Never Ending Challenge of Access

[cgasner1]

How about we get access to our land first before trying to buy more somewhere?

 

[Ben Lamb]

How about we get access to our land first before trying to buy more somewhere?

Public Access to Lands agreements & Block Management have taken this number from 4 million to 3 million in 5 years (1 million acres opened up).

FYI.

 

[cgasner1]

Public Access to Lands agreements & Block Management have taken this number from 4 million to 3 million in 5 years (1 million acres opened up).

FYI.

See I won’t argue number with you ever but also…

 

[Forkyfinder]

Taking a first principles approach to this- it seems to me that the access puzzle essentially breaks down to three possible solutions:

1. Reduce hunters.
2. Increase the amount of public land.
3. Improve opportunity for people to access private land.

The first two usually have significant financial ramifications to the state. The third one does not necessarily have any negative impact to the state whatsoever, and it may actually be positive financial impact.

If the discussion does not address at least one of these three (and hopefully more than one), I have to wonder how impactful it is actually going to be.

1. Is pretty straightforward actually.

 

[Shed God]

Iam sorry for my ignorance. But to my knowledge it's better to own than lease. Imagine what fwp, blm ect could if bought over the last 30 yrs alone. Maybe we should think what the public could buy over the next 30 yrs.

Iam sorry but Block management absolutely sucks weiners.

 

[Shed God]

I fully understand it's politics and bullshit. But uh call it what it is. It's bullshit. Programs leases block management blows weiners. Stupid asses making decisions for public lands and stupid shits spending huge money on Block management that doesn't matter too the public.

I can expose it. I have to get my friends permission first. Because he benefits from it. So $*)Q!#@$ retarded

 

[Shed God]

Ben lamb ya shit load of politics. And I believe u fight the good the fight. Play by the rules. But uh it's a bunch of $*)Q!#@$ bullshit.

On one of the threads just saying. Yes no shit cattle influence wildlife numbers in a unit. Ya no shit most wildlife go to private. Because the fwp doesn't protect them. Private does but profits off them.

My brother Ben. He said it's what they want. Money talks and bullshit walks.

My opionon hunt the private borders hard. ****em

 

[Shed God]

Be interesting what the last 2 fwp directors did after they retired from fwp. Or stepped down. Anyone knows post it.

 

[Treeshark]

1. Is pretty straightforward actually.

I agree- that’s why I listed it first. It also has the largest financial impact, however.

 

[Forkyfinder]

I agree- that’s why I listed it first. It also has the largest financial impact, however.

Here's some simple math you'll like- double the prices, half the tags. They'll still all sell.

 

[Treeshark]

Here's some simple math you'll like- double the prices, half the tags. They'll still all sell.

Nailed it. I agree, they will all sell in today’s economic climate and I don’t see that changing without a significant downturn.

*That would be fantastic for me personally and many others, but I can’t help but wonder- is that the right thing to do?

 

[antlerradar]

Here's some simple math you'll like- double the prices, half the tags. They'll still all sell.

I am not so sure that NR tags would sell out. It would shift demand from DIY hunters to those that are willing to pay to play. Would likely reduce the number of NR hunting public, but increase the number of NR hunting clubs on private.

 

[Sytes]

IMO, BMA is directly affected by season structure, duration, and pressure. This seems to host the largest resistance by residents who complain the most about access/success rate.

Big game: Tag allocation for archery, traditional (long/recurve/muzzleloader), OR rifle, by species.

General Season, exc. Spring bear:
11 weeks with 9 weeks of hunting.

September - based on weapon selection:
3 weeks all versions archery. Yes, including x-bow (I know, lost some supporters...).
2 weeks traditional.
Two week break.
October/November:
4 weeks rifle.

How this applies to BMA:
Access: Dates selected, enrollment by weapon choice, species are defined by FWP BMA presets (similar to "Type") OR L/O selection. Grants additional L/O flexibility.
*We will not fix stupid though reduced pressure and weapon selection, I believe, increases a preferenced mindset. That preferenced minset, again IMO, increases hunter values overall.
This, IMO, will reduce overall pressure and increase success rates on block management access areas.

***Select districts or portions w/in:
Restrict or expand weapon and (or) time based on game management needs.

*Note: This is a general overview.

 

[Dakotakid]

Here's some simple math you'll like- double the prices, half the tags. They'll still all sell.

Until the lawyers get involved.

Wasn’t there a US Supreme Court case permitting Montana’s NR license structure so long as the difference between resident and non resident was reasonable?

 

[Forkyfinder]

Until the lawyers get involved.

Wasn’t there a US Supreme Court case permitting Montana’s NR license structure so long as the difference between resident and non resident was reasonable?

You mean this?

Baldwin v. Fish & Game Comm'n of Montana, 436 U.S. 371 (1978)

Baldwin v. Fish & Game Comm'n of Montana: The Privileges and Immunities Clause requires only that a state treat all resident and non-resident citizens equally with respect to privileges and immunities that relate to the vitality of the nation as a single entity. Recreational hunting does not...

supreme.justia.com

"We conclude that, where the opportunity to enjoy a recreational activity is created or supported by a state, where there is no nexus between the activity and any fundamental right, and where. by its very nature. the activity can be enjoyed by only a portion of those who would enjoy it, a state may prefer its residents over the residents of other states, or condition the enjoyment of the nonresident upon such terms as it sees fit."

 

[Forkyfinder]

*That would be fantastic for me personally and many others, but I can’t help but wonder- is that the right thing to do?

"Right" as in what?

I mean - if we are talking about what's "Right" relative to what I believe your thoughts are - WY, NV, and especially Alaska deserve much more scorn from you.

I also don't see the logical consistency - when monocrop agriculture is the most heavily subsidized form - why isn't access to that an issue for you? Shouldn't the taxpayers "get something" out of that deal as well? Or - maybe it's quite like the land the public land, paying taxes/subsidy for something entitles you to nothing inherently - except cheaper prices if you are inclined to believe it.

 

[TheJason]

Until the lawyers get involved.

Wasn’t there a US Supreme Court case permitting Montana’s NR license structure so long as the difference between resident and non resident was reasonable?

@Forkyfinder might think it was funny, but you are correct. It involved USO, started in AZ and as I recall they filed suits against a number of western states.

 

[Forkyfinder]

@Forkyfinder might think it was funny, but you are correct. It involved USO, started in AZ and as I recall they filed suits against a number of western states.

You have a source for that? In particular the language saying "reasonable"

I can't find it. Doubt the supreme court that exists today or will exist in the forseeable future would federalize wildlife.

 

[TheJason]

You have a source for that? In particular the language saying "reasonable"

I can't find it. Doubt the supreme court that exists today or will exist in the forseeable future would federalize wildlife.

I’ll dig around and find it. I can’t remember if it was the USSC or Ninth Circuit. I sat in a room with then FWP director Jeff Hagener discussing the implications of it.

It wasn’t about federalizing wildlife. It was in reference to interstate commerce and the commerce clause of the USC, and if restrictions on NR licenses/tags violated the commerce clause.

 

[TheJason]

I found this summary.

https://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1055&context=mulr

It does not make reference to reasonable and acceptable price differentials, but I can assure you it was a topic of discussion at the directors level. Maybe the Rain Man aka @Ben Lamb remembers this?