"Buffalo hunters" are back!
- Thread starter Big Fin
- Start date
MThuntr
Well-known member
I agree but I don't see Cabela's pushing public land ads purely because they market trophy hunting properties. They would stand to make a buttload (that's an actual measurement) of money from these transactions.
I'd love to see REI take a position because it's the backpackers, hikers, campers, city dwellers that must have backpack gear that need to be informed.
The no longer have a realty arm. They sold that part of their bidness to Sports Afield.
MThuntr
Well-known member
I didn't realize that...goes to show I've not been paying attention. That means Cabelas needs to get their butts on the save the public lands train and educate some of their customers
Busyfarmin
Well-known member
I think the public needs to be made more aware on these issues hunttalk is the only place I have heard about it. I see nothing in any hunting magazines or on hunting websites . It should be what's on the cover of the hunting magazines and such to let the people know that none of the other hunting stratagies and such matters if you don't have a place to hunt and use them.
BigHornRam
Well-known member
An October 2015 article from the LA Times? You can do better than that Randy.
well this isn't good....
Totally agree that conservation organizations and hunting based companies need to start raising hell, but what should we be doing at a boots on the ground level? I'm guilty of thinking that "write your congressman" is a waste of time with their automated responses and droves of assistants. Yet, the dead-weight "Hell no I won't go" type of action really isn't called for yet (you'd be lying in the woods for awhile).
Instead of plastic politicians, perhaps those hunting based organizations would be more responsive to a flooding of emails from their members and supporters?
I guess I'm just looking for some action to take. Would love some ideas.
Edit: Should also mention that the politicians hear those companies and organizations more than our relatively small voices. I know that most private companies don't directly effect the law (in plain view anyway).
Totally agree that conservation organizations and hunting based companies need to start raising hell, but what should we be doing at a boots on the ground level? I'm guilty of thinking that "write your congressman" is a waste of time with their automated responses and droves of assistants. Yet, the dead-weight "Hell no I won't go" type of action really isn't called for yet (you'd be lying in the woods for awhile).
Instead of plastic politicians, perhaps those hunting based organizations would be more responsive to a flooding of emails from their members and supporters?
I guess I'm just looking for some action to take. Would love some ideas.
Edit: Should also mention that the politicians hear those companies and organizations more than our relatively small voices. I know that most private companies don't directly effect the law (in plain view anyway).
Last edited:
Kneetopia
Well-known member
Better check on Cabela's stance for promoting public access.....cuz they ain't.
Do you have a link? I'm not doubting you, but I can buy my gear from multiple stores. If I find out Cabelas isn't on my side, I'd like to take my business elsewhere.
BBwheelgunner
Member
Randy,
thanks for posting yet another good (but really starting to get scary) article on the land transfer movement. I even got to the point that I posted it on Facebook (which I have rarely been on in the last year) to draw some attention to the issue especially for some of my friends and family who probably have no idea about it. We cannot sit back idle on this subject any longer and watch our conservation heritage evaporate in front of our eyes
thanks for posting yet another good (but really starting to get scary) article on the land transfer movement. I even got to the point that I posted it on Facebook (which I have rarely been on in the last year) to draw some attention to the issue especially for some of my friends and family who probably have no idea about it. We cannot sit back idle on this subject any longer and watch our conservation heritage evaporate in front of our eyes
Randy,
I read the article a couple of times and I guess I just lump myself in with the east coast guys who don't get it. In Maryland we have a little federal controlled land but a lot (relatively speaking) of state controlled land. Maryland seems to do a very nice job IMHO of managing the resource. They allow public access, public hunting. Maryland is a buyer of land and is steadlily acquiring more farms and properties to add for public use.
You cannot sell public land in Maryland without a vote by the Board of Public Works which includes the Governor, Lt Governor, and the Comptroller. The people at Maryland Department of Natural Resources will tell you flat out that they are a buyer of land and not a seller.
I once worked on a project seeking the acquisition of state public land to be used as a dredge material placement site. This was not a "for profit venture", it was seeking placement of dredge materials that allow for marine transport which results in the economic benefit for the entire area in the millions of dollars annually. Anyhow, Maryland liked the economic benefit side but still required the county to purchase enough acreage to swap with the state on a 2 to 1 basis to grow Marylands land bank(and the land had to be judged to be superior to what was being swaped by the state!).
My point is just becasue the state owns the land shouldn't mean it will be mismanaged or sold. I am not looking to be yelled at, but what am I missing?
I'm sure example's can be found on both sides. Here is one where selling the land is the state's solution.
http://www.opb.org/news/article/oregon-elliott-state-forest-for-sale/
Ok, I get it on that particular parcel. The declining timber prices have greatly reduced revenue. That is a fair example.
Am I to extrapolate that to assume that in general, transferring Federal land to State control will result in an overall net economic burden so that the users (read residents) cannot afford to maintain the resource?
You are correct, just because the state owns the land it doesn't mean it has to be sold or mismanaged. But, not all states operate under the same laws and Constitution as Maryland. I will give a few examples, prefaced with the fact that Western states were given lands in a far different manner than the Eastern, Southern, and some Midwestern states. So, comparing how it works in one state is not applicable when looking at how it works in other states.
In your state of MD and the state I grew up in, MN, you can hunt state lands. You can camp on state lands. State lands are pretty much treated similar to how Federal public lands are treated. As such, my buddies in MN struggle to see the difference in State versus Federal ownership. And that perspective, without understanding of the differences by state, results in them asking the same question you have.
I use these examples as the easiest to follow, as they are the most dramatic.
Colorado - Colorado State Trust Land Department states that the lands under their control are not public lands. They are correct. Like all western states, these lands are held in trust for a select group of beneficiaries - the school districts. As such, the State Land Board is required to do what is right for Colorado schools, not Colorado hunters, or Colorado hikers, or Colorado (insert user name here).
As a result, Colorado State Land Board does not allow recreation on their state lands unless those recreation rights are leased by CO Parks and Wildlife. CPW has very little budget for this and as such, a very small percentage of State Trust Lands are open to recreation, with hunting being considered recreation.
Let's follow the "state transfer" idea and walk through how that works in Colorado, now that we understand that "state transfer" means transferring currently accessible lands to the State Land Board that has a completely different policy on access and recreation as compared to the current land holders, the BLM and USFS.
Colorado has 23 million acres of USFS and BLM, all of which we can hunt or camp under current rules. Under the "state transfer" idea, that land would now go to the Colorado State Land Board and would no longer be accessible to hunting and recreation.
So, in the case of Colorado, hunters lose access to 23 million acres that they currently have at their disposal. Given Colorado hosts more non-resident hunting than any western state, that is a huge impact to all who hunt Colorado, including the large number of non-residents who hunt there.
I ask the advocates of state transfer, "How do you intend to replace 23 million acres of lost hunting access, just in Colorado?" They change the question or dismiss me as not following their gospel. All I want is an answer. They don't have a good answer because they know the real answer is that we will lose 23 million acres of hunting access.
Now let's move on to WY and NM, two states with State Land Boards that do not allow camping. Yes, you can still hunt them, but in a lot of places, not being able to camp pretty much eliminates the practicality of the hunt. Here are some examples.As a result, Colorado State Land Board does not allow recreation on their state lands unless those recreation rights are leased by CO Parks and Wildlife. CPW has very little budget for this and as such, a very small percentage of State Trust Lands are open to recreation, with hunting being considered recreation.
Let's follow the "state transfer" idea and walk through how that works in Colorado, now that we understand that "state transfer" means transferring currently accessible lands to the State Land Board that has a completely different policy on access and recreation as compared to the current land holders, the BLM and USFS.
Colorado has 23 million acres of USFS and BLM, all of which we can hunt or camp under current rules. Under the "state transfer" idea, that land would now go to the Colorado State Land Board and would no longer be accessible to hunting and recreation.
So, in the case of Colorado, hunters lose access to 23 million acres that they currently have at their disposal. Given Colorado hosts more non-resident hunting than any western state, that is a huge impact to all who hunt Colorado, including the large number of non-residents who hunt there.
I ask the advocates of state transfer, "How do you intend to replace 23 million acres of lost hunting access, just in Colorado?" They change the question or dismiss me as not following their gospel. All I want is an answer. They don't have a good answer because they know the real answer is that we will lose 23 million acres of hunting access.
Wyoming - The most coveted deer grounds are Regions G and H. Anyone who hunts it knows that it is mostly a horseback or backpack hunt to get to the quality deer. If by foot, you are talking about a five to six hour hike in. Currently, you can camp on these USFS lands, so you can do this as a backpack or horseback hunt and set up a camp for a week of hunting.
Under state transfer to they Wyoming State Land Board, you will not be able to camp in Regions G &H. You will have to hike in and out each day. That is impractical when you have a five to six hour hike, each way. Given that fact, state transfer effectively makes it impossible to hunt deer in the most popular areas of Regions G &H.
Now, let's look at the Thoroughfare, a noted elk hot spot in NW Wyoming. Since it is all wilderness, you need a guide or a WY resident to accompany you. It is a 20+ mile horseback ride each way. Under state transfer, you cannot camp back there, so you will need to ride your horse in 20 miles in the morning and back out 20 miles that night, then repeat the process every day of your hunt. That is so impractical that you can forget any elk hunting in the Thoroughfare units.
In the Big Horns, there are elk camps scattered all over the USFS lands. Under state transfer, you cannot camp there, so hunters will be force to drive in each morning from Powell, Sheridan, Buffalo, Casper, Kaycee, etc., then drive back out each night. These are one to two hours drives, each way. The state transfer scenario makes hunting the Big Horn impractical.
Under state transfer to they Wyoming State Land Board, you will not be able to camp in Regions G &H. You will have to hike in and out each day. That is impractical when you have a five to six hour hike, each way. Given that fact, state transfer effectively makes it impossible to hunt deer in the most popular areas of Regions G &H.
Now, let's look at the Thoroughfare, a noted elk hot spot in NW Wyoming. Since it is all wilderness, you need a guide or a WY resident to accompany you. It is a 20+ mile horseback ride each way. Under state transfer, you cannot camp back there, so you will need to ride your horse in 20 miles in the morning and back out 20 miles that night, then repeat the process every day of your hunt. That is so impractical that you can forget any elk hunting in the Thoroughfare units.
In the Big Horns, there are elk camps scattered all over the USFS lands. Under state transfer, you cannot camp there, so hunters will be force to drive in each morning from Powell, Sheridan, Buffalo, Casper, Kaycee, etc., then drive back out each night. These are one to two hours drives, each way. The state transfer scenario makes hunting the Big Horn impractical.
New Mexico - The best elk hunting in New Mexico is the Gila NF. The most popular is Carson NF. Both require long drives to get there. Under state transfer, the BLM and USFS lands you can currently camp on would be off limits. Hunters would have to commute each morning and night from the nearest towns.
Currently, most every elk hunter camps on USFS lands, as they do not want to make a 2-3 hour drive every morning and repeat that every evening, which would be required if state transfer happened. So, assuming these USFS and BLM lands were now state lands and they could not camp on them, it would be impractical to hunt the best and most popular elk units in NM.
Currently, most every elk hunter camps on USFS lands, as they do not want to make a 2-3 hour drive every morning and repeat that every evening, which would be required if state transfer happened. So, assuming these USFS and BLM lands were now state lands and they could not camp on them, it would be impractical to hunt the best and most popular elk units in NM.
These are the obvious examples. It doesn't even touch on the bigger loss when states now have much more inventory to add to their aggressive land sale activity.
Some will say, "Then get the state laws changed." Well, those who make that claim have zero understand of the power structure of western legislatures and how you are not going to get those laws changed at the state level. Those folks behind the transfer movement are aware of all these nuances and they know that will eventually force states to sell these lands like states have sold millions of other acres, which is the long-term end goal of those pushing the idea.
Thanks for asking. I think you have just given me a really good idea for an expanded podcast that approaches this from exactly the perspective you illustrated here. Maybe more examples and details will help people understand why this is so different on a state-by-state basis and probably not like the state land issues in their home state.
authentichunter
New member
I think can think of two things. First, the western states have sold, and continue to sell, lands they own(ed). Second, elected officials throughout the west have stated that if public lands are transferred to the states "some" of those lands will be sold.
I think this is a major concern with the idea of transferring public land to the states? How will the states fund the management of the lands they receive from any transfer? How will the states pay to fight forest fires? Utah has come up with a plan that is entirely dependent on collecting taxes and royalties from oil and gas production. However, critics have identified two serious problems with Utah's plan: (1) it requires that Utah also obtain all mineral rights to the transferred land and (2) it assumes oil prices of $62 per barrel or higher. What happens if either of these conditions are not met? How will Utah pay for the management of the transferred land?
Last edited:
Randy,
Thank you for the response as it certainly helps a non local get a better grip on the subject. I have hunted the Big Horns and Gila but had no idea how things could change with state ownership. No camping would be a game changer by itself.
I agree that a podcast may be in order. With 60% of the population living east of the Mississippi you western guys need to do some serious educating, quickly.
I guess I could suggest you all need to vote out some of the ass clowns and get some leaders who represent your interests a little better. I know I always love it when a tourist tells me everything that is wrong with my town
BuzzH
Well-known member
This is worth expanding on as it relates to Wyoming.
For starters, when this crazy transfer stuff started, many in Wyoming began pointing out the fact that on State lands in Wyoming you cant camp, have a camp fire, and in many cases are locked out for various reasons (cultivated field on state, Resource damage, or for safety reasons).
We then were met with the worn out lies by the Legislature, in particular from Legislators like Eli Bebout, Scott Clem, Allen Jaggi, Marti Halverson, etc. that made the statement that if the state got control they would "change the laws".
I questioned them all publically, if they thought the law was wrong regarding limitations on camping, etc. why haven't they already changed the law if they're so concerned. Lets just say that the response I received was not of the pleasant variety followed by a lot of excuses, what ifs, and out-right lies.
Well, just a couple weeks ago, in a lame attempt to "change the law", a bill was tried that would have opened up state lands here to over-night camping. It was killed almost immediately by the Agricultural community. Failed introduction.
Bigfin is 100% correct, those wanting control of federal lands will NOT be able to simply "change the law" to allow things like campfires and over-night camping.
I'm actually glad that the bill in question failed this session...it provides a much stronger case that they're full of crap when they say they will "change the law".
On the other hand, if we can leverage the legislature to open up camping on state lands, as their way of showing "good faith" on the transfer idea...well, I'll take that as win as well.
The heat has been turned up on the Legislature and its funny watching them dance...
Massive difference also between state lands that are owned/managed by a DNR/Fish and Game agency and those owned/managed as trust lands. A DNR/Fish and Game agency is absolutely concerned with allowing public access, hunting and recreation while my experience with trust land managers is they couldn't care less about public access, hunting and recreation; its all about generating revenue often with very short sighted returns.
BBwheelgunner
Member
all very enlightening stuff... thanks guys. I had wondered that at one time myself. I know the states and counties have different management philosophies. I also have noticed many of the statements say lands will be transferred to state jurisdiction AND sold to private interests
Chucknduck
Member
Do you really think these dumba$$es are wanting to transfer these lands so the states can better manage them?? the oil gas and mining companies are totally behind this. I bet every politician for this has taken donations from companies like this. They will be buying up land as soon as it's transfered
Last edited:
