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

[Gutshot007]

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

 

[Wyobohunter]

It’s a little narcissistic to quote yourself.

 

[Wyobohunter]

It’s a little narcissistic to quote yourself.

 

[Gutshot007]

Just a question

 

[Wyobohunter]

Just a question

I know. We clearly disagree in a big way. I was lightening it up by messing with you. At least trying to. It’s possible that I’m the only one who finds me funny… nah!

 

[Bighorns]

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.

I can't speak for all states, but Wyoming does not discriminate against non-residents for access to state owned (trust) lands. There are rules that all must follow, such as no camping on State trust lands, must stay on established roads, etc.

 

[Gutshot007]

Good on the sense of humor . I respect your opinion and yes I would say we do disagree. Not sure how some take the ball busting . I actually get a kick out it

 

[4ester]

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.

You would be wrong. Private roads are not maintained by the state.

BLM become ranch land? You ever put eyes on this sagebrush sea? Not enough water in all the west to irrigate that. .


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Whiskey_Fish]

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

You can make a bad faith argument on page one just as easy as page 30. This one is a doozy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Rich M]

I am tired of seeing the we pay a majority of federal tax argument its a invalid point. There are probably about 50k Nr hunters there is at least 280k resident hunters in idaho and you think those NR pay more federal taxes then the residents its laughable at best

Fact is there are handful of states that provide a usable amount of public land for the rest of the country to use just because you can't hunt every species when ever you want people are talking about selling off public land fact is if you plan accordingly you can get at least one tag to hunt on public land in the west every year. i think if you live in one of the states that doesn't provide amounts of public land you should pay more for getting access to the land we pay for with our tax dollars and our local taxes that pay for all the roads to get you there. If i travel to the east side of the country what do my tax dollars get me absolutely nothing.

do you really think that only 50k folks pay taxes to help Idaho? How many million hunters bought licenses last year? How many folks nationally purchased fishing supplies or items? Each license and each purchase was taxed. Those funds get spread about to promote conservation, hunting, fishing. Dont believe me, look up pittman robertson on google. Theres a couple others.

No matter where we live, the NR folks always outnumber us when it comes to P&R and other tax generated fund$. Just how it is.

On the east side, there are some real gems in nationally owned land and historical sites. Sure you can hunt turkey, whitetails, bear, moose, very little on the elk side of things. We got Sambar deer in FL and i think MD.

 

[UpTop]

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.

I nominate Wyoming to go first

 

[tdhanses]

You would be wrong. Private roads are not maintained by the state.

BLM become ranch land? You ever put eyes on this sagebrush sea? Not enough water in all the west to irrigate that. .


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So there are zero ranches around these areas, lol. Guess you should tell the ones that have zero irrigation they can’t do that.

I didn’t suggest they hay it or raise crops (farms), cows can survive on grass just as easily as wildlife.

 

[dukeball33]

I nominate Wyoming to go first

Boy I hope you guys don’t like to hunt antelope… on public ground

 

[4ester]

So there are zero ranches around these areas, lol. Guess you should tell the ones that have zero irrigation they can’t do that.

I didn’t suggest they hay it or raise crops (farms), cows can survive on grass just as easily as wildlife.

You repeatedly make comments showing your ignorance. I guess I will join the group of others that won’t reply to your comments. I suggest in the future you don’t reply to topics you know nothing about.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[UpTop]

I enjoy hunting on grounds available to the public period. That’s why I think it’s insane that people want to give federal ground to the states. The WILL sell it off

 

[Wags]

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

There is a number of folks that would be severely effected, as a resident, of that kind of increase. As long as your ok with loosing resident hunters to the cost hike then have at it. I don't & won't be hunting there so it's no sweat to me. However it sure seems short sighted.

I really don't have a dog in the fight. I own my own property in Wyoming & Colorado & get NR Landowner tags. I'm back there several times a year and have invested a lot of time and money to help the wildlife in my area and in turn our hunting. The 90/10 wouldn't really effect me as much. I think the arguments for it are semi valid but disingenuous at the same time. But, it's your state, do whatever you want. Just realize that there's going to be a lot of your residents that are going to be negatively impacted by that kind of cost increase.

 

[BuzzH]

See Buzz, i knew you were a pragmatist. Explaining how wyoming could take in BLM lands and manage the cost at the state level just like how other states manage large tracts of state lands. This is exactly what some of us were talking about. Making the actual users of those lands pay their own way. Things like user fees through license fees or usage permits. Not all federal land. National forest/grassland should remain as is. BLM would be the right portion to do this with. The current system in place isnt successfully managing that federal land effectively anyhow: https://www.hunttalk.com/threads/our-western-lands.312292/page-2

Im glad we are making progress in this thread. To all the detractors of this thread...take note that we are coming together with our ideas after 30 pages. Its a big improvement over, "omg wtf. all public land will have to sold to jeff bezos or mark zuckerborg if transfered to the state. Omg omg."

Tying that land management to hunting and/or fishing licenses....BRILLIANT !

Not allowing people who havent bought the necessary license or permit to recreate on those lands because they havent contributed to their management...brilliant!

Not charging people who dont use those spaces....brilliant!

Transfering cost to the actual users of the space and people benefitting off those lands...brilliant.

Charging NR land users more than resident users just like with hunting licenses....brilliant.

State leases for renewable energy on these transfered land. Brilliant...BHA endorses renewable energy production on public lands so it ties in nicely with your land management philosophy.

Imagine a world, where hikers, bikers, and naked hippies smoking pot...contributed to management cost of the land they were utilizing...just imagine that if you will...for 1 minute.

All good ideas for more effectively managing these lands under the states.

A better idea is managing 640 million acres and having 330 million people pay a a dollar each/year to pay for it.

Unlimited access for a buck a year...

 

[CJ19]

A better idea is managing 640 million acres and having 330 million people pay a a dollar each/year to pay for it.

Unlimited access for a buck a year...

Is that really what the cost works out to per federal tax payer? Honest question.

 

[tdhanses]

Is that really what the cost works out to per federal tax payer? Honest question.

The Department of the Interior's 2022 budget proposal totals $17.6 billion — an increase of $2.5 billion, or 17 percent, from the 2021 enacted level.May 28, 2021

President Biden’s Fiscal Year 2022 Budget Makes Significant Investments in Interior Department | U.S. Department of the Interior

The Department of the Interior’s 2022 budget proposal totals $17.6 billion — an increase of $2.5 billion, or 17 percent, from the 2021 enacted level

www.doi.gov

 

[Laramie]

The Department of the Interior's 2022 budget proposal totals $17.6 billion — an increase of $2.5 billion, or 17 percent, from the 2021 enacted level.May 28, 2021

But that isn't all to manage BLM land. The other real problem with your proposal is the Fed likely wouldn't lower budgets/taxes if the land transferred to states and or was sold.