Channeling my inner Big Fin

[Northwoods Labs]

I don't hunt out west, but do a lot of fishing and camping in Montana so I am aware of this issue.I also think there are some groups and hunters in Wisconsin who are aware of this, particularly in the north where we have a lot of public access and the national forests. However, unless it has something to do with wolves, tribal spearing, or the use of crossbows in archery seasons, most sportsman in this state are pretty apathetic about issues, especially those regarding conservation and public access.

 

[VAspeedgoat]

Education on the issue is the key to us retaining our public lands. Once people that realize they are share holders of public lands a sense of ownership and concern begins to grow. Keep it up!

You nailed this one. I updated one of my posts and emphasized OUR land and quit using public or other descriptions. I don't know if it was just circumstance that open minded people just happened to respond but many said they didn't know it was an issue. Thanks for the advise, it definitely puts it in a different light to people. One guy joked that he was ready to light the torches. Thanks.

 

[Sapper.dawg]

Comments like," why does the government even need to own land?", has been brought up. Holy Chit this is serious. With a majority of voters and representation being in the east, this is an information crisis.

I was curious if anyone else from an eastern or mid western state has run into this.

I am running into this every day here in the Deep South. I think the immediate reaction is rooted in the current swath of the government distrust slippery slope argument....e.g. "Government is doing a bad job managing money and the debt is large, therefore government owning public land is as bad thing. STATES RIGHTS!!!"

Personnaly, I think this could be the worst time in history to be facing this issue, due to the straight up division in our current political climate, and apparent relecutance of a large swath of Americans in my neck of the woods to be open minded on any issue related to government spending.

 

[Matt/VT]

Agree with most of the easterners here as a member from Vermont. Having just started to actually explore the west with a hunt in 2013 and then going again in 2015, I feel like what has been a life-long dream has the potential to slip through my fingers with all of this.

Most of the guys I talk with have no clue how much they stand to lose with this. There is almost a level of disinterest related to the minimal impact it will have on guys who only hunt their back 40 and really don't feel western hunting is even within their grasp.

 

[hank4elk]

After dropping out of High School and living on the street I went to Job Corps, got a GED and trade as a welder. We built those bullet proof padlock covers and gates you see the USFS using to block roads. The CCC ended after WWII but Job Corps kind of took it's place. Good program. Beats the street and jail all to hell.

I was referring to the CA Conservation Corps. I worked with them on many projects as co-ord.
Saw more than a couple ?able kids turn into great citizens.
One gal is now a PD sarg. and a kid I would get side jobs for, is a Lic. Contractor with 8 employees & a mentor program directer.
Both of them were about to fall into some hell hole crack in Fresno and had never been to a farm,or a Nat. Forest let alone a Reginal Park........"Ain't none of them in Fresno"!

 

[cornfed]

Just some thoughts on the subject. I don't know a lot of people out west but I've never heard anybody complain about the government owning to much land. Didn't all of the land start out as our land so its not like they took it away from anybody. Most see it as a hunting issue but what about the hiking, snowmobiling, atv trail riding or just even camping issue. The thought that scares me is finally being able to make it to Yellowstone Park for all the quiet nature to find the land across the road from it has been sold and developed. Most people have been to South Dakota to see the Black Hills and Mount Rushmore. Just hard to believe that people would see it as a good thing to sell off the Black Hills and possibly lose our right to use it in order to pay down some debt that our elected officials created.

 

[shootbrownelk]

I don't hunt out west, but do a lot of fishing and camping in Montana so I am aware of this issue.I also think there are some groups and hunters in Wisconsin who are aware of this, particularly in the north where we have a lot of public access and the national forests. However, unless it has something to do with wolves, tribal spearing, or the use of crossbows in archery seasons, most sportsman in this state are pretty apathetic about issues, especially those regarding conservation and public access.

NLabs, I found the same apathy displayed in friends that I have in Wisconsin, and they do hunt out here in Wyoming. It's like a "It doesn't affect me" type of attitude. I'll have another talk with them.

 

[schmalts]

Second, it will force those of us in the west to realize how dependent we are on the political voice of non-resident hunters. We cannot continue to treat non-residents like a bunch of step-children and then ask them to come and help us fight these battles. I sincerely hope that hunters in the west realize the long-term impacts it has when we rely so heavily on non-resident fees and give them so little hunting opportunity (CO and WY excluded) at very high cost. Maybe that is a pipe dream to think this issue will cause westerners to look at some of these policies. I do think the history of how western states have come to view non-residents as the cash cow does make it harder to convince non-resident hunters that they have a lot at risk. My personal interactions tell me that is the case.
.

You beat me to it on that one. I mentioned it in another thread and it got no response or reference. When guys say they are getting priced out of being able to hunt federal land in states like Montana and residents make comments like "so long" or "We won't miss you" they are being the poster child for convincing Eastern hunters to have that same sentiment when it comes to selling that land they cannot use anymore. It reduces them to having the same opinion as say Kim Kardashian about owning federal land, you think anyone in that family cares about owning federal land? The reality is the majority of the population live in states with far less federal land. I said it many times in the past in many threads that there needs to be consideration to nonresidents when the majority of the hunting takes place on federal land. What comes around goes around. Again, the key word is consideration, I'm not saying we should be priced and quota'd the same but the disparities are getting embarrassing and look more like welfare.
You can disagree all you want, but you will not change the results of keeping that opinion.

 

[spook12]

You beat me to it on that one. I mentioned it in another thread and it got no response or reference. When guys say they are getting priced out of being able to hunt federal land in states like Montana and residents make comments like "so long" or "We won't miss you" they are being the poster child for convincing Eastern hunters to have that same sentiment when it comes to selling that land they cannot use anymore. It reduces them to having the same opinion as say Kim Kardashian about owning federal land, you think anyone in that family cares about owning federal land? The reality is the majority of the population live in states with far less federal land. I said it many times in the past in many threads that there needs to be consideration to nonresidents when the majority of the hunting takes place on federal land. What comes around goes around. Again, the key word is consideration, I'm not saying we should be priced and quota'd the same but the disparities are getting embarrassing and look more like welfare.
You can disagree all you want, but you will not change the results of keeping that opinion.

You guys that live in States with a lot of Fed land would be really wise to read this ................Now read it again.

 

[mtmuley]

You guys that live in States with a lot of Fed land would be really wise to read this ................Now read it again.

I have to admit this is an angle I didn't even realize. Makes a lot of sense. I don't have a lot of confidence my home state will address any of the concerns of NR residents however. While it is understandable in a way that people in states without large Federal landholdings hold attitudes that they do, what is really scary is a lot of people I talk to about this here in Montana have the same thoughts. "That will never happen" is mostly what I hear. I hope people in the West wake up too. mtmuley

 

[BuzzH]

You beat me to it on that one. I mentioned it in another thread and it got no response or reference. When guys say they are getting priced out of being able to hunt federal land in states like Montana and residents make comments like "so long" or "We won't miss you" they are being the poster child for convincing Eastern hunters to have that same sentiment when it comes to selling that land they cannot use anymore. It reduces them to having the same opinion as say Kim Kardashian about owning federal land, you think anyone in that family cares about owning federal land? The reality is the majority of the population live in states with far less federal land. I said it many times in the past in many threads that there needs to be consideration to nonresidents when the majority of the hunting takes place on federal land. What comes around goes around. Again, the key word is consideration, I'm not saying we should be priced and quota'd the same but the disparities are getting embarrassing and look more like welfare.
You can disagree all you want, but you will not change the results of keeping that opinion.

I don't disagree with the premise that NR need to have access to tags and at reasonable fees.

But Schmalts, you act as though NR are the saviors of the GF department and do "so much" for wildlife. Really?

I don't see you adopting trails in the Medicine Bow, funding signing projects, planting bitterbrush, or the other thousands of hours of volunteer efforts that RESIDENTS do to support wildlife and our Public Lands.

I also don't see many NR donating vacation time fighting shit legislation, every single year in Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, etc. While you are spending your vacation time, free time, etc. actually on VACATION, many here are spending theirs making sure you have a place to hunt with your "over-priced" tag.

Yeah, you may write a letter or send an email, great, its appreciated.

But, rather than beat the chit out of Residents, and threaten the Residents of the Western States that you'll join Bundy and support the Transfer of public lands, just consider your minimal expenditure of tag fees as support for the Residents, that are packing your water on wildlife issue in the Western States.

Also, Residents have done things across the west to make hunting more affordable to NR's and in particular families. Most have reduced priced antlerless permits, reduced price youth tags to encourage family participation, etc.

Myself and many others do not respond well to guys like you who try to use an important issue like transfer of public lands to leverage cheaper NR hunting licenses. You doing so is no better than the Bundy's leveraging the transfer argument to avoid paying their grazing fees...no better at all. In fact, its more repulsive and selfish, as you should know better.

Plus, don't think that hunters and anglers are the only people that matter in the discussion of keeping public lands public...lots of public land users never buy a single hunting or fishing license and probably value them as much or more than you.

I'm tired of this issue being a tool to be used to the advantage of those with an agenda...including NR hunters.

Grow up, the issue is much bigger than how much you feel is a fair price to pay for a NR hunting license.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Although I do think Montana resident hunters should pay somewhat more for hunting tags and that the last increase in NR licenses was too drastic, Buzz makes an important point. First that the residents in each state are much more highly invested in the fiscal health of fish & wildlife management, as well as the work as volunteers on the ground and as activists to promote the betterment of wildlife, fisheries, and hunting. It is a gross exaggeration to say that NR's provide most of the funding for fish & game in the state. Furthermore, like it or not, the wildlife and the hunting is entrusted in each state to the state to manage on behalf of the citizens of that state.

But the issue of public lands is so much more than a resident vs nonresident issue; it is a concern of all US citizens who are the stakeholders ... and the real owners of federal lands.

 

[MC n NV]

I don't think the lack of interest or concern lies solely in geography. I've only been hunting for about 5 years, but I'm nearly 50 years old. A bit of late bloomer. At my age, my position on politics are pretty firmly established and lean hard to the right. I make no apologies for this. As I continue to learn and grow as a hunter this public land issue has come into my consciousness.

At first blush folks like me, with little or no understanding of greater issue, hear about the Bundy's or the Oregon stand-off and think good for them. Stand up to the government. Less government is better, that's a basic tenant of my belief system. With education, mainly through sites like this and podcasts, I've had to modify that belief. More specifically, clarify it. I still think less government is better but our federal government does perform certain functions that only it can do. In my mind, conserving and managing public land 8s now in the same catagory as national defense. Maybe not quite as important, but none the less, it's there responsibilty.

I've lived in Nevada for 25 years, we have more federally managed land most. For most of my life, I concered that a bad thing. I've been enlightened. Take heart Big Fin, your efforts are working. At on one guy in Reno.

 

[Big Fin]

Second, it will force those of us in the west to realize how dependent we are on the political voice of non-resident hunters. We cannot continue to treat non-residents like a bunch of step-children and then ask them to come and help us fight these battles. I sincerely hope that hunters in the west realize the long-term impacts it has when we rely so heavily on non-resident fees and give them so little hunting opportunity (CO and WY excluded) at very high cost. Maybe that is a pipe dream to think this issue will cause westerners to look at some of these policies. I do think the history of how western states have come to view non-residents as the cash cow does make it harder to convince non-resident hunters that they have a lot at risk. My personal interactions tell me that is the case.

I'm the one who interjected this into the discussion with the comment quoted above. I've talked to many non-residents who seem to have higher things on their priority list and I completely understand why it is. Not that they are using their perspective to leverage more fees or more tag allocations.

It is just human nature. The personal connection someone has with a topic determines where each person will place it on their priority list. Many in the East and Midwest feel completely disconnected to western hunting. Part of it is false perception that it is a rich man's game. Part of it is that they are busy with their own battles of CWD, shrinking habitat, nearly impossible hunting access, and closer proximity to urban areas rife with inhabitants who want to shut down hunting all together.

Then along comes Randy, asking if they would be willing to take time to write a Senator, call a Congressman, on the topic of public land transfer. None of them say, "Well, if you lower my fees or give us more tags, I'll do it."

What they say is something more like, "I've got my hands full with our legislature ignoring CWD and listening to auto insurance companies that want to kill every whitetail in our state. I'm working a lot of OT to put the kids through college. I volunteer for the local Pheasants Forever committee and I teach hunter education. If I had more time I would help. Unfortunately, I've been pretty much priced out of the western hunting gig for the few opportunities allocated to me, so it ends up further down my priority list and replaced by the hunting opportunities me and my kids have around here. I understand and accept that the western states can do that. My scare time and resources are going toward advocacy that impacts my hunting here at home, just like yours are allocated to what impacts you. I hope you guys prevail in stopping that stupid idea. I surely don't support disposal of these lands."

So before this discussion goes off the rails, think about how each person views this. I've never encountered anyone wanting to use the public land discussion as a leverage tool. It is just a fact of life that we advocate for that which we participate in, either due to geographic proximity, personal interest, or financial attainability.

 

[hank4elk]

I hear a lot of local NM folks that seem to be fine with our tag allotments & pricing now. I'm not.
And these same folks wonder where their job went when everybody here is involved with hunting,logging,ranching on or around OUR PUBLIC LANDS in one way or another,and tourism of all sorts is down.
They take the reasource as a given and then hate the gubberment.
Well, their State lands guy(phoney rancher) just increased their grazing fees 25% and he screwed hunters & the NMG&F last year to the tune of $1Mil.& it's $5mil to use in future and we still can't camp or cut firewood on it let alone recover an animal easy. Forget access to most of it.
This guy is a sell it off for the kids clown,wink wink. We're 49th in education.Still.

I have been using,involved with,lived on,worked in, on and around public lands my whole life.
I cannot fathom it's vanishing totally still. But it's ugly head is always there since I was 5...............

 

[Gerald Martin]

It is just a fact of life that we advocate for that which we participate in, either due to geographic proximity, personal interest, or financial attainability.

Yep.^^^^^^


I know that when the cost for a Montana combo went from $700 to over $1000 it made my brother and friends who would come semi-annually look to Colorado rather than MT to hunt. When you look at one tag, it might not seem like much, but if you are a family, saving a couple years to be able to go out West with a couple/three tags being bought it quickly becomes expensive. Now they have found just as good or better hunting much closer to their homes and are trying to get me to come to CO with them.

Regardless of whether it should be that way or how much is fair for NR's to pay, the end result is a loss of DIY hunters coming west to hunt.

Those people who primarily hunt with outfitters have much less skin in the game when it comes down to who actually owns the land. They can afford to hunt on private or what used to be public when it comes down to it. Nothing wrong with that at all, it's their prerogative. It's just that we all advocate for our own interests. If those who are going to be most negatively affected by land transfer don't make their voices heard, no one will.

 

[James Riley]

With education, mainly through sites like this and podcasts, I've had to modify that belief.

This ^^^^^. A good thing.

A little off topic, but I know a substantial portion of the Federal Land in Nevada is Reserved DOD. That can be a good thing or a bad thing, depending on how DOD manages it. But that's a whole 'nother ball 'o wax. We should all remember though, that DOD is a continuing, aggressive participant in the demands on public lands.

*ANY* time any use or transfer is granted to DOD, by Congress or otherwise, WE should demand, as a condition, that any cessation of DOD use result in a return of the land to US, and not some parceling out for bid, or transfer to State National Guard or whatever, as can happen.

The evil behind public land transfers also have their hand deep in the pockets of the military industrial complex, and I would not be surprised at all to see DOD used as an end-around to accomplish their goals. You heard it here first, folks. (I think? )

To paraphrase an entry in the Congressional Record of the Engle Act (circa 1950s), the program for the defense of this nation shall not be conducted in such a fashion as to endanger the very thing it is designed to protect.

 

[schmalts]

I don't disagree with the premise that NR need to have access to tags and at reasonable fees.

But Schmalts, you act as though NR are the saviors of the GF department and do "so much" for wildlife. Really?
.

Hey poster child, read it again and stop acting like you know what everyone thinks. Obviously you missed the main point

 

[mtmander]

FEDERAL LAND OWNERSHIP (TOP 12 STATES)

STATE % OWNED BY FEDERAL GOV.
Nevada 87.6
Utah 68
Alaska 67
Idaho 65.2
Oregon 55.5
California 49.9
Wyoming 49.7
Arizona 44.3
Colorado 38.9
New Mexico 36.2
Washington 32.8
Montana 31.9

 

[BuzzH]

Schmalts,

When was the last time you heard me complain about the cost of a NR hunting license in any state?

BTW, what State doesn't "consider" NR's that you've hunted lately?

If you weren't considered, you'd be stuck hunting turkeys, squirrels, and whitetail in Wisconsin....