cgasner1
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2016
- Messages
- 3,035
Never Ending Challenge of Access
- Thread starter B&CTom
- Start date
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
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2016
- Messages
- 3,035
See I won’t argue number with you ever but also…
Attachments
Forkyfinder
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2023
- Messages
- 2,589
1. Is pretty straightforward actually.
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.
Iam sorry but Block management absolutely sucks weiners.
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
I can expose it. I have to get my friends permission first. Because he benefits from it. So $*)Q!#@$ retarded
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
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
I agree- that’s why I listed it first. It also has the largest financial impact, however.
Forkyfinder
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2023
- Messages
- 2,589
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?
Last edited:
antlerradar
Well-known member
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.
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.
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
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2014
- Messages
- 820
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
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2023
- Messages
- 2,589
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
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2023
- Messages
- 2,589
"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.
@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
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2023
- Messages
- 2,589
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.
Last edited:
I found this summary.
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?
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?
Similar threads
