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

[Billinsd]

Oh, A WISE GUY Huh??!!!!!

 

[Rich M]

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.

When the federal govt purchased/stole the land out west, it was to preserve it for future generations to use - not for locals only.


Infrastructure is typically around 1/2 federally funded. Just used Google.









Utah has a great transportation budget and multiple funding sources - I couldn't find everything in a pie chart or easily copied and pasted table or graph. Utah is bad-ass with it's roadway plans. Got a stupid train and $300+ Billion from feds for that. Bad call - we got em in FL and ridership isn't what you'd expect. At least not til they ban gas vehicles.

 

[Dos Perros]

Your facts aren’t welcome here friendo.

 

[HingleMcCringleberry]

Man look at all this anti-resident hate.....

 

[SteveAndTheCrigBoys]

When the federal govt purchased/stole the land out west, it was to preserve it for future generations to use - not for locals only.

Once again, you're free to use the federal land as a non-consumptive user at any time. The harvest of wildlife on lands within the State's borders (fed, state, privates, whatever) is up to the State to manage how they see fit.

And you're still not quantifying how much a non-resident contributes in tax dollars (or cents) to the federal lands in western states and exactly how that entitles you to increase privileges towards tags.

 

[Bump79]

Once again, you're free to use the federal land as a non-consumptive user at any time. The harvest of wildlife on lands within the State's borders (fed, state, privates, whatever) is up to the State to manage how they see fit.

And you're still not quantifying how much a non-resident contributes in tax dollars (or cents) to the federal lands in western states and exactly how that entitles you to increase privileges towards tags.

You're completely missing the point and making a really weak argument. No one is talking about entitlements. Just simply saying that it's perfectly reasonable for a small tag allocation to non-residents as it’s actually in the best interest of the resident.

Absolutely nothing "entitles" a resident of a state to harvest an animal on federal land. Show me the statute. You have no more right to hunt on that particular land that anyone else - the state doesn't own it. Yellowstone National Park is within Montana and Wyoming - we don't get to hunt it. There's countless federal lands we can't hunt. They get to make the policy to access that land. Just like nothing entitles you access to hunt some private property.

What animal rights activists would like to see is forest service lands effectively become just like national parks. Nothing would make them happier to have only extremely limited hunting to be done by indigenous tribes. This short sided view that somehow as a resident you should get near exclusive access to hunt federal land is going to lead us in a path that has little support outside of your state.

In our current situation there's tons of non-resident hunters who feel vested in those lands. They love the idea that they could maybe someday go hunt elk on public land. The vast vast majority never will. A small portion will and those are the ones we complain about. Those that are going as demonstrated in tag revenue are clearly paging their fair share. If state FWP is mismanaging the pressure then advocate for a better management of it. But let's not pretend like 10-25% is too much.

 

[KurtR]

You're completely missing the point and making a really weak argument. No one is talking about entitlements. Just simply saying that it's perfectly reasonable for a small tag allocation to non-residents as it’s actually in the best interest of the resident.

Absolutely nothing "entitles" a resident of a state to harvest an animal on federal land. Show me the statute. You have no more right to hunt on that particular land that anyone else - the state doesn't own it. Yellowstone National Park is within Montana and Wyoming - we don't get to hunt it. There's countless federal lands we can't hunt. They get to make the policy to access that land. Just like nothing entitles you access to hunt some private property.

What animal rights activists would like to see is forest service lands effectively become just like national parks. Nothing would make them happier to have only extremely limited hunting to be done by indigenous tribes. This short sided view that somehow as a resident you should get near exclusive access to hunt federal land is going to lead us in a path that has little support outside of your state.

In our current situation there's tons of non-resident hunters who feel vested in those lands. They love the idea that they could maybe someday go hunt elk on public land. The vast vast majority never will. A small portion will and those are the ones we complain about. Those that are going as demonstrated in tag revenue are clearly paging their fair share. If state FWP is mismanaging the pressure then advocate for a better management of it. But let's not pretend like 10-25% is too much.

Did they start offering some kind federal land tag? Far as I know states manage the game and sell the tags but I could be out of the loop. Last time I was in Wyoming they made me by a license for my snowmobile to ride on public land how is that fair ………,

 

[Bump79]

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.

Who's arguing for 50/50? I haven't seen that post yet. All I've seen said is that allocating a small proportion of tags to non-residents is perfectly reasonable. You're making the opposite argument I am at all. I'm not saying that residents shouldn't get the vast majority of the tags in the realm of 90%-80% or so. I just think it's silly to get mad at that small of a proportion when they pay 20x the cost and only get a small portion of the tags. The residents are getting a hell of a deal I'm just saying stop complaining about non-residents when you're the one getting the best deal.

Again - I'm playing devils advocate. I don't think we should cut off federal funding at all or transfer federal lands to the state. I disagree with that position. It's just ironic that residents of western states pretend that they aren't getting subsidized by the rest of country then the moment someone says lands should be transferred to the state panic erupts and everyone says the state can't afford it and it will be private in no time. That's cognitive dissidence at it's finest.

 

[Bump79]

Did they start offering some kind federal land tag? Far as I know states manage the game and sell the tags but I could be out of the loop. Last time I was in Wyoming they made me by a license for my snowmobile to ride on public land how is that fair ………,

No they don't. That's my point - there's not a access permit for hunting on most all federal lands. I don't see what's not fair - it's a use permit. There's a cost associated for the feds to allow snow mobiling and their asking you to help pay for that share of that cost.

 

[KurtR]

No they don't. That's my point - there's not an access permit for hunting on most all federal lands. I don't see what's not fair - it's a use permit. There's a cost associated for the feds to allow snow mobiling and they’re asking you to help pay for that share of that cost.

Do you need an access permit to hike or camp? What’s the cost of snowmobiling the state or private clubs maintains the trails and trailheads that I have been to?

 

[Jethro]

This short sided view that somehow as a resident you should get near exclusive access to hunt federal land is going to lead us in a path that has little support outside of your state.

In our current situation there's tons of non-resident hunters who feel vested in those lands. They love the idea that they could maybe someday go hunt elk on public land. The vast vast majority never will. A small portion will and those are the ones we complain about.

What are you talking about?

Thousands and thousands of NR are hunting elk on public land. Those that know the systems are doing it every year. Those that don't know the system are left at home to complain about lost opportunity and how hunting is ruined.

With the exception of the WY wilderness law, NR have the same access to federal land that is open to hunting as any resident does.

 

[Bump79]

Do you need an access permit to hike or camp? What’s the cost of snowmobiling the state or private clubs maintains the trails and trailheads that I have been to?

At maintained camp sites yes. Many areas require a backcountry permits of sorts for access and camping. My local forest does actually for hunting and camping. Not saying we should be but it's not unfair or anything.

What are you talking about?

Thousands and thousands of NR are hunting elk on public land. Those that know the systems are doing it every year. Those that don't know the system are left at home to complain about lost opportunity and how hunting is ruined.

With the exception of the WY wilderness law, NR have the same access to federal land that is open to hunting as any resident does.

Starting with what I've written might give you an idea of what I'm talking about. Try that first.

 

[sndmn11]

. My local forest does actually for hunting and camping. Not saying we should be but it's not unfair or anything.

Starting with what I've written might give you an idea of what I'm talking about. Try that first.

We all tried reading it.

Are you also advocating for land use permits for hunting in other national forest just like you have locally?

 

[Bump79]

We all tried reading it.

Are you also advocating for land use permits for hunting in other national forest just like you have locally?

This is my previous post - just one back.

Not saying we should be but it's not unfair or anything.

I'm not advocating for it at all. Just that as I've said like 3 times - my point is just that it is silly for residents to complain about such small allocations of non-resident tags when they're paying more than their fair share. It's short sided and the analogy of you can't have your cake and eat it to is apt.

We should be trying to be a community and not trying to be more exclusive. I never said that we should have fees for access - but if there was I'm not saying it wouldn't be fair either. I'm not campaigning for or against. Just pointing out that hunters sure love giveaways when it benefits them then throw a fit when someone else gets it. In this case one is getting a huge benefit and complaining about the other is getting a small benefit.

 

[goathunter]

This is my previous post - just one back.

I'm not advocating for it at all. Just that as I've said like 3 times - my point is just that it is silly for residents to complain about such small allocations of non-resident tags when they're paying more than their fair share. It's short sided and the analogy of you can't have your cake and eat it to is apt.

We should be trying to be a community and not trying to be more exclusive. I never said that we should have fees for access - but if there was I'm not saying it wouldn't be fair either. I'm not campaigning for or against. Just pointing out that hunters sure love giveaways when it benefits them then throw a fit when someone else gets it. In this case one is getting a huge benefit and complaining about the other is getting a small benefit.

I don't see many resident hunters complaining here, quite the opposite. And it's not exclusive, plenty of opportunity as @Jethro just pointed out.

 

[sndmn11]

This is my previous post - just one back.

I'm not advocating for it at all. Just that as I've said like 3 times - my point is just that it is silly for residents to complain about such small allocations of non-resident tags when they're paying more than their fair share. It's short sided and the analogy of you can't have your cake and eat it to is apt.

We should be trying to be a community and not trying to be more exclusive. I never said that we should have fees for access - but if there was I'm not saying it wouldn't be fair either. I'm not campaigning for or against. Just pointing out that hunters sure love giveaways when it benefits them then throw a fit when someone else gets it. In this case one is getting a huge benefit and complaining about the other is getting a small benefit.

I see residents defending attempts by NR to take more licenses. That's my intention in these conversations. The premise of this thread is a person trying to rally support for higher NR allocation by taking from R so he can hunt more.
E very "argument" I've read about higher NR allocation is a fantasy disguising that real purpose of an individual wanting to hunt more at the detriment of others. That doesn't breed community, and it also creates exclusivity by handing many local opportunities to a fewer number of non-locals.

 

[406huntermt]

I see residents defending attempts by NR to take more licenses. That's my intention in these conversations. The premise of this thread is a person trying to rally support for higher NR allocation by taking from R so he can hunt more.
E very "argument" I've read about higher NR allocation is a fantasy disguising that real purpose of an individual wanting to hunt more at the detriment of others. That doesn't breed community, and it also creates exclusivity by handing many local opportunities to a fewer number of non-locals.

But but but they pay for the federal land and keep our lights on don’t you get that

 

[KsRancher]

I see it exactly the opposite. I see way more residents wanting to dip into non resident tags. Then non residents wanting to dip into resident tags. For the most part , the non residents just want to keep the tag allotment that they have. And the residents just keep wanting a bigger percentage all the time.

 

[Bump79]

I see residents defending attempts by NR to take more licenses. That's my intention in these conversations. The premise of this thread is a person trying to rally support for higher NR allocation by taking from R so he can hunt more.
E very "argument" I've read about higher NR allocation is a fantasy disguising that real purpose of an individual wanting to hunt more at the detriment of others. That doesn't breed community, and it also creates exclusivity by handing many local opportunities to a fewer number of non-locals.

My intention is that a 10-20% allocation - even if it's an increase to 20% in states like Wyoming, MT, etc is completely reasonable.

But but but they pay for the federal land and keep our lights on don’t you get that

Is it your position that the lands shouldn't be federal? Should they be state land? Or just that you like that you get this huge benefit and don't want to share it for hunting access even at a 80/20 rate. My point is that 20% is still a small fraction.

 

[406huntermt]

My intention is that a 10-20% allocation - even if it's an increase to 20% in states like Wyoming, MT, etc is completely reasonable.


Is it your position that the lands shouldn't be federal? Should they be state land? Or just that you like that you get this huge benefit and don't want to share it for hunting access even at a 80/20 rate. My point is that 20% is still a small fraction.

That increase you’re hoping for will never happen! What should get your panties in a wad is the other nr that are drawing 4 elk and deer tags in 4 different states! That’s taking away your opportunity more than I am who doesn’t hunt out of state! In reality you and everyone else who aren’t a resident in a western state have zero say in what a state decides to do… this horse has been beat past dead. Good luck with trying to convince residents that they need to give up their opportunity to for a nr that’s laughable at best