Transfer of Public Lands

R

Red Raider

Member
Oct 1, 2013
122
0
Midland, Texas
hp, It's not illegal what the States are doing. The fees they charge and the splits are driven for the most part by the Res.

I don't believe the disparity will go away as long the Res think they're owed privileges. They're owed some but where they are now is flat out wrong on Federal Land. However, it is what it is. I pay because I want to hunt.

An as a Res I don't blame you for fighting tooth and nail to keep it like it is. Y'all have a bird nest on the ground. It's Federal Land paid for by everyone in America that you get to use as your playground at a hugh discount. I understand the State owns the animals. I guess my question is where do I send the bill for the grazing rights.

You don't think it's frustrating to be told you're a second class citizen on your own land. This discussion has everything to do with Federal land. If it was truly Federal Land then the States wouldn't have it set up the way it is. If the land isn't being utilized for equal benefit of everyone concerned then something probably needs to change. It would be really cool to take my daughter Elk hunting for $90 bucks. I have to pay $600 plus.

If you're truly concerned about losing Federal land then maybe y'all should try to make it more fair for all involved. However, this discussion proves you're not going to do it. "Somebody better do something but it's not going to be us mentality" and y'all stand the most to lose. That's what I find fascinating.
 
ivorytip

ivorytip

Veteran member
Mar 24, 2012
3,769
50
44
SE Idaho
states make a lot of mula, a lot!, of mula off of non res hunters. I don't see things changing as far as prices for tags go for that reason alone. RR you make some very valid points, as does almost everyone else on here. I am beyond lucky to live where I do so I don't have to pay the huge fees to hunt the game I prefer to hunt. I choose not to hunt diff states due to the high prices, I am going to, but haven't yet, haven't been able to justify the costs, yet. I like what texas does, if other sates do it I do not know, correct me if im wrong but I can go to texas and buy a non res license for only 5 days at a much lower price than I would pay for a year license, right? I love that, and I think if the western states would turn to this it would allow for more non res hunters to be able to actually afford to hunt western game and not go broke doing so. I mean who goes and hunts in a diff state all year long??? so why pay for a year long license? going to something like this I can see as a foreseeable change, but changing state to federal lands, visa versa... just wont happen and I don't know if id like to see that happen.
 
Badgerstate36

Badgerstate36

New Member
Nov 9, 2015
5
0
Columbus, OH
People in Wisconsin need to start doing this. The fact that Wisconsin is looking to sell state land to the highest bidder is sickening, IMO.
It makes me crazy that Walker sold everyone a bill of goods saying that slashing the state budget and cutting taxes would bring business to the state, only to have even more business leaving and now having to sell off state land because he claims they cant afford to keep it. It makes me sick to think that land which some people have been hunting on for generations is going to be sold off to the highest bidder.
 
highplainsdrifter

highplainsdrifter

Very Active Member
May 4, 2011
703
128
Wyoming
Badgerstate36 said:
People in Wisconsin need to start doing this. The fact that Wisconsin is looking to sell state land to the highest bidder is sickening, IMO.
It makes me crazy that Walker sold everyone a bill of goods saying that slashing the state budget and cutting taxes would bring business to the state, only to have even more business leaving and now having to sell off state land because he claims they cant afford to keep it. It makes me sick to think that land which some people have been hunting on for generations is going to be sold off to the highest bidder.
Click to expand...
I see this is your first post. Welcome to the forum! Tell us more about the move to sell state land in Wisconsin. Do you have a link to any newspaper stories about it?
 
go_deep

go_deep

Veteran member
Nov 30, 2014
2,650
1,984
Wyoming
Badgerstate36 said:
People in Wisconsin need to start doing this. The fact that Wisconsin is looking to sell state land to the highest bidder is sickening, IMO.
It makes me crazy that Walker sold everyone a bill of goods saying that slashing the state budget and cutting taxes would bring business to the state, only to have even more business leaving and now having to sell off state land because he claims they cant afford to keep it. It makes me sick to think that land which some people have been hunting on for generations is going to be sold off to the highest bidder.
Click to expand...
So... This isn't Scott Walkers doing.

My dad bought 160 acres in Barron county Wisconsin 13 years ago, there was around a 1,000 acres sold of public land at that auction. Doyle, a democrat was the governor at that time, if my memory is correct.

This is not the doing of one man/woman, this is a collaboration of many people that don't understand how much money are public lands generate for small, medium, and large businesses. Which in turn is a bunch of jobs, tax revenue. I would really like to see the economic impact that no public land would have on communities. Many businesses would disappear, and many Towns would dry up.

Personally I go to meetings, email letters, mail letters, even had a face to face meeting with Matt Mead.
We have to get out there and seriously fight this if we want to win, otherwise we'll be tell stories one day about how you use to be able to go hunting on this magical thing called public land, and ANYONE could go there to use it.
 
RICMIC

RICMIC

Veteran member
Feb 21, 2012
2,016
1,796
Two Harbors, Minnesota
Federal lands are a different issue, but most state land that is sold (at least in Minnesota)was "Tax forfiture land", and by statute must eventually be sold or used for a public purpose. The county that I live in is over 70% public land, so county/state land sales occur every year.
 
go_deep

go_deep

Veteran member
Nov 30, 2014
2,650
1,984
Wyoming
11200798_10201010633184215_1632964600413105099_n.jpg
2 miles SE of Lovell on HWY 310.
This is what state land ownership gets you, a closed sign on your public land.
I've got a few calls in this morning, but no response as of yet to what resource they are protecting. There are a few other tracks of state land by Lovell that have also been posted.
There needs to be a much better explanation posted so people understand what is going on with their land!
 
ceby7

ceby7

Active Member
Feb 21, 2011
177
1
Laurel, MT
go_deep said:
View attachment 15219
2 miles SE of Lovell on HWY 310.
This is what state land ownership gets you, a closed sign on your public land.
I've got a few calls in this morning, but no response as of yet to what resource they are protecting. There are a few other tracks of state land by Lovell that have also been posted.
There needs to be a much better explanation posted so people understand what is going on with their land!
Click to expand...
Is that on Yellowtail?
 
A

Againstthewind

Very Active Member
Mar 25, 2014
973
2
Upton, WY
https://sites.google.com/a/wyo.gov/osli/resources/restrictions-under-consideration

There are some nesting areas and stuff like that on trust lands that are protected from human access. I think there were some grouse nesting and courting areas on public that were protected. They might do more of this kind of thing to protect the deer migration routes also. Not sure what that one by Lovell is about, but some of those closures are fragile ecosystems type deals. There are a lot of trust lands in this NE WY area that are open and are good access and what not. Not really playing devils advocate or anything, just saying sometimes there is a reason for the closed off areas. Federal lands also have closed areas for similar reasons and sometimes it is a federal push for migrating waterfowl nesting, etc. Just guessing. Some state lands have been closed off because people littered, and ruined them, too.
 
Last edited:
go_deep

go_deep

Veteran member
Nov 30, 2014
2,650
1,984
Wyoming
Againstthewind said:
https://sites.google.com/a/wyo.gov/osli/resources/restrictions-under-consideration

There are some nesting areas and stuff like that on trust lands that are protected from human access. I think there were some grouse nesting and courting areas on public that were protected. They might do more of this kind of thing to protect the deer migration routes also. Not sure what that one by Lovell is about, but some of those closures are fragile ecosystems type deals. There are a lot of trust lands in this NE WY area that are open and are good access and what not. Not really playing devils advocate or anything, just saying sometimes there is a reason for the closed off areas. Federal lands also have closed areas for similar reasons and sometimes it is a federal push for migrating waterfowl nesting, etc. Just guessing. Some state lands have been closed off because people littered, and ruined them, too.
Click to expand...
I understand there is a lot of reasons that it could be posted, that's why my statement was "There needs to be a much better explanation posted so people understand what is going on with their land!"
 
A

Againstthewind

Very Active Member
Mar 25, 2014
973
2
Upton, WY
Agreed sorry about that. It was difficult to find any info for me other than proposed closures. Part of why Wyoming got an f grade for transparency issues I think


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
T

Tim McCoy

Veteran member
Dec 15, 2014
1,855
4
Oregon
It's a mess. Various reports, but OR ranch family, Hammonds, had a tendency to do burns, got warmed to stop. So the story goes. Then they seem to have had an OK to burn on their place, let it get onto public, and a relative testified they did it to cover deer poaching. Who knows. Few years later, another burn gets away. Prosecuted, sentenced and time served. Then the Feds say the sentence was to little, should have been 5 years. Seems fishy. Anyway, father and son agree to serve and are due to report to jail Monday.

The Bundy's of NV fame get wind of it, gather a group to occupy the refuge HQ, apparently to protest unfair treatement of Hammonds. Feeling seems to be local ranchers should be able to do what ever they want on leased federal grazing lands. From what I can determine, the OR Hammonds seem to be saying we want no part of the Bundy's/Militia led occupation of the Federal Building at the refuge.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom