Public Land

S

Scoutsdad

Guest
Question? Why do the states get the revenue for the big game that live on Federal land? Why are non-resident tags so high for hunting on Federal land? Since the federal land is owned by the whole country why do the states get to control them? Do the states bear the costs of maintaining the property?
 
The answer is we are a nation of laws. The existing laws and the relevant court cases are why things are as they are. I prefer a limited role for Federal government when the rights of a state are at stake. The result of each state acting independently is the way Idaho decides non-resident fees and % of tags will differ from Alabama. The same is true for divorces, incorporation protection, small claims actions, trespass laws, etc.

To change the way things are you need to see new laws passed or have an armed revolt though those tend to be very disruptive for natural resources.

I understand your frustration. I avoid states that are "bad deals" for my hunting goals.
 
- Because the game animals are considered property of the state.
- States do not control federal lands hence BLM and USFS.
- Federal tax dollars are used to maintain federal lands but there are coopertive deals sometimes conducted between state and federal agencies where there is a common interest or goal with a benefit to both bodies.
 
So, I have to pay taxes to maintain the land and can not hunt it without a large expense and hassle to obtain a tag? I don't know who came up with the states owning the animals. I feed the deer, provide water and shelter,fix the fences they wreck,and have to pay to hunt them. Of course I pay property tax for this "privilege"
 
You don't have to pay anything to go camping on the land that "you" pay for. The tags are paying for the state agencies. Its "Utah fish and wildlife" not "federal fish and wildlife". Same reason you can hunt wolves in alaska but they are protected in the lower 48.
 
Wildlife is generally owned and managed by each state whether it is on private land, state land or federal land. State game agencies police the federal lands, they do habitat work on federal lands and they manage the game. You would not want the Feds to be put in charge of all game management.
 
Its interesting that In Wyoming you cannot camp overnight on state owned lands. No one is ever going to be completely happy, but if the state owned the lands it would be subject to every local whim and restriction you could think of, kind of like the nonresident hunting restrictions, Oregon and Arizona, compared to Wyoming or Colorado. On the other hand to have the wildlife totally controled by the feds would probably end up being a mess.
 
I agree that having the Feds in charge would be a mess. I do think that hunting on Federal land should be the same for all (price, access etc.) The states can manage the hunting and wildlife for a percentage of the revenue. I also think landowners should get a cut of the revenue. They provide so much that is taken for granted. I don't know about other states but my state provides no food sources for the deer. It relies on the farmers and then pockets the money from the tags.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-23-11 AT 09:23PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Jan-23-11 AT 09:06?PM (MST)

Scoutsdad,

I'm wanting to say you havent the first friggin' clue what you're talking about...but wont because I just think you dont know any better.

For starters, the amount that the US taxpayer shells out for access to millions of acres of public lands isnt really worth even discussing. A quick google search will shake out the operating costs of the BLM and US Forest Service, the two primary Federal land management agencies.

What you get for your meager taxes is largely unfettered access to fish, hunt, camp, hike, bird watch, etc. etc. etc. on millions of acres of public land. For small use fees you can also collect firewood on public lands for personal use, cut christmas trees, etc.

You wont be finding me doing much complaining about the costs associated with management of public lands...in reality one of the best things I feel my tax dollars are spent on. In particular when one considers all the flat foolishness that tax dollars are wasted on.

There is no doubt that the wildlife of each state is in held in trust for the citizens of the state it resides in...(with the exception of the feds controlling anadromous fish, endangered species, and migratory waterfowl).

There has been many court cases and recent laws passed reaffirming the states right to manage its game. I draw your attention to s399 and in particular:

The bill creates an exemption to the dormant Commerce Clause in order to give each state the right to regulate access to hunting and fishing. This is done by a renunciation of federal interest in regulating hunting and fishing. The reasons for creating this exception include the following:

Allowing states to distinguish and/or discriminate between residents and non-residents ensures the protection of state wildlife and protects resident hunting and fishing opportunities.

Protecting the public interest of individual states? conservation efforts. Sportsmen and local organizations are extremely active in the conservation of fish and game. They support wildlife conservation through taxes, fees, and locally led non-profit conservation efforts.

Respecting the traditional authority of individual states. The regulation of wildlife has traditionally been within a state?s purview

As far as your worry about landowners, there are many state programs in place to compensate landowners regarding wildlife. A few examples are:

Ranching for wildlife programs, landowner tags (both transferable and non-transferable), depredation hunts, taxpayer provided fencing to protect haystacks, hunter access programs, the right of landowners to charge trespass fees to hunters, etc. etc. etc.

Further, ranchers/farmers are offered cheap grazing leases on both BLM and FS lands at a rate of $1.35ish/AUM...which allows the grazing of a cow/calf pair, 5 sheep, or 1 horse for a month. I defy you to feed a hampster for $1.35 a month...to say they get a sweet deal on the use of public lands is an understatement. I wont entertain a landowner complaining about public wildlife on his private land, when his private livestock is using my public land for a $1.35 a month.

I feel that the landowners have ample opportunity to seek compensation for any wildlife that uses their land...and many take advantage of those programs (rightfully so).
 
I think this issue has been answered at least 1,000 times on hunting websites. Here is the answer as to why land ownership has NO connection or legal standing when talking about wildlife allocation.

When the colonists declared independence from King George III in 1776 they wrote a very important document - The United States Constitution. To date, the most important document written in the last 500 years

In the Constitution, the states retained rights in all things previously owned by the King. Only a few rights were granted by the states to the Feds.

Wildlife was not one of the rights granted to the Feds under the Constitution. Rather, rights in wildlife were retained by the states, and here is why.

The colonists had witnessed the tyranny of the nobility who hanged, tortured, and punished those who might dare to shoot "The Kings Deer."

In this new land called the United States of America, the Feds would not own the wildlife, as had the nobility of Europe. The states would hold the rights in wildlife, for the citizens of that state.

This is a concept called the Public Trust Doctrine, whereby the asset of wildlife is held in trust for the public. It was established via the Constitution and confirmed in 1842 via a United States Supreme Court case, Martin v. Waddell. That case gave the concept the name Public Trust Doctrine.

In that case, the USSC decided against a landowner making claim that wildlife was his, as an attachment to the land. The court stated the wildlife became a right of the states, by design, when the colonies declared their independence from England.

Since then, many cases have been decided to confirm the Martin v. Waddell case. Illinois Central Railroad, Greer v. Connecticut, and many more. They all hold that wildlife is an asset held in trust by the states for citizens and that land ownership has no connection to wildlife.

So, your premise that as a US taxpayer you are a quasi-owner of Federal land, has no connection to wildlife allocation. The states hold that right, not the landowners, whether private land or public land.

Any hunting opportunity allocated to us non-residents is purely at the pleasure of the state within which borders that wildlife exists.

It is not by accident that we find ourselves in the situation we have today. The colonists were very sharp folks. Had they granted the Feds any rights in wildlife, the Feds probably would have given it to some private parties by now, making hunting an activity for the royalty and landed gentry, leaving us commoners on the outside, facing punishment for killing the "King's Deer."

Due to foresight of those revolutionaries, in the states of this country, we have "The Peoples' Deer," and thank God for that.

I hope that clarifies your confusion as to why states control wildlife and not the Feds. And why rights in wildlife was disconnected from the land when we fought that War of Independence.


"Hunt when you can - You're gonna' run out of health before you run out of money!"
 
I read the original post this morning and thought...bet these questions will result in a real long @$$ response by big fin or buzz. They did not disappoint and both responded.

In six months I am going to get a new handle and ask a variation of the same question again.
 
In Utah the DWR is almost entirely funded by the licenses sold in the state. There is some other funding, but most comes from this. Second, in the west most of the public land is federally owned. The Dwr doesn't just manage the animals on state owned ground therefore it must be paid to do so on federal ground as well. If I want to hunt another state I do what you do in Utah, I buy a tag. On the fairness side, why shouldn't the residents of a state have an advantage over non resisdents? The other funding I talked about comes from the residents.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-24-11 AT 03:44PM (MST)[p]Good responses and I'm not debating the current law. Laws are made to be changed and could be. I believe the wildlife that exists in any particular state do so because of the land and habitat in that state. Imagine no public land. The landowners would control all of the hunting via access. The state would still manage the game but the landowners would control the harvest. I maintain that public lands are owned by all and everyone should have equal rights to hunt on those lands. Just as a landowner can control access the Fed could allow equal opportunity. I understand the current status, but think the resource has come down $$$$$. Do the states retain timber, mineral or grazing revenues from Fed land?

Why couldn't the states perform the management? Limit the number of total tags(same as today). Create units and dispense tags by unit. They would be free to set tag prices on state owned land and private land however they want. Fed lands would have a common tag fee (resident or non). The state already benefits from the money that hunters spend in the state(outfitters, gas, food, lodging etc) The state can even take a cut of the Fed tags for managing the wildlife. This would create equal access to Fed Public land. Residents would still retain an advantage over non-residents for all of the other land in the state.

I understand why residents don't like this concept, it would limit their stranglehold on the wildlife resource. Of course the state's could always buy the land from the Fed's. Its not like the country couldn't use the money.
 
Yes the states do get money for timber, mineral and grazing. Lots of money with lots of hands in the pot.

4b1db2ac644136c4.jpg
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-24-11 AT 04:15PM (MST)[p]>Yes the states do get money
>for timber, mineral and grazing.
>Lots of money with lots
>of hands in the pot.
>
>
>
4b1db2ac644136c4.jpg



Yup and even your and my hand receives dollars in one form or another from the revenue generated from these items of public wealth.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-24-11 AT 05:02PM (MST)[p]Quotes from Scoutsdad:

"Laws are made to be changed and could be. I believe the wildlife that exists in any particular state do so because of the land and habitat in that state."

"I maintain that public lands are owned by all and everyone should have equal rights to hunt on those lands."

"Fed lands would have a common tag fee (resident or non). The state already benefits from the money that hunters spend in the state(outfitters, gas, food, lodging etc) The state can even take a cut of the Fed tags for managing the wildlife.

"This would create equal access to Fed Public land. Residents would still retain an advantage over non-residents for all of
the other land in the state."

That being said.......



These are not laws, Scouts. These are the principles of the Constitution of the United States, something that is the basis for laws.

You can have your opinions, but there is no way a state is going to hand over any rights to the Feds. The states have the rights in wildlife, and have for over 230 years. That is not going to change.

Property rights are well defined in this country. The property rights that come with real estate are probably defined better than any type of property right.

Wildlife is not one of the property rights that come with real estate, so continue to wish for it, or "maintain" as you state, but it isn't going to change.

Surface ownership does not mean you own everything attached to the property. You may own the surface rights, but you may not own the water rights, the mineral rights, oil and gas subsurface rights, etc. It is a very simplified approach to contend that ownership of surface rights is paramount to all other property rights.

We have equal opportunity to hunt all the public land in the country, if we have a tag for such. What we don't have is equal rights to hunt the wildlife that is held in trust for citizens of states we are not a resident of.

Good luck with your ideas.

"Hunt when you can - You're gonna' run out of health before you run out of money!"
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-24-11 AT 05:13PM (MST)[p]Scoutsdad,

I knew better...should have just stuck with, "you havent the first friggin' clue"...

I'm not wasting any more time citing laws, regulations or the constitution to you.

You shouldnt have slept through American History/civics.
 
I believe the constitution also condoned slavery and the lack of the vote by women. Standing on the grounds that something can't be changed is very backwards. Will it ever change? Probably not, but that doesn't make it right. Why are you so upset by a different idea? I'm guessing it would affect you personally? The constitution doesn't care about you. Let the states purchase the Fed ground, or are you saying the Feds can't sell it? They are planning on selling a lot of stuff, maybe your honey hole will be next. Or better yet some rich dude will buy it and none of us can hunt it. Maybe you should get off your high horse and thank us all for providing you a place to hunt!
 
>I believe the constitution also condoned
>slavery and the lack of
>the vote by women.
>Standing on the grounds that
>something can't be changed is
>very backwards. Will it
>ever change? Probably not,
>but that doesn't make it
>right. Why are you
>so upset by a different
>idea?

Read Amendments 13 and 19 to the US Constitution and you will find where your items of mention were changed. They were changed by a Amendment that needs to pass Congress, the President, and be ratified by the states.

Are you saying you are going to start a campaign to get the US Constitution changed and grant more powers to the Feds and take those powers from the state? Pretty much eliminating Amendment 10? As I said, good luck with that.

I don't think anyone is upset about you asking questions. It just comes across funny when you cannot see the illogical solution you have posed. The entire United States Constitution is not going to change because some of us would benefit from being treated more equal in the allocation of wildlife in states where we are not a resident.

Every hunter I know of is a resident in one state and a non-resident in 49 others, so we all have to deal with the fact that wildlife is allocated to residents in greater priority than the allocation to non-residents.

Just part of living in the best damned country in the world. There is an easier solution to that problem, if it disturbs you to such a great degree.

"Hunt when you can - You're gonna' run out of health before you run out of money!"
 
You are correct that the likely hood of this changing is very slim. This issue does not bother me very much at all. What does bother me are people who can only say what can't be done. They usually say these things for selfish reasons (myself included). Another thing that bothers me is when these same people attack someone for having an idea that doesn't match their own way of thinking. As someone else posted, it is within the landowners right to charge a trespass fee for access onto their property. The Feds could start charging for hunting on their land. It would help the national debt. But I am sure someone will tell me why this is also "an illogical solution"
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-24-11 AT 06:48PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Jan-24-11 AT 06:46?PM (MST)

Hmmm...kind of changing your tune just a bit.

First it was same price licenses for NR's and R's alike, now its a use fee for hunting on federal lands.

You've also now thrown in the national debt for justification of your "ideas" that would effectively stomp states rights, the constitution, and 70+ years of successful game management into the ground.

Please, tell me you arent going to bring up Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, or the Tooth Fairy next...

Unbelievable.
 
NA, I just liking f**king with you people that are so afraid of change. You would be against anything, guessing you have never had an original idea in your life. WHAT ARE YOU SO AFRAID OF? It's just a message board. You know what they say "opinions are like a**holes, everyone has one". Obviously you don't care about my opinion and I don't care about yours!
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-24-11 AT 07:14PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Jan-24-11 AT 07:13?PM (MST)

LAST EDITED ON Jan-24-11 AT 07:12?PM (MST)

LAST EDITED ON Jan-24-11 AT 07:08?PM (MST)

LAST EDITED ON Jan-24-11 AT 07:07?PM (MST)

Afraid of change?

Not at all...just not real supportive of ideas that defy the constitution and state rights.

I'm also not real hip on stupid ideas that destroy wildlife that hunters have poured money, blood, sweat and tears into for many score of years.

In particular, just so a whiner can have a free lunch...

Why not just open your wallet and buy a NR license like everyone else?

Oh, and if you think your "ideas" are original...you've done a terrific job of BSing yourself.

Laffin'....
 
What idea would "destroy wildlife that hunters have poured money, blood, sweat and tears into for many score of years"? I never said that the management would have to get worse.

Things change all of the time, including "ideas that defy the constitution and state rights". Not always for the worse.

What am I whining about? Equal rights for all taxpayers? Sounds like you have the "free lunch" and don't want to share.

If it's OK for me to "open my wallet and buy a NR license like everyone else", why are you afraid of paying NR license fees to hunt Public land and the wildlife that live on them? Are you better than everyone else that pays federal taxes? (Assuming you pay any) Do you have some special right because the land happens to be in your state?

I understand that it is currently that way and most likely won't change, however why should I like it? I guess I will have to move to a state with lots of public land and cheap tags. What state do you live in? It must be special to get so uptight about it.
 
Welcome to monster muleys the land of a wide diverse group of opinions. Im pretty sure not too many on hear are ready to listen to more whining land owners/farmer's/ranchers. I dont know what state you live in but in good old Utard USA where im at farmers get plenty of depredation tags which they sell for revenue. Also they charge trespass fees to let people hunt their land. The sheep and cattle graze the range on public lands all summer long then the same farmers who whine about deer/elk in his field just pulled his cows and sheep off the mountain (sweet irony). I know everyone has to make a living and I feel the BLM and FS do a good job with grazing. Farmers who are hammered get money and if the feds controlled wildlife in my home state wildlife would cease to exist, (how many congressmen and women in DC give a rats rear about a utah mule deer?) and the state only has so much money for habitat projects the feds divy up a whole lot extra mostly in the way of precribed burning and bullhog/chaining projects. Im happy with that relationship. What state do you live in? Just curious where the range is so poor the deer and elk resort only to eating your crops.
 
Ah finally a sane person. Greetings! I live in Nebraska, no elk, just whitetails. Plenty of tags for all. Too many deer. The state only wants to "own" the deer when it comes to pocketing the revenue. They do nothing to help manage for trophy quality. I love to come west to hunt but find it difficult financially and am frustrated with the amount of points that are required to get out of state tags. I guess I can always move.


Of course you're right that the Feds would f**k it up, but some of my other ideas about the state continuing to manage would be easy to do.

As far as landowner rights, we don't have any of the programs you have mentioned. I would like to see the landowners in Nebraska get a % of the tag fee for providing the habitat and be allowed to harvest a number of deer based on property size for free. Of course it will never happen.

Thanks
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-24-11 AT 08:03PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Jan-24-11 AT 08:01?PM (MST)

I know it sounds complex and difficult to get it that way. Im sure if farmer's in your state banded like they did in utah you could get something similar to our model it has to be possible. We are talking very different situations though it sounds like here farmers always complain. But our deer are on a downhill slide from hell whereas it sounds like you live in the land of plenty of deer. Thats why you may have got the responses you got on this forum (we are extremly passionate about helping our Mule deer out west and protect them like its our daughters virginity) cuz our public land is used and used heavily by many forms of recreationists. Also most of Utah is public land (guessing much more so then Nebraska correct me if im wrong)and I'll bet our farming probably isnt 1/10 of yours. This is why I see state management as good in this case it works for Utah we see our needs and try to correct them (even though some corrections fail Utah is currentlyt planning a new idea we will see if it works). One of the few things that does. My dad farms about 200 acres alfalfa and has in the past recieved buck tags and continues to get a tag which he sells for a profit of more than what was damaged by the deer. I think yourself and some of your landowner friends need to have a good long sit down with your state reps. There is power in numbers always.
 
Why did I know this was going to be said,"If it's OK for me to "open my wallet and buy a NR license like everyone else", why are you afraid of paying NR license fees to hunt Public land and the wildlife that live on them? Are you better than everyone else that pays federal taxes? (Assuming you pay any) Do you have some special right because the land happens to be in your state?

First off, I'm quite sure I've opened my wallet and put my money where my mouth is a whole lot more than you ever will. I'm not afraid to buy NR licenses and have been doing so for a long, long time and hunted exclusively on public land or land that is accessible to all free of charge. In the last 2 years alone I've had big-game tags in New Mexico, Alaska, Arizona, Montana, and Wyoming. I've been applying for no less than 8 states and typically 10+ a year for about a dozen years. I never complain about the fees associated with the privilege of hunting states as a NR. I'm typically nothing but thankful for the residents of each states being willing to share their wildlife resources.

No, I dont have a special right to the public land found where I live...you, me, and any other citizen all have equal access to it...a point you seem to me missing even after multiple people have explained it to you.

Its too damn bad for you that it takes some effort to apply out of state...and you expecting to hunt as NR for the same price as residents is almost as laughable as it is ridiculous.

Clueless doesnt even begin to touch your thought process...
 
Hey Scoutsdad...just on a hunch I checked into another of your statements:

"As far as landowner rights, we don't have any of the programs you have mentioned.

Really?

Thats funny...what do you call this, taken directly from the Nebraska Game and Fish website with a 2 minute internet search:

The Nebraska Game and Parks Commission in partnership with Pheasants Forever is offering the CRP-Management Access Program (CRP-MAP). CRP-MAP is a hunting access program being offered to landowners enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Program with at least two years left on their contract. Landowners will be paid from $4.00-$5.00 per acre for the entire CRP tract for improving habitat on 10% of the CRP land and allowing public walk-in only access for hunting and trapping during the hunting season.

Landowners whose CRP tracts have been seeded or partially reseeded within the last four years may be eligible to receive $3 per acre for the entire tract. Any CRP or non-CRP tract with excellent wildlife habitat may be eligible to receive $1 per acre. To find out more or to sign your land up for CRP-MAP, contact your nearest Game and Parks Commission District Office.

Hmmmm and about those landowner tags that arent available in Nebraska....yeah, well, this must be a misprint? Yes?

Resident Deer (Firearm, Archery, Muzzleloader, and Season Choice) $30
Resident Landowner Deer $15.50
* Resident Limited Statewide Buck $73.50
Resident Youth Deer (Ages 10-15) $6
Nonresident Deer (Firearm, Archery and Muzzleloader) $209
Nonresident Landowner Deer $105

Oh, and theres just no programs to control all those deer in Nebraska...really?

"Antlerless Deer Hunter Program ? General Information
Nebraska has too many deer in some areas of the state. We often hear that hunters can't find a place to hunt and that landowners can't find enough hunters willing to take antlerless deer. NGPC has authorized more than 200,000 deer permits and bonus tags which allow the harvest of antlerless deer. The purpose of this program is to increase the harvest of antlerless deer in areas with excessive crop damage by helping landowners find hunters who will shoot does.

Hunters who wish to sign up to harvest antlerless deer may do so on this website.

Landowners who need antlerless deer hunters can search the list by county and contact hunters by phone or email. If you have more questions, view ?Frequently Asked Questions? or call/email the Big Game Program Manager.

Thank you for your interest.

Kit Hams
Big Game Program Manager
Nebraska Game and Parks Commission
[email protected]
(402) 471-5442 "

If BS were music you'd be John Phillip Sousa....
 
Wow Buzz you seem to have nailed what I was eluding he could do. I guess Nebraska does take care of its farmer's/rancher's etc. that have the simple know how to get not just tags but money and plenty of it (i wish I had a 1000 acres of CRP it would be a nice check every year). Great post thanks for the info!
 
Low

I was going to be done with this stupid pi**ing contest, but I can't stand to see the truth twisted.

Buzz is incorrect that NR and residents have equal opportunity. By definition this would mean Fed land access (number of tags) and fees (tag prices) are equal, that is not true.

As far as his info from the NG & Parks. #1) I said that the state does not manage for trophy deer, never said they don't manage the deer or that they were not trying to thin the deer herd.

#2) The lousy access program. You do understand that for $3 acre you may have hundreds of people on your property per year killing everything that moves? There is no restriction on numbers of hunters or game harvested. This is not what you had described. I believe it was your dad received 1 tag that paid for all of the hay that the deer ate.

I understand that I stepped on some toes, but I was hoping for some good debate, not the drivel that has come out of this thread. I guess this forum is no better than any of the others.
 
>I understand that I stepped on
>some toes, but I was
>hoping for some good debate,
>not the drivel that has
>come out of this thread.
>I guess this forum is
>no better than any of
>the others.


Wow, drivel? I guess it becomes drivel when others don't agree with your opinion. I think that you were presented a lot of very good facts and arguments (debate) against your view on public land. Isn't that how debate works? You present your side, they present theirs, you rebut, they rebut. Guess it only works if you win the debate.

So seriously, how old is scout? Really, I want to know how old you are.
 
No the drivel comes in with the "holier than thou" replies, "no clue" comments and total lack of respect for my opinion. If you read the whole posts you will see that I did not disagree with anyone's opinions until I was attacked with crap about the "law" and other facts that are not part of my initial post. Laws can be changed and have been.

As far as Scout, she's 10. I'm old (48). Does age have an effect on an opinion? Or can you be too young too stand up for yourself?
 
Scoutsdad,

Theres no way you can be this dense:

Buzz is incorrect that NR and residents have equal opportunity. By definition this would mean Fed land access (number of tags) and fees (tag prices) are equal, that is not true.

You absolutely have equal opportunity to access federal lands...tag numbers and associated fees for STATE owned animals have NOTHING to do with accessing federal land.

You are not excluded from camping, hunting, fishing, etc. on federal lands.

You are limited by the STATES to pursue the STATES GAME...major difference.

You seem unable to comprehend that federal lands and state game are TWO entirely different things.

If you cant grasp that simple concept, further "debate" with you is pointless.

Also, the programs for the landowners, to pay them $1-$5 per acre is not just to provide quality hunting, its in place to compensate landowners for allowing access and also to control deer numbers. Something that you were saying wasnt in place for landowners in Nebraska, which is simply not true.

It seems you like to complain about everything, first theres no where to hunt, then there is but theres no quality. First landowners dont have any way to be compensated for game usage or allowing hunters, but there is, but the program sucks.

I've half a notion to come to Nebraska and shoot a quality whitetail on public land...its not near as difficult as you make is sound.

If you spent as much time on researching hunting as you do feeling sorry for yourself and complaining how NR's arent treated fairly...you'd be much better off.
 
I can't stop!

"You are limited by the STATES to pursue the STATES GAME...major difference."

From my initial posts I had hoped everyone would understand that this is something I dispute. I understand the current law, I just don't agree with it. With the large amount of Fed land, the Fed has a larger claim to the game in many western states than the state has.

"Also, the programs for the landowners, to pay them $1-$5 per acre is not just to provide quality hunting, its in place to compensate landowners for allowing access and also to control deer numbers. Something that you were saying wasnt in place for landowners in Nebraska, which is simply not true."

You may have missed this in my previous post, THERE IS NO CONTROL, why would a hunter want hundreds of people on his land killing everything? You can not let just a few hunt and get the money. It's all or nothing. I also believe land owners should get FREE tags to hunt their own land, not reduced price.

People always say you are complaining when they don't like what you have to say.
 
The "Fed" has NO claim to anything other than endangered species, anadromous fish, and migratory waterfowl. The rest is "claimed" by the states.

That said, I'm waving the white flag...I surrender to your vast knowledge of the constitution, states rights, and everything else to do with wildlife and associated management of same.

Good luck to you.
 
"I did not disagree with anyone's opinions until I was attacked with crap about the "law" and other facts

Pesky laws and facts, always gettin' in the way.


Honestly, I was asking your age because you're acting like someone who's about 17.
 
Scouts - What you are talking about is not changing laws. It is changing the entire system of rights, states rights and property rights, that our process of government and free enterprise is built upon.

As Buzz said, the Feds have no claim to the wildlife. None, notta, zilch. Some may not like it, but that situation originates from some pretty significant sources.

To say that the Feds have some sort of right in wildlife because wildlife lives on Federal land is crazy.

There is no wildlife right attached to property in the United States, regardless of who owns it, public land owners or private land owners.

Ted Turner is the largest landowner in the United States. He has no ownership in the state wildlife that inhabits his property.

Under your premise, he would own that state wildlife, as you want to attach the wildlife as a right that comes with real property.

It really isn't that hard to understand.

"Hunt when you can - You're gonna' run out of health before you run out of money!"
 
Scout you confused me. You say the deer are eating you to death. My thought was you couldnt get enough hunters to kill those damn deer. Now you say there are too many hunters that shoot em all out. You cant grow a big buck? Novel idea dont let anyone hunt your ground for four or five years and ill bet you get a few trophy whitetails any rich whitail nut might spend a lot of cash on(you have to market the product to those with the coins). Or is your farm way too small? Also the tags my dad recieves are one trophy tag I.E. Paunsagaunt trophy tag every three years. He recieves general buck tags which are anything but trophy tags, or he has the ability to acquire those tags through proceses with our DWR (he elects not to get them every year). However they do sell. Just for substatially less than the pauns tag. You still believe in the feds to manage the deer in Utah, and other western states.Ha LMAO! PISS ON THAT!
 
"The Feds could start charging for hunting on their land."

To me this statement contradicts the whole concept of your original post. Don't you claim the federal land is "ours" the peoples? If that is the case, then why would it be fair to charge "us" to use "our" land?

If a ranchers livestock crosses onto federal land does that mean the feds should own it? If my dog walks into my neighbors yard, does that mean he now owns it? That is basically what you are trying to say when it comes to state wildlife on federal land. Doesn't work.

If you go down the path to wanting the feds to own wildlife on "their land" then you need to pursue equal tuition for all places of higher education that recieve federal funds. Afterall it is "our" money paying for it...

That also means the feds should be the ones to set Interstate speed limits in all states, develop their own Highway Patrol and DOT to fix and patrol these interstates built with "our" money....

Pretty illogical, huh?
 
I no longer have a problem with states deciding whatever they each would like as far as NR tag allotments. The problem I have is the ones who scam you by peddling bonus points each year, but then grossly cheapening them down the road. This to me is just plain unethical and they should be ashamed of themselves. That should be illegal.

Sadly. it's easier for me to count the states that have chosen NOT to screw their customers!.....Colorado, New Mexico, Idaho, New Hampshire. Uhhhhh, that's about it. I guess the others just consider it "good business"?
 
Man, You have stirred the hornets nest scout. I just about forgot about you. Remember you came out to Utah hunting with me several years ago? I was surprised to see it was your name when I looked on your profile. Does the offer still stand to come out there hunting?
 

Similar threads

2lumpy
It’s Maddening
Replies
24
Views
2k
southernutahhunter
S
Heathen
Morgan/South Rich knowledge
Replies
3
Views
496
TheButcher
T

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

2BD8C3F6-1C0A-436E-A6E6-BCCE1DCD00AA.jpeg
4FD8DF58-76FD-483C-BAD8-E9FF870405AC.jpeg
80E63E5F-6E88-42D0-B841-82D88E6DA796.jpeg
Screenshot_20240902_231317_Instagram.jpg
A74A1C27-62F6-4B46-9900-92B9869D4B5E.jpeg
Utah LE Wasatch Muzzleloader Bull for DBLung
1.jpg
20211119_181620.jpg
Sweet Bull
IMG_4299.jpeg
0EBED270-80F8-4027-BE89-A50189DC678F.jpeg
IMG_2997 (1).jpg
Back
Top Bottom