Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 21
  1. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    91
    Thanks
    26
    Thanked 35 Times in 21 Posts
    Congratulations
    14
    Congratulated 2 Times in 1 Post

    Quote Originally Posted by mustang8 View Post
    Id go there if their tag prices weren't THRU THE ROOF! $600 plus for a stupid deer combo tag is un real.
    Its' bad but there are some other doozys out there, KS comes to mind. I think that it might actually be more in Kansas to hunt mule deer, and that is if you are lucky enough to be drawn. I believe the hunting license is around $100, $450 for the deer tag, plus another $150 for the mule deer.

    I saw first hand last year how bad Oil and Gas development can be on public land in Western Oklahoma, hate to see more of that being likely in Montana.

  2. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    177
    Thanks
    34
    Thanked 48 Times in 34 Posts
    Congratulations
    7
    Congratulated 14 Times in 2 Posts
    Not political? BS. Requesting people from out of state to get involved in influencing our representatives is purely political. The voices of Montanans should be the only voices that determine what happens to Montana lands. What does someone from New York City or Los Angeles know about living in Montana, they have no right to force their land use opinions on us. Bringing in people from outside the state is purely political and tells me that it's not about land use, it's about winning politically.

  3. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Wyoming
    Posts
    567
    Thanks
    161
    Thanked 460 Times in 219 Posts
    Congratulations
    147
    Congratulated 175 Times in 32 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by rammont View Post
    Not political? BS. Requesting people from out of state to get involved in influencing our representatives is purely political. The voices of Montanans should be the only voices that determine what happens to Montana lands. What does someone from New York City or Los Angeles know about living in Montana, they have no right to force their land use opinions on us. Bringing in people from outside the state is purely political and tells me that it's not about land use, it's about winning politically.
    I strongly disagree. Our federal lands belong to all 330 million Americans. All of them should have an opportunity to weigh in on federal land management decisions. It is inappropriate for locals to make decisions that ignore the wishes of millions of public land owners in other states. Just because you live closer to a piece of federal land than someone from Kentucky, doesn't mean your opinion should automatically override the opinion of the person from Kentucky.
    Don't fence me in!

  4. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to highplainsdrifter For This Useful Post:


  5. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Wyoming
    Posts
    173
    Thanks
    18
    Thanked 72 Times in 47 Posts
    Congratulations
    4
    Congratulated 5 Times in 3 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by highplainsdrifter View Post
    I strongly disagree. Our federal lands belong to all 330 million Americans. All of them should have an opportunity to weigh in on federal land management decisions. It is inappropriate for locals to make decisions that ignore the wishes of millions of public land owners in other states. Just because you live closer to a piece of federal land than someone from Kentucky, doesn't mean your opinion should automatically override the opinion of the person from Kentucky.
    I agree with rammont on this one. What Highplainsdrifter has to say is true to a point. But we all have seen what happens when the Federal appeals court in San Francisco rules that wolves should be put back on the endangered species list in the state of Montana. The wildlife on public lands in Montana belongs to the whole country right, so they should have a say? No! Quite simply I think it is catastrophically absurd a court in California can even have a say about the rule hunting wolves in Montana or any other state.

    The difference is Montana's have to live with the wildlife, and have to abide by the laws of the land in THEIR back yard. They are the ones that pay the state taxes and live there. Quite a sticky situation!

  6. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Wyoming
    Posts
    567
    Thanks
    161
    Thanked 460 Times in 219 Posts
    Congratulations
    147
    Congratulated 175 Times in 32 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by DanPickar View Post
    I agree with rammont on this one. What Highplainsdrifter has to say is true to a point. But we all have seen what happens when the Federal appeals court in San Francisco rules that wolves should be put back on the endangered species list in the state of Montana. The wildlife on public lands in Montana belongs to the whole country right, so they should have a say? No! Quite simply I think it is catastrophically absurd a court in California can even have a say about the rule hunting wolves in Montana or any other state.

    The difference is Montana's have to live with the wildlife, and have to abide by the laws of the land in THEIR back yard. They are the ones that pay the state taxes and live there. Quite a sticky situation!
    Wildlife management and federal land management are two different things. It has been longstanding practice, defined by law, for the states to own/manage wildlife (except for migratory birds and endangered species). I strongly support the authority of the states to manage wildlife.

    On the other hand, federal lands are owned by the federal government. That means 330 million Americans pay taxes to support the management of those lands. Because they pay taxes, and because they actually own the land, they should have a say on how that land is managed. I am convinced that is actually a very good thing. Historically, local efforts to control management of federal lands have repeatedly led to exploitation of those lands at the expense of wildlife.
    Don't fence me in!

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to highplainsdrifter For This Useful Post:


  8. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Reno
    Posts
    711
    Thanks
    98
    Thanked 231 Times in 139 Posts
    Congratulations
    73
    Congratulated 112 Times in 30 Posts
    When talking about wilderness study areas please remember the reason most are still "study areas" is that they don't truly meet the wilderness requirements and were locked up by Clinton to stop logging, grazing and use by the people. Do your research wilderness areas are a dying eco-system and need to be managed and used for the betterment of all. While some areas have and are productive try finding a deer or elk in the wilderness in the Cascade Mts areas.
    Yes everyone owns this land but the voices that live there should carry greater weight when deciding how they are managed. I'll agree to equal say on management when EACH state holds the same % of public lands as all the others so I can enjoy public land in Texas for example. Why should western states be punished for having more open space and told how to live then folks back east?

  9. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Wyoming
    Posts
    567
    Thanks
    161
    Thanked 460 Times in 219 Posts
    Congratulations
    147
    Congratulated 175 Times in 32 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by nv-hunter View Post
    Why should western states be punished for having more open space and told how to live then folks back east?
    That is an interesting perspective. I don't believe western states are being punished by the folks back east. Since they are equal partners in owning the land, and since they pay the same federal taxes as we do, they should have equal say in how the lands are managed.

    When it comes to deciding the fate of Wyoming's Wilderness Study Areas, it is quite clear that the average American is left out of the discussion. The committees that have been formed by the county commissions are dominated by local people. Those that live far away probably don't even know the discussion is taking place. Is that fair?
    Don't fence me in!

  10. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Reno
    Posts
    711
    Thanks
    98
    Thanked 231 Times in 139 Posts
    Congratulations
    73
    Congratulated 112 Times in 30 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by highplainsdrifter View Post
    That is an interesting perspective. I don't believe western states are being punished by the folks back east. Since they are equal partners in owning the land, and since they pay the same federal taxes as we do, they should have equal say in how the lands are managed.

    When it comes to deciding the fate of Wyoming's Wilderness Study Areas, it is quite clear that the average American is left out of the discussion. The committees that have been formed by the county commissions are dominated by local people. Those that live far away probably don't even know the discussion is taking place. Is that fair?
    I totally think its fair they can show up in person if they have an interest. As for punished for me its about making a living and what it does to local economy by having large amounts of federal land then not having a say.
    I personally think that if its going to be wilderness or wilderness study then zero fire suppression or any for profit activites.

  11. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Wyoming
    Posts
    567
    Thanks
    161
    Thanked 460 Times in 219 Posts
    Congratulations
    147
    Congratulated 175 Times in 32 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by nv-hunter View Post
    I totally think its fair they can show up in person if they have an interest.
    So you think they should have to show up in person to have a say? It would be costly for someone from Florida to attend a meeting in Montana or Wyoming to make a statement. IMHO they should be allowed to comment via email or phone, and the comments provided should count as much as the one provided by the guy employed at the local filling station.
    Don't fence me in!

  12. #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    407
    Thanks
    17
    Thanked 390 Times in 137 Posts
    Congratulations
    1
    Congratulated 73 Times in 24 Posts

    highplainsdrifter has it correct.

    I think the way the Federal public lands are dealt with is totally appropriate. The locals definitely have a bigger voice via their own comments as well as through their county commissioners, legislature, and other elected officials.

    However, the "checks and balance" is provided by the oversight of all 330 million Americans that are equal owners of our public lands. That keeps the "locals" from operating on the fringe thinking their voice is the only one that should matter when it comes to public lands and that they "know better"

    I can say, without a doubt, that many times the locals DO NOT have it right with their views on how to manage public lands. They often only look through the "maximize profit" lens, regarding Federal Lands when they form their opinions and state their positions. This is often times in direct conflict with the most judicious use of these lands and also in conflict of other considerations like wildlife, wildlife habitat, recreation, hunting, fishing, etc. etc.

    The way its supposed to work is that all uses of Federal lands should be given equal consideration under the law, law created by OUR Congressional delegation to ensure that happens. This is nothing new, NFMA, RPA, ESA, FLPMA, WA, etc. etc. have been around a long time.

    Its how it works when a Federal asset is held in trust for all US Citizens, and frankly, I don't want it to work any other way. I want, and fully expect as a public land owner, to be able to voice my positions on public lands in Wyoming as well as those found in NV, UT, MT, WA, OR, MA, FL, or any other place where federal lands exist.

    I want, and fully expect people from all over the US to have a voice here in Wyoming as well. As responsible and concerned citizens, not only is it our right, but its our duty to comment on issues surrounding Federal lands no matter ones zip code.
    Last edited by BuzzH; 03-13-2018 at 08:18 PM.

  13. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to BuzzH For This Useful Post:


 

 
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •