Originally Posted by alpinecrick
Originally Posted by Whiptail


True, and that sucks. I'm ineligible to hunt 95% of the animals that live on 100% Federal land. That's a pretty crappy deal for the Federal landowner.


You made your choices and priorities so stop whining about it.

75-100 years ago the residents of the western states made the choice to bring wildlife/game animals back from almost extinction--and they were the ones who initially paid the money.

The courts decided long ago and many, many, times decided the states have the authority to manage the wildlife--and to make a distinction between residents and nonresidents.

Wildlife in the west depend on private lands too--in some cases more than public lands.

If or when you do decide to move to a western state, like many pilgrims you'll probably find out you won't be imbued with any special karma when it comes time to find the critters--because once again, your success will be where you put your priorities, energy and resources.

Lastly, this thread is about the sale and management of federal lands. If you want a forum complaining about resident vs nonresident quotas start your own thread rather than hijack this one. Or do a search and revive one of the old threads........

Casey


Keeping Federal lands public relies on the public, both residents and non-residents, wanting them to remain public. Excluding people who have a legitimate right from enjoying them does nothing to promote this cause which is what this thread is about.




Quando omni flunkus moritati