Transfer of Public Lands
- Thread starter npaden
- Start date
highplainsdrifter
Very Active Member
Colorado Cowboy
Super Moderator
I'd bet that they are, but for them if it ain't about guns, it doesn't exist!
Bonecollector
Veteran member
SunnyInCO
Member
Here's the thing, it is connected at some level. If the public lands went away how many new hunters would get into the lifestyle? Probably a lot less? As a new hunter myself, I would probably never have brought my first rifle a few years ago if I had to lease or purchase a private land owners tag. Once you buy your first I would guess the numbers are high the percent of people that purchase more guns and join various groups including the National RIFLE Association.
highplainsdrifter
Very Active Member
The popular Land and Water Conservation Fund is in danger of not being renewed because federal land transfer proponents in Congress think the federal government already owns too much land. Utah representative Bob Bishop, chairman of the House Natural Resource Committee, is proposing amendments to the Land Water Conservation Fund that would provide strict controls on how much new federal land can be purchased:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/11/05/republican-rep-rob-bishop-proposes-major-changes-popular-conservation-fund/75113500/
Representative Bishop is also part of the Federal Land Action Group which has the stated goal of introducing transfer legislation in Congress. See Federal Land Action Group: http://stewart.house.gov/flag
Members of the Federal Land Action Group include:
Rep. Chris Stewart (R-Utah) - Chairman of the Federal Land Action Group
Rep. Rob Bishop (R-Utah) - Chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee
Representative Mark Amodei (R-Nev.)
Representative Diane Black (R-Tenn.)
Representative Jeff Duncan (R-S.C.)
Representative Cresent Hardy (R-Nev.)
Representative Cynthia Lummis (R-WY)
Representative Raul Labrador (R-Idaho)
While many of us were out enjoying our federal lands this fall, these people were doing their best to pull the rug out from under us!
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/11/05/republican-rep-rob-bishop-proposes-major-changes-popular-conservation-fund/75113500/
Representative Bishop is also part of the Federal Land Action Group which has the stated goal of introducing transfer legislation in Congress. See Federal Land Action Group: http://stewart.house.gov/flag
Members of the Federal Land Action Group include:
Rep. Chris Stewart (R-Utah) - Chairman of the Federal Land Action Group
Rep. Rob Bishop (R-Utah) - Chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee
Representative Mark Amodei (R-Nev.)
Representative Diane Black (R-Tenn.)
Representative Jeff Duncan (R-S.C.)
Representative Cresent Hardy (R-Nev.)
Representative Cynthia Lummis (R-WY)
Representative Raul Labrador (R-Idaho)
While many of us were out enjoying our federal lands this fall, these people were doing their best to pull the rug out from under us!
Red Raider
Member
I'm really late to the party so I'll apologize up front. I skimmed thru the thread and this has probably been addressed but I'm going to ask anyway.
If you live in one of these states I can see why this move would be a detriment to your hunting. However, as a NR hunter that has limited access to NF and BLM land (even though we own as much of the land as the RES do), why would I get behind keeping things the same if I have to look at buying landowner tags if I want to have a quality hunt more than once every 10 years (if I'm lucky) at a tag price 10 to 12 times the cost of a RES tag?
Not trying to start a fight , just asking.
If you live in one of these states I can see why this move would be a detriment to your hunting. However, as a NR hunter that has limited access to NF and BLM land (even though we own as much of the land as the RES do), why would I get behind keeping things the same if I have to look at buying landowner tags if I want to have a quality hunt more than once every 10 years (if I'm lucky) at a tag price 10 to 12 times the cost of a RES tag?
Not trying to start a fight , just asking.
The state reps are the ones who set the prices for tags, not the feds. Can you imagine what state agencies would do to prices if they controlled all of the land that you can hunt on?
As to the quality hunt question, feel free to give the office a call and ask for me and I can walk you through a plan that would allow you to hunt mule deer every other year, and elk just about every year if you so desired.
As a NR you have access to ALL public land that has an easement to it. There is land locked BLM that is labeled public on a map, but none of us have access to that without paying for it. Those places might be the only ones that I would entertain land swap conversations about.
Red Raider
Member
Scott, the access comment was based on quality hunting opportunity.
What makes you think if they already control pricing, the land opportunity's would be any different?
What's your number?
What makes you think if they already control pricing, the land opportunity's would be any different?
What's your number?
Last edited:
307 754 5584, as for Scott R. If you call today I won't be available until this afternoon.
Red Raider
Member
You can hunt all the public land in Montana with a combo deer and elk tag every year as a nonresident.
Same with Colorado for elk, just buy a tag OTC.
You can hunt Wyoming for antelope every year and can pretty much hunt deer and elk every other year.
You don't have to wait 10 years between hunts.
Same with Colorado for elk, just buy a tag OTC.
You can hunt Wyoming for antelope every year and can pretty much hunt deer and elk every other year.
You don't have to wait 10 years between hunts.
I'm amazed that this post has ended up going on forever.
I honestly thought when I posted it that you could pretty much count on everyone on a western big game hunting forum to get behind this idea and plaster their representatives with emails. Just a quick public service announcement.
It is very concerning to me that as much discussion as there has been on this and other forums over the last several months, there is no chance that we could ever generate enough clout to keep folks in Florida, New York, Ohio, etc. to ever support the cause. Really the only hope may be to end up in bed with some of the whacked out green groups and eco elites who at least support the idea of keeping public lands public.
I honestly thought when I posted it that you could pretty much count on everyone on a western big game hunting forum to get behind this idea and plaster their representatives with emails. Just a quick public service announcement.
It is very concerning to me that as much discussion as there has been on this and other forums over the last several months, there is no chance that we could ever generate enough clout to keep folks in Florida, New York, Ohio, etc. to ever support the cause. Really the only hope may be to end up in bed with some of the whacked out green groups and eco elites who at least support the idea of keeping public lands public.
Red Raider
Member
np,
Quality unit was the key to my statement. No one has explained the cost difference on land that we ALL own equally. I understand RES should have some benefits but not everything. That's why everyone can't get behind it. RES say it really effects us which is a true statement. NR say what else can they do to me. Just sayin
Quality unit was the key to my statement. No one has explained the cost difference on land that we ALL own equally. I understand RES should have some benefits but not everything. That's why everyone can't get behind it. RES say it really effects us which is a true statement. NR say what else can they do to me. Just sayin
highplainsdrifter
Very Active Member
The fact that we are not united, and the fact that our politicians continue to push for transfer shows that this is not a dead issue. I encourage everyone to contact his/her elected officials and tell them we are sick and tired of them working against us.
Wyoming has a state law that says NR hunters can't wilderness areas without a guide. State ownership of what is now federal would turn into more of the same and that would make it tougher on you as a NR.
buckbull
Veteran member
- Jun 20, 2011
- 2,167
- 1,354
The Feds have nothing to do with the number of permits and how they are allocated, even if the hunting is to be done on federal ground. States have ownership of the game animals and are entrusted with their management. The fact that all US citizens owns a piece of federal ground and pay taxes to support it is irrelevant to game permit distribution.
I will agree that non resident's carry the burden of supporting many state game and fish budgets. I've seen articles stating that as much as 70% of these agencies revenues come from NR. That seems lopsided. However, nobody is twisting the arms of NR to keep applying and paying the high price for permits.
I will agree that non resident's carry the burden of supporting many state game and fish budgets. I've seen articles stating that as much as 70% of these agencies revenues come from NR. That seems lopsided. However, nobody is twisting the arms of NR to keep applying and paying the high price for permits.
If a Quality unit is one that you can shoot a Boone and Crockett animal on, then my previous list should be good.
This is a general tag bull.
buckbull
Veteran member
- Jun 20, 2011
- 2,167
- 1,354
Totally agree Scott. The rule is total BS. Its OK as a NR to fish or hike in those areas without a guide but for some reason when a NR has an Elk tag in their pocket they need a guide.
Red Raider
Member
np,
Not BC but a chance at 320" plus bull.
What have the States proposed that would make it different? If you can't get in there under the current system then I'll ask again. What else can they do to us?
What's the RES vs NR tags split in Wyoming?
Not BC but a chance at 320" plus bull.
What have the States proposed that would make it different? If you can't get in there under the current system then I'll ask again. What else can they do to us?
What's the RES vs NR tags split in Wyoming?