TEDDY ROOSEVELT BRING BACK OUR PUBLIC LANDS ACT

2

202typical

Long Time Member
Messages
3,123
What do you guys think of this bill?


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1875381/posts

HUNTER INTRODUCES TEDDY ROOSEVELT BRING BACK OUR PUBLIC LANDS ACT (Duncan Hunter)

Washington, D.C. ? U.S. Congressman Duncan Hunter (R-CA) today announced the introduction of the Teddy Roosevelt Bring Back our Public Lands Act in the U.S. House of Representatives. The legislation seeks to reduce costs incurred by out-of-state American outdoorsmen who hunt exclusively on federal property.

Congressman Hunter?s statement of introduction follows:

?In 1909, when President Theodore Roosevelt signed the last piece of legislation successfully creating over 42 million acres of national forest, the American outdoorsman came into his own. Our great ?Outdoor President,? with a stroke of his pen, dedicated more land to American citizens for hunting and fishing than all the royal estates of Europe combined.

?From the Adirondacks and the Blue Ridge of the East to the Sierra Nevada of California, every outdoorsman could now be the master of enormous sporting opportunities. The only price was a stretch of the legs and an investment of time and a modicum of woodsmanship.

?Because of Teddy?s Roosevelt's leadership and efforts, the public land of the federal government became truly the ?estate? of the average American.

?A carpenter in Indiana or Iowa could saddle up the old Chevy pick-up and take his sons elk or deer hunting on a long weekend in Colorado. A steel worker in Pennsylvania could drive ?straight through? with his pals to that certain Aspen grove in Western Wyoming where big bucks always abounded on opening morning. Thus, until a few years ago, the outdoor legacy of Teddy Roosevelt and the birthright of outdoor Americans were secure.

?Not any more.

?Today, bureaucracies in state governments are closing down the outdoor opportunities for average Americans. They are slamming the door on outdoor families the old fashioned way: with outrageous fees for non-resident hunters, even when the hunting is done exclusively on federal land.

?For example, the out-of-state license fee in Wyoming is $281 for deer, $481 for elk; in Colorado it is $301 for deer, $501 for elk; in Montana, it is $643 for both. In New Mexico, if two sons decide to take their dad on a weekend getaway, they each face fees of $355 for deer and $766 for elk.

?What makes these high prices so unfair is that they are applied to out-of-state American outdoorsmen who hunt exclusively on federal property. The 190 million acres of national forest and 258 million acres of BLM are the birthright of all Americans. The notion that they are viewed as the domain of state legislatures runs against the principle of public usage of federal property.

?Certainly, individual states have the right to regulate the private land and state-owned property within their boundaries. No one quarrels with that. But placing prohibitive fees on hunting that is conducted on federal public lands quickly becomes a method of exclusion.

?What happens, for example, if New Mexico should raise its out-of-state fees to $2,000 for bull elk? This increase would have the same effect as a locked gate for thousands of average Americans who want to hunt elk on any of the six national forests in New Mexico, over 11 million acres of federally owned land.

?The bill I am introducing today will restore acres for all American hunters to Theodore Roosevelt's ?Great Estate? of national forests and other public land. I acknowledge that some small amount of states? wildlife resources are expended on federally owned and managed lands. Therefore, it is only right that out-of-state hunters share in this minimal expense.

?My bill, therefore, says this: No state may charge more than $200 for a big game license, specifically, elk, deer, antelope or bear, for hunting that is carried out exclusively on national forest or BLM federal land.

?The $200 fee strikes a balance between two interests. The first interest is the state?s legitimate need to recoup the few dollars that it expends in the management of federal land. The second, and most important, is the interest of helping that father with two teenagers who does not have the $2,300 the state of New Mexico will charge this year for a family of three to hunt on national forest for bull elk.

?In most cases, even a $200 fee will be a windfall for states; far out-pacing any help they give the federal government for wildlife management in national forests. Any American, from any state, should be allowed to earn a fall morning hunting elk in the Rockies with a healthy hike and a good shooting eye, regardless if he has a large bank account. My bill restores that opportunity.?

The Teddy Roosevelt Bring Back Our Public Lands Act has been referred to the House Committee on Resources for further consideration.
 
LAST EDITED ON Aug-03-07 AT 10:55AM (MST)[p]If NR tags are too expensive then how come they sell out every year? At least in Montana they do.

Be careful what you wish for. Your NR $$$ is what makes FWP budget work and also fund programs like Block Management. I wonder how many hunters actually hunt exclusively public lands when they hunt Montana. I bet alot of them hunt BMA's as well. Without a funding source that access goes away.



Nemont
 
The added cost of regulating between federal lands tags and state/private land tags would be ridiculous. Especially if State wildlife agencies had smaller budgets from decreased tag revenue.
 
I like it. However if they are forced to reduce the price of the actual tag I am sure the individual states will be able to come up with other additional fees (licensing, applications etc.) to recoop their "loss".

There must be some charge but I believe tag fees are getting out of control. Look at my state of nevada for example $1000.00 for a cow elk tag, that's ridiculous.
 
Nemont - There is no doubt that the NR money does make the FWP budget work. I think we need to completely overhaul who pays for it though. There are alot of people that enjoy wildlife as much as us hunters do. Yet they aren't the ones flipping the bill, we as sportsman are. IMO we need to come up with a plan where everyone helps flip the bill. If us sportsman contiue to be the only ones flipping the bill our license and tag fees are going to increase dramatically. If these fees increas dramatically we are going to lose our youth as hunters because they won't be able to afford to hunt. If that happens then where is the future of hunting going to end up?
 
LAST EDITED ON Aug-03-07 AT 01:33PM (MST)[p]I didn't say tags weren't expensive. I just asked the question. I pay NR prices in ND and Canada every year. Do I wish they were lower, sure but I know it is part of the deal.

I just wonder how many hunters want to be confined to only hunting federal lands when they come west to hunt. In Montana that would be a nightmare to police.

I am all for everyone contributing more to the budget. I wish Montana would charge all resident hunters $25 more. That would eliminate the money from the outfitter setaside tags. Those tags would then go back into the general drawing. Then the hunter could decide if he or she wished to use an outfitter.

I agree that there are many ways to fund wildlife and habitat and one of the worst is through Federal Law that places an arbitrary number on the cost of tags.

Nemont
 
They could make the NR tag $200 then charge everyone, res. and nr. $200 for a licence. Sure NR tags sell out every year but some folks can't afford them, they are talking about leveling the playing feild. If NR tags cost $5000 they would still sell them all, only alot of people could never afford to spend that kind of money. I am for it, as I would like to see any one who wanted to be able to hunt this beautiful country of ours any where, even if they don't have alot of cash.
 
LAST EDITED ON Aug-03-07 AT 02:53PM (MST)[p]After thinking about I am for it as well. If this bill passes it wil make the deeded land on the family ranch increase in value overnight. Which experience will be in higher demand? Over run public land or the adjacent private land that used to be open to hunting. It is now HIGHLY valued just for the hunting opportunity and you just pushed every resident hunter out of a place to hunt because you took over the public land and drove up the price of the private land.

Great idea to increase hunter participation. Make it a miserable experience for all.

Nemont
 
IMO - We need a plan that will supplement some of the money that us sportsman are currently paying for NR tags. Like I mentioned before. I think that every person should be paying something towards our wildlife regardless of if you hunt or not. In order to subsidize the costs of NR tags I would propose some sort of funding that is matched by the state and federal government and is not subject to any particular land parcel regardless of ownership. But I doubt our government could figure out a way.
 
Unbelievable! Just another SFW,SCI, outfitter and tag ho move on the politicians. Read the thing. It says there will be a windfall of revenue. That is either from 100% of us hunters both resident and NR paying the $200 every year to the feds who do nothing for wildlife OR they are acting like they can sell an unlimited number of tags at $200. Neither is a good thing. To keep the state's wildlife going we can just increase the necessary state NR hunting license to $2000 per year. Not much the feds can do about that. It is just another tax from a dumbutt politician.
 
I agree that we need to address the cost of tags. I agree that the prices are stupidly high. I just do not believe the Federal Government has any business setting the price of tags for any state. It ignores the reality of the landownership on the ground. Federal lands are not necessarily sitting in just one big chunk. Look at any forest Service map and see how checkerboarded it can be. How you going to police that?


Anyone who purchases Ammo is contributing already through the Pittman-Robertson Act. There could easily be more money funded through a similar vehicle. If may taxes must go up at least the money would benefit the wildlife.

Nemont
 
"Anyone who purchases Ammo is contributing already through the Pittman-Robertson Act. There could easily be more money funded through a similar vehicle. If may taxes must go up at least the money would benefit the wildlife."


Good post. But I think it should be every U.S. citizens responsibility to support our wildlife not just those with guns or those that buy a hunting license. After all, the sportsman don't own the wildlife, the citizens do. Well, I guess that depends on what thread you read :). A tax or fee somewhere that every single person has to pay and the money goes directly towards wildlife habitat. Do you think that would ever be proposed?
 
IMHO, you all are missing the point. Teddy Roosevelt started the National Park System. The key phrase here is ?PUBLIC LAND?. I believe the only way we are going to preserve our hunting privilege is to prevent the privatization of our heritage. Corporate greed and ridiculous wealth is rapidly consuming all of our resources and acreage. Soon if you don't pay you won't be able to play. I pay taxes; I expect access to the lands we all own. I'll be dammed if I want to pay Ted Turner or some NFL football player for the privilege to hunt. Solution? BLM, National Forest, State Land, and Wilderness Areas!

RUS
 
Gleninaz;

From your post it appears that you think that the 200 dollar license fee will go to the Feds. The way I read it, the fee money still goes to the state, but those states will not be able to charge more then 200 bucks for the big game tags.
I think most NR hunters will want this, due to many states getting down right greedy on their sales of hunting tags. What will probably happen is those states will still be greedy and up the price for their resident hunters to continue the cash flow.
On the other side it may not fly due to constitutional issues that the states may bring up in a lawsuit. But with the 9th. circuit court being the deciding factor, it is impossible to second guess what those liberals will decide if this bill is constitutional or not. Remember the Feds still feel that those game animals still come under commerce rules.

RELH
 
Its too bad he cant worry about fixing some of the problems with wildlife management in his home state of California, instead of trying to wreck other states management programs.

Hopefully this goes nowhere fast!
 
LAST EDITED ON Aug-04-07 AT 04:20PM (MST)[p]>Gleninaz;
Remember the Feds
>still feel that those game
>animals still come under commerce
>rules.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> RELH
>

You may want to check what the feds believe about the commerce clause and hunting. Also I doubt that with Harry Reid as Majority Leader in the Senate that this bill will ever see the light of day if it makes it out of the House Committee. Damn Liberals :)



May 5, 2005

Measure Passes Last Major Hurdle in Congress

Washington, D.C. ? A bill to protect each state?s right to regulate hunting and fishing is one step closer to final passage today.

The measure will reaffirm the long-standing right of states to make decisions about hunting and fishing licenses and tag limits. States have traditionally regulated hunting and fishing within their borders, but a recent ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals questioned whether states could distinguish between residents and non-residents when issuing licenses.

?This is a big victory for Nevadans, and for sportsmen everywhere,? said Senator Harry Reid (D-NV), one of the bill?s sponsors. ?Nevada?s hunting and fishing groups help conserve our natural resources through taxes, fees, and old-fashioned hard work. Our sportsmen understand Nevada, and they work hard to take care of it. This bill recognizes and rewards those efforts.?

Senators Ted Stevens (R-AK), John Ensign (R-NV), and Ben Nelson (D-NE) also sponsored the measure.

?Alaskans join Nevadans in the proud tradition of hunting and fishing,? said Stevens. ?This amendment ensures that our states sportsmen are able to fully partake in the resources and splendor of their own states.?

?Nevada?s sportsmen embody a proud tradition of western independence and I'm proud to have fought for this measure on their behalf,? Ensign said. ?We have protected their interests and maintained important protections for our environment.?

?Uncle Sam should stay out of the business of regulating state hunting and fishing fees,? said Nelson. ?It's simply a case of states? rights and the States won an important victory when this bill passed.?

In the House of Representatives, the measure was championed by Rep. Mark Udall (D-CO) and Rep. C.L. ?Butch? Otter (R-ID).

?Sportsmen and hunters play a critical role in conserving our natural landscape and resources,? said Udall. ?This is particularly so with local hunters because they are vested in preserving what they grew up with and love. This amendment will allow states to continue to implement preferences for local hunters and ensure that people closest to the resource involved are recognized.?

"This is one of those common-sense pieces of legislation that comes out of the West and unfortunately is all too rare in Washington, D.C. I'm proud to be associated with it," said Otter. "The Founders never intended hunting and fishing to be among the things subject to federal control, and it's good to see that Congress sometimes can still recognize a 10th Amendment issue, even if the 9th Circuit too often can't."
 
the problem is that the state is responsible for the wildlife (it owns them) while the feds are responsible for the federal land under it's jurisdiction. The feds dont have authority over the wildlife unless in very specific cases, like ESA.

When you buy a tag you buy the rights to kill the said species, you dont buy th rights to the land, only to the animal.

I do believe this is a serious issue and one that needs dealt with.


I dont like the fact that public resources like deer and elk in montana are very much privatized in some areas. It stinks. . .

I dont think that legislation would do anything but make things worse. I dont have the answers right not, but I'm giving the whole issue a lot of thought and hope to come up with a well reasoned position on the issues after a learn a bit more about both sides of coin. . . .
 
Nemont;

Good article, but there may be walls that will have to be overcome. Reid is pushing the bill you mentioned, but stop and think why a CA. lawmaker came out with a bill that directly opposses Reid's bill. Some groups in CA. with enought clout has to be behind this new bill.
Now who has the popular votes, CA. does with it's millions of voters and elections will be coming up and you can bet that will come into play. In the event of court fights, the western states are under the 9th. circuit court and that court is liable to go either way.
This is something that does not seem to be going away, first it was that hunting outfitter, "Hunting USA???" with their attempted grab on hunting tags and if I remember right, the 9th. circuit court ruling on game animals can come under Fed. commerce rules. Now you have this bill popping up.
Sooner or later, the majority of voters will win this fight, and the majority of voters are not in our best hunting states.
I as a non-resident hunter, would prefer that the Feds stay out of the picture, but the greed of some states is getting to the point that too many NR hunters are demanding action in getting a lower price for their tags.
Reid is just protecting his resident hunters, who vote for him, because if the NR tags were lowered in price, Nevada would up the price for the resident hunters and they would howl like the NR hunters are howling now.
Sometimes I feel that every one, NR and resident hunter should pay the same price for tags in any state. The price of the tags set at a level to support our game herds.
Hunting is changing big time, and we can groan all we want and it will not stop the change. Money and politics are too involved in hunting and will force the changes.

RELH
 
LAST EDITED ON Aug-04-07 AT 06:41PM (MST)[p]RELH,

You might be a bit behind the times. ;-)

Reid's bill passed more than a year ago, and when it did it removed ANY say-so the feds have over regulating how each state doles out permits or how much they can charge for them.

When that passed, it made the 9th circuit court's ruling in regards to the USO fiasco null & void, i.e. the Commerce laws no longer apply to a state's right to manage its wildlife as it sees fit.

And...I'm guessing Duncan Hunter's bill will never see the light of day as long as Harry Reid is the Senate majority leader. -TONY
 
LAST EDITED ON Aug-04-07 AT 06:46PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Aug-04-07 AT 06:45?PM (MST)

I have a friend and ex-coworker that has a PHD in Mule deer Management who lives in Nevada. He warned me about Harry Reid when he moved to Senate Leader. Everything he told me is true. How do guys like Reid ever get in office in the first palce? Maybe the same voters that Clinton in the Presidency?
Possibly HUNTIDUDE CAN EXPLAIN IT TO US?

TM
 
Not sure what you're implying about Reid, but MOST resident hunters in many western states fully supported the law he pushed through, which removed the Interstate Commerce Act out of the equation of wildlife management. -TONY
 
Outdoorwriter;

You are putting alot of faith in a political animal that can scent the wind change and will do what it takes to stay in office or worse, run for higher office where he must get more votes.
I firmly believe this issue is not going to die, it will keep rearing it's head and the majority of votes will win in the long run with the big money backing it.
We are in for a long bitter fight for our hunting,"the way it used to be" and I also fore see more states going the way of Texas. More private game ranches for so called trophy hunting, and the public land ending up with too many hunters that will deplete the "trophy" animals unless the states stay with very limited tags given out. I think greed will end up being the winner.

RELH
 
>...and the public land
>ending up with too many
>hunters that will deplete the
>"trophy" animals unless the states
>stay with very limited tags
>given out.
>RELH

That's exactly why Hunter's bill will never see the light of day, and why Reid's bill will stand as is in its place. -TONY
 
tony;

I think you are wrong, and I think the next five years will show that. Hunter's bill may not fly today, but one like it will take place in the next five years due to the amount of pressure being applied by states with heavy population and votes.
I also feel that you can not always count on your own law makers to do what is right on selling tags. Money in the general coffer may take priorty over game management. We can argue this until we are blue in the face, but the trend is already there for big game hunting becoming a money game over ethics.

RELH
 
A bill like the Hunter is proposing may make it through the house but the Western Senators will never let it through the senate. They would be crucified by their own people. In addition all the populated states need the unpopulated state's Senators to get anything done.

I bet this issue isn't resolved in the next 25 years.

Nemont
 
NeMont,
Thats exactly why it wont fly IMO. There is no way Western state Senators will let this pass. I could see the Senators from CA, WA, OR and maybe CO going along, but not the rest.

Its just surprises me up the Duncan Hunter would intro this since most conservatives are PRO State's rights.

Whats next, are the Fed's gonna try and regulate season dates and harvest levels???
 
NeMont,

You hit the nail on the proverbial head. The proposal does not come down to a popular vot, and the senators in AZ, WY, CO, UT, AK, OR, WA, MT don't give a hoot who the folks in CA vote into office each year. -TONY
 
RELH,

Sooo...let's say Hunter or someone else somehow gets a bill like this pushed through.

Here's the hypothetical question:

Would NRs prefer to pay $150 up front for a license and $500 for a limited hunt elk tag IF they actually get drawn for such, as it pretty much is now.

Or would they prefer to pay $500 or more for a hunting license just for the right to apply for a $200 elk tag, which is what will probably happen? -TONY
 
Mossback you ask how could Reid get into office? I'm not a res of Nevada but my guess is the majority of voters in NV voted for him. maybe they should have an electoral college in NV like we do for president? then majority could have gotten someone they didn't like.
 
It just mean that will "ANOTHER" license fee we will have buy and pay for before we can go hunting it wouldn't change what a NR pays to hunt in all those States.
 
Gator,

That was exactly my point in my hypothetical question. Come down to the adage; there are more ways to skin a cat...etc.

In fact, it might come to an extra license charge that will be paid REGARDLESS of actually getting a tag or not to make up for the shortfall in tag revenue. That mean's EVERY NR that applies will pay more up front -- not just those who draw tags.

And...since the tag fee would be closer to what a resident pays, don't be surprised if the NR quotas get cut even lower than they are now. -TONY
 
tony;

You are right about certain states will just up the license fees to conpersate for a reduced price game tag. As for me what I like is something like this. Several years ago I made a decision not to allow a greedy state to rip me off. I no longer will hunt in states that demand you buy a hunting license first and then take a chance in a drawing for a tag that you might not get. You end up eating that hunting license. Not for me, let other suckers apply.
I also will not pay for outrageous fees on hunting tags as some states are now charging, instead I will hunt more in my state since I live in decent hunting areas of N.CA. It is not because I can not afford it, My wife and I have retired on a income that allow us to do what we please. I just do not like being played for a fool or sucker as some of you seem to not mind at all, or you are resident hunters that pay a far cheaper price and do not want the NR hunters in the first place.
But alot of you are still going to pay the price sooner or later. In areas of wyoming, Montana, S.Dakota where I have hunted in the past, are very different today. I remember getting free trespass or a very low fee on a lot of ranches in those areas for hunting. Having gone back to most of those areas, I found the ranches locked up by outfitters and high fees being charged. The locals were bitching about themselfs being locked out from areas they have hunted for numerous years.
I found private ranches locking out hunters, local and NR, from getting to public land that was surrounded by the private land in wyoming and Colorado. This is your future of hunting, as for me, I will quit hunting out of state before I will allow myself to get ripped off by greedy ranchers, state game departments, outfitters and greedy politicians from both parties.
I will say this, most of the ranchers I met and hunted on their property were very good people, but even the good ones have a hard time passing up some more bucks that will pay their property taxes and help keep their ranch afloat. I even met very honest outfitters. One in Wyoming even let me on the ranch he managed to fill my cow elk tag for 100.00 bucks and his bull hunting clients were paying 4500.00 for a shot at a bull.
But even you guys have to admit, hunting today is not the same as it was 5-10 years ago and it is going to get even worse and the fees will price out a lot of Fathers, Grandfathers from taking their kids hunting and teaching them the tradition of hunting. As for me, I can afford to take my Grandkids to a private ranch for their hunting, what are you guys going to do?
My last hunt was in April of this year where I hunted a 120,000 acrea ranch in calif and my partners and I took three buffalo for a price of 1500 bucks each, and they were not in a fence corral. Wyoming wants 2000 bucks for just a tag. they can kiss my rearend for that outrageous price. I am more of meat hunter anyway and the dollar per pound is better here.
The writing is on the wall, you residents will be paying more in the future, not just the NR hunter, your state needs the money after all. And while they are charging you more money, they will be locking you out of more land in the form of outfitters buying up the good hunting areas for exclusive use of their out of state hunters who are willing to pay the tarriff.
RELH
 
Something needs to be done there's no question but passing a law like this is bad for everyone. The Reid bill actually afforded a level of protectionism to all the western states to allocate their tags w/o outside interference. How can the states wildlife agencies function when every guy or group of guys with deep pockets that wants a tag goes to court to sue them possibly work. Lest not we forget that's exactly the approach the anti's our using against us to deploy the wolf and curtail predator control.

You have to get some form of protectionism in place or the whole damn system will be beseiged with these type of friviolous lawsuits. The fact that this proposed legislation was brought about by the den on liberalism makes it even more of a joke. The residents of CA are widely known to not be prohunting. If you guys could control what you have, a lot of great country lies within your state boundaries to be able to support many more numbers of huntable wildlife. The fact that you sit there and don't offer residents of other states full opportunity to hunt your game animals yet think that the other states should lower their barriers of protection speaks volumes. I'm beginning to believe this what's mine is mine and what's your is mine too becomes ingrained by all that smoggy air you breathe. Nothing personal against you guys most of you are decent people but it always seems like some of you from California seem to think the rest of the country owes you something again and again.

People across this fine coutry have a pretty dismal opinion of Californians because they want to change everything they touch. How many small western towns that were very attractive have you ruined with those liberal viewpoints? Sorry guys but MR Duncan is as far out of line as your vaunted ninth circut court. What's good for California isn't necessarily what's good for the rest of the nation. The states own the wildlife and it is they who are entrusted with their management that should determine the fee structure free of this type of regulation. We don't like the prices they charge at Disneyland but we aren't going to court or congress to get them changed! For the record spending the same time in the Magic Kingdome would cost you a lot more than any tag we offer! Yes there needs to be some changes I agree, but we don't need federal legislation enacted on the matter. That only opens more doors to more lawsuits.
 
LAST EDITED ON Aug-06-07 AT 09:34AM (MST)[p]RELH,

I agree with much of what you said in that last reply...to a point.

Unfortunately, we are capitalistic society where, for the most part, individuals have the right to do what they want when it comes to their private lands and making money. And the state is still paid for the wildlife hunted on private property either through tag or hunting license revenues. Even where the landowners get free permits/vouchers, hunters normally have to buy a state hunting license.

I also rarely hunt in other states because of the high tag costs, but that said, I still do not support Hunter's bill, mainly because I believe states have the right to control their WILDLIFE as they see fit, and that includes how much they charge hunters for opportunities to hunt it.

Both residents and nonresidents have equal ACCESS to federal lands throughout the country and also have many opportunities to HUNT that federal land for the cost of a hunting license. The exception, of course, is big game, which adds an additional cost to the license fee.

For example, if I want to hunt tule elk on any of the Federal lands in CA, I would have to pay YOUR state $1,050.00 as a nonresident, while you only pay $339.50 as a resident. So be it; that's the penalty I pay for living in AZ rather than CA.

And of course, if we look at TX, any decent whitetail hunting will cost a fortune because of the "greedy" landowners there who won't open up their lands to the public for free. Fat chance of that ever happening. ;-)

This is basically little different from the tuition to attend universities; nonresidents pay significantly higher fees, despite the fact many of the universities receive federal funding of some sort.

Now, if you really want to assess blame, maybe we should start right here with those obsessed by inches -- the what will it score folks. Ego and greed have permeated hunting to the point of being almost ridiculous. One need only look at the recent discussions here about the two special elk tags. And, sad to say, it's only going to get worse before it gets better.

Lastly, I haven't drawn a permit to hunt ANY big-game animal -- deer, elk, sheep, pronghorn, bison, spring gobbler -- in my own state of AZ for the last 5 years. Although NRs are limited to up to 10% of the permits, I have to wonder if they were eliminated altogether, if I would have had a chance to hunt here at least one of those years. It's quite discouraging to apply for a bighorn permit for 35 years yet see numerous NRs get one each year. Maybe just ONE of those might have been mine. x(

-TONY
 
Boskee and Tony;

Both of you said a mouthful that had a lot of truth in it. I guess what I am trying to get across, and did not do a good job of it, is that our hunting has become a big money game where the average guy & gal is getting ripped off by someone.
As for Hunter, he is out of L.A. and that by itself tells me that his entry into the hunting arena is backed by big money in the form of wealthy voters that want a change in tag fees in your state. Believe me, I do not support his bill and interference by a Fed. Gov. that overpays for everything they buy.
Due to states charging excessive fees for NR hunters, even my own state, is the reason I said that I would like to see a more across the board fair fee for everyone. It will never happen by itself. Too many with their fingers in the pie will not allow it to happen. I also do not like the fact that my state restricts NR hunters from getting certain coveted elk tags that if drawn is almost a sure thing of getting a big bull if the hunter goes out and hunts hard.
When my state starts to overcharge me as a resident, I will tell them to kiss my rear also and take up more fishing. I really believe we will not be able to stop this money game rip off in our sport. I am certain we will see more and more of private ranches being used as hunting preserves and the fed. land will be overrun and not worth hunting unless you are more of a meat hunter instead of big horns. boy! am I glad that my wife told me long ago that you can not eat the horns.
I do not like the fact Tony that you can not draw certain tags in your own state, but we have that here also with some of our tags for certain elk, antelope tags. My hunting partner and his son have been trying for 8 years on antelope and almost 20 years for a paticular elk tag, just too damn much population putting in for it. Hunting, as we know it from past experience, is dying out, and I hate to see it going that way.

RELH
 
Heh Out Door Writer, As to your statement about Texas landowners being greedy I say Bull Crap. Ther are plenty of landowners all throught the West that don't let the public on their land. They charge tresspass fees or lease out their land to outfitters just like here in Texas. There are plenty of low cost places to hunt deer. I know of year round leases that cost less than some western Elk tags cost. It just happens that the top end deer hunting is costly but it is not because of greedy landowners. Big bucks don't just come about by chance. It take a substatntial investment to grow big deer such as habitat manipulation ie: brush control, installation of water sources, supplemental feed, taxes, fences, game surveys, etc. Unfortunteatly most of Texas is privately owned so if you want to hunt you have to know someone or pay. Texas landowners are no differnt than anyone else but obviuosly you have an axe to grind and think otherwise.
 
This is a good thing. All states need to stop relying on the NR to flip the bill and get funds from Everyone that will hunt the Federal land. This would not be needed if the states didn't get so fricking greedy that they were pricing out the average guy with lopsided res-nonres percentage fees.. It keeps getting worst, with no end in sight so this is why this came up.
Just like the article says, when a father cannot take his son hunting because he cannot afford it, that is against what Teddy was trying to do back in the day. I am all for nonresident quotas and stuff but many states have taken the pricing and quotas too far and take more every year.
The State may own the game, but when it comes time to set foot on that federal land, the playing field gets leveled because what is good for the goose......
State owned animals are useless if the Federal land owners decide that we want the same quota on how many residents can go on the land. Its a balance act that has been one sided and ignored for too long and a limit needs to be set.
 
Its a dumb idea, and it wont pass.

For those griping about the price...stay home. The states have the absolute right to charge what they want. Its IMPOSSIBLE to charge a small enough fee to allow everyone to participate. For many people a $5 license wouldnt make it any easier for them to hunt out of state.

In fairness to the states, management is not cheap. Vehicles arent cheap, paying a living wage to employees is not cheap, aerial surveys are not cheap, fuel is 3-4 bucks a gallon, etc. etc. etc. Not to mention that the States are now trying to manage different areas for different demands (trophy areas, increased opportunity in others, etc. etc.). Many states are managing more species now (sheep, goats, moose, etc.) than they ever have. More is being spent to manage and study non-game species. The list goes on and on and nothing gets cheaper from a management standpoint...and likely will do nothing but get more and more expensive as time goes on.

I fully understand and accept it as part of the price you have to pay. I'm not "rich" but I make it a priority to hunt and I apply for tags in just about every western states for elk, deer, antelope, sheep, goats, moose, bison, javelina, etc. etc. etc.

Life is about choices and I contend that just about ANYONE that is properly motivated and makes hunting their priority can afford to apply and hunt in any state they choose.

For those making the CHOICE to not pay the higher fees...too bad for you and thanks for increasing my odds. For those that cant afford it...budget your money better, get a better job, or work two jobs like I do. Funny what hard work and motivation will allow you to do. Most of the successful hunters I know are not "rich"...they're motivated. They dont sit around on hunting boards griping about NR fees. They're out earning money to fund the license fees so they can hunt.

I simply decided a long time ago that money will not stand in the way of my decision/choice to hunt. I view the money I spend on licenses I wont use as a donation to the conservation of the game I pursue...cant think of a better thing to spend my money on.
 
Buzz, have a couple boys that want to hunt and you may change your outlook on things. To sit back and say what you do is fine, and i do feel the same way but my kid is not hunting age yet, and when he is things will be way further from the avergae guys pocket book if a line isn't drawn in the sand.
 
LAST EDITED ON Aug-08-07 AT 02:41PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Aug-08-07 AT 02:40?PM (MST)

Schmalts,

I don't mind drawing a line in the sand but explain how this particular piece of legislation would expand, enhance and/or make your trip to hunt in the "west" cheaper or more accesible?

Have you read the legislation at all? It doesn't require any license quotas, meaning that the States could then issue only 10 permits to restrict access to near zero, or 100,000 permits to make sure all game is run off Federal lands. It leaves the management up to the states.

In addition it only pertains to "deer, elk, antelope, or bear". It does not pertain to bison, bighorn sheep, moose, moutain goats etc.

Nobody has explains how exactly this would help anybody except Duncan Hunter. If you want equal access then move to a western state. Better hurry because it is disappearing fast.

Nemont
 
LAST EDITED ON Aug-08-07 AT 02:46PM (MST)[p] Nemont, i know what you are saying. But dont get the wrong idea, I am just saying a line needs to be drawn someplace because it IS getting out of hand. The future of hunting scares me seeing this get worst every year. It is going to nothing but auction tags and high rollers and high dollar leases.
 
Fact is that the only way a poor family will be able to hunt is to keep the resident tags cheap. Those people can't afford the gas to go to the next state and need to be able to hunt near home. They don't spend time planning on going out west to hunt. The people who keep whining about NR quotas and tag costs are the SCI/SFW/outfitter and tag whores as well as the typical neighbor who wants to enjoy your backyard pool but not pay for the water. Dream on but this kind of crap will go nowhere.
 
RELH,

Ask PT Barnum if he has a mountain goat from MT, a moose from MT, Dall sheep from AK, MT lion from MT, Black bears from MT and WY, Antelope from MT and WY, mule deer and whitetails from MT and WY, elk from MT and WY, coues deer from AZ, Javelina from AZ, sitka blacktails from AK, sea ducks from AK, etc. etc.

I've successfully hunted all them...matter of fact all of them DIY except the dall sheep. I pay for all kinds of application fees, licenses, etc.

Foolish? I dont know, I wouldnt trade the experiences for any amount of money. Apparently for you it isnt as important to experience those types of hunts. Whatever, just dont ask me to drop the fees so you can play, pony up or shut up.

Schmalts, I can kind of see your point on the kids. Heres my solution, the same solution I had when I was a kid. My Dad never took me hunting out-of-state...not once. If I wanted to go, I had to pay for my own licenses, simple as that. If you want your kids to hunt on the cheap, do it in-state. Last I checked Wisconsin has plenty of deer, turkeys, waterfowl, etc. Most kids dont give a crap what they hunt, they just like to hunt.

Again, theres choices. If your kid wants to hunt, good go shovel some sidewalks and pay for your own non-resident permit. If they cant afford it, hunt in-state...LIFE LESSONS. Its ridiculous that parents spoil their kids with everything little johnny wants...including parents who whine about the costs of applying little johnny for 20 species of big-game in 6 states. When they get jobs and can afford it, then they can play the game.

Gleninaz,

Good post.
 
LAST EDITED ON Aug-08-07 AT 08:52PM (MST)[p]Buzz, your getting up there in age.. something to ponder, you hunted many states and got a lot of nice critters. Go back in time, but this time put the cost into todays type of res to nonres percentage and lets see how many critters and hunts you could brag about. Think about it.... I bet many of the hunts you went on would have been out of your price range if the pricing was adjusted to todays inflated amount.
Hell, i am as greedy as you and dont want more competition for tags, but we have to draw a line someplace so kids (I mean young adults too) can do exactly what you did. Have a kid and your outlook will change.
The whole thing boils back down to the Federal land thing. There is some reason to it no matter how greedy you/we all are. There needs to be a balance and that balance is fading away.
 
Just so happens that any big game animal that a NR can hunt in ND is only 200 dollars.
 
This issue isn't about hunting it's about trophy hunting disguised as a hunting measure. These guys can hunt deer in their own state any time they get drawn just like the rest of us in draw states or in many states OTC. Just about every state in this country has the habitat to grow their own game.Unless you get going on it today your opportunity will be lost. There isn't enough game out west to remotely satisfy the demand for all the tags. So wake up and smell the coffee boys and get some programs going in your own states. Don't expect the rest of the world to sit back and take care of your game management issues for you because that isn't going to happen. We are losing valuable habitat every single day to development and our populations are growing as is the demand for tags. Unless we find ways to create more opportunity within each state to ease the burdens there will NEVER be a solution. The trouble with all this is that most guys really don't want to write a check for $1000.00 - $5000.00 to help fund some programs and acquire some habitat before it's too late. When you have people that want to ##### about as $225.00- $450.00 NR deer tag and a $450.00 - $750.00 elk tag the issue will never get resolved. Fact it takes money for game management and to create opportunity plain and simple and most guys really aren't too willing to ante up for their share of the costs if it exceeds what they have to pay in state. Well it is what it is and until we all wake up and smell the coffee it's not going to change. You won't get the funding on the federal level because we are in a minority and that's the harsh reality of the issue. Complaining about the high cost of western tags isn't going to solve the issue the only thing that's going to solve the issue is to get off your bumps and invest a little in huntings future. For those of you not willing to do this all I can say is your getting about as much of a return on your investment as one could expect. How far can $25.00 - $75.00 go in todays world for a resident tag to increase opportunity for all the residents of the 50 states. Thats' not even the price of a 1/2 tank of gas in todays' world and that won't get you very far at all!!!
 
Boskee, from what i read in the original post i see nothing about opportunity, just cost. I think some of you are assuming things other than what was typed in black and white.

Here is an interesting topic, I wonder how many states get thier F&G lisence sales money robbed by the State to fund other non-wildlife needs? I bet a lot do.
Our dumbass leaders here in WI have done it many times. If all the money raise by the F&G was used for F&G, the fish would be jumping on your hook from twice as much stocking, and the DNR would have bought a whole lot more land. It sucks to see F&G money used for road work and welfare..
 
Boskee;

250.00 for a deer tag is reasonable, 450-500 is starting to get a little high. I can see 750.00 for a elk tag. I can not see 2,000 for a bison tag.
what I am really ticked off about is the states that have you buy a license for 75-100 bucks or more. Then you submit your 300 to 750 bucks for a drawing of a tag. If you do not get drawn, you will get your tag money back minus a small fee, but the damn crooks keep your worthless license money. Some states combine the license and tag, you pay get license, but failed to draw tag and they do not return money but send you a worthless license that you might be able to use in a "over the counter area" that you do not want to hunt. Do that for 1000 to 3000 NR hunters and that state has made a bundle and given the hunter NADA. It is legal theft That I will not take part in, and any hunter that does is a big damn fool in my book.
Having to buy preference points each year in order to get a possible chance to draw a tag 10 years or more down the line is another rip off where the state gets the money for X amount of years and provides nothing to the hunter for those years. Talk about a stacked lottery system. It should be a simple random lottery type draw and everyone goes in equal as a NR or resident hunter. Residents should have a seperate draw from NR and residents should get 80-90% of the tags. Any state should take care of their own first, since it most likely the residents are the ones who assist the state in donating time to game programs within their state.
The above post is correct about some of states have a portion of the tag-license money that ends up in the general coffers for other non game projects. This is where the greed will come in when politicians relize they can make big bucks off of NR hunters and use the money for pet projects that have nothing to do with wild game or hunting. I see it getting bigger in the future.

RELH
 
When was the last time the federal government started taking money then stopped? We are a small minority of the voter base and once these greedy bastards figure out how this new revenue/tax stream works it will be the end of hunting. Think about another minority called smokers and every added tax they are forced to pay just because they are a minority. We have an abundance of morons in our midst.
 
Relh, you make some good points. I think the bonus point pools are a scam too but they are around in quite a few western states so they have become an accepted practice. I think the intent was for the NR to share in the expense of managing the herd so to speak and help keep the NR costs a little more reasonable by deferring some of the costs. I think the license fees have gotten a little high in that regard. But I can certainly see the point that all of us have to share in the expenses of managing the resource in order to be able to hunt them. Since the residents of AZ contribute the lions share of the fees from license and tag sales I can certainly see the increased rate for the NR.

Are we doing enough? In my opinion, no, in working on a solution towards the escalating cost of hunting. But given the costs of things in todays world and the fact we only have about 1/2 the tags we used to have for sale it's a complex issue. We do give a break on junior hunt tags but that hardly helps a spirited fellow like yourself in his retirement years, or a young working father still making his way. Unless we as hunters can come up with some other revenue streams to help support the departments this will be an ongoing issue. If we had the wildlife that some states like Colorado have I'm sure things may have been handled in a more cost effective manner. But given the limited resource and the overhead to operate a department in our state the numbers wound up where they did.

I will point out that our fees just went up this year an Elk tag here used to be $400.00 and a deer tag was $130.00 and those were pretty fair prices to hunt the quality of animals we had here. Our costs today are more in line with what some of the other western states had been charging for tags previously. I can only say that we had people lined up to draw all the tags we offered in the past and the demand has always exceeded the supply. It most certainly doesn't make it right but it does establish a fair market price for the tags in todays world. That's exactly how many other products prices are determined in today's world. I wish our tag fees were lower and we had more game so all of us would be able to hunt more but that's not the reality of the situation. I haven't drawn a tag in quite a few years myself.
 
Boskee;
The bottom line is that hunting is going to cost more and more every year and there is not one darn thing that you or I will be able to do to keep it reasonable.
Hunting will become again the "sport of kings" or the very wealthy and the average guy will have to bow out and find something else. I can probably afford tags more easily then 90% of the guys on this forum, I just draw the line when I feel that "SOMEONE" is trying to rip me off because there is a long line willing to pay.
I guess my priorties are not as strong, or are elsewhere as some of the hunters on this forum who will give up many other luxuries just to be able to hunt.
Good Hunting
RELH
 
RELH, I don't think your priority's are misaligned at all. You're just a man of principle and seem to want what's best for everyone hardly a fault in my book. We both are on the same page where this is headed but it's going to take a lot more than the two of us to straighten this out, like you stated. I hope a solution can be found before it's too late. When we look beyond the average guys means to hunt the end will be in the not too distant future. The only way we really can make this work is to make sure everyone can have the opportunity to hunt. By protecting others rights to hunt we are in effect protecting our own and future generations. Rest assured we all may not be able to go to Africa on a safari but we should be able to keep several species within the means of all men and their sons to enjoy. I hope you drew a great tag that you really wanted and have a great hunt. CA
 
Schmalts,

I can afford the hunts I did ten years ago easier NOW than I did THEN...no question about that.

Oh, and speak for yourself...old man...I'm in my prime.

RELH, you really are a negative guy.

Re-read what you wrote, "but the damn crooks keep your worthless license money. Some states combine the license and tag, you pay get license, but failed to draw tag and they do not return money but send you a worthless license that you might be able to use in a "over the counter area" that you do not want to hunt. Do that for 1000 to 3000 NR hunters and that state has made a bundle and given the hunter NADA."

Thats a steaming pile of crap right there.

You most certainly are getting a return on your license fees. Management costs money. From my perspective, even if I NEVER drew another out-of-state permit, the money I spend on licenses I'll never use, WILL afford the animals I care about to continue to exist. Those license fees pay for what it takes to manage big-game. I'm also not a selfish cry-baby, while I may never see a tag for my investment, I have made it possible for my fellow hunters to enjoy hunting. Also, I view those license fees as an investment in a great experience if I do happen to luck out and draw a good permit. I'll gladly pay (through my license fees) for a warden to protect big-game from poachers so that if and when I do draw that animal will be there for ME or some other hunter to pursue. I also dont mind paying for better habitat so when I do draw I'm hunting top-quality animals.

Those license fees are what keeps the animals we all enjoy to pursue around for all of us to enjoy...both consumptively as in hunting, and asthetically...as in just plain enjoying looking at them. I cant tell you how many hours I've spent staring at bighorn rams in Montana. If I never draw a tag there, I feel the money I spent applying for them was WELL worth it...just knowing they're there is enough for me...and I'd gladly pay twice as much to keep them there.

I say think big-picture and quite crying about a few hundred dollars a year wisely spent on the sport and the animals you PRETEND to care for.

The license fees are a SMALL part of the total expense for hunting, yet one of the most critical things we spend money on during a hunt...and also the ONE thing I hear more whining and crying about than any other expense. Makes NO sense. Its an investment into the future, the animals, and the sport.

But, hey, carry on with the whining...I'll continue to pay for your share too...and I wont whine about it either.
 
buzzH;

I will end this right here and say you are a smoke blowing hypocrite and I would be a bigger fool then you are if I believed the B.S. you posted. You just do not have the wavels to really say what you really feel about the topic discussed.


RELH
 
>buzzH;
>
>I will end this right here
>and say you are a
>smoke blowing hypocrite and I
>would be a bigger fool
>then you are if I
>believed the B.S. you posted.
>You just do not have
>the wavels to really say
>what you really feel about
>the topic discussed.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> RELH
Please elaborate?? Do tell
 
LAST EDITED ON Aug-10-07 AT 10:55AM (MST)[p]>buzzH;
>
>I will end this right here
>and say you are a
>smoke blowing hypocrite and I
>would be a bigger fool
>then you are if I
>believed the B.S. you posted.
>You just do not have
>the wavels to really say
>what you really feel about
>the topic discussed.
>>
> RELH

I think you meant huevos not wavels.

huevos.jpg


I don't think Buzz beat around the bush on his true feelings but please explain what you mean by your post.

Nemont
 
One thing that Wyoming has been wrestling with is the added costs for non-game species and management of T&E species.

Wyoming derives almost all of its money from license sales, and only recently has been getting some funding from state general funds.

Wyoming has been spending almost $1 million on grizzly bears for several years, with the Federal government contributing minimal dollars (tens of thousands). It is estimated that wolves will cost the state around $2.1 to $2.5 million annually. This equates to a lot of hunting dollars that are being diverted to other wildlife needs within the state. Wyoming's G&F Commission is charged with managing all wildlife within its borders, not just the ones we hunt &/or fish. We are struggling to maintain the current level of management for wildlife which we hunt &/or fish; yet, threats of listing wildlife species are constantly being raised. Hunters and anglers stepped up years ago to shoulder the cost of managing our wildlife resources. Many non-game species have done well via the sportsmen's dollars; yet, there are many groups out there profitting from wildlife which do not contribute. These seem to be the same groups which usually end up in the courts to stop certain wildlife from being managed (hunted).

Perhaps we should be attempting to craft legislation which obligates other wildlife entities to contribute to non-game species management as well as T&E species. After all it appears that most of these groups don't have a problem milking millions of dollars off of wildlife to raise money for their causes; yet, it appears that attorney's working for these firms seem to be prospering at our (hunters/anglers) expense.
 
Smokestick,

I agree that hunters and fishermen contribute money to managing non-game. Thats a good thing as there is value in ALL wildlife, not just the wildlife that can be hunted. Plus, its one of the BEST defenses of hunting and fishing that I can think of. It shows the hook and bullet crowd really does care about WILDLIFE management...not just elk, deer, antelope, and grouse management.

I do agree that others need to step up to the plate and contribute their share, no question.

Where did you find this fact, "Wyoming has been spending almost $1 million on grizzly bears for several years, with the Federal government contributing minimal dollars (tens of thousands)."

Do you have any proof of that? I'd like to see the exact breakdown on who pays what for grizzly management in Wyoming.
 
BuzzH,

It was reported at the G&F Commission meeting sometime ago. I don't know the exact meeting, but that is something that has been discussed several times by the WY G&F Commission.

The same with the wolf management estimated costs.

I agree that we should hold our heads high for all wildlife conservation which has occurred because of hunters/anglers dollars. Not enough credit is given to the dedication of hunters/anglers and their willingness to contribute to wildlife conservation. Nor is enough said to those that say so much about how wildlife is managed; yet, seldom if ever do they contribute anything besides lawsuits.

Wildlife need all kinds of advocates; however, not everyone is contributing to their management.
 

Similar threads

L
Elk antler poacher fined, loses hunting privileges for 3 years
Replies
31
Views
3k
OLDHORNHUNTER
O
aedude006
Introduction from Green Bay WI
Replies
8
Views
371
Joe2Kool
Joe2Kool
urge2hunt
New Mexico Elk, Mule Deer & Antelope Hunts for 2024
Replies
0
Views
391
urge2hunt
urge2hunt

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

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

2022 king buck.jpeg
FFC97820-682A-49C5-90E4-D0386485628B.jpeg
IMG_5111 copy.jpg
1.jpg
C0961C50-0951-4E78-BE07-DD10C0B59921.jpeg
20210804_235640.jpg
IMG_0605.jpeg
0217221300.jpg
8E822C32-9C22-45A2-9822-A72C58BCB27E.jpeg
IMG_4875.JPG
D7858222-29C3-4591-A80E-F3542BCD5FC8.jpeg
050A3CF8-F6CA-4211-90DA-13F18779E14C.jpeg
Back
Top Bottom