Fighting for Public Lands, While Growing the Hunting Base

[Deleted member 28227]

I think there is absolutely an argument to be made for growing the base and how tag prices can hurt it (I'm not going to make it), I'm an adult onset hunter and I remember being horrified at the cost of my first in state Elk tag being $50. But then I got into the sport and realized how much I loved it and now hunt CO, MT, WY each year and pony up the out of state fees when I leave home and never complain.

As far as out of state license cost versus desire to protect public I think there is likely zero correlation. Public lands will live or die with non hunters, the other 90% of the population, these people don't give a crap about hunting license fees but they love their charismatic mega fauna and getting to do that big road trip out west to take their kids camping.

Also it's not as if midwest states are just handing out NR tags, last time I checked a Wisconsin license was $600 for ducks, upland, deer, and turkey.... CO for Deer, Waterfowl, Upland, Turkey is $554.

 

[Irrelevant]

Buzz, I completely agree that us NR ain't really doing chit for you in WY. A best we may sign a mass email petition on some random WY F&G issue, it really is the locals who are doing the heavy lifting. The same goes for all states. The public comment forums are full of local, not NR, hunters.

If we as a country were more serious about increase public land participation we would stop charging people to use the public lands and pay for them out of the general budget. No more camping fees, or park entrance fees, or boat launch fees. Do everything you can to get eastern folks out here to enjoy the lands, everything short of paying for their gas/plane ticket.

 

[Wisco]

I think there is absolutely an argument to be made for growing the base and how tag prices can hurt it (I'm not going to make it), I'm an adult onset hunter and I remember being horrified at the cost of my first in state Elk tag being $50. But then I got into the sport and realized how much I loved it and now hunt CO, MT, WY each year and pony up the out of state fees when I leave home and never complain.

As far as out of state license cost versus desire to protect public I think there is likely zero correlation. Public lands will live or die with non hunters, the other 90% of the population, these people don't give a crap about hunting license fees but they love their charismatic mega fauna and getting to do that big road trip out west to take their kids camping.

Also it's not as if midwest states are just handing out NR tags, last time I checked a Wisconsin license was $600 for ducks, upland, deer, and turkey.... CO for Deer, Waterfowl, Upland, Turkey is $554.

1) Agree with you completely. This will be my first year and I'm pretty sure I'm already finding out I'll be hooked. Hoping my experience will show my buddies they should just pony up the fees and none of us will ever complain again.

2) This is where I think a large part of my disconnect has been. My misunderstanding has been that hunters were going to be the majority of resistance on this topic, hence me targeting fellow hunters to grow our voice. It was probably naive of me to think that we could possibly be a strong enough voice without the help of the millions of non-hunters using these lands.

3) The $600 is our highest priced combination tag that includes over 25 stamps, applications, and tags. Not sure what the CO $554 all entails but fair enough point. That being said, we also offer first time buyer licenses (half off of the usual fee or twice the price of a resident fee). Were something like that available in Co or elsewhere, I'd feel very differently about the need of lower NR fees to grow hunter interest in the West.

And a side note, I greatly appreciate all of you who have been involved in the politics against PLT and attending the rallies and what not, I don't underestimate the impact that that had in any way. As far as I know, there weren't really many "on the ground" events here, so all I could reasonably do was fill out petitions and write legislators in my state. I'd agree that the social media platform will be increasingly important moving forward.

 

[cedahm]

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.....

Excellent points above and I also want to thank Wisco for bringing it up and constructively discussing and providing a view that can be challenging to grasp for those of us in 'the west'. I hear the same arguments from my friends in the Northwoods and the East all the time when the issue arises. I've already got a discussion planned with a couple friends on this topic during our annual Snowmobile trip/reunion in Northern MN in a few weeks. Over email and social media, they've asked questions recently about why PLT is bad and they don't really understand. It's not part of their daily life. It's part of my/our job to educate.

It's not that they can't/won't/don't get behind the 'bigger scope of PLT issues', but the lens they've usually been equipped with is pretty damn small and without helping them open the lens, a lot of their interaction is "Colorado wants to charge me $600 for an elk tag to hunt what is supposed to be MY public land?!" Even look at some of the comments on the recent posts from 'big' social media guys like Rinella and Rogan - many of the 'opposing' comments are very similar. People that aren't surrounded by our public lands don't have the same intimacy with their intrinsic value that those of us who live near the vast tracts are very familiar with.

Hell - one of my buddies has been hunting a deer stand on Chippewa NF land since he was in grade school and thought it was just (direct quote last year) "some land no one wanted in between a few private cabins".

 

[Flatland Crusoe]

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.
.

This is 100% true. I currently live in Illinois and have transitioned to hunting out of state almost 100%. In 2016 I hunted 1 day in Illinois and 20 out of state (MO, SD, NE, CO) because those states offered ample opportunity for me to be successful DIY on public land and the tag cost was a lot lower than if I hunted in state with $50 tags and $3k/year in leases. Going out of state even with high tag fees is a bargain compared to shelling out thousands of dollars to lease access to big bucks or to shoot geese in a cut cornfield within eyesight of a subdivision in Illinois. The hunt is better, and the cost is lower if you can swallow the driving.

In most of the Midwest hunting public is something you do if you are young or poor and there is assumption that over time you will find a way to hunt private with leases, friends or outright ownership. Midwestern national forest are unfortunately pretty abused and neglected compared to state run areas. This was especially apparent in Missouri with Mark Twain National forest vs MDC properties and things like how Missourian's and MDC have long wanted to get possession of Swan Lake National Wildlife Refuge as the area both needs significant work and represents huge lost public waterfowl opportunities compared to MDC sites. Couple this with red state politics and there isn't a lot of reason why a Midwesterner at face value should care about land out west.

Tag costs out west really have nothing to do with not supporting public land. Its especially true in states like WI, MI or PA where you have a huge population of people that deer hunt the same place casually year after year. Sure at deer camp after 5 Old Styles they say that someday they will elk hunt, but they don't mean it. They have hunted the same property or treestand for decades and probably take summer vacations to the same lake so why would they seek out a new species in a new state. These are probably the same people that can consider buying a truck from a different manufacturer than their family has always had let alone throw a dart at a map to go hunt a new place half way across the country. These guys aren't dreamers and they aren't doers and tag cost is just another excuse for them.

Hunting is expensive, but not prohibitively so compared to a lot of middle class activities like skiing, sporting clays, mountain biking, golf, fishing that requires a motorized boat, ATV use, etc. I figure that a day of recreation is going to start by costing $100/day per person and often more than that. Even guys who have a farm in the family neglect to acknowledge the market value of such an inheritance as part of the true cost of their hunting. Going hunting on someone else's farm is just the same as a weekend invitation to someone's lake house or getting free sporting event tickets from a friend in that someone is paying the bill and there is value to that as a gift.

Placing value on public land isn't limited to hunting. Its valuable as a place to hike, mountain bike or just know exists even as a picture in an elementary school text book. Even if I couldn't hunt I would be doing something outside and likely on public lands. When it comes to Eastern public land advocacy is the non consumptive users who are mostly ahead of the hunters because they know the value of good trails, views and wild places because hardly anyone owns enough land to do those activities exclusively on.

 

[Gr8bawana]

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!

So your support for public lands comes with a price?
You want cheaper NR fees? Give me break. I hunt where I can afford and I don't begrudge those who can afford to apply in as many states as they want.
You say the NR fees are "excessive" and and it's becoming increasingly "impossible" to participate.
Just because maybe you can't afford to pay the NR fees needed to apply doesn't mean the fees are excessive. It also must not be as impossible as you think because thousands and thousands of NR apply in every western state for a chance at a few tags.

 

[Wisco]

So your support for public lands comes with a price?
You want cheaper NR fees? Give me break. I hunt where I can afford and I don't begrudge those who can afford to apply in as many states as they want.
You say the NR fees are "excessive" and and it's becoming increasingly "impossible" to participate.
Just because maybe you can't afford to pay the NR fees needed to apply doesn't mean the fees are excessive. It also must not be as impossible as you think because thousands and thousands of NR apply in every western state for a chance at a few tags.

I am applying, in multiple states, and will be going on an OTC hunt. I don't begrudge anyone... I also never said that my support for public land comes at a price. I have supported it as best I can in a state where this issue isn't a hot topic. You obviously have cherry-picked what part of this conversation you wanted to comment on. I know that for some, the price is a deterrent. And I also know that for me, opportunities are a deterrent. Goat/sheep tags have grown increasingly difficult to draw and I'll likely never even try. Certain states have grown very difficult to get good elk tags. If the only thing the system can offer new hunters are the leftover tags, crappier units, and only an ever-fading hope of the glory tags, I can understand why some guys may bypass the idea of going on these hunts. Without ever having experienced these lands, guys may not realize their value, and in turn, probably won't care about the next H.R. 621. I don't know how many ways I can say what I just said, but it is a fact for some people, not all, but some.

I don't think I'm some crazy person for thinking the point systems pose issues if not now, then certainly down the road. Nor am I the only one who wishes the prices were tamed a little bit. I know that raising hunter awareness and support to fight PLT legislation is important, and I came up with an idea that could help it. I'm not demanding anything, nor do I think I've deserved or will deserve something from western state wildlife agencies.

I've learned from a few on this post who have been kind in pointing out to me that we need to direct our efforts towards others outside the hunting realm as they make up larger populations. I've also learned many perspectives from those who live there. So thanks to them for that, and for not making false assumptions about what I think about others or what financial position I'm in.

 

[Big Fin]

Wisco - Thanks for asking the the three questions you started with. I hear similar concerns, or some derivative of it, very often. I think your point should be taken without us westerners reading too much into it and try to listen to what it really means for expanding public land advocacy in the hunting community.

I'll try to use a comparison. When discussing 2nd Amendment issues v. public lands, I hear guys say, "My guns aren't nearly as much use to me if I don't have a place to hunt." I've read many people post something similar to that on this forum.

I see a lot of comparisons to the same comment you have started with, and I'll paraphrase, "These public lands are not nearly as much use to me if hunting, my favorite manner of enjoying those lands, is increasingly hard for a non-resident to obtain."

That is flat out a reality for some folks. They don't live/breath it like some of us here. They have a million other issues burning in their back yards, other than public land issues, that move further up the priority list due to the fact that their ability to enjoy these western public lands via hunting is much harder than for those of us who live here.

I do think building a larger base for public land support among non-resident hunters is impacted by what you mention. I hope residents of western states think about that the next time they push for a non-resident fee increase, push for lower non-resident allocations, or further restricting non-resident opportunity from what it currently is.

Wyoming and Colorado are enormously generous to non-residents in their tag allocation percentages. Unfortunately, I'm sure they will be pushed to eventually reduce that non-resident allocation. Thanks to the residents of those two states who advocate on behalf of all of us, resident and non-resident alike. That generosity helps connect even more people from other parts of the country to the cause of public lands.

 

[onpoint]

This is a hunting website. I get it. Gotta appeal to the base. I am part of that base or else I wouldn't be on here.
That being said- Randy, you were at the Public Lands Rally. How many folks do you think were there for reasons other than hunting?
Still think tying building the hunting base - to NR hunting opportunity and cost - to the preservation of our American Public lands Heritage is a slippery slope.
The discussion is a learning moment.......

To be clear, I think the discrepancy between R and NR license costs (in my state) needs a fix.

 

[Northwoods Labs]

There are plenty of federal lands in the Upper Great Lakes states of Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan that are worth fighting for. The transfer of federal lands is not a complete western issue

 

[onpoint]

There are plenty of federal lands in the Upper Great Lakes states of Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan that are worth fighting for. The transfer of federal lands is not a complete western issue

A voice from the wilderness. Thank you.