Public Land Stamp

[Western Bounty]

I know bringing up additional costs to go hunting may not be popular but what do you guys think about a stamp that would be required to take game from public land? It is managed for multiple use and most users who take from that land pay a fee that goes towards the management of the land; forestry, grazing and mineral extraction all raise funds that help public lands stay public. It seems like one of the main reasons public land is sold is because it is not economically viable to keep. I would gladly pay a small annual fee to help keep public ground public.

I am thinking a $5 stamp for each major public land type; so for instance nationwide BLM and Forest Service for $10. But, waive the fee for minors/youth.

If our governments saw more value in keeping this land rather than selling it, maybe we would have a better chance it being there for future generations.

 

[Western Bounty]

That may have been a bit out there for a first post so I thought I should introduce myself even if it is after the fact. My name is Justin Starck. I live in Wyoming were I hunt most everything we have available to hunt. I enjoy hunting no matter the weapon; bow, rifle or shotgun. Most of my hunting is done on forest service, but I also have access to some private property in eastern Wyoming. I enjoy the mountains all year; AT skiing, camping and of course hunting.

 

[Elkmagnet]

I buy my Christmas tree permit yearly.

 

[Gerald Martin]

Welcome to the conversation.

If I could ensure that my public lands stay public for the price of a $10 stamp I'd be all for it. However, the main reason public lands are being pushed to be sold is because the people behind it expect to gain financially from the sale. State lands are sold when they don't bring in income, but we already pay for state lands access in MT when we buy a hunting license.

If the citizens of this country see more value in keeping this land rather than selling it we will have a much better chance of it being there for the next generation. Until people start realizing just how valuable public land is to them personally, they will continue to support land transfer and sale.

 

[F250]

I would not be opposed to a small fee to hunt Forest Service or BLM lands IF the fees were going to be used for wildlife enhancements on those lands. Most National Wildlife Refuges that I have hunted on, charge a fee for hunting now. Hunters pay - bird watchers and hikers pay nothing. As usual, the consumptive user of wildlife, foots the bill.

 

[Big Sky Dreamin]

I'm not necessarily opposed to this idea, but we do already fund a great deal through Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson. And I don't think this is a well publicized fact with other users that do not hunt or fish.

 

[JWP58]

I'd be all for it if every single person recreating was required to purchase a stamp. But that wont happen. So no, I don't want to punish only hunters and fishermen when birdwatchers and hikers get to free load.

 

[VAspeedgoat]

In Va, we have to buy a national forest stamp and/or a state forest stamp to hunt, fish, camp, or hike. So, no, I'm not opposed to the idea. I think everyone that uses the land should pay it, not just hunters and fishermen.

Welcome to the forum.

 

[MTGomer]

BHA and Rokslide have both had articles similar to this recently, except it was about requiring all users of public lands to pay a SMALL fee.
If the money would actually help keep it public, I would not be opposed to paying on top of what we already pay, as hunters. But I do think that hikers, backpackers, rockclimbers etc.. could pay something.
BHA's comment section brought out the usual entitlement minded, freeloader type that claim that they leave no impact, since they don't kill animals, and that it is preposterous to ask them to pay anything to use land that should be free. "Free" "FREE"
I wonder how all those trails got beat in a foot deep, three feet wide in the alpine above Red Lodge?

 

[Straight Arrow]

Although not opposed to paying a user fee, that is not the solution to the issue you are addressing.
The argument that others could manage federal public lands better than the agencies established to manage the lands is weak. The problem stems from budgets that are not sufficiently funded by the people ... that is by Congress. So adequate federal funding of federal public land management is the best solution in my mind. It seems everyone wants to reinvent the wheel to come up with other solutions when the solution is already in place. Proper fiscal allocation is just not practiced by Congress, and until we the people demand that our legislative representation begin supporting public lands managers with adequate resources, the inability to properly manage will continue.

 

[Elkmagnet]

If allocated properly ID be OK with it but I would honestly think it would lead to more public backlash at this point. More "big gubment" and "the feds taking our money" talk at the coffee shop.

 

[Ben Lamb]

DOI already has a pass for National Parks & some BLM sites. It could be expanded easily to include all BLM, USFS, NPS, etc sites but I'm not sure that the cost would be something that a lot of people would pay upfront.

We buy the America the Beautiful stamp since we spend a lot of time in Glacier and Yellowstone. It doesn't cover such places like developed campsites or boat launches though. It's $80 up front.

http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/Recreation/recreation_national/recreation_fees__.html

 

[Gerald Martin]

One thing I didn't mention is we already pay for these lands through our taxes. I agree with elkmagnet though that with the current political climate adding another fee would probably create more backlash than it is worth.

 

[hank4elk]

We pay a $4 for Habitat Management & Access Validation & $5 for Habitat stamps when applying for NM hunts.

I do know I already pay my taxes to help fund the departments in the US.
I know we pay Pittman Robertson taxes as outdoors folks and that tax was implemented in the middle of the Depression by US hunters & fishermen.
There was a fee impossed on CA NF users called a Adventure Pass that I never purchased and never would.It was to make up funds by the public for LEO & damage caused by the numbers of city people on the Angeles,San Berdo forests and they tried to make us farther north in the Los Padres pay too.
I got 2 tickets in 10 years and sent them to my Congress woman with a message I would not pay an extra fee or the ticket. Never heard from her again and it is not on my record.
I know no others that pay in extra for use of public lands, outside of operating/use permits.
No birdwatching stamps,no hiking stamps,no wolf stamps,etc....maybe they should too.
Maybe Congress should do their jobs and fully fund the Dept's like the law say's?

 

[Straight Arrow]

Maybe Congress should do their jobs and fully fund the Dept's like the law say's?

'No "Maybe's" about it!

 

[JoseCuervo]

I have a hard time paying more for a day's hunting on My Public Lands than a Welfare Rancher pays for having a cow and a calf eating grass, tromping stream beds, and overgrazing does in a month.

 

[Hunting Wife]

DOI already has a pass for National Parks & some BLM sites. It could be expanded easily to include all BLM, USFS, NPS, etc sites but I'm not sure that the cost would be something that a lot of people would pay upfront.

We buy the America the Beautiful stamp since we spend a lot of time in Glacier and Yellowstone. It doesn't cover such places like developed campsites or boat launches though. It's $80 up front.

http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/Recreation/recreation_national/recreation_fees__.html

Is that the same as the Interagency Pass described in Question 3 here?

http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/r6/passes-permits/recreation/?cid=stelprdb5352358

USFS in OR and WA have required a Northwest Forest Pass for years to park at trailheads and use other day use facilities, but it's much more common there in general for day use facilities to charge fees than it is in Montana. I think various passes have been implemented by most agencies, but few if any seem to be implemented or required at a national scale.

I agree with others - in the current political climate, implementing some new fee would be lauded as further evidence of government overreach.

 

[shootbrownelk]

Ahhh, another Federal Tax to pay. I can't wait.

 

[Foxtrot1]

In theory I like the idea. However my state returns unused Pittman Robertson act funds, funds given by the COE to manage WMAs, and the State legislature appropriated over $24 million in State Park funds and license fees for the general budget last year. It also cost the AL Dept of Conservation millions in federal matching funds. With that level of financial mismanagement, I am not ready to hand over any more money.