American Wildlife and Public Lands Legacy Act

[Carnage2011]

Not sure if you’re referring to me, but if so- I don’t care. I do it myself and love it.

I’m just speaking in general. Not specifically to you.

 

[seeth07]

Why do you guys care if someone wants to hunt multiple states? With the exception of CO, they’d have to draw the tag so why does it matter? Rather than limit those that want to hunt multiple states, maybe you should find a way to hunt multiple states yourself. If it’s a jealousy thing then that’s a personal problem. There is no biological reason to limit how many states people hunt…

While I don't necessarily agree with this as a "law" I think the objective the OP was trying to accomplish was to limit greed of particular individuals spending a whole hunting season killing big game animals one after another for the sake of the filmed killshot above most other reasons. There are a few guys that don't use the meat and donate it all to food banks, one right after another. I think that is more or less the root of where the concept of a "law" should come from rather than setting a federal bag limit

 

[BuzzH]

Best to keep the feds out of state game management and the annual bag limit idea is a joke.

Some states can't control populations now, why make it harder for states manage their wildlife as they see fit.

 

[Gerald Martin]

I have an easy solution for over competition for a limited resource. Just pass a law that makes all tags OTC for my family and bans anyone else from killing game animals.

That would really help the resource and would allow me to enjoy hunting to my heart’s content.

 

[Pucky Freak]

I like this, did you come up with it Elkfever?

No, just an attempt at synthesis. All the ideas have been individually proposed by others one time or another on HT.

Most of this is laughable.

Glad I could provide you some humor. Merry Christmas!

Rather than limit those that want to hunt multiple states, maybe you should find a way to hunt multiple states yourself. If it’s a jealousy thing then that’s a personal problem.

Last season I hunted about 60 days across 2 states, filled 8/10 tags, and gave about half the meat away to family and friends. If I had more time to hunt, those numbers might be doubled. I have 12 tags this season, and next year I'll have about as many, spread over 3 states. The issue I have is when filmed kill shots equals more money earned.

While I don't necessarily agree with this as a "law" I think the objective the OP was trying to accomplish was to limit greed of particular individuals spending a whole hunting season killing big game animals one after another for the sake of the filmed killshot above most other reasons. There are a few guys that don't use the meat and donate it all to food banks, one right after another. I think that is more or less the root of where the concept of a "law" should come from rather than setting a federal bag limit

All but the very top tier of media hunters are humping it to get by. It's the outdoor companies that are raking it in through stacking carcasses on public land through the conduit of the hunters they sponsor. As @Gerald Martin pointed out, it may be a more worthwhile endeavor to try and turn consumer sentiment against such practices. Hunt Warz turned the tide for me. I do think legal protection of some kind is in order, although I understand this is only one piece of the puzzle, as you cannot just legislate your way out of this issue.

 

[Pucky Freak]

Multiple use lands, but make it for hunters only?

How do you mean? Open up access to corner crossing and landlocked public means millions of hikers, backpackers, swimmers, fishermen/women, kayakers, climbers, campers, mountain bikers, skiers, etc. can recreate on millions of acres of previously inaccessible lands and waters. The whole basis of the proposal is having a majority of the American population get behind the idea of being able to access and enjoy their public lands. Right now access is cordoned off by a tiny, tiny % of the population that is wealthy and well-connected.

 

[idahohuntr]

Some interesting concepts. I definitely support greater regulation on commercialized/filmed hunts. I dont have a perfect solution but I'd like to see it heavily restrict how many folks can get tags and use them commercially...i.e., for 'content'.

 

[BigHornRam]

How do you mean? Open up access to corner crossing and landlocked public means millions of hikers, backpackers, swimmers, fishermen/women, kayakers, climbers, campers, mountain bikers, skiers, etc. can recreate on millions of acres of previously inaccessible lands and waters. The whole basis of the proposal is having a majority of the American population get behind the idea of being able to access and enjoy their public lands. Right now access is cordoned off by a tiny, tiny % of the population that is wealthy and well-connected.

I have access to more public land right outside my door than I can visit in 3 lifetimes. Everyone else can visit those lands too if they want to put in some effort. We have things pretty good here in this country if you ask me......

 

[Gerald Martin]

@ElkFever2
“Last season I hunted about 60 days across 2 states, filled 8/10 tags, and gave about half the meat away to family and friends. If I had more time to hunt, those numbers might be doubled. I have 12 tags this season, and next year I'll have about as many, spread over 3 states. The issue I have is when filmed kill shots equals more money earned.”

If I may be blunt, it sounds like the logical transition that needs to take place is for you to answer the question of “How much is enough?”,personally. I am not really trying to be critical of you. I went through a phase of my life where I felt like a tag in my pocket needed to be notched since it cost good money and I assumed that if FWP issued a tag it was okay to fill it.

At some point along the way I started to change my perception of how much I actually needed to kill for me to enjoy an experience. Nowadays, I don’t feel a need to kill just because I have a tag. If my freezer is full or I don’t see an individual animal that meets my criteria of being a “trophy”, I don’t care to kill just because I have a valid tag. Giving meat to family and friends is totally fine if they really want it, but if it’s done because they will accept it and it allows you to feel okay about filling every tag because the meat isn’t wasted then maybe it’s time to reassess what it is that defines success?

 

[TheTone]

Who and how are we going to define subsistence hunters?

 

[mtmuley]

@ElkFever2
“Last season I hunted about 60 days across 2 states, filled 8/10 tags, and gave about half the meat away to family and friends. If I had more time to hunt, those numbers might be doubled. I have 12 tags this season, and next year I'll have about as many, spread over 3 states. The issue I have is when filmed kill shots equals more money earned.”

If I may be blunt, it sounds like the logical transition that needs to take place is for you to answer the question of “How much is enough?”,personally. I am not really trying to be critical of you. I went through a phase of my life where I felt like a tag in my pocket needed to be notched since it cost good money and I assumed that if FWP issued a tag it was okay to fill it.

At some point along the way I started to change my perception of how much I actually needed to kill for me to enjoy an experience. Nowadays, I don’t feel a need to kill just because I have a tag. If my freezer is full or I don’t see an individual animal that meets my criteria of being a “trophy”, I don’t care to kill just because I have a valid tag. Giving meat to family and friends is totally fine if they really want it, but if it’s done because they will accept it and it allows you to feel okay about filling every tag because the meat isn’t wasted then maybe it’s time to reassess what it is that defines success?

Beat me to it. Besides, you write better. mtmuley

 

[Nameless Range]

OK, tear it to shreds...

American Wildlife and Public Lands Legacy Act

Among nations, The United States has a unique pair of national treasures: our abundant multi-use public lands, and wildlife held in the public trust. These resources face many threats, and their future is far from secure. A series of Acts throughout our country’s history has preserved our wildlife and public lands thus far: the creation of national forests, grasslands, monuments, and parks, the Lacey Act, the Wilderness Act, the Wildlife Restoration Act, and many others. A new Act is needed to address threats to public land and wildlife that have come to the forefront of public consciousness in the 21st century.

Social media has dramatically changed the way that the public interacts with wildlife and public land. Market hunting of the 19th century has been replaced by corporations incentivizing individuals kill wild animals to produce media content featuring corporate products. Interest among the public in recreating on public lands has increased dramatically in recent years. In order to better facilitate the public’s access and enjoyment of public lands and wildlife, corporate extraction of these resources needs to be reduced. To this end, the following provisions will take effect:

-All federal lands within 5 miles of a public road shall be legally accessible by foot via a marked footpath. The footpath will be along the shortest route from a public road accessible by foot.

All for the fun of discussion, not regarding the potential illegality or unconstitutional nature of some of these things:


I like this idea and if king for a day, would implement it. In terms of a government "taking", if eminent domain or some such thing were to be used, it would be miniscule compared to what happened in the 20th century to build the interstate system. In terms of acreage footprint, would likely be less than was implemented to build the border wall.

-Survey markers shall be installed on all federal lands adjoined by a corner. All persons shall enjoy access to said lands on foot by crossing within 4 feet of the survey marker. Fenced corners shall be accessible via turnstile, steps, or similar installed mechanism

.

Yes

-The annual bag limit per licensed hunter per calendar year for the following animals native to North America is as follows: 5 whitetail deer, 2 mule deer, 2 elk, 4 black bear, 3 antelope, 1 wild sheep, 1 mountain goat, 1 bison, and 1 moose. The possession limit is twice the allowable bag limit. Individual states may further restrict harvest. This provision does not apply to federally-defined subsidence hunters. This provision does not apply to animals harvested via depredation permits on private land.

This is tough and would be best thrown out. @Bambistew referred to putting an end to something like the "8 state rape" and I agree with the sentiment. With all due respect to those who hunt many states every year, and acknowledging they are a tiny minority of hunters, it does seem weird to me. Not necessarily, but conceivably, every animal you kill is an animal someone else doesn't get to. That's one of the chief arguments against poaching. When someone kills multiple big game animals across many states a year, it does seem excessive to the point of greed - even acknowledging that I don't think greed is necessarily what is happening. No, there would be no biological reason for doing so. It's just sort of a how much is enough? Right now I leave it as a not for me, but to each their own.

-No new domestic sheep grazing permits on federal land located within historic wild sheep habitat will be approved.

Yes

-No permit or tag to kill an animal native to North America shall be auctioned, sold for more than $5,000, or granted as a gift to an individual or organization.

I say get rid of auction tags entirely, and hold equal opportunity in the drawing process as sacred and immutable, full stop. This would resolve a lot of the garbage we see today.

-No competition involved the killing of animals native to North America shall be held, organized, or sponsored if prizes, gifts, or compensation exceeding $100 in value are distributed to the participants.

Every year I go on a fishing trip with my buddies, and we put money down in excess of $100 on first, biggest, and most as it pertains to fish. Would we be in violation of this rule? I think coyote killing contests, HuntWarz, etc, are gross, but I am not sure how ya'd right this rule.

-Video filming on public land for commercial purposes is prohibited.

I'm torn on it, and would think it best to abandon this proposal.

-An excise tax of 11% shall be collected from the sale of all ski and snowboard equipment, hiking equipment, backpacking equipment, mountaineering equipment, off-road cycling equipment, and climbing equipment. These taxes will be used to fund the provisions of this Act.

Yes.

Don't take my answers too seriously. I like the discussion and thinking about something like this.

 

[Gerald Martin]

When I was just out of high school my first job was working in a fly shop. One afternoon my boss and I went fishing on a local stream. As usual when we fished together he went one direction and I went the other and we met up several hours later. I had pretty good success that day and was keeping count of the number of fish I caught. I think it was @ 6-8 for the afternoon which was pretty good for that stream.

When we met back at the truck that evening, I didn’t want to be the one who said how many he caught first, but I did want to say how many fish I had caught.. So, I asked my boss, “How many fish did you catch this afternoon?”

I will never forget the bemused smile on his face or his reply. “Enough. I caught enough fish.”

I understood what he meant. I never said how many fish I had caught and I can only remember ever keeping count of fish one time after that. That happened to be an incredible afternoon of fishing on my first trip to MT. That day I caught 22 rainbows on dry flies in 2 1/2 hours….

 

[woods89]

All for the fun of discussion, not regarding the potential illegality or unconstitutional nature of some of these things:


I like this idea and if king for a day, would implement it. In terms of a government "taking", if eminent domain or some such thing were to be used, it would be miniscule compared to what happened in the 20th century to build the interstate system. In terms of acreage footprint, would likely be less than was implemented to build the border wall.



Yes


This is tough and would be best thrown out. @Bambistew referred to putting an end to something like the "8 state rape" and I agree with the sentiment. With all due respect to those who hunt many states every year, and acknowledging they are a tiny minority of hunters, it does seem weird to me. Not necessarily, but conceivably, every animal you kill is an animal someone else doesn't get to. That's one of the chief arguments against poaching. When someone kills multiple big game animals across many states a year, it does seem excessive to the point of greed - even acknowledging that I don't think greed is necessarily what is happening. No, there would be no biological reason for doing so. It's just sort of a how much is enough? Right now I leave it as a not for me, but to each their own.

Yes


I say get rid of auction tags entirely, and hold equal opportunity in the drawing process as sacred and immutable, full stop. This would resolve a lot of the garbage we see today.


Every year I go on a fishing trip with my buddies, and we put money down in excess of $100 on first, biggest, and most as it pertains to fish. Would we be in violation of this rule? I think coyote killing contests, HuntWarz, etc, are gross, but I am not sure how ya'd right this rule.


I'm torn on it, and would think it best to abandon this proposal.

Yes.

Don't take my answers too seriously. I like the discussion and thinking about something like this.

I like this take.

So how do we go about making you king for a day?