Seeking info...school trust land fee states

[Bonasababy]

My state has huge amounts of public land that hunters have long enjoyed. Some years back they went full "their only purpose is to make money" mode and dramatically changed management for the worse. Making money takes precedence over managing fish and game and associated recreation in most cases now.

Now they are starting work to investigate charging people to be allowed to use these lands.

Most of the state forest lands in the northern part of the state are school trust lands.

When we started the negative changes, folks behind that here pointed to western states that had done the same.

Just wondering what thoughts and experiences those with some experience with this can relate, good or bad

Particularly interested in hearing if starting to charge to use led to improvements in considering managing for fish and game habitat and hunters/fishermen.

 

[SAJ-99]

My state has huge amounts of public land that hunters have long enjoyed. Some years back they went full "their only purpose is to make money" mode and dramatically changed management for the worse. Making money takes precedence over managing fish and game and associated recreation in most cases now.

Now they are starting work to investigate charging people to be allowed to use these lands.

Most of the state forest lands in the northern part of the state are school trust lands.

When we started the negative changes, folks behind that here pointed to western states that had done the same.

Just wondering what thoughts and experiences those with some experience with this can relate, good or bad

Particularly interested in hearing if starting to charge to use led to improvements in considering managing for fish and game habitat and hunters/fishermen.

Not sure exactly what we are talking about because your state isn't listed in the profile. If it is State Land Trust granted through the 1785 Land Ordinance, their purpose is to make money, for schools. How states have approached the money making aspect of this land has varied, but unfortunately there are bills to pay and people don't like taxes. In WA, one way they make money is you have to buy a state land vehicle use permit for $35 to park on State land. It comes with the hunting license when that is bought, but other users can buy it when they renew vehicle permits.

 

[Bigjay73]

My state has huge amounts of public land that hunters have long enjoyed. Some years back they went full "their only purpose is to make money" mode and dramatically changed management for the worse. Making money takes precedence over managing fish and game and associated recreation in most cases now.

Now they are starting work to investigate charging people to be allowed to use these lands.

Most of the state forest lands in the northern part of the state are school trust lands.

When we started the negative changes, folks behind that here pointed to western states that had done the same.

Just wondering what thoughts and experiences those with some experience with this can relate, good or bad

Particularly interested in hearing if starting to charge to use led to improvements in considering managing for fish and game habitat and hunters/fishermen.

Colorado wants you to hold it's beer

 

[Dsnow9]

In Colorado we can’t even access (many of) those lands. Pay to play would be an improvement for us.

Edit: parentheses to acknowledge the response from triggw

 

[Triggw]

In Colorado we can’t even access those lands. Pay to play would be an improvement for us.

Not true. Many, if not most, are open to hunting during the season. Check out the "Colorado State Recreation Lands" brochure. There's 25 pages of state trust lands listed with directions and restrictions noted.

 

[Dsnow9]

Not true. Many, if not most, are open to hunting during the season. Check out the "Colorado State Recreation Lands" brochure. There's 25 pages of state trust lands listed with directions and restrictions noted.

Are you joking? Have you looked at a map east of i25. They have opened up some larger parcels in the last couple years but the vast majority do not allow public access. Here is a screen shot for example. None of the blue is accessible unless it has the blue dots in it.

 

[Bigjay73]

Some, definitely not most

 

[WapitiBob]

CPW leases state land for hunting, NM pays the state land office 1 million+ for hunting opportunity. WYG&F does not pay that I know of.

 

[Triggw]

Are you joking? Have you looked at a map east of i25. They have opened up some larger parcels in the last couple years but the vast majority do not allow public access. Here is a screen shot for example. None of the blue is accessible unless it has the blue dots in it.

Can't really tell anything from your screenshots, but I confess I don't pay much attention to what happens east of I-25. Nonetheless, as a sweeping generality your statement was clearly incorrect.

 

[Dsnow9]

Can't really tell anything from your screenshots, but I confess I don't pay much attention to what happens east of I-25. Nonetheless, as a sweeping generality your statement was clearly incorrect.

All of the blue squares with white boarders are state trust land that is not open to the public.

 

[Bigjay73]

Over 60% of Colorado state trust land is closed to the public, most of which is in the east where there is very little other govt lands. Dsnow is correct

 

[Washington Hunter]

Not sure exactly what we are talking about because your state isn't listed in the profile. If it is State Land Trust granted through the 1785 Land Ordinance, their purpose is to make money, for schools. How states have approached the money making aspect of this land has varied, but unfortunately there are bills to pay and people don't like taxes. In WA, one way they make money is you have to buy a state land vehicle use permit for $35 to park on State land. It comes with the hunting license when that is bought, but other users can buy it when they renew vehicle permits.

Actually in Washington state, even with the purchase of a hunting or fishing license you have to buy what they call a Discover pass ($35) in order to use state DNR land.

Yes there is another permit that is free with the purchase of a hunting or fishing license, but that is only for Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife lands.

But fortunately in Washington, almost all state trust land (managed by the DNR) is open to the public for recreational use, as long as you buy your $35 "Discover pass."

 

[SAJ-99]

Actually in Washington state, even with the purchase of a hunting or fishing license you have to buy what they call a Discover pass ($35) in order to use state DNR land.

Yes there is another permit that is free with the purchase of a hunting or fishing license, but that is only for Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife lands.

But fortunately in Washington, almost all state trust land (managed by the DNR) is open to the public for recreational use, as long as you buy your $35 "Discover pass."

I forgot about FW lands. After I typed I wasn’t sure if it was opt in on the Discovery purchase or automatically sent. Still trying to figure out all the rules in this state. I guess my point was that is how the state tries to make money for those lands, even if it is more an offsetting of cost than actual profit. The F&W agency here gets a big chunk from the general fund as well, so I’m not clear on how the accounting works for it all.

 

[westbranch]

IDFG pays ID Dept of Lands per acre for land that is open to hunting, fishing and other recreational access. A quick search shows 2.3M of 2.5M acres is open to public.

 

[jwatts]

In MS the only way you can hunt 16th section (State school trust lands) is to lease the hunting rights from the state. They come up for bid on a 5 year basis. They also have leases for other recreation purposes (a section near me is leased for a mountain bike trail), agricultural purposes, and even leases for permanent residences. The lands are managed by the state or county forester for timber production. There are a few exceptions where the 16th section falls in a park or a WMA, but for the most part that's how they are managed.

 

[jimh406]

I don't really have a problem with people who are using the land paying for the upkeep/management as long as it's not an extreme amount, and there are options for really poor people.

 

[BuzzH]

We have access to state lands in Wyoming free of charge. There are a few exceptions with cultivated state lands and we have restrictions on camp fires and camping.

I'm in favor of a modestly priced state lands use permit. It would help move recreation a rung up the ladder for state land exchange issues.

We almost had a bill passed a number of years ago until a couple wildlife ngo's made a dumb move and amended the bill to earmark some of the funds for wildlife.

Can't do that, the funds need to just go directly to the state trust. So, the bill as amended died, and, imo, rightfully, but regrettably so.

 

[ismith]

If you have to pay a fee to access it, or can’t access it at all, you don’t own it. It is not public land.

 

[Bigjay73]

I always thought that the "public land owner" battle cry was a bit naive. I can't go build a house on NF land, can't even camp in one spot for more than 14 days.

 

[brocksw]

I can't go build a house on NF land

You really think that is sound reasoning? That 350 million people should be able go “build a house on it”, willy-nilly, and that is somehow the measurement of ownership at an individual level?

My gut tells me you haven’t given this a lot of thought.