Fighting for Public Lands, While Growing the Hunting Base

[Straight Arrow]

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.

Bingo! Yes, the ramifications for all are huge!

 

[ShootsManyBullets]

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.

NV has leftovers every year for archery tags

Utah general tag is an easy draw
I hunt CO as a NR EVERY year and i kill really good deer.
Idaho is OTC
Wyoming has 100 % draws and or leftovers for deer and antelope
Montana is guaranteed draw

Theres more good hunts right there than most guys have time of resources to do annually

 

[1_pointer]

Topics like this devolve into provincialism all to often...

That said, I greatly value public lands and access to them. And not only for hunting! One thing I think more Westerners need to keep in mind is that the only way to win on PLT is to garner support from more populated states. Heck, the county in Indiana I work in has more than 2X the number of people than all of Wyoming. So, half of one county in my state on your side is more support than if you get the whole state of Wyoming on your side. In addition to that, Indiana does have federal lands, most of which is 200K acres of the Hoosier National Forest. Management of those lands, in general, are less complicated than the more expansive lands in the West. Largely due to the lack of wildfires, I fully believe that the state of Indiana could afford to manage those lands as well as is currently being done! Without selling them! That is not the case out West, but it is something for westerners to consider when trying to rally support for the anti-PLT cause from other places.

Sorry for the ramble...

 

[antlerradar]

1_ pointer, You bring up a good point. It is easy for the people east of the Mississippi to see how the states could take over ownership of federal land in their state and do a good or even better job of management . Makes it hard for them to see what a total fubar it would be for western states.

 

[Straight Arrow]

...the only way to win on PLT is to garner support from more populated states.

I believe not only is that understood and very true, much of the discussion already involves describing the benefits to all Americans who own these public lands, not just western states residents. It is recognized and appreciated that the states more highly populated with taxpayers are the federal public land management bill payers.
However, this thread discussion adds the advocacy for NRs being able to acquire a license and special permit for lower fees and much easier, which is a benefit very narrowly focused and, frankly, quite selfish. It seems to ignore the basic tenet that wildlife in each state are entrusted to that state on behalf of the citizens of that particular state.

 

[Wisco]

Well I really wasn't hoping for as much blow-back as this got considering I was just asking for people's thoughts...

I'm not asking for free tags, I'm not asking for unlimited opportunity, and anything near that would be unsustainable. All I'm saying is, Eastern support for anti-PLT causes is lower than it is in the West (mainly because federal lands in our areas are a much smaller proportion of our land than is the case in western states). I think one way you could garner more support would be the opportunity for cheaper tags or better access (yes, you get cheaper tags that like means less access, or more tag opportunities likely comes from higher tag fees). Is that saying that's the only way to get guys to speak up for the federal lands that we all have the opportunity to use? Of course not. But it certainly could help guys realize the gem that is Western hunting, angling, hiking, etc... and in turn, add more voices.

Sorry for ruffling feathers, just offering up ideas.

 

[onpoint]

I fully understand, unfortunately, why these things devolve into provincialism. Folks will cut off the nose to spite the face. They can't see the forest through the trees, Use any cute phrase you want. The discussion on tag costs, when it comes to western hunting, really only is a discussion because of the existence of public lands in the west - as the majority of NR's who hunt the west conduct that activity on mostly public lands. Lose federal public lands in the west, not much need for the discussion of tag costs.
But from the office of redundancy office, I fail to see the rationale tying the public lands issue to tag costs. I prefer to call it something a bit more derogatory than provincialism......

 

[Straight Arrow]

What is referred to as "blow-back" are merely thoughts and information about PLT which are important in garnering support from those Americans who don't live in the western states most affected. No one is criticizing you for your valid points, it's really more of the fact that this issue has been looming for us in Montana and elsewhere for a long time and involves a heck lot more than hunting, so naturally we are passionate about it.
But the narrow focus on NR licenses seems like such a trivial concern when viewing the larger, more far reaching ramifications of PLT. Realizing that an issue typically boils down to how it might affect your personal hunting opportunities, please try to see the larger landscape of the issue.

 

[Wisco]

What is referred to as "blow-back" are merely thoughts and information about PLT which are important in garnering support from those Americans who don't live in the western states most affected. No one is criticizing you for your valid points, it's really more of the fact that this issue has been looming for us in Montana and elsewhere for a long time and involves a heck lot more than hunting, so naturally we are passionate about it.
But the narrow focus on NR licenses seems like such a trivial concern when viewing the larger, more far reaching ramifications of PLT. Realizing that an issue typically boils down to how it might affect your personal hunting opportunities, please try to see the larger landscape of the issue.

I can get behind that, there's far more to it than hunting. That's just most of the use that I would get from these lands (seeing as I might make it there for a week a year and if that's all the time I have, it'll probably be spent on hunting) and so that's the narrow scope I see. I'll try to keep in mind the different perspectives of those in different situations. I'm new to the forum scene and to the idea of the West in general. And I also probably did a poor job of articulating all of my thoughts. Basically, I think from situations similar to mine, people don't always realize how important (and multi-faceted) these lands are. I know I didn't before I found Randy's podcast. One way to open our eyes is to get us out there. One way to get us out there is easier opportunity. Now maybe my idea is stupid, maybe it should be more focused on a subsidy for a first-time western hunter to get them hooked and then go back to what it is now. And maybe that idea shouldn't be contingent on someone supporting anti-PLT efforts. But it probably would be a byproduct of it. I'm not sure. Thanks for discussing.

 

[Straight Arrow]

“Through almost all of human existence, huntable land and huntable wildlife have preceded the hunter. They caused the hunter. But in the future this must be reversed. It is the hunter who must cause huntable land and wildlife, and a world worth being young in.” - John Madison

Thank-you for that quote. That says it all.

 

[1_pointer]

However, this thread discussion adds the advocacy for NRs being able to acquire a license and special permit for lower fees and much easier, which is a benefit very narrowly focused and, frankly, quite selfish. It seems to ignore the basic tenet that wildlife in each state are entrusted to that state on behalf of the citizens of that particular state.

A bit of Devil's advocate... Yes, it is selfish. But at the same time, could not the citizens of a particular state require the state to allow cheaper/more tags for NRs, who are already likely paying the lions share of the DWR budget, in exchange for support to keep the public lands that make that particular state special remain public?

FWIW, I very rarely complain about NR tag/license prices and I pay them to multiple states every year. And I'm not complaining here. What I am trying to do is show some of the rationale for lack of anti-PLT support from places/people that are as impacted as those in the Western states.

 

[onpoint]

Thank-you for that quote. That says it all.

nice catch....

 

[onpoint]

A bit of Devil's advocate... Yes, it is selfish. But at the same time, could not the citizens of a particular state require the state to allow cheaper/more tags for NRs, who are already likely paying the lions share of the DWR budget, in exchange for support to keep the public lands that make that particular state special remain public?

FWIW, I very rarely complain about NR tag/license prices and I pay them to multiple states every year. And I'm not complaining here. What I am trying to do is show some of the rationale for lack of anti-PLT support from places/people that are as impacted as those in the Western states.

Gotta call this an irrational rationale.
Do like your dog though.....

 

[buckbull]

Its certainly a battle to get support against PLT from east of the Mississippi. I'll use my homestate of Illinois.
1. Illinois is comprised of 2.35% of huntable public land. This land is a last resort for most due to overcrowding. Many throw in the towel after hunting the public land here.
2. If you want to have decent land to hunt, you have to either buy it or lease it.
3. Many, if not most, hunters that hunt out west will do so with an outfittter.

So given a bad impression of public land too start, paying for a place to hunt being commonplace, and hunting with an outfitter who would probably be leasing ground sold if PLT happened they simply don't care about the PLT issue. Many in fact state that since they have to pay to hunt, why should the guys out west get a place to hunt for free.

 

[onpoint]

Thanks to the "Eastern" guys for your responses here, and thanks to Wisco for bringing this up.
Realizing this is a forum consisting of a microscopic portion of a miniscule minority, a significant portion of the responses to this thread should be a wake up call to those of us invested in the "PLT" issue. The responses I'm referring to illustrate some of the views and opinions we are "up against".
At the risk of sounding condescending, you guys out there near the Cheqaumegon National Forest, the states with 2.35% public land, and who hunt out west with mainly outfitters - us who continue to show up for American Public Lands issues will continue to do so (I hope) for all of us. With or without your understanding/support.
I grew up in Northern Minnesota, dreaming about the Rocky Mountains, the canyons, and the prairies. Hunting was only a portion of those dreams.
Hope folks can see public lands through a bigger scope.....

 

[mdunc8]

So the idea here is to have state legislators throughout the West, many of who are in favor of transferring public lands, offset decreased nonresident tag prices with increased resident tag prices, which in the minds of many said legislators is an additional tax on their constituents, at the request of nonresidents fighting against them? I think your time would be better spent doing almost anything else.

 

[BuzzH]

A bit of Devil's advocate... Yes, it is selfish. But at the same time, could not the citizens of a particular state require the state to allow cheaper/more tags for NRs, who are already likely paying the lions share of the DWR budget, in exchange for support to keep the public lands that make that particular state special remain public?

FWIW, I very rarely complain about NR tag/license prices and I pay them to multiple states every year. And I'm not complaining here. What I am trying to do is show some of the rationale for lack of anti-PLT support from places/people that are as impacted as those in the Western states.

Devils advocate take 2.

How am I, as a Resident of Wyoming, going to be assured that I'm going to get support from NR hunters on opposing PLT if I lower their NR hunting fees?

My guess is that lowering NR licenses some trivial amount isn't going to net me much return on that investment in regard to opposing PLT. The people in Wisconsin, Indiana, etc. that cant afford to hunt as NR in Wyoming NOW are likely not going to be affording it with a trivial NR fee reduction either. All I would be doing from my perspective, is giving the guys that are currently already coming here to hunt, a cut on continuing to do the same.

Its also been my experience, when talking with a lot of folks from the mid-west and further east, the money is only one of MANY excuses that people from those places use to not come out West hunting.

End devils advocate #2.

The other thing that bugs the chit out of me are the arguments that the Residents are cutting a fat hog in the ass with cheap fees (which I agree with, we are) and that somehow NR are "doing so much more by paying X-time more than a Resident".

Yeah, you are paying more. But, how many of you NR's are out there on the front lines of wildlife politics? In the last 2 days, I've spent 16 hours (as a volunteer, including using a days vacation) in meetings with our Governor, GF Director, GF Deputy Director, Wyoming Representative's and Senators, at least a dozen other NGO's, etc. trying to address some of the problems being discussed here. I didn't see a soul from Wisconsin testifying on behalf of NR's on a house bill that would have moved another 20% of the NR tags into the higher priced special fee pool.

Not bragging or complaining about doing any of that, but I feel its a bit insincere to assume that NR's are doing "so much" by simply cutting a check once a year to hunt. ITs also unfair that the perception is Residents are just swimming through gravy on their way to pick up that cheap resident hunting license.

Finally, PLT is much larger than hunting, much larger. There are many thousands more people that use our public lands for things other than hunting. Those are the people we need to reach, we don't need to reduce license fees. There's no doubt that hunters and anglers have lead the way in this.Hunter and Anglers recognized the problem, got in front of the issue, now its much easier for others to just jump on board. There really isn't any risk at this point for any business, politician, etc. to oppose PLT, the cover has been provided.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Go Buzz.

Sitting in a budget subcommittee right now. This is the exciting work of wildlife conservation.

 

[onpoint]

A couple of midwestern city kids worm fishin for trout at a Montana reservoir situated on USFS ground. Think they give two craps about hunting license fees?

 

[1_pointer]

onpoint- I agree, my dog is better than me! You picked well.

Buzz- There is not garantee that you would get continued support against PLT. You know my stance as well as anyone on here and realize I'm not spouting my personal beliefs just trying to provide a bit broader of a perspective. That said, I have been surprised at how much more attention PLT has gotten on social media since HR 621. I think most folks, regardless of where their mail delivered, are in the NO PLT camp. The biggest issue in states with much less public ground is that it's not as near and dear to them so they only hear the soundbites. The social media campaign against HR 621 was something that I think should be modeled and continued. There's a vast amount of education needed on the process. A crap-load of posters on this site are keyed to politics as it relates to public lands and natural resource management. That is not mirrored by the majority of folks elsewhere. I applaud the efforts you and others make on the behalf of NRs in your state and am trying to get the word out in other places as to the other issues.