National data: private vs public.

[Nemont]

Tom,
So per capita bragging rights are good when they make Texas look good but when total numbers make Texas look good we can use those numbers. You don't suppose Texas has some different dynamics seeing as they are the 2nd highest population of any state.

Every time I think you have topped the idiot category you redeem yourself and show that you still have higher to go.

You are using 2005 numbers to justify 2012 expenditures and doing with 1910 logic.

Per capita we kick Texas square in the nads

Big Sky country boasts more hunters per capita than any other state in the nation. Bountiful landscapes, clean water and air, and few inhabitants all make this an ideal place for wildlife and hunters to roam
http://fwp.mt.gov/education/hunter/

For many Montanans, hunting is a way of life where game meat frequently supplements weekly groceries. In fact, Montana has more hunters per capita than any other US state! Likewise, visitors flock to the abundant game in Montana, infusing millions into Montana's economy.
http://www.ourpubliclands.org/about/montana/hunting-fishing

http://www.sportsmansguide.com/Outdoors/Subject/SubjectRead.aspx?sid=0&aid=170390&type=A

You are "sort of" right, Andy. When you think about it, it makes sense that rural states would have a better chance of having more hunters per capita. Thus, Montana, Wyoming, and North and South Dakota rank first with more than 20 percent of the population in each of those states purchasing a hunting license. Maine is one of the states in the next group with 11 percent to 20 percent buying a hunting license. Also in that group are Idaho, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Arkansas, Tennessee, West Virginia, and Vermont. By the way, Texas is in a group of states where only 1 percent to 5 percent of the residents buy a hunting license. The only states where less than 1 percent of residents buy a hunting license are California,, Florida, New Jersey, and Massachusetts.

Not only do our 3 elected officials kick the snot out of your 34, per capita we hunt in larger numbers, for longer season and don't import African animals to have shooting zoos and Texans thump their chests all the while subsidizing our hunting, which State has it figured out? Keep thinking Texas is all that.

Nemont

 

[Outdooraddict]

private land can be hunted by the public if the state has a good management plan for it

O.k., so someone says Nebraska has 270,000 acres opened to the public- which is great but- that's proof that it works??? Nebraska has 49,506,640 acres total, that would put the "huntable private land" at .54% of the total area. What's Nebraska going to do when they have to pay all those landowners $15 per acre? "Pretending" that 10,000,000 acres are opened to the public (20% of the land- after the selloff), the state must spend $150,000,000...

Anybody know how much the state generates from hunting/fishing licenses??? Would landowners rather charge each hunter thousands for hunting their land and "screw the public access"? How about the new landowner subdividing or developing newly acquired public lands.

How about you Tom? Do you have private property you would be willing to let any John Smith on?

 

[noharleyyet]

Maddow agrees with Nemont...sort of

....seems Texas Representatives are getting as adept as Montana's at stepping up to the DC trough. Patience Nemot, we can do better but ya'll still have the edge in efficiency.

MSNBC host Rachel Maddow says Texas routinely receives more federal dollars than Texans pay in federal taxes

Share this story:
After playing a 2009 video clip in which Republican Gov. Rick Perry touts states’ rights, MSNBC host Rachel Maddow suggested secession could hurt the Lone Star state’s bottom line.

"Many of these states flexing their 10th Amendment muscle, flexing their state sovereignty, even flirting with secession, states like Texas, Tennessee, South Carolina and Utah, one of these things about the states is that they all routinely get a lot more federal spending than they pay in taxes," she said on the April 12 edition of her weeknight show. A reader brought her comment to our attention.

Is Texas really getting more for less? To back up Maddow, MSNBC spokeswoman Lauren Skowronski pointed us to the most recent state-by-state analysis of federal tax burdens and spending by the Washington-based Tax Foundation, a business-backed tax policy group. It covers the 25-year period between 1981 and 2005.

According to the analysis, Texans paid about $147 billion in federal taxes in 2005 while the state received $149 billion in federal spending. That year, 33 other states also got, as Maddow put it, more money back than residents paid in.

The paid taxes included employment, estate and trust income taxes, among others. Federal spending in Texas includes funding for retirement and disability, grants (such as for research and construction), wages of federal employees and direct payments for programs such as Medicare.

On an annual basis, however, there were only six years in that time period when Texas residents paid fewer dollars in federal taxes than they got in return, according to the foundation.

And since 2005? For those numbers, Skowronski pointed us to the most recent federal tax data posted by the IRS and federal spending data from the U.S. Census Bureau.

In fiscal 2009, the IRS collected about $163 billion from Texans and the state received about $224 billion, for a net gain of $61 billion. Federal spending in Texas also exceeded tax payments in 2008 by $8 billion. It was the other way around in 2006 and 2007, when tax payments by Texans exceeded federal spending by a total of about $47 billion.

Eva DeLuna Castro, a budget analyst at Austin’s Center for Public Policy Priorities, which advocates for moderate- to low-income Texans, told us Texas started receiving more federal funds in the last decade because of an increase in military spending, tax cuts and tax credits and a modest growth in federal health spending — not to mention a spike in social services and aid every time a hurricane hit.

"Texas is definitely getting back way more than people in Texas are paying in taxes," she said. "So do a lot of other states. Texas isn’t unique in that."

In 2009, most states — there were 45, including Texas — received more than residents paid in taxes. Though no data is yet available, DeLuna Castro said Texas will again receive more than residents paid in taxes in 2010. But by 2011, when stimulus funds dry up, she speculated that Texas will revert to being a "donor state."

Summing up: The figures from our sources show two different trends. On an annual basis between 1981 and 2003, Texas almost always paid more in federal taxes than it got back from Uncle Sam. But since 2003 the reverse has been true, with Texas receiving more than it paid in five out of seven years, which is close to routine.

We rate Maddow’s statement as Mostly True.

I also don't hold a grudge that Montana has more hunters and most likely grazers (shameless Jose pandering here) per capita to take advantage of MY Public Land.

 

[Ben Lamb]

....seems Texas Representatives are getting as adept as Montana's at stepping up to the DC trough. Patience Nemot, we can do better but ya'll still have the edge in efficiency.




I also don't hold a grudge that Montana has more hunters and most likely grazers (shameless Jose pandering here) per capita to take advantage of MY Public Land.

Quit sending Ron Paul and those numbers will go up.

Grazers - sounds like a Thursday night in Missoula.

 

[Big Fin]

Not that I should add my two cents, but for some additional thought for consideration, I will. I am not stating that Montana and other states should privatize these public resources discussed below, but it is hard to have a discussion about such, when the numbers so far do not account for this.

Montana, and other western "welfare queen" states have significant public resources, that in other states were previously privatized as part of land grants, etc. Imagine if we counted the money that goes back to the US Treasury in the form of oil and gas royalties and receipts from these western states. Same with mining and mineral payments.

Additionally, imagine if those were privatized and the payments were being made to private entities with a taxable nexus in Montana. Those entities would be paying huge chunks of tax to the Federal Treasury.

Huge amounts come to Montana and other states for recreation and conservation purposes. Seems like lots of people across the country like the benefits of CRP; the majority of US citizens like the restrictions on logging and other extractive industries, even if it does have some impact on local economic activity and reduces tax receipts from western states; the majority of US citizens like knowing we still have Yellowstone, Glacier, Grand Canyon, and other national parks even if privatization as happened to amazing landscapes in other states would increase Federal tax receipts from these western states.

I could go on and on. I think the point is pretty easy to see.

One can quicky see how this is hardly "apples to apples" in the way the DC think tank crowd likes to analyze things. To me, their numbers and analysis is not even "apples to oranges," maybe more like "apples to monkey teeth."

To be having this disucssion of Federal welfare between states with differences in public v. private land/asset ownership seems like a waste of time. A full accounting and analysis never has been done, and never will be done.

That would get in the way of Beltway opinions. Rather than a true analysis, they simplify their discussions to the lowest common denominator and eliminate the important variables that require more than ten seconds of explanation. Analysis bought and paid for by whoever is writing the check and wants some supposed facts, however incomplete those facts are, to support their opinions being sold to the masses.

Sorry to interject. Carry on .............

 

[Ben Lamb]

Way to ruin a perfectly good Texas bashng thread Randy.

FYI - conserved Public Lands are good for local economies and local tax bases. We have an evolving economic engine in the west. Logging in particular is being replaced with other forms of economic growth. The key is to be able to adapt locally to take advantage of the newly developed niche. Otherwise, you get left in the dust. If you are an entrepreneur, now is a good time to be in the inter-mountain west.

 

[Nemont]

....seems Texas Representatives are getting as adept as Montana's at stepping up to the DC trough. Patience Nemot, we can do better but ya'll still have the edge in efficiency.




I also don't hold a grudge that Montana has more hunters and most likely grazers (shameless Jose pandering here) per capita to take advantage of MY Public Land.

And I don't hold a grudge against Texas except when Tom wants to play with numbers and make it appear that Texas is the only model for hunting, while ignoring facts.

Nemont

 

[Ben Lamb]

I forgot, what's Texas' budget deficit this year?

 

[noharleyyet]

And I don't hold a grudge against Texas except when Tom wants to play with numbers and make it appear that Texas is the only model for hunting, while ignoring facts.

Nemont

I don't think Tom as an assholic bone in his body. Hat occasionally, maybe.

Here, try this...

 

[Nemont]

I don't think Tom as an assholic bone in his body. Hat occasionally, maybe.

I said he challenged by the facts and his arguement that Texas is superior is not supported by the facts. He is an asshat when it comes to cheerleading and he has a highly inflated sense of that Texans don't burden the Federal Treasury.

Hey, lots of people here think its bad if more and more people live off of government handouts and not provide for ourselves.

 

[Tom]

You make up shit Nemont, I don't think Texas is the only model for hunting. I do think it is way more accomplished than you appear to think, and I offer the numbers to support it. Your hunters/capita is a good thing for Montana residents, however few or many of you there are. Greater numbers may or may not be superior, depending on what definition of superior is used.

 

[Nemont]

You make up shit Nemont, I don't think Texas is the only model for hunting. I do think it is way more accomplished than you appear to think, and I offer the numbers to support it. Your hunters/capita is a good thing for Montana residents, however few or many of you there are. Greater numbers may or may not be superior, depending on what definition of superior is used.

You make shit up Tom about alot of things and cheerlead for Texas every chance you get but don't want anyone to cheerlead for their home state?

How do you explain those ranchers in Texas taking the free money from Washington? Why aren't they able to stand up and just do it on their own? How come your govenor wants aid for the farmers and ranchers but doesn't want to help those who qualify for Medicaid?

I have hunted ducks and geese in Texas and had a great time. Hunting in Montana on public and private lands is great and I offered numbers to support that.

I won't bother you with any more facts so I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.

Bless your heart

Nemont

 

[Tom]

You can cheerlead for your home state all you want, but if you bash me or Texas, just expect to get it back. Cheerleading that is bashing others is just plain crap if you ask me. Some people have fun dishing out crap, I think mainly, because they're full of crap.
You don't usually do that though, and that's a good thing.

Its the biggest drought here in decades and the farmers get reimbursed just like farmers in other states and you want me to justify it? For what? And you think the money is free when they and others pay taxes and you expect me to discuss the "free" money?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jul/9/texas-governor-rejects-medicaid-expansion-in-obama/ is an article talking about Gov. Perry's decision to opt out on the government expansion, like many other governors have.

Sorry if you think I make up shit, that's why I try to post links, so you can see the source of the data that I'm talking about and seperate the facts from my description of them a little better.

 

[The Hedgehog]

I wasn't polled in that survey six years ago.. anybody else? Corn-flingers, high fence, cattle shooting, and exotics... yawn. I'm all for shooting - but is that really hunting? Some people have different definitions for their recreational activities.

 

[Tom]

I wasn't polled in that survey six years ago.. anybody else? Corn-flingers, high fence, cattle shooting, and exotics... yawn. I'm all for shooting - but is that really hunting? Some people have different definitions for their recreational activities.

I wasn't polled either, but its a survey done every 5 years by the census bureau and its data the state fish and game people use, I've read.

Yes, by several definitions, eg. legal, liscensed, etc. but no by other definitions. Would you do this, would you consider it real hunting to sit by a water hole with your bow and wait for a pronghorn to shoot him? That's a similar yawn for some.

 

[tjones]

,,,wait for it,,,,,,,

 

[noharleyyet]

,,,wait for it,,,,,,,

...twinkies/bear....hounds/cats.....one could equivocate. No?

 

[sweetnectar]

I don't see why so many hunt talker get so huffy over these survey numbers. I think it means that public land doesn't get used as much for hunting as private lands. We'll duh. I guess I'm just not surprised and I don't have anything to get huffy over.

So does this mean that private lands provide more habitat for wildlife?

 

[tjones]

...twinkies/bear....hounds/cats.....one could equivocate. No?

Cattle and 55 gal barrels,,,can't belive it has not shown up.

 

[Tom]

Yeah, from the hunter activity point of view. Sit over a pond with the bow and wait for the pronghorn or whatever, that hunter activity is the same as sitting over a trail, a feeder barrel, wherever. Also, the animals are free to come in and get shot or free to not come in and not get shot. Its in our mind that they seem more different than they actually are, I think.

It would be neat to get harvest data per acre or something to see what the difference is of private and public, but I haven't really seen that.

You can call it a cow if you want, it was actually a water buffalo. Its buddies at the ranch I shot it at had trampled people before I hunted that one and its buddies have trampled people after I hunted that one also. I shot it in the neck twice with the 338 and it went down dead. Another guy from another ranch told me a story how he shot one 4 times with a 375 and it ramed a small pick up and knocked it around quite a bit. The body on the thing was bigger than a cape buffalo, but the horns were smaller.