National data: private vs public.

[Tom]

Its a heads up, most hunting in this country is on private land. The next 5 year survey will be out in Nov. but here's some data from the latest out now.

http://library.fws.gov/pubs/nat_survey2006_final.pdf

Hunting on Public and Private
Lands
In 2006, 12.5 million hunters 16 years
old and older hunted on public land,
private land, or both. Of this number,
4.9 million or 39 percent hunted on
publicly owned lands compared to 10.2
million or 82 percent who hunted on
privately owned land. Some hunters
hunted exclusively on public land and
others hunted exclusively on private
land—1.9 million, 15 percent of all
hunters, used public lands only, and 7.2
million hunted only on private land, 58
percent of all hunters. Slightly over 3
million hunters, 24 percent, hunted on
both public and private lands.
During 2006, 4.9 million hunters used
public lands on 54 million days, which
represents 25 percent of all hunting
days. Thirty-fi ve percent of big game
hunters pursued big game on public
land for 37 million days. Thirty-fi ve
percent of all small game hunters,
1.7 million, pursued small game on
public land for 13 million days. Nearly
800 thousand migratory bird hunters,
35 percent, hunted migratory birds
on public lands for 6 million days.
Twenty-eight percent, 311 thousand,
of other animal hunters pursued their
game on public land for 3 million days.
The percent of hunters on private land
differs little among different types of
hunting. Eighty percent of big game
hunters hunted on private land, which
compares to 79 percent seeking small
game, 76 percent seeking migratory
birds, and 82 percent seeking other
animals.Of all days hunting, 75 percent or 164
million were on private land. The
percent of hunting days on private land
varied more among types of hunting
than the percent of hunters. Seventythree
percent of big game and small
game hunting days, 68 percent of
migratory bird days, and 81 percent
of other animal days were on private
land. Total hunting days pursuing these
species on private land were as follows:
big game, 120 million; small game, 38
million; migratory birds, 13 million;
and other animals, 12 million.

 

[steamfitter]

Thats easy to see considering most of the population is east of the mississippi and most of the public land is west of it.

 

[MattK]

What percent of the privately owned land was accessible to the public? I've hunted lands for the past 30 years that have been privately owned but publicly accessible without a fee...in fact not even a permission slip has been needed. In that same time parts of the units have been public lands both state and federal due to checker boarding. That survey may be very misleading...another point is many people may think they are hunting private but actually hunting state leased or federally leased lands or just mis-marked lands...

 

[Dinkshooter]

Texass is a la, la land.

 

[dan.kirkpatrick]

that might be what you think in texas or back east,,,,but out west public is by far hunted by more people than private,,,in fact nevada is like 87% public land.diy on public is the majority around here.

 

[d-bone20917]

I'm not sure what that survey was supposed to prove. Of course more people hunt on private land because there is more private land than public in this country. It would be nice if they broke it down by state. There is lots of public land and lots of public land hunters in NY. However, most of it is state owned.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Texass is a la, la land.

Texas is a welfare state.

 

[noharleyyet]

Texas is a welfare state.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I'm a lead farmer, mother trucker.

$1.19 fed for every $1 in state per capita

Bootstrap it Texas, get rid of your federal funds and be free.

 

[StrutNut]

I would say it all depends in MN. We have such a great blend of public lands/wetlands and private lands/wetlands that I traditionally will hunt both. The public stuff near a major population gets hunted hard but you at least have a place to go. MN landowners are generally pretty good about letting in hunters on a handshake. In some key areas the land is tied up but there are still places to go. Our biggest concern here is not the where to hunt more the what to hunt. Between the over 3000 wolves plus yotes the deer population is getting hammered. As is the moose population although with the moose they like to say it is because of climate change, not predation. As a big game hunter in MN it is almost to the point of wondering when the "pig bomb" will hit here so we have something to hunt. At least with over 10,000 lakes, the fishing is still pretty good.

 

[Nemont]

Tom,

Nemont

 

[mtmiller]

NEMont, I just about lost it. I can see this picture being used a ton in the future....and not just for Tom.

 

[Outdooraddict]

Is this a heads up, "Get ready to sell your public lands to Romney and the rich."?- because most people hunt private anyway???

You made a point of selling land but including access to the public on another post. Why would someone purchase property knowing they will have to share it with everyone else? Kind of defeats the purpose of private land. I see no value selling "Our Public Land" (this one's for Jose) except to satisfy rich people's acquisition of Western property. I would rather increase my taxes and keep the land public- instead of being Big Texas.

 

[noharleyyet]

Tom,

Nemont

..synonymous with "Bless your heart."

 

[wyoming556]

You made a point of selling land but including access to the public on another post. Why would someone purchase property knowing they will have to share it with everyone else? Kind of defeats the purpose of private land.

In Nebraska the state pays private landowners up to $15 per acre per year for public hunting/fishing access as part of the walk in program that opens up 270,000 acres to public hunting and fishing. The ranchers and farmers don't see to mind "sharing" the wildlife when the check comes in the mail. Private land with public access can work if it is done right.

http://outdoornebraska.ne.gov/hunti...s/open_fields_water/pdf/open_fields_water.pdf

 

[Tom]

Matt and Wyoming556 made some good points, private land can be hunted by the public if the state has a good management plan for it. Without access, the public land may be restricted also. All the data showed was that most hunting in this country is on private land, about 80% of it.

Ben's numbers seem a bit off as is the topic of his post.
At least based on this national source:
http://taxfoundation.org:81/article/federal-spending-received-dollar-taxes-paid-state-2005
For example Montana received $1.47 in federal spending, for every $1 they paid the feds., while Texas received $0.94 for every $1 given the feds. When you think of all the animals hunted that lived off federal habitat in Montana, when you think of all the high dollar hunting fees paid to Montana by non-residents, then it becomes even more clear that Montana lives off the rest of us to a much greater extent than Texas does, i.e. a "welfare state" if there ever was one. Maybe Nemont can help make some sense of Ben's post? It looks like non-sense and no source was given though, except Ben posted it?

 

[Nemont]

http://ordinary-gentlemen.com/blog/2011/01/texas-welfare-queen/

Tom.

Do you really want to get into which states politicians spend more money? Or where it comes from?

Nobody's hands are clean on that issue. You may wish to attempt to look at the numbers and think about the different dynamics between the population of the two states, population densisty, take a look at how much Tribal lands are encompassed within each states borders and the federal outlays to those tribes.

I guess it says a lot about what shitty politicians Texas sends to DC if a state with less than a million people, with a single congress seat and two senate seats can get more bacon vs a state with 32 house seats and two senate seats. 34 votes in DC vs 3, Texans suck at getting things done.

Nemont

 

[Ben Lamb]

Tom,

I was being flippant. I fully support Texas' attempts to secede from the Union however. Let Chuck Norris show you the way.

 

[BuzzH]

God Bless Texas...

 

[Tom]

Flippant, oh, ok. http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-STIMULUS0903.html Hey, lots of people here think its bad if more and more people live off of government handouts and not provide for ourselves.

That link shows Texas as taking less stimulus money than most states per capita and/or like most states in every area of the chart, never on the high side. My previous link showed we took back $0.94 for every $1 we paid the feds. That link you gave seems to say the author of the post implies Texas is queen of welfare because he says we could have paid our own way through the crisis. That's not convincing, is it?

Texans don't attempt to succeed from the union, but they take pride in pointing out that they can consider it. The Texas legislature debated using the so called rainy day fund, but if Obama were to continue his agenda, it might be desperately needed. Our legislature does meet every other year, from Jan. to end of May, I've seen them stop the clock at 11:55pm and get lots of work done before it hits midnight and the session ends. There's a saying here, No man, woman, child, nor horse here is safe while the Texas legislature is in session.

One of the county judges here is thinking of ways to overide the governor and take Obama care money as it would save greatly on medical costs for our county. Our county hospital was number one a few years back, they collected like $0.33 for every $1 billed, lowest of any hospital in the US. We don't have state income tax, but we have land/property taxes. We have lots of illegal alien medical costs in this state.

I'll stop rambling, but more on the topic of hunting, I'm wondering if Texas will be the number 1 state again come the next 5 year hunting and fishing census survey results. We had more hunter and fisher persons than any state, CA had more if you count wildlife watchers in also.