Channeling my inner Big Fin

[schmalts]

Buzz it's pointless to have a discussion with you if you are going to ignore the point and try to say that the point was something else. Again, keep that opinion and mentality and see where it gets you from guys who have not are are no longer hunt the western states. You can tell someone all day long how they should feel, it won't change how they feel.

 

[BuzzH]

" I said it many times in the past in many threads that there needs to be consideration to nonresidents"

It seems important enough that you have stated it many times in many threads...

What states are not giving NR's consideration that you've hunted lately?

 

[schmalts]

I'm done with you. Sorry. And that my friends proves the point.

 

[VAspeedgoat]

Wow, this thread took a turn for the worse. Maybe it illustrates a major problem amongst sportsmen....infighting. I think both of you make very valid points and are important to consider when looking at ways to fix the problem we all agree on.

 

[Gerald Martin]

Wow, this thread took a turn for the worse. Maybe it illustrates a major problem amongst sportsmen....infighting. I think both of you make very valid points and are important to consider when looking at ways to fix the problem we all agree on.

Yep, and the biggest reason that people become closed to accepting new ideas is when the debate turns personal and someone resorts to personal attacks to demean the ideas of the one he is debating.

Win a battle, lose the war......


Any idea worth keeping and building policy on can stand on its own merits without attacking those who disagree. For every person who refuses to change their mind with facts, there is another who is observing the discourse and either accepts the ideas and premises on their own merit or is turned off from further investigation by the presentation of the one making a case.

This thread is a case in point. If Big Fin had come on to his board and browbeaten and belittled everyone who didn't agree with him how many people would be as aware of these issues as there are today?

 

[Whiptail]

I think both of you make very valid points and are important to consider when looking at ways to fix the problem we all agree on.

Well stated!
I abhor the idea of transferring/losing our public lands.
I'm also disgusted by western states doing everything possible(low tag allocation and high cost) to exclude nonresidents from hunting on Federal land.

 

[BuzzH]

Whiptail,

This guy here will explain what you don't understand about this issue.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TqglAucuZ34

 

[Northwoods Labs]

To criticize non-residents for not doing conservation work out west (and thus saying they should pay significantly more for tags) is asinine. Most folks are working hard on conservation issues in their own local areas. We have more than enough issues going on here in Wisconsin. That said, regardless of how much I have to pay, I still support federal public lands. Also, it's not like we don't have any federal lands in the northwoods that will be affected. Plenty of national forest lands in Wisconsin, the U.P., and the Boundary Waters in Minnesota.

 

[Northwoods Labs]

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....

stuck hunting in Wisconsin??? Sorry man, the northwoods is near and dear to my heart. We have great hunting for whitetail, black bear, ruffed grouse, and waterfowl here. Plus, it is a fisherman's paradise. I'm pretty happy to be "stuck" here

 

[mtmuley]

Well stated!
I abhor the idea of transferring/losing our public lands.
I'm also disgusted by western states doing everything possible(low tag allocation and high cost) to exclude nonresidents from hunting on Federal land.

I don't believe what you "state" is the intent of the West. As has been "stated", if that is what you believe, you are missing the point. Bet this is short-lived. mtmuley

 

[BuzzH]

Northwoods,

Nobody is criticizing anyone for not doing conservation work out West.

What's out of line is guys out here that are spending vacation time, money, effort, etc. being called "welfare" cases because they get resident priced tags.

I can tell you for 100% fact, it would be much easier on my vacation time, effort, blood pressure, and pocketbook if I simply paid NR fees and let someone else do the actual work for me. I wouldn't have to drive across the State to fight for public access, migration corridors, funding, attend commission meeting, public meetings, legislative hearings,etc. etc. etc. etc. so that BOTH NR and R have some wildlife here to hunt and fish. More importantly, to also fight for public lands, where wildlife is still a consideration, and also, so that those (NR and R) have a place to hunt when they do pony up the tag fees.

Its like that for a lot of Residents in Western States (and everywhere else), its not as simple as bitching about license fees.

Its also the reason why I never complain about the cost of a NR tag when I hunt AZ, NM, CO, AK, MT, ID, TX, NV, or any other state. I know the Residents of those states are packing my water for me there. They're the ones doing the real work, all I'm doing is cutting a check.

The very LEAST I can do, as appreciation for their efforts, is to pay more for the privilege of hunting their wildlife. The last thing I would do is refer to them as "welfare" cases because they pay less for their Resident tags.

I also wouldn't be so childish as to somehow make it sound like I wouldn't support Public Lands in their State because they (rightfully so) treat me differently when it comes to using their wildlife resources...it makes no sense to do so.

 

[BuzzH]

stuck hunting in Wisconsin??? Sorry man, the northwoods is near and dear to my heart. We have great hunting for whitetail, black bear, ruffed grouse, and waterfowl here. Plus, it is a fisherman's paradise. I'm pretty happy to be "stuck" here

I'm sure it is, and I'm sure its awesome country worth protecting...even if I never personally get to use it or your states wildlife.

I don't have to be a consumptive user, or even physically present, in the Northwoods of your state to realize the intrinsic values of it. I don't differentiate the value of your States public lands over mine...ever.

BTW, I've fished WI in the Northwoods...reminded me of the country near Seeley Lake Montana.

 

[schmalts]

So now that all the chest thumping about how grateful some of us are to spend money on their number one pastime, back to another topic, how do we convince the people who are more of a casual hunter, or low income income person not interested in hunting across state lines, and the mass majority of the population that dont give a rip about what happens outside of a big city that federal land transfers are not the best idea? I talk with guys I know and they are uninformed of the situation. When I give them a crash course they don't feel like it's a higher priority than other political topics. I don't blame them, it's just their priorities. In the dive bar I was in this weekend I tried to bring up conversation around it and it was all I could do to keep them from worrying more about how the wolves are killing elk that were recently transplanted onto STATE or County land. Go figure. And they sure like Ted Cruz!

 

[Whiptail]

Whiptail,

This guy here will explain what you don't understand about this issue.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TqglAucuZ34

You'll have to be more specific. Which part don't I understand?
Hunting on federal land is not a state right.

 

[Whiptail]

I don't believe what you "state" is the intent of the West. As has been "stated", if that is what you believe, you are missing the point. Bet this is short-lived. mtmuley

Then what is the intent of charging nonresidents 29 times more than a resident for hunting on Federal land?
What's the intent of limiting unguided nonresidents to only 6% of the permits for hunting on Federal land?
What's the intent of forcing nonresidents to use a guide to hunt on Federal land?

 

[schmalts]

I talked with Randy recently about the land transfer and recent WI land sale topic. One of the things I have woken up to is how powerful social media is. If you guys are following Randy on facebook share any posts about this land transfer deal. I can write well but it's only after I take a LOT of time to edit all my spelling and run on sentences and sentence structure, Randy make it look easy so I asked him to keep up posting as much on social media as he does here. Share it when he does. My concern is in the end there is a good chance this federal land deal will be decided on the majority of the population and we are going to need the help of a lot more than people other than who use federal land as their stomping grounds. Telling people how they should feel is not going to work, As I get older I have been trying more to put myself in their mind and look at thing the way they do an look for a way that might open a new angle.for them.

I am going to making a trip to southern Missouri in a couple weeks to do some mountain biking. We will be riding the Mark Twain national forest. I am already trying to think of a way to make them understand the importance of this whole thing for future battles that may come.

 

[BuzzH]

Then what is the intent of charging nonresidents 29 times more than a resident for hunting on Federal land?
What's the intent of limiting unguided nonresidents to only 6% of the permits for hunting on Federal land?
What's the intent of forcing nonresidents to use a guide to hunt on Federal land?

Watch the video I linked again.

Nobody is charging you a penny to hunt Federal land.

 

[mtmander]

my view ;
the states do not charge for hunting on federal land they charge for a license to shoot the game that is in the state, regardless if it is on private, state or federal land

the reason why non-residents are limited in the number of permits/tags is because they (the politicians the make the rules) want to get re-elected so they try to keep the voting residents happy by giving them the majority of the tags

the politicians require guides for non residents to support the guide business and/or to protect the state from law suits from non residents who get hurt while in the back country (eg alaska required a guide for non resident goat hunters after a non resident got injured and his wife sued the state)

again just my opinion

 

[James Riley]

I'm not taking sides on this one because, quite frankly, I have not thought about it very much and I don't know that much about it. I'll just toss out a few thoughts I've had over the years.

1. I always wondered why a State would require a guide for a non-resident hunter, but not for non-resident hikers, mountain bikers, fishermen, etc. I think it's an outfitter lobby thing, but I'm not sure. If so, say so, but don't pretend it's for my safety, etc.

2. (Watch me mix my metaphors ): It seems the law says we are talking about two different resources with two different owners: Federal Land and State Wildlife. (An old Indian might say "Only the White Man would pretend to separate the two." Nevertheless, we have.) So, while a NR may own the land, a R owns the wildlife. If the R can charge for taking wildlife, could the NR charge for feeding and watering it (like grazing fees)? Or could the two come to some amicable agreement before someone takes their ball and goes home?

Like the NR outfitter/guiding requirement discussed above under #1, every one stating the *real* reason for any position/law/regulation would go a long way toward setting an honest table for negotiation. We've got more than just hunters at the table, upon which sets some china, upon which sets some steak, and the bull is in the corner, watching people try to figure out how to eat him.

 

[schmalts]

my view ;
the states do not charge for hunting on federal land they charge for a license to shoot the game that is in the state, regardless if it is on private, state or federal land

the reason why non-residents are limited in the number of permits/tags is because they (the politicians the make the rules) want to get re-elected so they try to keep the voting residents happy by giving them the majority of the tags

Agreed. It's well documented that is the case. I think what some would say is it is also a reality that a large majority of that game is on Federal Land in some states and that should be considered. This has always been where people disagree, right or wrong. But that is a whole different topic that has been discussed many times even though it could be related to sentiment of voters.