American prairie. What's the issue?

[WanderWoman]

How’d you like it if I came at you with “you’re accessing “my” BLM lease FOR FREE, while I PAY for it and fix fence on it, so it is only FAIR that you begin paying to recreate on it”. How would that fly?

We already do pay for recreating (and everything else on federal lands) with our tax dollars. Leasees getting the extra benefit of grazing/using those lands also have the responsibility to maintain fences, etc.

 

[Jerky]

I also respect the APR’s wishes to do as they please on their private holdings.

Forcing a landowner to give up anything, let alone access is the wrong tact. Give a landowner an INCENTIVE.

How’d you like it if I came at you with “you’re accessing “my” BLM lease FOR FREE, while I PAY for it and fix fence on it, so it is only FAIR that you begin paying to recreate on it”. How would that fly?

A: the fence provides negative value to me, you’re doing me no favor there.
B: I do pay for recreating on public land with license dollars and Pittman Robertson taxes. I also buy an internet-agency access pass every year. So yeah, I’m good with that.

 

[tjones]

Go to website opensecrets.org

One note of interest I found, the APF contributed ONLY to “D” candidates

So if the APR contributed ONLY to “R” candidates you would be fine with them?

 

[Beignet]

So if the APR contributed ONLY to “R” candidates you would be fine with them?

As a 501(c)(3) non-profit APR is prohibited from making political contributions at all.

His assertion is the kind of conjecture that seems to inform a lot of the APR naysayers.

 

[bullbugle307]

I also respect the APR’s wishes to do as they please on their private holdings.

Forcing a landowner to give up anything, let alone access is the wrong tact. Give a landowner an INCENTIVE.

How’d you like it if I came at you with “you’re accessing “my” BLM lease FOR FREE, while I PAY for it and fix fence on it, so it is only FAIR that you begin paying to recreate on it”. How would that fly?

Why would I care if it has a fence on it unless it’s to keep your livestock on it? I’d usually prefer no fence and no livestock to be honest. Your paying for the grass your livestock eats too. I’m not out there filling up my rumen to turn into profit.

That being said, I’ve long said I would support a yearly fee for all users to utilize federal lands. Maintaining roads and keeping the place up ain’t free, and I like user pay models.

I reckon I know who would and wouldn’t go for such a proposal however.

 

[Eric Albus]

Why would I care if it has a fence on it unless it’s to keep your livestock on it? I’d usually prefer no fence and no livestock to be honest. Your paying for the grass your livestock eats too. I’m not out there filling up my rumen to turn into profit.

That being said, I’ve long said I would support a yearly fee for all users to utilize federal lands. Maintaining roads and keeping the place up ain’t free, and I like user pay models.

I reckon I know who would and wouldn’t go for such a proposal however.

Interesting you bring up the subject of road maintenance, there are folks in the ag communities suggesting FWP pay to fix the roads on BLM after hunting season is over. Personally I think a user fee to repair roads is a much better idea. Perhaps a hefty fine for those found destroying gumbo roads as well?

 

[Eric Albus]

So if the APR contributed ONLY to “R” candidates you would be fine with them?

No I distrust any politician equally. The top end of the R party is not much if any better than the D’s

 

[antlerradar]

A: the fence provides negative value to me, you’re doing me no favor there.
B: I do pay for recreating on public land with license dollars and Pittman Robertson taxes. I also buy an internet-agency access pass every year. So yeah, I’m good with that.

@Eric Albus example of a fence is a weak one, I think he would agree, that a water pipe line is a much better example. Most pipe lines originate on private because water resources are often limited on public. There is wildlife on public land that simply would not be there if not for some of these pipelines.
Pittman Robertson taxes is also a weak augment, You are asking the private land hunter in Texas to subsidize your public land hunting. A user fee would be much more fair, but I am not in favor of that just yet for recreation, but I could get there.

 

[BuzzH]

Interesting you bring up the subject of road maintenance, there are folks in the ag communities suggesting FWP pay to fix the roads on BLM after hunting season is over. Personally I think a user fee to repair roads is a much better idea. Perhaps a hefty fine for those found destroying gumbo roads as well?

Fine the ranchers too that tear the chit out of roads in the spring? Make them pay a user fee as well, since they're on the roads all year long. How about outfitters?

Why is it that ranchers and outfitters want everyone else to pay for everything?

 

[Eric Albus]

Outfitters do pay to access/recreate BLM and FS and State.

I don’t see many ranchers tearing up the roads, nor do I allow any of my guides to rut up roads.

 

[Eric Albus]

@Eric Albus example of a fence is a weak one, I think he would agree, that a water pipe line is a much better example. Most pipe lines originate on private because water resources are often limited on public. There is wildlife on public land that simply would not be there if not for some of these pipelines.
Pittman Robertson taxes is also a weak augment, You are asking the private land hunter in Texas to subsidize your public land hunting. A user fee would be much more fair, but I am not in favor of that just yet for recreation, but I could get there.

Upkeep of the fence is still an expense. Which I understand is no benefit to the public.
Granted not as expensive as the waterline. Which waters BLM pastures. It benefits the cattle for certain(directed use). The indirect being wildlife.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Go to website opensecrets.org

One note of interest I found, the APF contributed ONLY to “D” candidates

Go to that website. It does not support your "one note of interest". There are plenty of valid reasons for you to oppose AP or any other entity buying up your neighbors' ranches. You don't need to continue to spew the AP myths and "bar talk" criticisms.

 

[WanderWoman]

Interesting you bring up the subject of road maintenance, there are folks in the ag communities suggesting FWP pay to fix the roads on BLM after hunting season is over. Personally I think a user fee to repair roads is a much better idea. Perhaps a hefty fine for those found destroying gumbo roads as well?

It is a shame that a lot of counties getting an influx of hunters in the fall don’t receive funding for better county road maintenance. I don’t think extra funding should come from FWP for this but I do think there should be more $$ allocated for this. Petroleum County is a great example—one of the least populous counties in the state but becomes a zoo during hunting season. Yeah there are impacts from annual use by those living there, but the roads (there) are generally in good shape until they get the first real fall moisture, like opening weekend this year, and there’s a lot of people out. Not really realistic or within the realm of any laws/regs to catch and fine those individuals that tear them up but I agree with the sentiment.

 

[BuzzH]

Outfitters do pay to access/recreate BLM and FS and State.

I don’t see many ranchers tearing up the roads, nor do I allow any of my guides to rut up roads.

A pittance, and they should since they're profiting from a public resource.

There should also be a per animal charge from outfitted hunts that goes to the FWP.

Start paying for the states wildlife assets that are taken for profit.

Funny that the dnrc charges for timber, mining, grazing but outfitters are charged nothing for their consumptive use. Getting something for nothing...almost like welfare.

 

[Hunting Wife]

There should also be a per animal charge from outfitted hunts that goes to the FWP.

Start paying for the states wildlife assets that are taken for profit.

Something along the lines of trophy fees for African animals? Interesting. Never thought of that before.

 

[Eric Albus]

A pittance, and they should since they're profiting from a public resource.

There should also be a per animal charge from outfitted hunts that goes to the FWP.

Start paying for the states wildlife assets that are taken for profit.

Funny that the dnrc charges for timber, mining, grazing but outfitters are charged nothing for their consumptive use. Getting something for nothing...almost like welfare.

You’re sad angry little feller.

Outfitters do pay, on a per client basis for the privilege of hunting BLM. Not sure about how FS works, as we are fresh out of trees here. Not sure about state land either, as I don’t outfit any state land. I figure the R hunters hammer it hard enough and don’t want/need my help.

 

[BuzzH]

Something along the lines of trophy fees for African animals? Interesting. Never thought of that before.

Outfitters pay zero to wildlife management. Sportsmen stock the shelves via their dollars, outfitters take with both hands and never pay their own tab.

To ice the cake they have an undue amount of influence with the FWP and legislature for a group that contributes nothing.

In the height of absolute hypocrisy, they complain that non hunters and anti hunters shouldn't have a seat at the table because....wait for it....they don't pay for management.

 

[Eric Albus]

It is a shame that a lot of counties getting an influx of hunters in the fall don’t receive funding for better county road maintenance. I don’t think extra funding should come from FWP for this but I do think there should be more $$ allocated for this. Petroleum County is a great example—one of the least populous counties in the state but becomes a zoo during hunting season. Yeah there are impacts from annual use by those living there, but the roads (there) are generally in good shape until they get the first real fall moisture, like opening weekend this year, and there’s a lot of people out. Not really realistic or within the realm of any laws/regs to catch and fine those individuals that tear them up but I agree with the sentiment.

I haven’t seen what happens in petroleum Cnty., but if it’s anything like Valley/Phillips/Prairie/Custer you have a problem.

 

[BuzzH]

You’re sad angry little feller.

Outfitters do pay, on a per client basis for the privilege of hunting BLM. Not sure about how FS works, as we are fresh out of trees here. Not sure about state land either, as I don’t outfit any state land. I figure the R hunters hammer it hard enough and don’t want/need my help.

Outfitters pay nothing toward game management to the FWP and a pittance to the state and BLM, and FS. Plus I can tell you for a fact use days are forged and enforcement is non existent.

The lack of enforcement is not an outfitter issue though, that's an agency issue.

Would be nice if enforcement wasn't needed, but it is...and fines should be severe.

 

[Eric Albus]

Outfitters pay zero to wildlife management. Sportsmen stock the shelves via their dollars, outfitters take with both hands and never pay their own tab.

To ice the cake they have an undue amount of influence with the FWP and legislature for a group that contributes nothing.

In the height of absolute hypocrisy, they complain that non hunters and anti hunters shouldn't have a seat at the table because....wait for it....they don't pay for management.

If I had an undue amount of influence R6&7 would’ve been LE permit for mule deer bucks years ago.

So according to you an outfitter should pay FWP for management of the game?
You continually bash the dept for their lack of management, but want me to pay them?