Feds Could Set Tag Prices

[Nemont]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1875381/posts

HUNTER INTRODUCES TEDDY ROOSEVELT BRING BACK OUR PUBLIC LANDS ACT(Duncan Hunter)
House.gov ^ | 7/31/07 | Duncan Hunter


Posted on 08/02/2007 12:45:04 PM PDT by pissant


Washington, D.C. – U.S. Congressman Duncan Hunter (R-CA) today announced the introduction of the Teddy Roosevelt Bring Back our Public Lands Act in the U.S. House of Representatives. The legislation seeks to reduce costs incurred by out-of-state American outdoorsmen who hunt exclusively on federal property.

Congressman Hunter’s statement of introduction follows:

“In 1909, when President Theodore Roosevelt signed the last piece of legislation successfully creating over 42 million acres of national forest, the American outdoorsman came into his own. Our great “Outdoor President,” with a stroke of his pen, dedicated more land to American citizens for hunting and fishing than all the royal estates of Europe combined.

“From the Adirondacks and the Blue Ridge of the East to the Sierra Nevada of California, every outdoorsman could now be the master of enormous sporting opportunities. The only price was a stretch of the legs and an investment of time and a modicum of woodsmanship.

“Because of Teddy’s Roosevelt’s leadership and efforts, the public land of the federal government became truly the “estate” of the average American.

“A carpenter in Indiana or Iowa could saddle up the old Chevy pick-up and take his sons elk or deer hunting on a long weekend in Colorado. A steel worker in Pennsylvania could drive “straight through” with his pals to that certain Aspen grove in Western Wyoming where big bucks always abounded on opening morning. Thus, until a few years ago, the outdoor legacy of Teddy Roosevelt and the birthright of outdoor Americans were secure.

“Not any more.

“Today, bureaucracies in state governments are closing down the outdoor opportunities for average Americans. They are slamming the door on outdoor families the old fashioned way: with outrageous fees for non-resident hunters, even when the hunting is done exclusively on federal land.

“For example, the out-of-state license fee in Wyoming is $281 for deer, $481 for elk; in Colorado it is $301 for deer, $501 for elk; in Montana, it is $643 for both. In New Mexico, if two sons decide to take their dad on a weekend getaway, they each face fees of $355 for deer and $766 for elk.

“What makes these high prices so unfair is that they are applied to out-of-state American outdoorsmen who hunt exclusively on federal property. The 190 million acres of national forest and 258 million acres of BLM are the birthright of all Americans. The notion that they are viewed as the domain of state legislatures runs against the principle of public usage of federal property.

“Certainly, individual states have the right to regulate the private land and state-owned property within their boundaries. No one quarrels with that. But placing prohibitive fees on hunting that is conducted on federal public lands quickly becomes a method of exclusion.

“What happens, for example, if New Mexico should raise its out-of-state fees to $2,000 for bull elk? This increase would have the same effect as a locked gate for thousands of average Americans who want to hunt elk on any of the six national forests in New Mexico, over 11 million acres of federally owned land.

“The bill I am introducing today will restore acres for all American hunters to Theodore Roosevelt’s “Great Estate” of national forests and other public land. I acknowledge that some small amount of states’ wildlife resources are expended on federally owned and managed lands. Therefore, it is only right that out-of-state hunters share in this minimal expense.

“My bill, therefore, says this: No state may charge more than $200 for a big game license, specifically, elk, deer, antelope or bear, for hunting that is carried out exclusively on national forest or BLM federal land.

“The $200 fee strikes a balance between two interests. The first interest is the state’s legitimate need to recoup the few dollars that it expends in the management of federal land. The second, and most important, is the interest of helping that father with two teenagers who does not have the $2,300 the state of New Mexico will charge this year for a family of three to hunt on national forest for bull elk.

“In most cases, even a $200 fee will be a windfall for states; far out-pacing any help they give the federal government for wildlife management in national forests. Any American, from any state, should be allowed to earn a fall morning hunting elk in the Rockies with a healthy hike and a good shooting eye, regardless if he has a large bank account. My bill restores that opportunity.”

The Teddy Roosevelt Bring Back Our Public Lands Act has been referred to the House Committee on Resources for further consideration.

 

[Tom]

its a good beginning, eh?

 

[elk_hunter]

Wow...this would have HUGE ramifications. I'm not so sure his suggestion is a good direction...

 

[IDHunters]

So do you think the plan will limit everyone to 1 deer/elk/bear etc from federal lands, regardless of which state its harvested in? Or do you get to hunt fed land in Idaho then Wyoming then MT, etc?

 

[danr55]

Will the Feds then also provide the management and water for game animals? Probably not. Will they provide the policing activities necessary when you have hunters on public lands? I doubt it. Will the federal government do anything more than they are doing right now? Yes. They will prohibit the states from collecting additional fees to pay for this type of activity. What a marvelous idea! (For a crock of chit, that is!)

 

[elk_hunter]

I'm not sure...I think I understand the gist...we all own federal land, as taxpayers, so why are we paying staggered rates to hunt them, based on geographic location. Notice he never touches on the 'drawing' system...unless he addresses this, the states may very well change the allocation either for/against the out-of-state hunter.

 

[ringer]

Just another moron that took the slick handshake from Taulman, SFW, SCI and the tag whores. How can 200 bucks create a revenue windfall? He assumes the average Joe will flock scross state lines and a huge number of tags will be sold just like corn dogs at the fair. Guess we will have no need to limit the number of tags after this deal. Write your congressman unless you advocate getting rid of your Game and Fish department as well as most of your animals.

 

[IDHunters]

How can 200 bucks create a revenue windfall? He assumes the average Joe will flock scross state lines and a huge number of tags will be sold just like corn dogs at the fair. QUOTE]

It will create a revenue windfall because now all residents who want to hunt federal lands will have to pay the new fee instead of the current resident tag fee.

 

[ringer]

So we all will have to add an extra $200 for our hunt paid to the federal government who does nothing to manage or police big game just so some rich people can hunt wherever they want to? Sounds like a pretty slick way to add a federal tax. I don't see anything in the proposal that will earmark this money for habitat or management. Guess we can start charging $2000 for a state non resident hunting license to go with that federal tag.

 

[Erik in AK]

This won't pass Constitutional muster. It's a states rights issue. Precedent is long set: the States "own" the wildlife resources no matter the status of the land they're on. The fed has no authority to dictate what tag fees will be.

State to state, the cost of NR tags is a reflection of supply and demand. This guy is suposed to be a republican....

I love his analogy about running out west (from Pennsylvania) for a "long weekend" Yeah...to Ohio maybe

 

[noharleyyet]

Any American, from any state, should be allowed to earn a fall morning hunting elk in the Rockies with a healthy hike and a good shooting eye, regardless if he has a large bank account.

...looking out for the little guy...is there an election looming?:wank:

 

[Erik in AK]

NHY,
Assuming this passes how do you think the states will react?

I see only one scenario...further lost opportunity. Lowered tag fee's will result in generally higher hunter participation and pressure, primarily in OTC tag areas, and probably to a point beyond what many of these herds can sustain. The states will respond with further restrictions. More draws and/or shorter seasons.

I think ringer may be close to the mark on this. Who benefits from this? The little guy? I doubt it. For example, lets say 2 guys from the east coast coming to New Mexico for a 1 week DIY elk hunt. Assuming they drew out, it's $600 and change for a bull tag in a high demand area. What's the total cost of this hunt going to be?

Fuel: $780 (3600 miles (avg RT) / 15 mpg = 240 gals @ $3.25 gal = $780.00)
Travel misc: (RT) $200 (meals, motel, snacks etc.)
Camp food: $300
Camp misc: $150
Hunt gear: $200 guys always buy new junk for a hunt
meat processing: (1 elk) $300

That's $1,930 or $965 each... call it a grand each
point being if a $400 discount on the tag makes or breaks your ability to hunt out of state then you can't afford to go, and if you can afford to go then the tag fee doesn't matter.

 

[shoots-straight]

If they (the federal government) could infact regulate the cost of a tag in say Montana, they still couldn't dictate how many tags would be available.

Yes, let them only charge $200, then let the government subsidise the management and charge all citizens of US for the costs.

Remember that we're at war and the cost has exceeded 10 trillion dollars and if the war ended today we'd all pay for the next 10 years for it, do you think the federal gov. will have any extra money for anything?

In the end the states still have the rights to the wildlife and I dought that this man's bill could change that.

its a good beginning, eh?

Oh boy!

 

[noharleyyet]

NHY,
Assuming this passes how do you think the states will react? (Eric AK)

...with litigation.

I seriously doubt it passses...but it's effective grandstanding on Mr. Hunter's part to coattail Teddy's legacy.

 

[Calif. Hunter]

So is this the "correct" thread to reply in???


It is obvious that those who live in the western states are the most vocal opponents. It really does not matter to me - I make a decent living and can afford the high NR fees. When I retire, I plan to sell my California real estate and buy a nice chunk of land, surrounded by or next to national forest, and enjoy the benefits of being a resident, too.

However, I can sympathize with the working guy from Indiana or Georgia, though, who wants to take two teenaged kids on an elk hunt, and to whom $500 saved can make the difference on going or not. Even if it a non-guided, low-probability hunt - he's not even going to go if he can't afford the tags.

 

[IDHunters]

So is this the "correct" thread to reply in???


It is obvious that those who live in the western states are the most vocal opponents. It really does not matter to me - I make a decent living and can afford the high NR fees. When I retire, I plan to sell my California real estate and buy a nice chunk of land, surrounded by or next to national forest, and enjoy the benefits of being a resident, too.

Just be sure to allow access through your new place and don't tie up any federal lands!

 

[Calif. Hunter]

I will only let non-residents cross MY land!

 

[1_pointer]

This won't pass Constitutional muster. It's a states rights issue. Precedent is long set: the States "own" the wildlife resources no matter the status of the land they're on. The fed has no authority to dictate what tag fees will be.

This is how I see the issue. I don't see this one going anywhere.

Will the Feds then also provide the management and water for game animals? Probably not. Will they provide the policing activities necessary when you have hunters on public lands? I doubt it.

I guess my experience has been drastically different, as I find this nearly comical. It has been my experience that many more federal dollars are spent on wildlife projects than both state and private dollars combined. But, I could be in the minority on that...

 

[ringer]

If you take out money from Pittman-Robertson whis is really a federal use tax and eliminate any federal dollars for wolves, eagles and othe non-game species what have you seen the feds do on funding habitat or water projects? Just curious.

 

[1_pointer]

what have you seen the feds do on funding habitat or water projects? Just curious.

Just so you know, I do work for a federal agency so I do get to 'see' or know about alot of projects that don't hit the local newspapers.

But, for starters, nearly every one of the Hazardous Fuels Reduction or Wildland Urban Interface vegetation projects are designed to improve habitat conditions for wildlife, with sage grouse being the largest focal species. These projects total approximately 5-8000 acres annually. There are well over 100 wildlife guzzlers put in and maintained by the BLM in the deserts west of SLC. Any and all water devolpments for livestock that have been proposed or completed in the few years I have been in the office have provisions to provide water for wildlife even when the livestock are not on the allotment. The office I work in has seeded over 100K acres of land burnt by wildfire in the last four years alone. The range staff in our office was pretty instrumental in helping put bighorn sheep on a local mountain range. Not only did we help trap and move the things, but we worked with the the grazing permittee to allow the transplant to happen (ie changed the permit from sheep to cattle and help him put up the fences needed because of the switch). We developed and spring and installed nearly 6 miles of pipeline and 3 or 4 trough clusters for wildlife and wild horses in an area outside of a grazing allotment. I can go on if you'd like... Please keep in mind that this is just some of the activities in one of the seven BLM offices in Utah.