Washington Hunter
Well-known member
MarvB said:Miller's taking the gloves off today....his hand must have turned him down after he was done sipping the vino!
Good one Marv!
Trespass Fee
- Thread starter Gunner46
- Start date
Good one Marv!
DRAFTSTUD
Well-known member
Confusious Say: You cannot love another, until you love yourself! hump
OSOK
New member
Laughing My Frikin Balls Off...
Tom
New member
Most Texans aren't interested in a board like this mtmiller. Lots of them are the ones whose thinking is in the back of my mind on a lot of these type threads. There's nothing I need to be rescued from. You want to take a vote on something? We're just having a discussion, not a vote. Greenhorn, Texas manages the wildlife here, even when they are in a high fence, you get the tag from Texas. Exotics are owned by whoever's land they are on, but the state sells the liscense to hunt them. Hunters here do take a much more active roll in managing the wildlife, that's true. I've never been on a lease that doesn't have a buck and doe management harvest rule to follow. Those rules are in addition to the state laws. Last I read, 2% of this state was high fence. I've never been on a deer/hog lease that is high fence. The high fence places are package hunts, for a few days or even a day hunt, mostly. I've heard of some leases on a high fence place, but that is very rare, a lease like that.
Later.
mtmiller, you tell me, what's different about paying $20,000 for hunting a ranch in Montana, compared to paying to hunt a ranch in Texas. Here's a similar price example. I was amazed. A guy from Wyoming wanted to hunt javelina and hogs. I found a place in south Texas that had both, so I talked with the owner. He leased his 2000 acre, golden triangle (i.e. in the south Texas area with big bucks from 20% protein browse and forbs for deer occuring naturally) for $20,000 for 10 bucks for the deer season. He limited the hunters to 10 bucks. He had a guy from Texas Instruments call him and take it over the phone. The guy sent him a check for $20,000. Its like A-con's example, right? You think its different somehow? That's what A-con described in Montana, some rich guys just up and paid, $20,000 for a ranch for a season of hunting.
I'm not talking the whole picture, I'm saying you have leases there, that's all. I think here, I've read 15% of our land is leased for hunting, I don't know though, so, I imagine there's more leases here. That's not the point though. You have them there too. I don't know how many. I guess they are rare, is that what you are saying is different?
Later.
mtmiller, you tell me, what's different about paying $20,000 for hunting a ranch in Montana, compared to paying to hunt a ranch in Texas. Here's a similar price example. I was amazed. A guy from Wyoming wanted to hunt javelina and hogs. I found a place in south Texas that had both, so I talked with the owner. He leased his 2000 acre, golden triangle (i.e. in the south Texas area with big bucks from 20% protein browse and forbs for deer occuring naturally) for $20,000 for 10 bucks for the deer season. He limited the hunters to 10 bucks. He had a guy from Texas Instruments call him and take it over the phone. The guy sent him a check for $20,000. Its like A-con's example, right? You think its different somehow? That's what A-con described in Montana, some rich guys just up and paid, $20,000 for a ranch for a season of hunting.
I'm not talking the whole picture, I'm saying you have leases there, that's all. I think here, I've read 15% of our land is leased for hunting, I don't know though, so, I imagine there's more leases here. That's not the point though. You have them there too. I don't know how many. I guess they are rare, is that what you are saying is different?
Calif. Hunter
Active member
I actually agree with Tom when it comes to Texas. There is very little public land. In order to hunt, you pretty much have to pay a trespass fee, hunt fee or be a member of lease. That does not mean that their whitetails or hogs are all locked up behind high fences. Some are, but most are not. Exotics are a different story.
In California, for years I was a member of a lease that just gave us access to 25,000 acres of private land to hunt. Nothing was guaranteed, no guides and no high fences. Just the right to camp and hunt there pretty much whenever we wanted to, with no crowds, drunks, partying teenagers or idiots with guns. It was the next best thing to owning the place.
In California, for years I was a member of a lease that just gave us access to 25,000 acres of private land to hunt. Nothing was guaranteed, no guides and no high fences. Just the right to camp and hunt there pretty much whenever we wanted to, with no crowds, drunks, partying teenagers or idiots with guns. It was the next best thing to owning the place.
Tom
New member
MarvB said:Miller's taking the gloves off today
Tom- don't you have as much right accessing Federal land as the rest of us?? (Notice I said the "right" not ability or ease of access) The Feds aren't holding being from Texas against you are they
mtmiller is a nice guy, I think. No way, on the federal land access question.
Here's an example. An Oregon guy is in a state where 3%, (I don't know exactly, but some small %) of the draw tags to to out of state people to access the federal land there. I have access to the 3% along with others from 48 other states. The Oregon guy has access to 97% of the tags along with a few others from his one state. How's that equal access to that federal land? I'll bet a lot more than 3% of the Oregon state wildlife budget comes from out of state people too. Simply consider the greater number of applications than the 3% and the greater fees paid for those 3%, its more than the 3% of tags. Plus, Oregon gets Pittman-Robertson funds. Places like New York, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Texas have over a million hunters per year that supply those funds, way more than Oregon. How's that equal access?
There's some examples, MarvB. I guess USO spelled out some arguments like that in that suit filed. Aren't they arguing unequal federal access?
The Hedgehog
Well-known member
I quit. |oo
|ooDid I mention the word vote? I don't remember saying that, I just haven't seen many folks agree with you, but you refer to "you people" (me?) as ignorant. I thought that was pretty ironic.
As for the difference between the $20K lease here vs. there, I don't see a difference, nor have I said otherwise. It is something I disagree with and for a fact, Texas has much more of their surface leased (percentage) than MT. I don't want to see MT turn into what Texas has going on and that was my point from the get go.
Have a good one, I gotta get out of here and sight in my gun, and no, that is not a sexual inuendo (sp.)
As for the difference between the $20K lease here vs. there, I don't see a difference, nor have I said otherwise. It is something I disagree with and for a fact, Texas has much more of their surface leased (percentage) than MT. I don't want to see MT turn into what Texas has going on and that was my point from the get go.
Have a good one, I gotta get out of here and sight in my gun, and no, that is not a sexual inuendo (sp.)
OSOK
New member
"Most Texans aren't interested in a board like this mtmiller. Lots of them are the ones whose thinking is in the back of my mind on a lot of these type threads".
I can only "Imagine" the discussions that are had over on "Keith Warrens" site!!!
How to seed your Cornfeeder for MAXIMUM antler growth potential...
I can only "Imagine" the discussions that are had over on "Keith Warrens" site!!!
How to seed your Cornfeeder for MAXIMUM antler growth potential...
Tom
New member
mtmiller, ok, I get that. You said you hope the lease thing stays here, and I was thinking, its there already, are you blind? I don't mean you're ignorant, but some words and statements by several western hunters do seem ignorant. You're a smart guy and good/great hunter, that's what I think of you. Like Osok, he just made a prejudiced statement that hits me wrong. I've been on Keith Warren's site a long time and have never seen a discussion like that.
Most Texans I know that go out of state go to Co. Its got lots of over the counter tags, and that's more like real hunting to lots of us. Just pay and go hunt. The draws are a lot like gambling, it seems like people here think.
Most Texans I know that go out of state go to Co. Its got lots of over the counter tags, and that's more like real hunting to lots of us. Just pay and go hunt. The draws are a lot like gambling, it seems like people here think.
OSOK
New member
The "Keith Warren" comment was a complete shot in the dark. Put 2 and 2 together and you usually get 4 peas in a pod!
tufferthandug
New member
Old Mcdonald had a farm
ee eye ee eye oe
And on that farm he had a pig...
oh...
Not any more!
ee eye ee eye oe
And on that farm he had a pig...
oh...
Not any more!
noharleyyet
Well-known member
Face it Tom, We're all just dumb...lazy...rich (I wish ) Texans. Seriously guys, hornography is not by any means limited to Texas. I truly believe you western states' hunters on this forum are accomplished ethical sportsmen...but I'm surprised at what seems to me a tone of Lone Star resentment bordering on sanctimony. We don't all sit in shooting houses watching a spin feeder. Some of us do the research, hike the scouting miles, and join forums and hope to learn something about truly earning an animal from congenial fellow sportsmen.
Trespass fees, landowner tags, paid leases, trophy fees...are all here to stay and demand will drive that spiral...let the rich guys have em, they won't be stumbling around where the diys are.
) Texans. Seriously guys, hornography is not by any means limited to Texas. I truly believe you western states' hunters on this forum are accomplished ethical sportsmen...but I'm surprised at what seems to me a tone of Lone Star resentment bordering on sanctimony. We don't all sit in shooting houses watching a spin feeder. Some of us do the research, hike the scouting miles, and join forums and hope to learn something about truly earning an animal from congenial fellow sportsmen. Trespass fees, landowner tags, paid leases, trophy fees...are all here to stay and demand will drive that spiral...let the rich guys have em, they won't be stumbling around where the diys are.
Gunner46
Well-known member
Damn! Where did this get lost into a political deabte?
A bottle of Crown.. Pitch some horse patties.. Be sure to close the gates.. and making a run into town to pick up some brake pads, is my concept of a trespass fee. Then sharing some prime cuts, as a Thank you.
Let's just drop this thread at this point. It went a whole different direction than I intended.
'K Guys?
A bottle of Crown.. Pitch some horse patties.. Be sure to close the gates.. and making a run into town to pick up some brake pads, is my concept of a trespass fee. Then sharing some prime cuts, as a Thank you.
Let's just drop this thread at this point. It went a whole different direction than I intended.
'K Guys?
Tom
New member
Right, lets not discuss anything controversial. We might learn something. haha I'm not burrying my head in the sand. I guess I reacted to the comment keep it in Texas in a negative way maybe. Its in Montana, the question, the first example of 4 guys paying $20,000. I think there's a lot to learn from different points of view in different states, here is where we discuss it. Delete it if you don't like the direction Gunner. 'k guy?
MarvB
Well-known member
Tom, just one more question (sorry Gunner46, I just like to hit my thumb with a hammer every now and then) you said:
I'm still lost on the point? I might be slow (I'm from California) so help me out here, how does total tag numbers have ANY correlation to access to Federal lands? For example- Nevada is nearly ALL (something like 75%) public ground, has great trophy potential, has tight limits on tags, etc...How would charging for access to what is FREE already change in any way my ability to get on more ground?? Now if you're saying that since the state is 75% public ground that 75% off all tags should be put in a pool for anyone (Res or NRes) to have a chance to draw your making a different point than the land access issue. I don't think I'd agree (kind of a proponent of states rights and the voting process) to it but it's a different perspective none the less.
I'm still lost on the point? I might be slow (I'm from California) so help me out here, how does total tag numbers have ANY correlation to access to Federal lands? For example- Nevada is nearly ALL (something like 75%) public ground, has great trophy potential, has tight limits on tags, etc...How would charging for access to what is FREE already change in any way my ability to get on more ground?? Now if you're saying that since the state is 75% public ground that 75% off all tags should be put in a pool for anyone (Res or NRes) to have a chance to draw your making a different point than the land access issue. I don't think I'd agree (kind of a proponent of states rights and the voting process) to it but it's a different perspective none the less.
Tom
New member
"how does total tag numbers have ANY correlation to access to Federal lands?"
Marv, my example was not Nevada, I don't know much Nevada data. Say, there's 100 tags for federal land in a state and 3 go to non-residents and 97 go to residents. Say there's 100 applicants from every state, just to make it easy to talk about.
The 100 applicants for federal land in their state get 97 tags. They have a 0.97 chance at access for a tag.
The other 49 states have 100 applicants too, those 4,900 applicants get 3 tags. 3/4900 is smaller than 0.0007 and those people have a much smaller chance of access. 0.0007 and 0.97 are not equal.
All paid the same application fee, the 4900 paid way more federal taxes for the federal land support than the 100, and the 4900 gave way more money in Pittman-Robertson funds with all the hunting gear they bought than the 100 did.
.0007 and .97 are not exactly right, but the .0007 illustrates the idea that those people have much less access, even though its federal land. If those who got the 97 tags paid the costs for them and those who got the 3 tags paid the costs for them, at least the state budget would come from those who used the resource. Now, the state budgets are coming disproportionately from those who get the 3 tags, as I understand it.
Marv, my example was not Nevada, I don't know much Nevada data. Say, there's 100 tags for federal land in a state and 3 go to non-residents and 97 go to residents. Say there's 100 applicants from every state, just to make it easy to talk about.
The 100 applicants for federal land in their state get 97 tags. They have a 0.97 chance at access for a tag.
The other 49 states have 100 applicants too, those 4,900 applicants get 3 tags. 3/4900 is smaller than 0.0007 and those people have a much smaller chance of access. 0.0007 and 0.97 are not equal.
All paid the same application fee, the 4900 paid way more federal taxes for the federal land support than the 100, and the 4900 gave way more money in Pittman-Robertson funds with all the hunting gear they bought than the 100 did.
.0007 and .97 are not exactly right, but the .0007 illustrates the idea that those people have much less access, even though its federal land. If those who got the 97 tags paid the costs for them and those who got the 3 tags paid the costs for them, at least the state budget would come from those who used the resource. Now, the state budgets are coming disproportionately from those who get the 3 tags, as I understand it.
Washington Hunter
Well-known member
All those numbers don't mean anything Tom. People should be able to hunt where they live, simple as that. A guy from across the country should not have an equal chance at the tags as the people who live there. Just think about it...if you take away the residents' right to hunt in their own state, then what incentive is there for them to maintain wildlife habitat and wildlife populations? If a guy can't hunt, and he can't take his kids hunting, because non-residents are getting all the tags, then what does he care if all the wildlife habitat is converted into subdivisions, ski resorts, oil wells, coal mines, etc??? The residents of a state have got to have priority. It's only common sense. Don't try to confuse the issue with mathematics and numbers.
MarvB
Well-known member
Tom, I think you (maybe) just made my point that we are talking about two different things...tags vs. access to Federal lands.
I can't speak to all states and maybe some that work for the applicable depts. can help me here but the states I hunt they aren't giving out tags for land ... they are giving out tags for animals!
The zones/boundaries/regions/whatever aren't "usually" JUST drawn around property types or holdings. You might have a hunt zone that is 15% private, 19% state, 20% BLM, 23% USFS, 8% Indian Reservation, 3% Military, 12% Railroad......but its still ONE zone and the tags encompass the ENTIRE ZONE!
I still don't see the correlation between charging me to hunt on public lands and my ability to hunt on more public lands????????????
I can't speak to all states and maybe some that work for the applicable depts. can help me here but the states I hunt they aren't giving out tags for land ... they are giving out tags for animals!
The zones/boundaries/regions/whatever aren't "usually" JUST drawn around property types or holdings. You might have a hunt zone that is 15% private, 19% state, 20% BLM, 23% USFS, 8% Indian Reservation, 3% Military, 12% Railroad......but its still ONE zone and the tags encompass the ENTIRE ZONE!
I still don't see the correlation between charging me to hunt on public lands and my ability to hunt on more public lands????????????
Similar threads
