Please explain what is going on with public land.
- Thread starter Archery1995
- Start date
BuzzH
Well-known member
Let me know your address, I'll send you a check for .17 cents, your portion of paying for the "management" of wilderness in Wyoming that, ironically, you can still hunt, fish, camp, hike, ski, etc. in.
There...all better now?
BuzzH
Well-known member
For you, yes, it's impossible because you don't even know what DIY unguided means.Including enjoying a true DIY, unguided big game hunt?
I don’t think so, mister!
but nothing is happening to those public lands in the context of the NR rule and that's what this thread is about. the actions from the administration pose greater threat to the vitality or even mere existence to those public lands over the long haul whereas the NR rule isn't even on the same planet.
in the pure context of hunting the rule is horseshit, obviously, but hunting is only 5-10% of all federal public lands recreation so it's really trivial in that big picture. i mean you're already restricted to being lucky enough to have a tag to hunt, should we gripe about that? hunting isn't any sort of right and your raw ability to access public lands does not depend on having a tag.
but it's neither here nor there in regards to the ability of those lands to exist, support wildlife, have protections, be patrolled, and be enjoyed by all.
and besides, all the best hunting isn't even in the wilderness up there. honestly, we should be against the rule so we can get more people into the wilderness and out of the best spots.
Hunting is not trivial to me (nor was it to you during the Colorado CATS saga, if memory serves me correctly).
338win
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2015
- Messages
- 534
Inevitably
wait, so people are allowed to choose based on life experience and personal interest what is and isn't trivial to them?
you need to decide if you're sticking with an objective based argument or not. some people are more worried about the long term existence, vitality, and (lack of) management of the lands than whether or not they can hunt the wilderness in one state, and that is very reasonable.
they are entirely two different concerns, i find them completely unrelated to one another. both legit concerns, but unrelated.
BuzzH
Well-known member
Oh brother...
I hunt more days a year on accident than you do on purpose.
But, if it came down to it, I would give up hunting on public lands wayyyyy before I gave up public lands entirely.
I don't have to even be present on every piece of the 640 million acres of public land to know that I need to fight like hell to protect every last acre of it. You won't be finding me, anytime soon, or ever, for that matter, crying about something as trivial as a hunting regulation regarding public lands.
I don't care much for AK's guide requirement for sheep, goats, and grizzlies, but you won't be hearing me say that's a threat on public land. Mainly, because it's simply not.
I don't care much for CO's RFW deal where public lands within the boundaries of the ranches enrolled is off limits either. But, it's not a threat to public lands existing.
Interestingly enough, I never have one time heard you complain about those programs...which is odd, since you crow on about being such a great DIY advocate. So strange.
I think what your posts clearly show, is that if you don't benefit directly from every last acre of public land, you would rather they don't exist. This may come as a shock, but the whole world of public lands doesn't exist just for you, you're a joint owner with 340,000,000 others.
Fortunately for Wyoming residents we also get to decide how we manage our wildlife, just like you enjoy in WI.
I’m sure you do, the amount of time you take off from work on an annual basis is the stuff of internet legend
BuzzH
Well-known member
Why choosing careers and states you live in are so important. Some savvy that, most don't.I’m sure you do, the amount of time you take off from work on an annual basis is the stuff of internet legend
It's one thing to crow on about your public lands, a whole other deal to commit a 40+ year career to them and base your life around same.
Archery1995
New member
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2025
- Messages
- 18
HAHA dont worry im learning quickly around here. Thank you !
Forkyfinder
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2023
- Messages
- 5,756
Thats called high demand recreational activities in a state that isnt your residence. Its not whack - its the rules of the game.
To be clear - i am in support of however Wy chooses to manage their NR hunting. Anyone hunting state trust animals there can only be thankful because they are doing it only because residesnts allow it - and MT could learn a thing or two from Wy about prioritizing residents.
BigHornRam
Well-known member
D_Walt
Well-known member
I hate to interrupt a spicy lover’s quarrel just as it’s getting entertaining, but I have a question.
It appears to me the Alaska land transfer deal of 1.5 million acres does not really fall within the same realm of other public land transfer/sell off attempts as the specific number of acres for transfer to the state from the federal government was set in the Alaska Statehood Act when Alaska became a state in 1959. Per the statehood act, there is another 3 or 4 million acres that is owed to the State of Alaska by the BLM. I’m not for public land transfer, but this seems (at least on the surface) as ongoing business to which the Feds are obligated to complete and perhaps is not relevant to land grab attempts in the lower 48. Does anyone have a better understanding of the situation besides what pops up on google?
It appears to me the Alaska land transfer deal of 1.5 million acres does not really fall within the same realm of other public land transfer/sell off attempts as the specific number of acres for transfer to the state from the federal government was set in the Alaska Statehood Act when Alaska became a state in 1959. Per the statehood act, there is another 3 or 4 million acres that is owed to the State of Alaska by the BLM. I’m not for public land transfer, but this seems (at least on the surface) as ongoing business to which the Feds are obligated to complete and perhaps is not relevant to land grab attempts in the lower 48. Does anyone have a better understanding of the situation besides what pops up on google?
SAJ-99
Well-known member
But you CAN enjoy it. You can walk any of those acres with a camera, you just can't hunt. Your state can do the same. There is nothing a NR can do about it. People here don't like it and many Rs have spoken out against it. But dealing with people with the same view as you might change their mind.
Agree, that is what makes it so dumb/ it’s not like it’s a safety issue.
I’m surprised there isn’t more discussion on this- 3+ million acres is a huge amount of land.
The “search” button is amazing feature and filled with results.
BuzzH
Well-known member
Maybe you and your new non-profit/pac can come here and show us how its done to repeal it.
Man up or shut up...you decide which.
Irrelevant
Well-known member
You also can't hunt, nor walk, nor hike, nor may there be future clean water or habitat on the lands to be disposed of in LA, but you don't care about those lands because you specifically don't want to kill anything on them.
Irrelevant
Well-known member
I can't hunt in Yellowstone, but that doesn't mean I don't value public land in Arizona.
Similar threads
