Fighting for Public Lands, While Growing the Hunting Base

[Wisco]

I spend a lot of time thinking about these two topics. And I keep thinking of some sort of system where we can grow the hunting base (through cheaper NR fees and perhaps the hope of drawing good tags in state other than NM/ID) in exchange for more support for our public lands. But it leads me to a couple questions:

1) What are the state Fish and Wildlife Departments' views on Public Land Transfer? On one hand I could see them being for it because the state gains control... But at the same time, I'd have to imagine they're smart enough to know that the transfers would more than likely hurt the hunting and angling communities that they serve and would in turn hurt them.

2) Are there any reciprocity systems already in place for certain states (e.g. Could a resident in MT get a cheaper NR tag in CO and in turn, a CO resident could get a cheaper in MT)?

3) Is there any chance states are willing to part with the revenue raised by these outrageously expensive NR tags/applications that we may never be able to use thanks to the point systems in place?

Now, I'm a Wisconsin guy so I'm sure many of you are thinking "well of course you would want more opportunities at a cheaper cost, you wouldn't have to give anything up in exchange for that?" Well, I think what I and others from the Midwest/East could offer is support in the fight for public lands.

So does anyone think that there'd be any way to get some states to offer up a reciprocity system that in exchange for cheaper tags or perhaps better odds, hunters would have to join conservation groups (at a small fee) that require support for public lands as well as other conservation initiatives such as habitat restoration, trail reconstruction, etc...

I know it's kind of a crazy concept, but selling public lands, charging excessive fees, and point systems that are becoming increasingly impossible to participate in are also pretty crazy ideas so I figured I'd ask for your thoughts.

Thanks!

 

[onpoint]

There was some small amount of discussion on this in previous threads. Fighting for public lands good. Growing the "hunting base" good. However, I find it disheartening that some folks want to tie lending support to "fighting for public lands" to an ability to spend less for a non resident hunting license. Seems to be a much bigger picture thing to me. Maybe I'm the only one thinking these thoughts?? Interesting discussion I hope.

 

[mdunc8]

I, and others, have said this several times, if you can't afford the "outrageous" costs of nonresident tags (typically several hundred dollars), you have no business traveling across the country, or even the next state over, to go hunting. You should stay home, continue to work, and hunt using your resident tags. If you can't afford the tag, take a camera and go hiking for a few days.

I can see no situation where I would support decreased tag prices, that includes my resident tags or the nonresident tags my family and I purchase. State agencies are already in the hole enough.

 

[onpoint]

You're sounding kinda crabby mdunc8, must be getting old.......

 

[mdunc8]

I appreciate your desire to get in front of the issue. Just don't think it's the right approach.

 

[Wisco]

There was some small amount of discussion on this in previous threads. Fighting for public lands good. Growing the "hunting base" good. However, I find it disheartening that some folks want to tie lending support to "fighting for public lands" to an ability to spend less for a non resident hunting license. Seems to be a much bigger picture thing to me. Maybe I'm the only one thinking these thoughts?? Interesting discussion I hope.

I agree with you that it's disheartening to a point, but at the same time, I don't blame a guy from Wisconsin who is 16 hours from Rockies and has to pay twice the price for a deer tag that an NR would pay for a deer tag in WI, for not standing up for federal lands he might never use. I think if you make it more realistic for them to hunt in the West, you would raise support thanks to their increased interest as well as increased knowledge from their newfound use of the Western land.

 

[mdunc8]

You're sounding kinda crabby mdunc8, must be getting old.......

You're rubbing off on me

 

[onpoint]

Chequamegon (spp?) National Forest, Wisconsin, America. About 1.5 million acres, I think. Federally owned, American public lands. When I showed up at Montana's Public lands Rally, I was showing up for federally owned public lands in your state, too. I will never hunt in Wisconsin.

 

[Wisco]

I, and others, have said this several times, if you can't afford the "outrageous" costs of nonresident tags (typically several hundred dollars), you have no business traveling across the country, or even the next state over, to go hunting. You should stay home, continue to work, and hunt using your resident tags. If you can't afford the tag, take a camera and go hiking for a few days.

I can see no situation where I would support decreased tag prices, that includes my resident tags or the nonresident tags my family and I purchase. State agencies are already in the hole enough.

And I get it, you think I'm a brat because I'm complaining about price. I know it's a valuable resource and that comes at a cost... but it seems a little ridiculous to me that the price for residents can be so disproportionate to the NR fees. If the state agencies are in such a hole, perhaps residents could pay a higher price considering they make up the vast majority of the tags anyway... Or, state of state agency budgets aside, you pay 50 more dollars for your Resident tag and you could drop NR prices by probably 150. So now you pay 50 more in your state, but 150 less in your neighboring state. You're up 100 bucks now.

My point is, we're getting back to a place where it's almost the King's deer again. Access/tag opportunities are easy to come by for the old and the rich. The young, new, and less affluent stand little chance at getting involved. I will be choosing to get involved anyway, but a lot of my friends I tried to get to join me said they can't because it's too expensive. So yeah, I'll continue to work, hunt my resident tags, but I'll also use my public lands in every darn state in the union. I just wish all of my buddies could join me as they are not as fortunate to have the financial security that I do.

 

[Wisco]

And I appreciate that onpoint, I'm not saying that we Midwesterners don't gain anything by advocating for public lands, but it is obviously a much larger amount that is at stake for you guys, both by scale and by proportion. All I'm trying to do is brainstorm ideas from the perspective of someone outside the west, not lucky enough to have all that public land in my backyard, not to mention the many different species of big game.

 

[ShootsManyBullets]

I bet you could pull a good amount of tags between Wisconsin and your neighboring states and find public ground to hunt. I paid less than $40 for an antelope tag in Wyoming last year, which left plenty of cash in my pocket for beer and food.

If your friends really want to go hunting out west, they'll find a way to scrape together a few hundred extra bucks. Whether it's working some OT at work, moonlighting for some extra money with their free time, buy and sell some stuff on Ebay or cut the can or 2 of chew out of their budgets. $10 bucks a week for 7 months would get them a deer tag in a lot of states.

People come here from all over the world to have these kinds of problems. It's America and if they really want something you can get it. They just might have to work harder and be mindful of what they're spending their money on.

Your other choice is you can make new friends that hunt all over the west. You came to the right place for that.

 

[onpoint]

Never been to the Chequamegon? I have a long time ago - it was kinda cool. Who knows - Maybe Paul Ryan will exempt USFS from his party's official platform in his home state.
"but I'll also use my public lands in every darn state in the union". You kinda summed it up for yourself right there. Welcome to the fight for those public lands in every darn state in the union.

 

[Wisco]

Haha good point... I get it, sometimes you have to sacrifice and budget for the things we want. I just think there's room for improvement, and I think there's ways we can all win. And let's face it, there's a lot of untapped resources in eastern hunters who have written off the west before realizing its potential (although I'm sure you westerners would like to keep it that way )

 

[mdunc8]

King's deer? Really? I'm far from old or rich. I just have my priorities in line. If one wants to hunt out West, it's easily attainable for most. I don't buy the "it's too expensive" excuse.

 

[Wisco]

It's not only price, I'll likely never be able to draw in NV, UT, and the better units in CO. There's obviously OTC opportunities in some states (what I plan to do over the next few years as I try to build up a point base), but it should be simpler to go out and hunt, that's all I'm saying.

 

[mdunc8]

Simpler than OTC tags...? :W:

 

[antlerradar]

I an not for high nonresident fees but, One of the positives of high prices is lower draw odds.

 

[Straight Arrow]

I find it disheartening that some folks want to tie lending support to "fighting for public lands" to an ability to spend less for a non resident hunting license. Seems to be a much bigger picture thing to me.

It is disheartening to think someone's support for maintaining federal public lands across America would be conditional on paying less for a NR hunting tag. Granted there are significantly more large tracts of federal public lands in the western states, but those elsewhere across the country are no less important, not only to hunting but to all outdoor recreation and many other uses.

It seems highly likely that any scenario resulting from federal public lands transfer / sale would result in even greater disparity between NR and R license fees, particularly considering the huge increase of costs to the states and the inevitable decrease in public lands available for competing NR and R hunters and other recreationists. If the cost of the NR license is seemingly too high now for considering a hunt in another state, it will be completely beyond consideration then.

 

[buckbull]

It's not only price, I'll likely never be able to draw in NV, UT, and the better units in CO. There's obviously OTC opportunities in some states (what I plan to do over the next few years as I try to build up a point base), but it should be simpler to go out and hunt, that's all I'm saying.

You realize that if the tag prices (post #1) you are complaining about are lowered it would result in more demand for the hard to draw tags you complained about in post #15.

 

[onpoint]

It is disheartening to think someone's support for maintaining federal public lands across America would be conditional on paying less for a NR hunting tag. Granted there are significantly more large tracts of federal public lands in the western states, but those elsewhere across the country are no less important, not only to hunting but to all outdoor recreation and many other uses.

It seems highly likely that any scenario resulting from federal public lands transfer / sale would result in even greater disparity between NR and R license fees, particularly considering the huge increase of costs to the states and the inevitable decrease in public lands available for competing NR and R hunters and other recreationists. If the cost of the NR license is seemingly too high now for considering a hunt in another state, it will be completely beyond consideration then.

Econ 215. So you're saying there could be economic externalities to bear for hunters, R and NR alike....... Hmmm. Kind of a big picture, ain't it.