The title of this site would indicate members who are outdoors men. Republican or Democrat, no thinking man can ignore this warning. Corporations and states with the "garage sale" signs on their capitols will pick the bone of America clean. The feds may be for sale at times but can not be compared to the puppet legislators in many states. These are our lands, I would like to keep them.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/27/opinion/the-land-grab-out-west.html?rref=opinion
The Government has no business owning land.
TED,
Not to offend you, but what would you really know about public lands out West?
Pat is right. The government not only owns the lands out west, but controls way too much of what goes on in those states. Mismanagement of public lands is an understatement.
Not living out West doesn't mean he doesn't, or can't, understand the issues.
Most of us don't live in D.C. but we certainly grasp the issues going on there.
On topic, I've said before and still believe this has been, and will always be, about protecting (or controlling) the watersheds. Control the water, control the people.
Being closer to the situation at hand offers a more comprehensive look at the big picture, and witnessing the gross mismanagement personally, as well as the blank check the environmental terrorist groups have now with Obama regime is enlightening.
It's hard to get the full flavor of something with just a nibble.
Dem Senator op-ed in the New York Times.....sorry, red flag
The Government has no business owning land.
You're right. They should drain all the reservoirs in Texas, including Lake Fork, and give the land back to the farmers and timber companies.
Well if the Democrats are against it than I'm for it. I've yet to see anything the Democrats favor that is good for the country or me.
TED,
Not to offend you, but what would you really know about public lands out West?
Pat is right. The government not only owns the lands out west, but controls way too much of what goes on in those states. Mismanagement of public lands is an understatement.
government owns and controls what we have allowed them to do.
Not living out West doesn't mean he doesn't, or can't, understand the issues.
Most of us don't live in D.C. but we certainly grasp the issues going on there.
On topic, I've said before and still believe this has been, and will always be, about protecting (or controlling) the watersheds. Control the water, control the people.
When I lived back East I didn't understand the issues of the West and belong to a number of liberal organizations to preserve Western lands. I moved West and discovered everything I thought I knew about the West and it's lands was pretty much wrong.
Nobody living in the East can comprehend the West and nobody living in the West can comprehend the East. They are two separate countries.
The Government has no business owning land.
You're right. They should drain all the reservoirs in Texas, including Lake Fork, and give the land back to the farmers and timber companies.
Now there's a great comparison.
Lake Fork is run by the Sabine River Authority, and is a State of Texas project.
We aren't talking civil infrastructure here. We are talking about tens of millions of undeveloped land the
Federal Government has control of.
The Government has no business owning land.
You're right. They should drain all the reservoirs in Texas, including Lake Fork, and give the land back to the farmers and timber companies.
Now there's a great comparison.
Lake Fork is run by the Sabine River Authority, and is a State of Texas project.
We aren't talking civil infrastructure here. We are talking about tens of millions of undeveloped land the
Federal Government has control of.
Look at the quote I responded to, it simply says "government". There are plenty of COE and Bureau of Reclaimation reservoirs in Texas, if that makes you feel any better. The reference to Fork was because that's Lt's fishing hole.
How do you plan on protecting the land for your children, Lt...with your billy club maybe.
The title of this site would indicate members who are outdoors men. Republican or Democrat, no thinking man can ignore this warning. Corporations and states with the "garage sale" signs on their capitols will pick the bone of America clean. The feds may be for sale at times but can not be compared to the puppet legislators in many states.
These are our lands, I would like to keep them. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/27/opinion/the-land-grab-out-west.html?rref=opinion Guess the question would be, who subtends to "we", and wtf are you.
You're trying to sell this line of chit in the wrong marketplace, Mister.
GTC
Not being wealthy, for the last 50 years I have hunted, fished or camped on public land in 49 of the states. I do have a concept of what has been save for us and what else should perhaps be saved. Sure, there has been mismanagement, but on the whole we are better off than having piecemeal management.
Did you read it...no, no sorry...ignorance is bliss.
While I wholeheartedly agree that having the West managed by a herd of concrete canyon liberals from Washington DC has not worked out well, I also do not want the entirety of the US to be posted "Private Property. Keep Out."
Ted, I read your op-ed and stand by what I said.
Nice try.
The Government has no business owning land.
You're right. They should drain all the reservoirs in Texas, including Lake Fork, and give the land back to the farmers and timber companies.
I couldn't agree more. Thye Federal Government stole almost all of my families land to make Sam Rayburn Reservoir.
Look at the quote I responded to, it simply says "government". There are plenty of COE and Bureau of Reclaimation reservoirs in Texas, if that makes you feel any better. The reference to Fork was because that's Lt's fishing hole.
Never been to Lake Fork.
How do you plan on protecting the land for your children, Lt...with your billy club maybe.
My children will own "my land".
That's how we feel about it. Unfortunately, they were a patriotic lot.
I think you should have to drop a quarter in all your neighbor's toll boxes to drive out of your neighborhood, then pay some chinese corporation to drive on their major access roads and highways they own so you can get your sixpack and lotto ticket at quickymart.
Kent
I read it and it was a laundry list of all the negative what-ifs were states to take over the lands.
I agree, the federal government has no business owning land unless it involves their constitutional responsibilities such as military bases.
You can bemoan what might happen if the feds don't own this land for the collective "us" or "we". But the reality is, the federal ownership of land stifles local economies, and allows the feds to control far more than the land that they "own".
I am glad you have enjoyed public land use over the years, but your concerns about "what-if?" are not justification for making those of us who live in the west and whose livelihoods are impacted by the fed government's heavy handed management have to suffer under government's thumb which is typically directed by environmentalists funded by do-gooders from the coast.
A quote from your link...
[/quote=]This would also result in a proliferation of locked gates and no-trespassing signs in places that have been open to the public and used for generations. [/quote]
If you think the BLM & U.S. Forest service haven't put up locked gates & closed off huge parcels of land from easy access, you haven't been getting out much in the past 35 years.
I can't say that I'd trust my state to do otherwise, because in the past, they've done the same thing with the local state lands.
Auburn Recreation area...
http://www.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=502 American river parkway...
http://www.regionalparks.saccounty.net/Parks/Pages/AmericanRiverParkway.aspx
TED,
Not to offend you, but what would you really know about public lands out West?
Pat is right. The government not only owns the lands out west, but controls way too much of what goes on in those states. Mismanagement of public lands is an understatement.
government owns and controls what we have allowed them to do.
This...but we seem to have forgotten.
If the Government owns the land then the people or tax payers are the real owners and should be able to use it at their own choosing without Government interference
How do you plan on protecting the land for your children, Lt...with your billy club maybe.
My children will own "my land".
Until some tax doesn't get paid.
Add: About 86% of Arizona is government land in one way or another. No property taxes paid and in a number of areas no access for civilians or non-gov't employees. That's the way it is and has been for a long time. It's not like Conn. or Texas or Calif.
Add: About 86% of Arizona is government land in one way or another. No property taxes paid and in a number of areas no access for civilians or non-gov't employees. That's the way it is and has been for a long time. It's not like Conn. or Texas or Calif.
Of course it has property taxes. I pay them.
I understand. I was just meaning to gripe about the state's right to take your property. That's always bothered me.
One of those 'it may not be right but it's so' things.
I read it and it was a laundry list of all the negative what-ifs were states to take over the lands.
I agree, the federal government has no business owning land unless it involves their constitutional responsibilities such as military bases.
You can bemoan what might happen if the feds don't own this land for the collective "us" or "we". But the reality is, the federal ownership of land stifles local economies, and allows the feds to control far more than the land that they "own".
I am glad you have enjoyed public land use over the years, but your concerns about "what-if?" are not justification for making those of us who live in the west and whose livelihoods are impacted by the fed government's heavy handed management have to suffer under government's thumb which is typically directed by environmentalists funded by do-gooders from the coast.
Please do not take this as a snide remark, rather as a serious inquiry:
Please explain, in this case as I know there are many others, what the suffering is under a government thumb as it relates to these lands.
Envy is one of the seven deadly sins isn't it?
Please do not take this as a snide remark, rather as a serious inquiry:
Please explain, in this case as I know there are many others, what the suffering is under a government thumb as it relates to these lands.
I would take it as an incredibly STUPID remark, disingenuous and a diversion....If so suggest again that you look for another site perhaps more in tune with your "Article"
....If it IS sincere, than the suggestion that you don't get out much is reinforced, and you need to go educate yourself .
Lose-lose scenario, either way, Ted.
GTC
Not being wealthy, for the last 50 years I have hunted, fished or camped on public land in 49 of the states. I do have a concept of what has been save for us and what else should perhaps be saved. Sure, there has been mismanagement, but on the whole we are better off than having piecemeal management.
Having been born and raised in the East I understand where you are coming from, the Western lands should be preserved even if it means Westerners have to live in poverty to provide a playground for the Eastern poor rich to come and play.
Unfortunately, the Feds and environmentalists mismanagement of the Western lands the lands aren't even fit to be playgrounds any more.
If the Government owns the land then the people or tax payers are the real owners and should be able to use it at their own choosing without Government interference
DITTOS!
I read it and it was a laundry list of all the negative what-ifs were states to take over the lands.
I agree, the federal government has no business owning land unless it involves their constitutional responsibilities such as military bases.
You can bemoan what might happen if the feds don't own this land for the collective "us" or "we". But the reality is, the federal ownership of land stifles local economies, and allows the feds to control far more than the land that they "own".
I am glad you have enjoyed public land use over the years, but your concerns about "what-if?" are not justification for making those of us who live in the west and whose livelihoods are impacted by the fed government's heavy handed management have to suffer under government's thumb which is typically directed by environmentalists funded by do-gooders from the coast.
Please do not take this as a snide remark, rather as a serious inquiry:
Please explain, in this case as I know there are many others, what the suffering is under a government thumb as it relates to these lands.
I will briefly touch on one particular case.
When the Charles M Russell wildlife refuge was first suggested, as part of the deal, local ranchers who own land there and lesed land were guaranteed to have access to the lake for livestock water. Water was to available for that purpose regardless of whatever else happens. Fast forward now and the USFWS is working hard to exclude livestock from all parts of the refuge. Their mismanagement of the refuge has created a haven for noxious weeds and coyotes that continually hamper local producers.
I could go into great depth how there are oftentimes a fresh college grad put in charge of an allotment or the management of a parcel that has no freakin idea what goes on in the real world who suddenly has power that is often wielded with little to no recourse for us public peasants.
Many federal managers seem to put local concerns and needs far behind those of the enviro-whackos.
But the reality is, the federal ownership of land stifles local economies.....
LOL, I just drove to the top of one of our many Colorado ski resorts this weekend. Drove right up the slopes where skiers from all over the world will be spending millions in a few weeks.
The reason I could drive up those slopes is.......they're all on federal land.
Read some of the posts in the elk hunting section by all of the guys who come out here to hunt public land for the price of a tag and their expendables. They hunt public land and it's their dollars that keep guides, outfitters, hotels, and mom-and-pop grocery stores in business.
And it wouldn't happen without the public land here.
But the reality is, the federal ownership of land stifles local economies.....
LOL, I just drove to the top of one of our many Colorado ski resorts this weekend. Drove right up the slopes where skiers from all over the world will be spending millions in a few weeks.
The reason I could drive up those slopes is.......they're all on federal land.
Read some of the posts in the elk hunting section by all of the guys who come out here to hunt public land for the price of a tag and their expendables. They hunt public land and it's their dollars that keep guides, outfitters, hotels, and mom-and-pop grocery stores in business.
And it wouldn't happen without the public land here.
I agree. These public lands add
MULTI BILLIONS to local communities across Colorado. In addition, if these lands would to become private tomorrow hunters would add a 0 and more to the cost of their tags. Chew on that for a while.
It's not the system that's wrong or the original intent... it's what's morphed from mismanagement and liberal agendizing... or to be blunt, people (chitheads) happened.
Kent
These public lands add MULTI BILLIONS to local communities across Colorado.
That pretty much says it all.
The Chinese aren't going to sell our land back to us.
Who's taken the burden off the Feds?
These public lands add MULTI BILLIONS to local communities across Colorado.
That pretty much says it all.
That's almost like welfare.
That's almost like welfare.
...or some of the unions.
That's almost like welfare.
...or some of the unions.
So, we have one guy saying it depresses local economies, and another saying it's a handout. Truth must be in there somewhere.
I'm not going to defend federal land management, but it's not all bad. I've hunted federal land most of my life and I'm not going to apologize for it. Steelhead, I seem to recall hunting pictures of yours from AK, was that public land? Was it welfare? As a matter of fact many of the photos posted here come from public land. It's the only place a lot of people have access to for hunting, especially in the west.
The number one reason people give for not hunting or quitting is "nowhere to hunt." Take away public land and that gets multiplied 10X. Think about what that would do to the numbers of not only hunters but gun owners.
If public land was abolished and hunting was all on private land, the most successful hunters would be the ones who could afford to pay to hunt the best private land. As it is now, the most successful hunters on public land are the best hunters and the ones with the wherewithal to get back into the spots where the animals live to a ripe old age. Everyone has the same opportunity. There's something very democratic (in the true sense of the word) about that, and it'd be a shame to lose it to the almighty dollar.
Yep, doncha wish the gooberment would sell, I mean give away, all the land in the entire country just like Texas did.
Bloody genius it was.
Stop the envious whining
Land grants obtained by virtue of the State Colonization Law were not free, although the price and terms offered by Coahuila and Texas were extremely advantageous when compared with the price for public land in the United States. At a time when the U.S. federal government was selling its land for $1.25 per acre and requiring immediate cash payment, government dues on land in Coahuila and Texas could be had for less than 1 � cents an acre with a term of six years in which to complete payment. In addition to the purchase price, there were charges for surveying the land and fees payable to the commissioner, the empresario, and the clerk who prepared the documents, but even then for a total of about $150 (something like three cents an acre), a head of household could obtain title to 4,428 acres of land.
Why don't the Feds sieze land in the east, just to be fair?
How would you like to have your property "requisitioned" by .gov?
Can I come hunt your property at a cut rate?
Would you subsidize my purchase of a piece of property you'd like to buy?
I read it and it was a laundry list of all the negative what-ifs were states to take over the lands.
I agree, the federal government has no business owning land unless it involves their constitutional responsibilities such as military bases.
You can bemoan what might happen if the feds don't own this land for the collective "us" or "we". But the reality is, the federal ownership of land stifles local economies, and allows the feds to control far more than the land that they "own".
I am glad you have enjoyed public land use over the years, but your concerns about "what-if?" are not justification for making those of us who live in the west and whose livelihoods are impacted by the fed government's heavy handed management have to suffer under government's thumb which is typically directed by environmentalists funded by do-gooders from the coast.
Please do not take this as a snide remark, rather as a serious inquiry:
Please explain, in this case as I know there are many others, what the suffering is under a government thumb as it relates to these lands.
I will briefly touch on one particular case.
When the Charles M Russell wildlife refuge was first suggested, as part of the deal, local ranchers who own land there and lesed land were guaranteed to have access to the lake for livestock water. Water was to available for that purpose regardless of whatever else happens. Fast forward now and the USFWS is working hard to exclude livestock from all parts of the refuge. Their mismanagement of the refuge has created a haven for noxious weeds and coyotes that continually hamper local producers.
I could go into great depth how there are oftentimes a fresh college grad put in charge of an allotment or the management of a parcel that has no freakin idea what goes on in the real world who suddenly has power that is often wielded with little to no recourse for us public peasants.
Many federal managers seem to put local concerns and needs far behind those of the enviro-whackos.
DITTOS!
But the reality is, the federal ownership of land stifles local economies.....
LOL, I just drove to the top of one of our many Colorado ski resorts this weekend. Drove right up the slopes where skiers from all over the world will be spending millions in a few weeks.
The reason I could drive up those slopes is.......they're all on federal land.
Read some of the posts in the elk hunting section by all of the guys who come out here to hunt public land for the price of a tag and their expendables. They hunt public land and it's their dollars that keep guides, outfitters, hotels, and mom-and-pop grocery stores in business.
And it wouldn't happen without the public land here.
Good for Colorado. I guess it pays to be a Blue State. Doesn't work that way in Montana.
But the reality is, the federal ownership of land stifles local economies.....
LOL, I just drove to the top of one of our many Colorado ski resorts this weekend. Drove right up the slopes where skiers from all over the world will be spending millions in a few weeks.
The reason I could drive up those slopes is.......they're all on federal land.
Read some of the posts in the elk hunting section by all of the guys who come out here to hunt public land for the price of a tag and their expendables. They hunt public land and it's their dollars that keep guides, outfitters, hotels, and mom-and-pop grocery stores in business.
And it wouldn't happen without the public land here.
I agree. These public lands add
MULTI BILLIONS to local communities across Colorado. In addition, if these lands would to become private tomorrow hunters would add a 0 and more to the cost of their tags. Chew on that for a while.
Good for Colorado. I guess it pays to be a Blue State.
That's almost like welfare.
...or some of the unions.
So, we have one guy saying it depresses local economies, and another saying it's a handout. Truth must be in there somewhere.
I'm not going to defend federal land management, but it's not all bad. I've hunted federal land most of my life and I'm not going to apologize for it. Steelhead, I seem to recall hunting pictures of yours from AK, was that public land? Was it welfare? As a matter of fact many of the photos posted here come from public land. It's the only place a lot of people have access to for hunting, especially in the west.
The number one reason people give for not hunting or quitting is "nowhere to hunt." Take away public land and that gets multiplied 10X. Think about what that would do to the numbers of not only hunters but gun owners.
If public land was abolished and hunting was all on private land, the most successful hunters would be the ones who could afford to pay to hunt the best private land. As it is now, the most successful hunters on public land are the best hunters and the ones with the wherewithal to get back into the spots where the animals live to a ripe old age. Everyone has the same opportunity. There's something very democratic (in the true sense of the word) about that, and it'd be a shame to lose it to the almighty dollar.
It must be good to be a Blue State and vote Democrat.
Now here in Montana things are not so good. During big game season access is denied to all but the most robust of the young with a physique of a Navy SEAL or Army Ranger. In some places horses are allowed but not in all places. Forget about using motorized transportation in most areas.
Of course, I'm talking about federal land.
If you need motorized transportation as most of us oldsters do forget about hunting especially on federal land. It's been this way for sometime now. The goal in Montana is to turn all federal land into wilderness areas to deny access to the common man.
In Montana at least I'm in favor of giving the federal land to the state.
LOL, go read Saddlesore's post on the elk hunting forum, the dude is 70. What you need to hunt public land is just a standard set of balls.
It must be good to be a Blue State and vote Democrat.
Now here in Montana things are not so good. During big game season access is denied to all but the most robust of the young with a physique of a Navy SEAL or Army Ranger. In some places horses are allowed but not in all places. Forget about using motorized transportation in most areas.
Of course, I'm talking about federal land.
If you need motorized transportation as most of us oldsters do forget about hunting especially on federal land. It's been this way for sometime now. The goal in Montana is to turn all federal land into wilderness areas to deny access to the common man.
In Montana at least I'm in favor of giving the federal land to the state.
Huh? In Arizona, 70% of the Coconino Forest is with in half mile of an open road. (non-wilderness)
Hard to imagine MT is too different, at least in the NF.
Sycamore
Why don't the Feds sieze land in the east, just to be fair?
How would you like to have your property "requisitioned" by .gov?
Can I come hunt your property at a cut rate?
Would you subsidize my purchase of a piece of property you'd like to buy?
this
Why don't the Feds sieze land in the east, just to be fair?
How would you like to have your property "requisitioned" by .gov?
Can I come hunt your property at a cut rate?
Would you subsidize my purchase of a piece of property you'd like to buy?
I don't understand your post, Mark.
Sycamore
LOL, go read Saddlesore's post on the elk hunting forum, the dude is 70. What you need to hunt public land is just a standard set of balls.
It'll take a lot more than that. I'm 67 with back and leg issues. I can walk and get around pretty good in town but not out in the woods not any more.
BTW: Montana is the fourth largest land mass in the US and I think the 10th largest country in the world if we were a country. This is big country to walk around in. To give you an idea of how big either one of Spain, France, or Germany would fit into about half of Montana.
It must be good to be a Blue State and vote Democrat.
Now here in Montana things are not so good. During big game season access is denied to all but the most robust of the young with a physique of a Navy SEAL or Army Ranger. In some places horses are allowed but not in all places. Forget about using motorized transportation in most areas.
Of course, I'm talking about federal land.
If you need motorized transportation as most of us oldsters do forget about hunting especially on federal land. It's been this way for sometime now. The goal in Montana is to turn all federal land into wilderness areas to deny access to the common man.
In Montana at least I'm in favor of giving the federal land to the state.
Huh? In Arizona, 70% of the Coconino Forest is with in half mile of an open road. (non-wilderness)
Hard to imagine MT is too different, at least in the NF.
Sycamore
It's quite a bit different. Just today I read in the paper that the Forest Service is going to close off more logging roads and rehabilitate the forest to eliminate the roads. We keep getting less and less access every year. There is a real move on to close off all public lands to the public except those with horses (even some of those areas are being closed off to horses) and walk in only especially during hunting season.
If you can't walk any where from 5 to 50 miles to hunt or pack out an animal you are persona non grata on Federal lands. My days of doing that are long over.
I don't care what others do in their state but in this state I'd like to see the Federal land turned over to the State. Don't worry it'll never happen.
Pardon my ignorance. The Elijah Craig has been good to me, tonight.....grin. This is off the top of my head and I truly haven't given it more than a seconds worth of thought.
Would anyone like to touch upon why people from another state have to pay "out of state" prices for hunting licenses on FEDERAL land? Yet those "in state" pay less to hunt on said FEDERAL land?
Am I wrong in this assumption? I kinda checked it out once, but never actually researched it.
Enlighten me. For I truly haven't a clue, but am interested in hearing the answer......
The hunting licenses are state licenses NOT federal licenses. If you hunt on Montana state land you pay another $10.00 to do so. The feds have thought about doing the same thing but I don't think they figured out a way to do it yet.
Pardon my ignorance. The Elijah Craig has been good to me, tonight.....grin. This is off the top of my head and I truly haven't given it more than a seconds worth of thought.
Would anyone like to touch upon why people from another state have to pay "out of state" prices for hunting licenses on FEDERAL land? Yet those "in state" pay less to hunt on said FEDERAL land?
Am I wrong in this assumption? I kinda checked it out once, but never actually researched it.
Enlighten me. For I truly haven't a clue, but am interested in hearing the answer......
The answer is.....
you don't pay any thing different than the state residents for the hunting (walking, riding, driving) or using the land.
The permit is a STATE permit, and the Game is owned "by the people of the State". So the PERMIT and the HUNTING LICENSE from the state are what costs different.
Sycamore
One more way to scam the working man. Kinda like having to register the same vehicle every year, when it's ALREADY registered.........
The western states have made hunting on federal land not a good deal for nonresidents by severely limiting permits and charging high prices which I think is a bad deal for the sport. These types of exclusionary policies fuel the desire to sell off the federal lands. If you can't enjoy the lands then why would you want to pay for them? Personally, I love the western lands and would move there in a heartbeat...if I could get a decent job.
The western states have made hunting on federal land not a good deal for nonresidents by severely limiting permits and charging high prices. If you can't enjoy the lands then why would you want to pay for them?
Exactly......
The title of this site would indicate members who are outdoors men. Republican or Democrat, no thinking man can ignore this warning. Corporations and states with the "garage sale" signs on their capitols will pick the bone of America clean. The feds may be for sale at times but can not be compared to the puppet legislators in many states. These are our lands, I would like to keep them.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/27/opinion/the-land-grab-out-west.html?rref=opinionI'm with you. Public land in the Western states is a huge benefit to hunters and people who enjoy the outdoors. There are a lot more people heading west to hunt than heading east.
Regardless of what you might see for responses on this thread, there are legions of hunters who are mighty glad for the vast expanses of federal lands in the American west.
Public land in the Western states is a huge benefit to hunters and people who enjoy the outdoors. There are a lot more people heading west to hunt than heading east.
True, but which hunters? Do you think it's fair that my home state of New Mexico allocates 84% of the permits to residents, 10% to guided hunters, and 6% to DIY nonresidents when the vast majority of the hunting takes place on federal land? Do you think it's fair to charge a nonresident 29X what a Montana resident pays? How would your parents feel if the state of Minnesota dictated the number of residents and nonresidents that could hunt on their land?
More people are headed east than west to find jobs.
Why don't the Feds sieze land in the east, just to be fair?
How would you like to have your property "requisitioned" by .gov?
Can I come hunt your property at a cut rate?
Would you subsidize my purchase of a piece of property you'd like to buy?
I don't understand your post, Mark.
Sycamore
Understandable -
I write what I see. Take it literally, without trying to read anything into my words.
Yep, doncha wish the gooberment would sell, I mean give away, all the land in the entire country just like Texas did.
Bloody genius it was.
Stop the envious whining
Land grants obtained by virtue of the State Colonization Law were not free, although the price and terms offered by Coahuila and Texas were extremely advantageous when compared with the price for public land in the United States. At a time when the U.S. federal government was selling its land for $1.25 per acre and requiring immediate cash payment, government dues on land in Coahuila and Texas could be had for less than 1 � cents an acre with a term of six years in which to complete payment. In addition to the purchase price, there were charges for surveying the land and fees payable to the commissioner, the empresario, and the clerk who prepared the documents, but even then for a total of about $150 (something like three cents an acre), a head of household could obtain title to 4,428 acres of land.
Lol...I can BUY 20 acres in West Texas for what my non-resident licenses cost when I go to Idaho for a single hunt.
That doesn't mean I think the Feds should own it or run it. Too many God damned lobbies 5000 miles away making decisions about lands in Alaska.
I'd rather a handful of ex Walmart greeters run the Tongass than the Forest Circus.
It's not going to be some walmart greeters, it's going to be some state level hacks on the hook of their own lobbiests and liberal state population centers.
Pardon my ignorance. The Elijah Craig has been good to me, tonight.....grin. This is off the top of my head and I truly haven't given it more than a seconds worth of thought.
Would anyone like to touch upon why people from another state have to pay "out of state" prices for hunting licenses on FEDERAL land? Yet those "in state" pay less to hunt on said FEDERAL land?
Am I wrong in this assumption? I kinda checked it out once, but never actually researched it.
Enlighten me. For I truly haven't a clue, but am interested in hearing the answer......
You are buying a license to kill an animal, doesn't matter what kind of land it's on, private, state or federal.
State owns the animals, having a hunting license doesn't mean you can use federal land without paying whatever user fees they may require to camp, park ect. And you pay the same fees everyone does for that use or no fee where not required.
You can camp, hike, shoot, climb, swim, nature watch on federal lands for the same price as anyone else... you just can't kill state animals without paying the state.
Kent
It'll take a lot more than that. I'm 67 with back and leg issues. I can walk and get around pretty good in town but not out in the woods not any more.
Sorry, I didn't realize this thread was about you, your needs, and your physical infirmities. Big game hunting is a physical sport. Because the animals live out in the woods and mountains, and you have to go get them. You may even have to walk a mile. At some point in everyone's life, they find they're unable to continue.
But if you open up the countryside to motorized access everywhere, the hunting suffers. For everyone.
It'll take a lot more than that. I'm 67 with back and leg issues. I can walk and get around pretty good in town but not out in the woods not any more.
Sorry, I didn't realize this thread was about you, your needs, and your physical infirmities. Big game hunting is a physical sport. Because the animals live out in the woods and mountains, and you have to go get them. You may even have to walk a mile. At some point in everyone's life, they find they're unable to continue.
But if you open up the countryside to motorized access everywhere, the hunting suffers. For everyone.
derby_didn't doesn't hunt. His hunting is about like his military service; all REMF and no actual engagement.
It'll take a lot more than that. I'm 67 with back and leg issues. I can walk and get around pretty good in town but not out in the woods not any more.
Sorry, I didn't realize this thread was about you, your needs, and your physical infirmities. Big game hunting is a physical sport. Because the animals live out in the woods and mountains, and you have to go get them. You may even have to walk a mile. At some point in everyone's life, they find they're unable to continue.
But if you open up the countryside to motorized access everywhere, the hunting suffers. For everyone.
Yep, when the time comes I can't backpack in and pack an animal out, then those areas are off limits to me... time is coming soon and I'll eventually be camp cook.
So be it.
Kent
Most public land hunting areas I have seen (out West) has been a large chunk of land, with a few roads for access. Usually these roads are far from good, and are old logging roads and such. Better have a more than rugged vehicle and some good 10 ply tires to traverse them... And be ready to be surprised by the huge number of other hunters that thought they would get away from the crowds.
But, in about all the areas I know, there are vast, huge areas of land that have no access, and you can get into them footback or horseback. There's no need for further shutting down the existing roads because remote areas do still exist.
I have also seen numerous roads that BLM or FS has shut and locked, for one reason or another. I know a few that didn't have a reason pinned to it. Just that the FS felt they needed to be shut down. But, a liberal FS employee that looks like they just got off the bus from Woodstock, that has a college degree in "environmental science" can always find a lame excuse to close a road because of some "study"...
That's what it's come to.
Most public land hunting areas I have seen (out West) has been a large chunk of land, with a few roads for access. Usually these roads are far from good, and are old logging roads and such. Better have a more than rugged vehicle and some good 10 ply tires to traverse them... And be ready to be surprised by the huge number of other hunters that thought they would get away from the crowds.
Exactly right on the crowds in the backcountry, we were 4 miles in on a foot trail this year and there were too many people. Which kind of puts the lie to those who would say these areas are "inaccessible."
Personally I believe the mix of roadless/roaded areas is about right in general, but I can understand the need to close limited areas to motorized use from time to time. And I've hunted some really good areas that were open to dirt bikes.
I'd be curious to hear the specifics on areas the FS shut down and gave no reason for though. I thought these days they pretty much had to go through a public comment period to do that?
They have been closing roads here in Az for a couple years and public comment is just a formality they go through. Forest nazis do what they want. This is a regulatory agency, not a legislative. Means there is no voter accountability until you get all the way to the president.
Off roader abuse is the main reason given, not hunters.
Kent
I do to but there needs to be some kind of logical reason and consideration of traditional public use. Not because it's 'their' forest and the public are a detriment... on public land...
Kent
It'll take a lot more than that. I'm 67 with back and leg issues. I can walk and get around pretty good in town but not out in the woods not any more.
Sorry, I didn't realize this thread was about you, your needs, and your physical infirmities. Big game hunting is a physical sport. Because the animals live out in the woods and mountains, and you have to go get them. You may even have to walk a mile. At some point in everyone's life, they find they're unable to continue.
But if you open up the countryside to motorized access everywhere, the hunting suffers. For everyone.
It's not about me it's about access to hunting. Montana is big country that needs transportation to access the wild areas. Whether it's horse, horse drawn carriage, ATV, UTV or whatever transportation is needed. Heck, it's getting easier to get access to hunt private land than it is to hunt federal land.
Montana is not called Big Sky Country without a reason.
Most public land hunting areas I have seen (out West) has been a large chunk of land, with a few roads for access. Usually these roads are far from good, and are old logging roads and such. Better have a more than rugged vehicle and some good 10 ply tires to traverse them... And be ready to be surprised by the huge number of other hunters that thought they would get away from the crowds.
Exactly right on the crowds in the backcountry, we were 4 miles in on a foot trail this year and there were too many people. Which kind of puts the lie to those who would say these areas are "inaccessible."
Personally I believe the mix of roadless/roaded areas is about right in general, but I can understand the need to close limited areas to motorized use from time to time. And I've hunted some really good areas that were open to dirt bikes.
I'd be curious to hear the specifics on areas the FS shut down and gave no reason for though. I thought these days they pretty much had to go through a public comment period to do that?
A foot rail? A foot trail? What foot trail? I'd love to see a foot trail. Game trail maybe but no foot trails. This country ain't Colorado.
Do you think it's fair that my home state of New Mexico allocates 84% of the permits to residents, 10% to guided hunters, and 6% to DIY nonresidents when the vast majority of the hunting takes place on federal land? Do you think it's fair to charge a nonresident 29X what a Montana resident pays? How would your parents feel if the state of Minnesota dictated the number of residents and nonresidents that could hunt on their land?
This is exactly what I was talking about. It's BS........
Do you think it's fair that my home state of New Mexico allocates 84% of the permits to residents, 10% to guided hunters, and 6% to DIY nonresidents when the vast majority of the hunting takes place on federal land? Do you think it's fair to charge a nonresident 29X what a Montana resident pays? How would your parents feel if the state of Minnesota dictated the number of residents and nonresidents that could hunt on their land?
This is exactly what I was talking about. It's BS........
Would you like to see a federal hunting license to hunt on federal land? This would entail federal game wardens to enforce federal law. It also would mean that all game animals on federal land belong to the feds. How do we keep the animals on federal land from crossing over onto state and private land?
Too bad posters haven't looked as to why the feds control public lands and why the manage as they do. Also interesting how some one in particular seems to know alot about CO yet hasn't hunted in how long?
AS far as access - I only have 52% lung capacity been down with congestive heart problems, have a thoroughly screwed back along with other such minor problems. Where was I a week ago? Between 9500 and 11,000 ASL chasing critters and not whining about how I can't.
Campfire my butt, this is the whinefest.
Folks can't figure out hunting is a state regulated activity, of state animals.
Feds take care of their responsibilities like camping, recreation, access, off road travel, water, leasing, use fees.
Kent
Folks can't figure out hunting is a state regulated activity, of state animals.
Feds take care of their responsibilities like camping, recreation, access, off road travel, water, leasing, use fees.
Kent
The Feds actually only
grant the state the power to regulate hunting and fishing on public lands because it's cheaper to do so, rather than have to hire their own force of game wardens and biologists to deal with all of it.
Each state has an MOU with the feds.
A foot rail? A foot trail? What foot trail? I'd love to see a foot trail. Game trail maybe but no foot trails. This country ain't Colorado.
This particular trail is actually open to livestock and foot travel. I just call it a foot trail. Sorry you've never seen one, and think there are none in Montana, but that's not my problem. If you had, maybe we could have an intelligent conversation on the subject.
Too bad posters haven't looked as to why the feds control public lands and why the manage as they do. Also interesting how some one in particular seems to know alot about CO yet hasn't hunted in how long?
AS far as access - I only have 52% lung capacity been down with congestive heart problems, have a thoroughly screwed back along with other such minor problems. Where was I a week ago? Between 9500 and 11,000 ASL chasing critters and not whining about how I can't.
Campfire my butt, this is the whinefest.
I don't care what Colorado does as long as it says in Colorado.
I'm glad you are able to do that. More power to you.
Folks can't figure out hunting is a state regulated activity, of state animals.
Feds take care of their responsibilities like camping, recreation, access, off road travel, water, leasing, use fees.
Kent
The Feds actually only
grant the state the power to regulate hunting and fishing on public lands because it's cheaper to do so, rather than have to hire their own force of game wardens and biologists to deal with all of it.
Each state has an MOU with the feds.
State animals, feds don't own the animals. It would be a legal fight of state constitutions.
Kent
A foot rail? A foot trail? What foot trail? I'd love to see a foot trail. Game trail maybe but no foot trails. This country ain't Colorado.
This particular trail is actually open to livestock and foot travel. I just call it a foot trail. Sorry you've never seen one, and think there are none in Montana, but that's not my problem. If you had, maybe we could have an intelligent conversation on the subject.
You are probably right. Colorado and Montana are two different countries with a different cultures.
Kent, I understand, but they doo indeed have MOU's with each state.
That fight over state's rights was long ago. I think we need another.
Folks can't figure out hunting is a state regulated activity, of state animals.
Feds take care of their responsibilities like camping, recreation, access, off road travel, water, leasing, use fees.
Kent
The Feds actually only
grant the state the power to regulate hunting and fishing on public lands because it's cheaper to do so, rather than have to hire their own force of game wardens and biologists to deal with all of it.
Each state has an MOU with the feds.
State animals, feds don't own the animals. It would be a legal fight of state constitutions.
Kent
Kent,
Exactly. Those whining about being NRs could move, or hunt elsewhere. Limited resources, in demand, and proper management of the game populations require restriction of access and tags.
It'll take a lot more than that. I'm 67 with back and leg issues. I can walk and get around pretty good in town but not out in the woods not any more.
Sorry, I didn't realize this thread was about you, your needs, and your physical infirmities. Big game hunting is a physical sport. Because the animals live out in the woods and mountains, and you have to go get them. You may even have to walk a mile. At some point in everyone's life, they find they're unable to continue.
But if you open up the countryside to motorized access everywhere, the hunting suffers. For everyone.
It's not about me it's about access to hunting. Montana is big country that needs transportation to access the wild areas. Whether it's horse, horse drawn carriage, ATV, UTV or whatever transportation is needed. Heck, it's getting easier to get access to hunt private land than it is to hunt federal land.
Montana is not called Big Sky Country without a reason.
Bullschit. There are a LOT of hunters who WALK into "Big Sky Country" every year to hunt. Hell, horses are permitted even in wilderness areas. Transportation is not "needed"; it's "wanted". Can't drive there? Fine; walk or ride a horse. You can still get there and no one has locked it off completely.
Hell, you (derby_dunce) don't even hunt. WTF are you whining about?
Do you think it's fair that my home state of New Mexico allocates 84% of the permits to residents, 10% to guided hunters, and 6% to DIY nonresidents when the vast majority of the hunting takes place on federal land? Do you think it's fair to charge a nonresident 29X what a Montana resident pays? How would your parents feel if the state of Minnesota dictated the number of residents and nonresidents that could hunt on their land?
This is exactly what I was talking about. It's BS........
Would you like to see a federal hunting license to hunt on federal land? This would entail federal game wardens to enforce federal law. It also would mean that all game animals on federal land belong to the feds. How do we keep the animals on federal land from crossing over onto state and private land?
No. And I don't think I alluded to such........
Do you think it's fair that my home state of New Mexico allocates 84% of the permits to residents, 10% to guided hunters, and 6% to DIY nonresidents when the vast majority of the hunting takes place on federal land? Do you think it's fair to charge a nonresident 29X what a Montana resident pays? How would your parents feel if the state of Minnesota dictated the number of residents and nonresidents that could hunt on their land?
This is exactly what I was talking about. It's BS........
Would you like to see a federal hunting license to hunt on federal land? This would entail federal game wardens to enforce federal law. It also would mean that all game animals on federal land belong to the feds. How do we keep the animals on federal land from crossing over onto state and private land?
No. And I don't think I alluded to such........
So, what do you want?
To DD,
If you can't run with the big dogs and hunt the steep hills out west, go to Nebraska, quit whining, and leave us alone. I just saw a doctor yesterday for my knees, but I'll keep hunting, just slower every year.
![[Linked Image]](http://i1186.photobucket.com/albums/z371/Weather223/096_zps52634419.jpg)
Heck, it's getting easier to get access to hunt private land than it is to hunt federal land.
For clarification purposes, this is coming from someone who never leaves the house.
Heck, it's getting easier to get access to hunt private land than it is to hunt federal land.
For clarification purposes, this is coming from someone who never leaves the house.
Exactly. Federal land? Park at a parking location and WALK in. How fookin' hard is THAT?
More tags allocated to nonresidents at fairer prices on Federal lands.....
Would you like to see a federal hunting license to hunt on federal land? This would entail federal game wardens to enforce federal law. It also would mean that all game animals on federal land belong to the feds. How do we keep the animals on federal land from crossing over onto state and private land?
No. And I don't think I alluded to such........
Under our present system wild life is State property and managed by the State with the Feds blessings. The Feds have given serious thought to charging an access fee to access federal property. So far the thought has gone nowhere at least in Montana.
Montana charges more for out-state hunters because the out-state hunters don't live in Montana and pay taxes such as income taxes. Montana has taken the attitude that if you want to pay lower hunting fess move to Montana, become a tax paying resident and pay less to hunt.
By Montana I'm referring to the state government.
More tags allocated to nonresidents at fairer prices on Federal lands.....
There's the whole issue of supply and demand for a limited resource that needs to be managed quite closely.
You can b!tch all you want, but it's a state issue and as a non-resident, you don't have a say (and shouldn't) because the wildlife are managed at the state level, not the federal level. So, unless you want 1) federal management, or 2) to move to a certain state, you're ass out and should be.
To DD,
If you can't run with the big dogs and hunt the steep hills out west, go to Nebraska, quit whining, and leave us alone. I just saw a doctor yesterday for my knees, but I'll keep hunting, just slower every year.
Why do you care you live in Oregon.
You young pups keep crapping on us old guys and you guys will lose your hunting rights. Us old guys have no problems with voting your hunting rights away. We old guys are one cranking bunch of people. Don't piss us off.
To DD,
If you can't run with the big dogs and hunt the steep hills out west, go to Nebraska, quit whining, and leave us alone. I just saw a doctor yesterday for my knees, but I'll keep hunting, just slower every year.
Why do you care you live in Oregon.
You young pups keep crapping on us old guys and you guys will lose your hunting rights. Us old guys have no problems with voting your hunting rights away. We old guys are one cranking bunch of people. Don't piss us off.
You don't even hunt. STFU.
You young pups keep crapping on us old guys and you guys will lose your hunting rights. Us old guys have no problems with voting your hunting rights away. We old guys are one cranking bunch of people. Don't piss us off. [/quote]
*And there you have it. Take note campfire.
More tags allocated to nonresidents at fairer prices on Federal lands.....
That's a valid issue.
A foot rail? A foot trail? What foot trail? I'd love to see a foot trail. Game trail maybe but no foot trails. This country ain't Colorado.
This particular trail is actually open to livestock and foot travel. I just call it a foot trail. Sorry you've never seen one, and think there are none in Montana, but that's not my problem. If you had, maybe we could have an intelligent conversation on the subject.
You are probably right. Colorado and Montana are two different countries with a different cultures.
Both have foot trails. It's a pity you've never seen one. Try and go outside some time.
Campfire my butt, this is the whinefest.
Ditto. The above is
the truth like it or not.
You want cheese with that?
States management for wildlife fall under the 10th amendment, they are required to follow the public trust doctrine. Which has been upheld by the supreme court from 1842 to Horner in 2000. Most western states also stay within the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation.
Teddy is rolling in his grave with what the Federal land management has turned into.
Kent
DD, if you don't care about what CO does then shut the hell up about what goes down here. And as to different culture between the two states, sorry your wrong. Ratio of red and blue are different granted, but the make up of us natives is the same. I have spent some time up your way, my oh my you all have an awakening coming.
States management for wildlife fall under the 10th amendment, they are required to follow the public trust doctrine. Which has been upheld by the supreme court from 1842 to Horner in 2000. Most western states also stay within the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation.
Teddy is rolling in his grave with what the Federal land management has turned into.
Kent
I think Teddy isn't alone.
But it makes grin thinking what he would do to these anti-hunting/shooting terrorist groups if he were around today. I wish he'd had better foresight, and had protections written in.
The intent of a law isn't always the letter of the law.
I'm afraid there is no protection against liberal agenda... even in the constitution, they just ignore it.
The alternative is we never had public trust hunting, recreating, shooting. There wouldn't be this website or us even discussing it.
I'm all for states' management of public lands along with wildlife under the same public trust doctrine and guidelines.
Kent
Some of the Western states, and their liberal populace scare the hell out of me when considering that option as well.
A few years ago i was up in the coconino national forest hunting, during a blizzard. And I sat that with my approved map, shooting the roads that i was NOW allowed to go on, vs. the roads i HAD been allowed to go on since a child, trying to figure out what to do, as they had been removing the old F.R. signs, and renumbering.
And, lo and behold, i see a jeep out on a joyride in the snow going hither and thither, no reguard for approved road or not, full of forest service employees having a good joy ride.
The king does not want you to mess with his lands or his animals.
Supposedly one of the reasons to ban certain roads is not enough money, and they then could maintain existing open access roads.
right. I was on one of them a couple of weeks ago, a road that dates back to the 50's for me, and my poor ol butt is still suffering from all that non improved maintainence. You people that live in other areas of the country just do not or will not ever understand the bitterness that comes from living in a rural area all your life and having some butthead with a degree from yale trying to tell you what to do.
The "USFS Transportation Plan" in the Coronado NF is a bloody DISGRACE, with signs appearing, than disappearing, gates locked apparently on a whim,...re-opened a week later...
All of this is taking place with little or no input or dialogue from or with the 'recreational users', and is to often characterized by a VERY high handed and arrogant attitude.
I don't even want to START on the grazing lease 'Management" and the fire hazard issues relating thereto.
GTC
![[Linked Image]](http://s1186.photobucket.com/user/Weather223/media/096_zps52634419.jpg.html)