays it stays

Oh...and stop being Dicks at the trail head to each other

It's not a complex problem, some states are 50 years behind in population development but trust me that will rapidly be changing and I assure you you would much rather have the option to hunt other states then not

Nailed it!

 

[3forks]

For what it’s worth, the Federal government provides funding to state colleges and universities by way of federal student aid, grants, and contracts. Yet, these institutions have in-state and out of state tuition based on a student’s residency as well as enrollment caps also based on residency.

Because these institutions receive federal funds, should non-residents be provided an equal percentage of the total enrollment? A state’s universities are chartered to provide education to its resident students, but if we’re applying the same logic non-resident hunters are trying to apply to western state’s license allocation and fees, I suppose we should try to get those state schools federal funding ended.

 

[sndmn11]

Do the folks who pay taxes and think that gives them the right to a state's animals believe that also applies to non-hunters?

I've read an awful lot about how ballot box biology is a bad thing, but non-hunters pay taxes too, right?

 

[87TT]

 

[Gutshot007]

Wonder someday if its going to go from- Resident to Non-resident on hunting elk on Federal land " your welcome to wander around all you want ,but you just can't hunt. " To- Anti- hunters to Non- resident AND Resident , " your welcome to wander around all you want, but you just can't hunt ".

 

[ReaptheHeat]

Ya'll saying you deserve equal hunting opportunity because you pay taxes for Federal Land should be thankful that residents are paying taxes to keep the State Highways & Country Roads open so you have access. It'd be damn hard to hunt without the roads that residents pay for.

In addition, so much work goes on to maintain trails in these areas by volunteers and donations so you can hunt.

 

[Rich M]

Ya'll saying you deserve equal hunting opportunity because you pay taxes for Federal Land should be thankful that residents are paying taxes to keep the State Highways & Country Roads open so you have access. It'd be damn hard to hunt without the roads that residents pay for.

You don't understand how the road stuff works - gas tax and federal subsidies. I did my first rail and roadway project in 97, pretty familiar with how it is handled at the state level.

 

[87TT]

Around here you can’t get to a USFS road with out driving on a County owned and maintained road. Pretty sure NR tax dollars are spent in their own states too. Besides all the NR hunter tax dollars probably get spent on illegal aliens and gender studies Anyway.

 

[Billinsd]

Ya'll saying you deserve equal hunting opportunity because you pay taxes for Federal Land should be thankful that residents are paying taxes to keep the State Highways & Country Roads open so you have access. It'd be damn hard to hunt without the roads that residents pay for.

Not me!! Let the states have and maintain everything within their borders. The Feds should transfer all Federal Lands to the states to do as they see fit. That’s how it was until the Louisiana Purchase. Utah can be first the majority of their elected officials are demanding it. Cheers

 

[87TT]

Not me!! Let the states have and maintain everything within their borders. The Feds should transfer all Federal Lands to the states to do as they see fit. That’s how it was until the Louisiana Purchase. Utah can be first the majority of their elected officials are demanding it. Cheers