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

[tdhanses]

Why can't the state afford them ?

Not enough rev coming in.

 

[wapitibob]

So the FEDERAL land's are not gone forever why doesn't Wyoming and other western States just purchase them from the Feds and then they have state land for their state owned wildlife . Seems fair to me. (The feds could hold monument's ,historical sites etc)

Why? because many people understand that "state land" isn't "public land" in the same sense as current national forest or BLM.

 

[Gutshot007]

Not enough rev coming in.

How come not enough "rev" coming in ?

 

[sneaky]

So you support raising tag costs of WY residents to $500 per Elk tag?

My comment was directed at pricing residents out of hunting their own state...........................

You mean pricing out the same people who spend $75 a week on beer? Or coffee? If someone can't budget $10 a week to provide food for the rest of the year, then they've got budgeting issues. Do we think $500 resident tags are coming? Or if they're the answer? No. But we're tired of the "our tax dollars that amount to 0.25% of the Federal budget are keeping your state afloat " argument.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[sneaky]

Why can't the state afford them ?

Same reason PA takes federal funds. They can't run their own damn state without NR funding either. A point that is clearly lost on you.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[Gutshot007]

Why? because many people understand that "state land" isn't "public land" in the same sense as current national forest or BLM.

So "state" land would be owned by the residents of that state and within the boundaries of that state ? "Federal "land on the other hand is owned by the US government and the residents of the country and can be within a state boundary ? Both are considered public. Correct?

 

[307]

So "state" land would be owned by the residents of that state and within the boundaries of that state ? "Federal "land on the other hand is owned by the US government and the residents of the country and can be within a state boundary ? Both are considered public. Correct?

Is your Google broken?

 

[BuzzH]

So "state" land would be owned by the residents of that state and within the boundaries of that state ? "Federal "land on the other hand is owned by the US government and the residents of the country and can be within a state boundary ? Both are considered public. Correct?

State lands ARE not public lands. Arizona for instance you will be cited for trespass if you don't possess a recreation permit or hunting/fishing license.

Go to Colorado and try hunting all the state land there. The CDOW has to lease state ground for the public to be allowed to hunt it.

Wyoming or any state could do the same thing. The state land board could decide they don't want nrs on any of their land. They could also charge nrs a $2,000 a year access fee.

Those things are damn sure more likely to happen on state ground than those type of restrictions happening in federally controlled lands.

But by all means, cut your nose off to spite your face.

 

[204guy]

30 pages in and these are the questions being asked. SMDH.

 

[Wyobohunter]

My only disagreement is how Wyoming has handled the preference point marketing and what will happen to those who have gambled.

Fixed it for ya

 

[Gutshot007]

Currently. Do most states discriminate against non -residents for access to state owned land ? Not hunting. Simply hiking. Other than possible a nominal fee , recreational permit or nothing at all.

 

[tdhanses]

State lands ARE not public lands. Arizona for instance you will be cited for trespass if you don't possess a recreation permit or hunting/fishing license.

Go to Colorado and try hunting all the state land there. The CDOW has to lease state ground for the public to be allowed to hunt it.

Wyoming or any state could do the same thing. The state land board could decide they don't want nrs on any of their land. They could also charge nrs a $2,000 a year access fee.

Those things are damn sure more likely to happen on state ground than those type of restrictions happening in federally controlled lands.

But by all means, cut your nose off to spite your face.

And I see nothing wrong with a state doing that, it’s their land.

 

[Lawnboi]

I am just glad we have reached a point where hunters can bicker about allocations knowing their seasons and tags are safe. I mean it’s not like we have states canceling seasons and taking tags away from anyone.

 

[Laramie]

Fixed it for ya

For those buying into the system in the last 10 years, that's an accurate statement. However it isn't accurate for long term investors. Those who have been investing longer than that were told a different story. Back then the WG&F used language that convinced people they would eventually draw. Much of that language has been changed but some is still used to attract buyers. That was acknowledged as recently as 2019 by the current director.

 

[Wyobohunter]

For those buying into the system in the last 10 years, that's an accurate statement. However it isn't accurate for long term investors. Those who have been investing longer than that were told a different story. Back then the WG&F used language that convinced people they would eventually draw. Much of that language has been changed but some is still used to attract buyers. That was acknowledged as recently as 2019 by the current director.

Probably true. I was just goofing around with the words.

 

[BuzzH]

And I see nothing wrong with a state doing that, it’s their land.

That wasn't the point, point is that state lands are not public land.

 

[UpTop]

Good lord stop talking about selling federal lands to the states! The states would sell them off almost instantly and they’d be gone forever. Dumbest thing anyone could ever support!

 

[Squincher]

Good lord stop talking about selling federal lands to the states! The states would sell them off almost instantly and they’d be gone forever. Dumbest thing anyone could ever support!

Not all of the federal land, just the BLM land. We could keep the National Parks and Forests to satisfy the need for hiking and camping. After all, anyone should be satisfied with just being able to do that, as several people have pointed out.

 

[Bighorns]

Not all of the federal land, just the BLM land. We could keep the National Parks and Forests to satisfy the need for hiking and camping. After all, anyone should be satisfied with just being able to do that, as several people have pointed out.

For example, let's sell off all the BLM land in western Wyoming. You know, that worthless land where most of the Wyoming Range and Salt River Range mule deer herd migrates to for winter range. Then let's develop it into 40 parcels. That will make great habitat. I know a blue ribbon trout steam on the east flank of the Bighorn with 5200 catchable fish/mile that's on BLM land. Do you realize how much USFS land is accessed through BLM lands? etc., etc.

 

[tdhanses]

For example, let's sell off all the BLM land in western Wyoming. You know, that worthless land where most of the Wyoming Range and Salt River Range mule deer herd migrates to for winter range. Then let's develop it into 40 parcels. That will make great habitat. I know a blue ribbon trout steam on the east flank of the Bighorn with 5200 catchable fish/mile that's on BLM land. Do you realize how much USFS land is accessed through BLM lands? etc., etc.

Maybe I’m wrong here, I swear WY is the only state that maintains private roads, they look like a public road but they are closed off, if that was changed much more public would be opened up.

Maybe they would be 40 acre parcels but maybe they would just become more ranch land which would be excellent habitat. Maybe you could pay a trespass fee to fish or access USFS lands to the new owners.