Wyoming Passes 90/10: The Worst Article You’ll Read This Year

[Sccritterkiller]

But you gotta admit, that name doesn’t conjure up grocery store in our teeny western brains

It's been around since 1916....one of favorite bumper stickers...

 

[Gutshot007]

I see a lot of posts talking about I live here and "pay taxes " . I wonder what percentage of FEDERAL lands are funded by western state residents vs the rest of the country /non-residents? Frankly I'm tired of "paying taxes" on land with limited hunting opportunities(you can't hunt without land) and when it does occur I get the crap financially gouged out of me. Send me a tax refund so I can put it toward some stellar private land for whitetails. I wish Minnesota would jack the price of their non- resident fishing license's up so non residents can fund a large percentage of our dnr bill. Residents will have 2$ fishing license . I'm sick of competition from non-resident's taking all my walleye . After all we have limited fish as a resource. Let's work on limiting non- residents for whitetails, wild turkey, pheasants, waterfowl and anything else. All these licenses will be 20-40 times what I pay for it as a resident. I suggest other states that haven't already, join in the carnage .

 

[prm]

Ha ha, I just had this typed up thinking the same general thing.

I need to look into how federal lands are funded. Seems to me if a state dramatically reduces the proportion of NR hunting on federal lands, they should pick up some of the tab proportional to that utilization which is resident only. Not debating the game management, just the use of federal lands.

Not necessarily trying to apply it to this case, just the overall concept of federal funded lands vs. any portion of utilization that is state resident only.

 

[bsnedeker]

I see a lot of posts talking about I live here and "pay taxes " . I wonder what percentage of FEDERAL lands are funded by western state residents vs the rest of the country /non-residents? Frankly I'm tired of "paying taxes" on land with limited hunting opportunities(you can't hunt without land) and when it does occur I get the crap financially gouged out of me. Send me a tax refund so I can put it toward some stellar private land for whitetails. I wish Minnesota would jack the price of their non- resident fishing license's up so non residents can fund a large percentage of our dnr bill. Residents will have 2$ fishing license . I'm sick of competition from non-resident's taking all my walleye . After all we have limited fish as a resource. Let's work on limiting non- residents for whitetails, wild turkey, pheasants, waterfowl and anything else. All these licenses will be 20-40 times what I pay for it as a resident. I suggest other states that haven't already, join in the carnage .

I'm sorry, who's keeping you from hunting on federal lands? I don't see anyone doing that. You can go to any state in the country, buy a hunting license, and go hunt on your federal lands. Go knock down some squirrels, pheasants, turkeys, coyotes, wolves, bears, female deer and elk... you can do all of that.

Oh, that's not good enough! I need to hunt for antlers and horns! I'm entitled to those animals for... some reason that I can't articulate.

Go home and enjoy your hunting in Minnesota knowing that your state DOESN'T ALLOW NRS TO EVEN APPLY FOR ELK!

Sent from my SM-G998U1 using Tapatalk

 

[tdhanses]

Ha ha, I just had this typed up thinking the same general thing.

I need to look into how federal lands are funded. Seems to me if a state dramatically reduces the proportion of NR hunting on federal lands, they should pick up some of the tab proportional to that utilization which is resident only. Not debating the game management, just the use of federal lands.

Not necessarily trying to apply it to this case, just the overall concept of federal funded lands vs. any portion of utilization that is state resident only.

I would be ok if the fed’s charged a utilization fee for accessing public lands, maybe $50 a week or an annual pass at $2000 a year with a $20k fine for not having a valid access permit as we know some would try to steal access to our resource of land and applies to all federal land other then national parks.

This would apply to everyone that uses federal public land, would help create rev to offset the costs of maintaining the resource and maybe even allow for more personal to be hired.

This also wouldn’t keep anyone from hunting but it might reduce pressure year round on our resources which are seeing millions of users a year. I’m sure the majority of voters would be for this since it would be benefitial to the resource we all own and those that use the resource would pay more then those that do not.

 

[307]

I see a lot of posts talking about I live here and "pay taxes " . I wonder what percentage of FEDERAL lands are funded by western state residents vs the rest of the country /non-residents? Frankly I'm tired of "paying taxes" on land with limited hunting opportunities(you can't hunt without land) and when it does occur I get the crap financially gouged out of me. Send me a tax refund so I can put it toward some stellar private land for whitetails. I wish Minnesota would jack the price of their non- resident fishing license's up so non residents can fund a large percentage of our dnr bill. Residents will have 2$ fishing license . I'm sick of competition from non-resident's taking all my walleye . After all we have limited fish as a resource. Let's work on limiting non- residents for whitetails, wild turkey, pheasants, waterfowl and anything else. All these licenses will be 20-40 times what I pay for it as a resident. I suggest other states that haven't already, join in the carnage .

Are you under the impression that you have access to all resources available on public lands?

 

[bsnedeker]

Are you under the impression that you have access to all resources available on public lands?

Maybe he can start drilling for oil to help out gas prices!

Sent from my SM-G998U1 using Tapatalk

 

[Lawnboi]

New summary of this thread.

 

[Steve O]

I'm sorry, who's keeping you from hunting on federal lands? I don't see anyone doing that. You can go to any state in the country, buy a hunting license, and go hunt on your federal lands. Go knock down some squirrels, pheasants, turkeys, coyotes, wolves, bears, female deer and elk... you can do all of that.

Oh, that's not good enough! I need to hunt for antlers and horns! I'm entitled to those animals for... some reason that I can't articulate.

Go home and enjoy your hunting in Minnesota knowing that your state DOESN'T ALLOW NRS TO EVEN APPLY FOR ELK!

Sent from my SM-G998U1 using Tapatalk

Uhhhh, WYOMING prohibits non residents from hunting on federal land.

If that were not the case I would not have 22 sheep points that I’ve been trying to use for all that time.

And yes I know, I should have made friends In Wyoming so they would take a month off to “guide” me because I couldn’t drop ten grand on an outfitter, and there are sheep not in the designated wilderness…not so much.

 

[307]

Uhhhh, WYOMING prohibits non residents from hunting on federal land.

If that were not the case I would not have 22 sheep points that I’ve been trying to use for all that time.

And yes I know, I should have made friends In Wyoming so they would take a month off to “guide” me because I couldn’t drop ten grand on an outfitter, and there are sheep not in the designated wilderness…not so much.

What does your sheep preference point total have to do with hunting on federal lands? Drawing a tag and hunting in wilderness are separate issues, no?

 

[bsnedeker]

Uhhhh, WYOMING prohibits non residents from hunting on federal land.

If that were not the case I would not have 22 sheep points that I’ve been trying to use for all that time.

And yes I know, I should have made friends In Wyoming so they would take a month off to “guide” me because I couldn’t drop ten grand on an outfitter, and there are sheep not in the designated wilderness…not so much.

Only for big game. Try again!

Sent from my SM-G998U1 using Tapatalk

 

[prm]

I would be ok if the fed’s charged a utilization fee for accessing public lands, maybe $50 a week or an annual pass at $2000 a year with a $20k fine for not having a valid access permit as we know some would try to steal access to our resource of land and applies to all federal land other then national parks.

This would apply to everyone that uses federal public land, would help create rev to offset the costs of maintaining the resource and maybe even allow for more personal to be hired.

This also wouldn’t keep anyone from hunting but it might reduce pressure year round on our resources which are seeing millions of users a year. I’m sure the majority of voters would be for this since it would be benefitial to the resource we all own and those that use the resource would pay more then those that do not.

That’s one option. I’m generally a fan of users paying for the product or service.

The point is, federal lands are not only funded by residents of that state. If some portion of the utilization of those lands (which results in costs) is restricted by the state to residents only, seems the state should pick up some of that tab. In the case of game management it is entirely their right to determine who can get a hunting license. If they want only residents, fine. Just pay for that portion of utilization related to hunting.

 

[Steve O]

What does your sheep preference point total have to do with hunting on federal lands? Drawing a tag and hunting in wilderness are separate issues, no?

The VAST majority of the sheep are in the designated wilderness areas, so NO they are NOT separate issues.

 

[Steve O]

Only for big game. Try again!

Sent from my SM-G998U1 using Tapatalk

Yea because I’m going to put in faithfully for 23 years to rabbit hunt in the wilderness. Because we are discussing 90/10 for grouse hunting. Brilliant dude. Just brilliant.

 

[bsnedeker]

Yea because I’m going to put in faithfully for 23 years to rabbit hunt in the wilderness. Brilliant.

Yeah, sucks to be you. If it makes you feel better I do feel bad for you!

Sent from my SM-G998U1 using Tapatalk

 

[Steve O]

I’ll survive; I’m just trying to keep the misinformation being thrown around to a minimum.

 

[Fordguy]

Just for the fun of it...

"States don’t “own” wildlife in the way most commonly understood. When states have argued that their “ownership” of wildlife necessarily trumps that of the federal government, the Supreme Court called state ownership of wildlife a “19th-century legal fiction.” Hughes v. Oklahoma, 441 U.S. 322 (1979).

Also important to recognize is the trust responsibility of federal land management agencies. Many federal land laws include trust-like language pertaining to the national interest in federal lands, non-impairment of their resources, and intergenerational responsibility that further clarifies the federal obligation to conserve wildlife. This trust responsibility is acknowledged in case law and Interior Policy (43 C.F.R. §)"

 

[slick]

Friendly public service announcement as a reminder- the STATE has the right to manage the animals within their boundaries through the PUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINE... FEDS manage the land.

And grizzly bears currently as a TED species.

That's brought up frequently but it's two separate issues. It is not synonymous.

 

[Wyobohunter]

I see a lot of posts talking about I live here and "pay taxes " . I wonder what percentage of FEDERAL lands are funded by western state residents vs the rest of the country /non-residents? Frankly I'm tired of "paying taxes" on land with limited hunting opportunities(you can't hunt without land) and when it does occur I get the crap financially gouged out of me. Send me a tax refund so I can put it toward some stellar private land for whitetails. I wish Minnesota would jack the price of their non- resident fishing license's up so non residents can fund a large percentage of our dnr bill. Residents will have 2$ fishing license . I'm sick of competition from non-resident's taking all my walleye . After all we have limited fish as a resource. Let's work on limiting non- residents for whitetails, wild turkey, pheasants, waterfowl and anything else. All these licenses will be 20-40 times what I pay for it as a resident. I suggest other states that haven't already, join in the carnage .

Do it

The federal land belongs to everyone. You can go stomp around and camp all you want. The animals are managed by the state. Your whitetail are managed by your state. If they choose to hike whitetail licenses up to $10,000 and only 10 NR tags per year they can do that. You wouldn’t see me losing sleep over it.

I said this in a different way, I’ll rephrase.
If hunting in Wyoming is that important to you, find a job and move here. Otherwise accept the dregs or don’t bother.

 

[tdhanses]

Just noticed WY is getting a few new residents, looks like Kifaru is moving there from CO.