Transfer of Public Lands

[ScottR]

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?

You can't even camp on most state land, resident or not. Many parcels of state land get shut down to public access with grazing lease rights.

Most general units in Wyoming produce 320 bulls with a little bit of work. We were 80 yards archery hunting a 340 inch bull in a general unit when we had a Search and Rescue helicopter fly over us and scare them off. We posted a video of it on our Instagram feed not long ago.

I could go on, but the reality is that with work, good strategy and most of all practice, a hunter could kill a solid 6 point bull in just about every general unit in Wyoming.

 

[Red Raider]

I can get a tag every year in Wyoming? What's the tag split ie percent if any and cost?

I understand what you're saying Scott to a degree. However, no one seems to want to talk about why if the Land belongs to everybody then why is they're a difference in price and tag splits. That's what makes the hunting different for a RES vs a NR. NR's are already getting screwed on this playing field. That's why the Western Hunters aren't getting a lot of sympathy from NR hunters that travel west. That's probably a short sighted way to look at it but it is what it is.

I'm not sure where I fall on the issue as a whole but I'm not too concerned about what it does to RES hunters out west because they flat don't care what been going on with the NR hunters for years. You already have a built in advantage as you should on locating animals in your back yard. That's a tough proposition for NR that has to spend extra time (our fault because we don't live there) and a lot more money for tags and in most cases lesser units.

I guess we could all move out west and become RES but then that creates a whole nother set of problems.

Does that make sense?

 

[highplainsdrifter]

Red Raider,

I think you are mixing apples and oranges. Yes, nonresidents pay more for a hunting license than a resident. Is it fair? Maybe not. But if the states get control of the federal land, they will likely sell some or most of it. If it becomes private nonresidents will not only be paying more for the hunting license, they will also be paying for access.

This is a point in time that we hunters need to stick together. If nonresidents use the license cost disparity issue as reason to be complacent about the transfer issue, they will be hurting all hunters including themselves.

 

[Red Raider]

HP,

To get into most premium units we have to pay for access anyway. That's the point. We have limited access anyway. We pay more anyway. The reverse could be said about cost disparity issue. The RES because they want and in most cases demand the cost difference then they are hurting all hunters. This just isn't all on the NR shoulders to lock step to keep things the way they are.

The majority opinion from RES to NR is to just up and pay. You're damn lucky we let you hunt our animals. That attitude which has been there for decades may end up biting all of us in the ass.

 

[Colorado Cowboy]

I can get a tag every year in Wyoming? What's the tag split ie percent if any and cost?

I understand what you're saying Scott to a degree. However, no one seems to want to talk about why if the Land belongs to everybody then why is they're a difference in price and tag splits. That's what makes the hunting different for a RES vs a NR. NR's are already getting screwed on this playing field. That's why the Western Hunters aren't getting a lot of sympathy from NR hunters that travel west. That's probably a short sighted way to look at it but it is what it is.

I'm not sure where I fall on the issue as a whole but I'm not too concerned about what it does to RES hunters out west because they flat don't care what been going on with the NR hunters for years. You already have a built in advantage as you should on locating animals in your back yard. That's a tough proposition for NR that has to spend extra time (our fault because we don't live there) and a lot more money for tags and in most cases lesser units.

I guess we could all move out west and become RES but then that creates a whole nother set of problems.

Does that make sense?

Your from Texas, so you should know about private land and paying access fees to hunt. I, as a non res in Texas, have to pay NR lisc & tag fees in addition to access fees. If the fed lands go to the states, there is no garrenteeeeethat they won't be sold off to the highest bidder the first time a state gets into fiscal trouble, which lots of them are now! then you will be paying access fees plus the NR tags, just like I do in TEXAS. Just remember the states game & fish depts. are run by the states, not the feds. the only thing the feds do is regulate migratory waterfowl.

 

[Colorado Cowboy]

HP,

To get into most premium units we have to pay for access anyway.

Not necessarily the case here in Colorado! In the eastern part of the state where there is little public land...the answer is yes. But here in the western part which is full of public land, this is definitely not the case. Sure the premium units are tough to draw, but that's why they are tough, as they are managed as trophy units with limited tags available to NR & Res alike.

 

[Red Raider]

CC,

I understand what you're saying. Right or wrong my point still stands. The RES hunters are wanting the NR to lock step to stop what they EXPECT to happen to them. It's not a possibility for the NR hunter, it's how it already is.

I hunt several States and pay what I have too because I love the hunt. Many NR I suspect see this as a non event because of the reasons I've stated above.

 

[ScottR]

CC,

I understand what you're saying. Right or wrong my point still stands. The RES hunters are wanting the NR to lock step to stop what they EXPECT to happen to them. It's not a possibility for the NR hunter, it's how it already is.

I hunt several States and pay what I have too because I love the hunt. Many NR I suspect see this as a non event because of the reasons I've stated above.

Wyoming has an 80/20 split in most units, other states are a lot lower.

 

[Red Raider]

Scott,

Just tried to call. 80/20 is about average. That for the most part proves my point. Higher cost and limited access to premium units. The Land is owned equally by all of us. The NR see this as a non event for them.

CC,

Played the points game in Colorado. My group was 1 point from drawing unit 61. They changed the rules mid stream and all but one of us quit chasing. My one friend is still chasing after 15 years and is still 1 1/2 points from drawing. My point still stands.

I'm a patient guy but damn.

 

[Colorado Cowboy]

Scott,

Just tried to call. 80/20 is about average. That for the most part proves my point. Higher cost and limited access to premium units. The Land is owned equally by all of us. The NR see this as a non event for them.

CC,

Played the points game in Colorado. My group was 1 point from drawing unit 61. They changed the rules mid stream and all but one of us quit chasing. My one friend is still chasing after 15 years and is still 1 1/2 points from drawing. My point still stands.

I'm a patient guy but damn.

Your home state is no different. They even have a Annual Public Lands Permit you must buy even to hunt National Forests and public land..... and their deer permits are $25.00 for res & $315 for NR. My point is even if the public lands were turned over to the states, nothing would change....and probably get worse with less access than we now enjoy.

Premium units here in Colorado have the same huge preference points needed for Res & Nr.

 

[Red Raider]

I'm not arguing the point about Texas CC. A Res can hunt twice and sometimes 3 times before a NR in most Western States. Why is that right when the Land is owned by all? Your answer is we own the animals. My answer is then the perceived change is for the most part a non event for the NR. Hunters in Texas and most mid-western states and east already deal with this issue. Since we're treated so poorly by the States in the West, I would think most NR hunters think y'all might as well join the party with the rest of us.

We have just as much right to the public land as the RES does. We're like the Farmers commercial. You're paying for this (shows sports car) but getting this (shows Used Pinto). That's funny I don't care who you are.

 

[highplainsdrifter]

HP,

To get into most premium units we have to pay for access anyway. That's the point. We have limited access anyway. We pay more anyway. The reverse could be said about cost disparity issue. The RES because they want and in most cases demand the cost difference then they are hurting all hunters. This just isn't all on the NR shoulders to lock step to keep things the way they are.

The majority opinion from RES to NR is to just up and pay. You're damn lucky we let you hunt our animals. That attitude which has been there for decades may end up biting all of us in the ass.

Red Raider,

I am not sure I agree with your claim that there is currently limited access. There is currently good access in many parts of Wyoming without having to pay. I have lived here 31 years and have never paid an access fee. I probably would quit hunting if I had to start paying an access fee. I simply prefer to hunt federal land (my land) rather than private land...even if the private land might have bigger animals.

It would be unfortunate if any nonresident hunter is so upset with the difference in resident and nonresident license fees that he/she loses empathy for fellow hunters who hope to retain access to millions of acres of federal land. I would like to think that we fellow hunters will fight like hell to support our passion.

 

[Red Raider]

hp, Fees and access ie 80/20 split on Federal land (my land too). Also, access by having to purchase LO tags to hunt in premium areas. We pay dearly for that passion and are told we are second class citizens on Federal Land. Like I stated before, it's not just the NR that need to get their mind right.

You want me and every American to preserve your hunting passion but want to treat us as second class citizens. You can't have it both ways. I say you can't. It's been that way for a long time.

 

[ScottR]

RR, most of here hunt other states besides our own.

 

[Colorado Cowboy]

My point by using your home state with examples of resident/nonresident and public/private land was that a state that has a majority of private land treats res & NR hunters the same ways as the western states do with all their public land. I don't know of any state in our country that charges the same fee for res and NR hunter or for that matter fisherman. the non resident pays more every where I know of.

 

[highplainsdrifter]

Apparently some people still need to be convinced of the importance of our public lands. I am providing a link to an article and a video about big game migration corridors in Wyoming that might help to put things in perspective.

Clearly we wouldn't have the big game numbers that we have if we didn't have public lands that allow for relatively unobstructed migration corridors. There are some nonresidents, who don't live in the west, that don't understand this. They think that because whitetails and turkeys thrive on private land, that western big game species could also thrive if western lands were privatized. Apparently a few might even prefer it because they think they could pay for access and get "premium" hunting on private land. What they don't understand is that western big game populations on private land are also dependent on these migration corridors. If the corridors are obstructed, big game populations on public land and private land would be reduced. They just don't understand the scale of our landscape and the fact that our big game populations have evolved migratory habits to survive in a harsh environment where a few thousand feet of elevation can make the difference between survival or death.

Enjoy the video (the five minute video is located near the top of the article)!

http://www.wyofile.com/wildlife-wilderness-migration-comes-alive-video-mapping-project/#comment-52976

 

[Red Raider]

Scott, I understand. You live out West so you can hunt 1 State at a reasonable price. People Mid West and East can't. HP stated it's his land. It's mine too. It was ask why isn't everybody on board with this. I've explained why.

Y'all still keep dancing around the fact it's everybody's land but if you don't live there then you are treated different on land that everybody pays for. If it was state land then so be it. It's FEDERAL LAND. It's treated like State land to us that have to travel to get there.

You want to keep hunting on YOUR FEDERAL LAND at a reasonable price. We would like to hunt on OUR FEDERAL LAND at a reasonable price and not be pushed in the corner when it comes to opportunity for quality animals. Federal grants, Federal Taxpayers and NR hunting fees make up approximately 70% of the money to operate OUR FEDERAL LANDS. If you don't understand why this seems like a non event for most NR hunters then I can't help.

The fact y'all don't see that the Res Western hunters need to maybe look at how you have your states handle FEDERAL LANDS and maybe just maybe make the NR hunters not feel like we ought to be luck we get to hunt at all on our land. There might more support out there.

 

[npaden]

I think the hunting license fee issue and the public land issue are 2 different issues.

Why is the non-resident fee in Texas 10 times higher than the resident fee when there essentially isn't any public land to hunt on in Texas?

NR hunting fees don't contribute anything to operate OUR FEDERAL LANDS. They are charged by the states to fund the states fish and game departments.

If fees were lower you might think that would result in more people enjoying the resource, but really it would just make it much harder for everyone. The fee might be lower but then your odds of getting to hunt would go down significantly. The wildlife is a limited resource and you can't just print up some more elk for people to hunt.

The fee that a nonresident pays to hunt is decided by the state. Move more Federal land to be controlled by the states and you are going to more than likely to see the states leverage that even more. I don't see how you could think that would be a positive step.

 

[Red Raider]

NP, I agree with you. on the fees if run by the State. So I guess I'll ask straight out. On Our Federal Lands you believe the 80/20 and 10 times the cost to NR is the right thing to do?

If I was guessing the fee change would effect the Res more than the NR. Making a 25% increase in Res fees would still make the fees less than $100 a tag in most cases and would make the States a lot of money. Gauging the NR more would be hard to do. Changing the split from 80/20 to 60/40 would make the States a lot more money as well given the difference in cost. These changes wouldn't effect the resources ie animals at all and the States come out the winner either way. I can see why they want a change.

I can understand why Res want it to stay the same. Y'all evidently can't understand why we wouldn't mind a change.

 

[highplainsdrifter]

Red Raider, I don't necessarily think the current difference in license fees between residents and nonresidents is fair. When I hunt out of state, I have to pay a higher fee, and I don't like it. But it is what it is. It has been repeatedly tested in court and upheld. Almost all states do it (probably all).

What is frustrating about this discussion is that it has NOTHING to do with federal lands. Someone willing to sacrifice our federal lands because he/she is upset about the disparity in license fees is doing all hunters a disservice. You are fooling yourself if you think this disparity would go away if states took charge of federal lands.