Caribou Gear

Nationwide license fee?

Calif. Hunter

Active member
Joined
Dec 13, 2000
Messages
5,193
Location
Apple Valley, CA, USA
Aug 3, 2007

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.
 
It is a confusing proposal. I think i know what they want to do, and that is to keep the res/nonres cost percentage from getting way out of proportion. They need to be more specific on the way that will happen to see if it will work.
Sooner or later something has to be done for our youth to keep them hunting within a reasonable price if they choose to cross state lines and hunt federal lands. It has always been a pissing match with the "the state owns the game" thing, but the average US taxpayer is not a hunter, and you have to wonder what the nonhunters think about this as well since the state owned game resides on federal land. That state owned game is at the mercy of the taxpayer and lawmakers to decide who can hunt that game on federal land. Just a thought
 
The way Teddy Roosevelt envisioned it was that the "people own the game" and that it should be managed by the Federal and State Governments.
 
Scottysmack Thats not how it is though, but the people do own the federal land and that does mean a lot more than some want it to. Here's why... your state owned game is not huntable without having the permission of the land owner to hunt it. Lets see what happens to anyone that knocks on Ted Turners door and tell him your going to go hunt your State's Elk on his property. I bet he says "pound sand"
What if something like this bill goes through and the majority of the taxpayers (including nonhunters) say they think hunting should cost the same for everyone who will hunt federal property, what can you do?? it is thier land to make the rules who will hunt it. It already costs the same for everyone who visits a national park.
Just a thought, but it can happen someday.
Hell I have a ton of federal land here in Wisconsin so it would effect me as well. We have a TON of nonres hunters come here every year.
 
If I understand it this correctly there is one major problem. The way that hunting areas are set up in the west would have to be completely changed. It would have to go to a private land area and federal land area. That will probably never get passed because then you have to change the entire way that we do objective numbers, and then create tiny areas for small ranches and call them their own objective, when in reality who knows how much that land is just part of the bigger picture. The hunting areas are set up to meet the needs of the animals in the areas not for the convenience of the hunters. I don't think this will pass.
 
If they want to take control away from the states they could also have a one mule deer per year limit, or a one elk a year limit. No more hunting in more than one state every year. It wouldn't matter what state you're in, one elk tag and one deer tag would be it. |oo
 
.
Lots of questions come to mind, but the most nagging is ,,,,,WHY?

Same thing I ask myself every time I see one of your posts. Is your life-partner out of town or something? You sure have had a lot of free time the last few days...................
 
Is your life-partner out of town or something?

....soda...nostrils...keyboard....gag...chit!

Lisa-02-june.gif


.
 
I think it is an idea with some merit. Implementation could be difficult, but New Mexico already has "ranch-only" and "unit wide" landowner tags. The state could be considered just like a landowner... Other states charge a premium to hunt on state lands.

Quotas could still be established for areas, and a certain number of each type (resident and "non-resident" federal) of tag allocated just as resident and non-resident tags are allocated now.
 
The bill will most likely never even make it out of committee. If by some chance it makes it out of committee and through the house it is DOA in the Senate with Harry Reid being the author of the resently passed Reaffirmation of States Rights to Manage Game Act. No way does it see the light of day in the Senate.

Nemont
 
I would think to hunt, that's why 280, not your basic rocket science thinking at work there, but I bet that's it. Look at how many big whitetails there are in Wisconsin, geeze.

A few states like that, CA, PA, NY, MI, TX get behind a bill like this and that's millions of hunters.
 
.
Lots of questions come to mind, but the most nagging is ,,,,,WHY?

I know your retarded so i will answer for you... Because Wisconsin not only has like one of the highest deer population, but also with out a doubt the best trophy hunting areas in the world for WT deer if you want to pay to get into a good lease or outfitter, but can also be done on the cheap as well. Do a Google search on Buffalo County deer hunting, and see what may pop up. Besides that, the cost is very cheap as far as NR tags go. Still under 200 bucks last time i checked.
Probably the best reason though, because fags like you aren't hunting there and if you did the beer drinking rednecks would kick you in your vagina.
 
Probably the best reason though, because fags like you aren't hunting there and if you did the beer drinking rednecks would kick you in your vagina.

LOL,,,hooked another one,,,fish on,,,thats a Texan and Wisc. now on the stringer,,,who is next?
 
A few states like that, CA, PA, NY, MI, TX get behind a bill like this and that's millions of hunters.

The challenge for those States is that in the Senate: NM, Arizona, WY, CO, MT and ID all have the same number of senators as CA, PA, NY, MI & TX. No way a bill like that will get through the Senate.

Nemont
 
The challenge for those States is that in the Senate: NM, Arizona, WY, CO, MT and ID all have the same number of senators as CA, PA, NY, MI & TX. No way a bill like that will get through the Senate.

Nemont

Like I said, you have to wonder how a nonhunter views this. If you were a liberal nonhunter in the senate i bet they would find this proposal interesting.
They think different that us, and there are a lot of them.
 
You dumb shits will be the end of all hunting with your incessant whining about getting equal odds as the residents of the western states. It's like a broken record between the Taulman/USO deal and now this. If you think getting the feds involved in managing big game hunts is a good idea then please explain one single project they have done since ranchers and hunters reintroduced elk in the 30's that has done something positive for the herds. Hello? This will just end hunting for us all. You will look back in ten years and wonder what happened to all the game because none of the residents in the west hauled water or worked habitat for your enjoyment. Kind of helps to live close to actually work on the projects that matter. You get your equal chance for $200 you better have a plan for doing the work when we tell you to f-off.
 
You dumb shits will be the end of all hunting with your incessant whining about getting equal odds as the residents of the western states. It's like a broken record between the Taulman/USO deal and now this. If you think getting the feds involved in managing big game hunts is a good idea then please explain one single project they have done since ranchers and hunters reintroduced elk in the 30's that has done something positive for the herds. Hello? This will just end hunting for us all. You will look back in ten years and wonder what happened to all the game because none of the residents in the west hauled water or worked habitat for your enjoyment. Kind of helps to live close to actually work on the projects that matter. You get your equal chance for $200 you better have a plan for doing the work when we tell you to f-off.

Once again a small mind spouts off about draw odds when this is not even the topic, or has been, or is even mentioned in the proposal we are talking about. Glen this is not some USO debate it is about a price cap on tags and has nothing mentioned in the first post about drawing odds or quotas.
Settle down old man:D
 
I get tired of your whining about how you have equal rights to hunt on your land you old bitch. It is not a money issue. That is just your latest excuse. If you can afford the gas to drive your rig west then you can afford a damn tag if you get drawn. You are starting to sound like one of those invaders from California.
 

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
112,773
Messages
2,000,110
Members
35,825
Latest member
clinebj22
Back
Top