Our own Buzz H features pretty heavily in the piece.

Worth a listen... GOOD JOB BUZZ.

http://www.npr.org/2017/01/05/50801...al-lands-to-states-has-sportsmen-on-edge

Thanks for posting that. Good to know that Trump Jr. is a member of BHA.

Thanks for posting that Brad.

My biggest reservation in our Trump/Republican "movement" is management of federal lands in the west.
It all begins and ends with habitat. Without habitat there's no wildlife, without wildlife there's no hunting. Most Republicans--especially those outside the interior west--utterly fail to connect those three simple dots.

Having said that, friends in the fed resource agencies that know Zimke are pleased with him as the pick for the new Interior Secretary.

Casey

After thinking we made a little headway with Chaffetz here, he turned around and introduced HR 621.

Well I guess we did make some headway with him, he just needed a reminder?

"I am withdrawing HR 621. I hear you and HR 621 dies tomorrow" ~ Jason Chaffetz

From Donald Jr's Instagram feed

What scares me is the comment in the message about disposing of "small parcels". Please define I say. One section? Of checkerboard land? 40 acre inholdings? or 20,000 acres of prime forest/grazing land?

We dodged a bullet methinks, the figurative camels nose.

Geno

He's a good guy but he rarely comes over here and spends nearly all his time on hunttalk.

Federal land is a conundrum. I love it but the federal land rich state residents do everything possible to keep me from enjoying it.

Please explain.

I'm a resident of a Federal land rich state and recreate and hunt in other such states as a non-resident and I don't have the same experience as you apparently. The residents of those states generally enjoy me spending my money in their states while enjoying OUR public lands. As a matter of fact, I'm traveling to one of those states for a 10 day hunt on federal land this coming Wednesday. Camping there will be free. Residents of the state, my friends old and new ones I may meet, will enjoy seeing me there.

Many, if not most Federal lands are open to the public to enjoy at little to no cost, some Fed parks and such require higher fees, some areas require a use permit, but the majority is wide open for your enjoyment.

Geno

+1. And those dang residents of Alaska did their best to keep me from sheep hunting up there but I showed 'em and did it anyway.

Greedy SOBs!!

Pretty sure he's referencing non resident license fees/quotas again.

Some people can not wrap their head around it being 2 totally separate issues.

That was a good "win"! However, now folks need to work to get Chaffetz to withdraw HR 622.

"To terminate the law enforcement functions of the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management and to provide block grants to States for the enforcement of Federal law on Federal land under the jurisdiction of these agencies, and for other purposes."

IMO it's a ploy that has two reasons: 1) appease the folks in his district that get/got tickets and won't if the sherrif had to write them and mostly 2) to continue to hamstring the agency to further push for sale transfer. Hit up you congressmen and senators today to oppose HR 622!

He may be the guy that is all wound up about Wyoming's wilderness rule for hunting.

I wrote mine this morning to oppose H.R.622 - Local Enforcement for Local Lands Act.

It's a Trojan Horse to begin the process of land grabbing slowly and by other means.

People get all wound up about non resident license fees. Everyone has the option to do what I am going to be doing in the next year - move to MT.

Well, I just looked, as I have a couple of friends in TX and may get there for a visit someday. Might want to hunt while there. Maybe Deer or Turkey?

TX Non-Resident license (covers deer): $315
Spring Turkey $126
Upland Bird endorsement $ 7
Total $448

Now for a state I hunt regularly

AZ Non-Res license (combo fish & hunt) $160
Turkey tag $105
Deer tag $315
total $580

So, prohibitive difference in fees for a non-resident? Not in my mind, and in AZ I just walk out in OUR National Forest or other Federal land and start hunting. I don't have to worry much about a getting (paying for) a lease, or paying for access or a guided operation. I'm not sure about that TX license, but the AZ one allows me to fish while there also.

I know, it's just one example, but I don't see the "residents" of AZ making it very hard for me to hunt there.

I wish the gentleman the best, but I haven't see a reply yet. Put in for tags and come enjoy yourself on OUR Federal lands.

Geno

There are several national forests and public WMAs to hunt in TX Valsdad. No guide required.

Forest Service and BLM Law Enforcement needs dialing back.

I have not studied H.R. 622 and it may indeed be a Trojan Horse but the F.S. and BLM needs to be focused on land management and not DUIs, vehicle registration, or state hunting regs.

The Utah reps are floating some seriously dumb Federal Lands ideas but there is a strong contingent in the current Admin. and other western states that have their number and are vehemently opposed to the idea of selling off Federal Land.

I couldn't care less about the difference in fees between resident/non-resident.

The only thing that sometimes makes me nuts is some of the guide requirements, which is obviously a separate issue.

So how do you feel about unguided non-residents in Wyoming being completely excluded from hunting wilderness areas? How about a nonresident Montana elk license that costs 29X what it costs a resident? How about New Mexico that allocates 84% of tags for residents, 10% for guided hunters, and 6% for nonresidents? Even the great state of AZ caps nonresident licenses to 10%...for hunting that takes place on Federal land.

You must be luckier and richer than me.

I don't have a problem with MT license cost. For starters they have a very long deer/elk season which makes for more options.

Glad it works for you.

Ever notice that Randy Newberg has yet to have an "On Your Adventure" in Oregon? I'm guessing it's due to Oregon capping non-resident elk and deer tags to 5% and Antelope to 2.5%.

That may be true, but doesn't Oregon have pretty restrictive licensing for residents as well?
Nothing is stopping you from moving to Oregon.

Nothing but finances and family but I do have plans to move out west as soon as possible.

Would it better for me to make significantly less money and pay significantly less in taxes while living in Oregon or would it better for Oregon to share a reasonable number of permits for hunting on Federal land with non-residents?

Oregon ( or nobody else) is restricting you from doing anything that a resident does on federal land.

They just restrict you from killing THEIR animals.

You can dress in your favorite camo and walk around with a gun all day every day for free like a resident, you just can't shoot as many of their animals.

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.

Oregon resident here.

Quite frankly, high-quality tags are in short supply in Oregon. We simply don't have an abundance of any of the big game animals, with the exception of blacktail deer (which is an OTC tag for both res/nonres and is a difficult, low-success tag generally speaking) and perhaps black bear in SW Oregon.

Great state to live in, and the hunting is decent, but this isn't Montana or Idaho or Wyoming or Colorado.

Here's a map that's pertinent. This shows all the public lands in Oregon and Washington. Look how much of Oregon is public! Oregon is the bottom half of the map. The tan is BLM.



Haven't read the thread but put me 100 % on the side of keeping public lands just how they are, at least here: very lightly regulated and patrolled, open to everyone, multi-use.

I love the American West but then it's all I know.

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.

Whiptail,

I fully understand where you're coming from, its just not directed correctly.

Like others have said, and like I've stated to you in the past, there is a distinction between public LAND and public WILDLIFE.

You think you're excluded. You're not, you have 365 days a year access to all the federal public land you want. That is to say, I don't have any more access to the land as a resident to Wyoming than you do as a non resident.

Plus, you are looking at one small part of the legacy of public lands and one small part of the recreational value of public lands. There are many hundreds of thousands of people that enjoy our public lands that never hunt or fish. Hikers, mountain bikers, bird watchers, photographers, campers, etc.

As to your complaint about your access to wildlife found on federal lands, that's up to the people that manage and control the wildlife there. Where that wildlife is found, is of no relevancy in your argument, none.

The States absolutely have the legal and full right to discriminate against you in regard to how we choose to distribute our wildlife resources. Some of the ways States choose to control NR hunters access to your wildlife resources, are to have guide requirements, charge more for NR licenses, limit the number of permits we give to NR hunters, etc. All perfectly legal, including Wyoming's right to require a guide for NR hunters in designated wilderness.

This is a wildlife access issue, not a Federal land access issue...no matter how many times you claim otherwise.

Also, for the record, I am NOT a fan of the wilderness guide law in Wyoming. It is 100%, no questions asked, a Wyoming Guides and Outfitters Association welfare program...no doubt.

But, if anyone is going to say that they will not support the idea of federal public lands because of a states right to control its wildlife as they see fit...well, they weren't much of a public lands advocate to begin with.

The Wyoming wilderness guide law, while complete crap, is not nearly as restrictive from a wildlife access point of view, than what your state imposes on NR hunters. Without either knowing a private land owner in Texas, or paying an outfitter/landowner, I am virtually excluded from 100% of your States LAND and WILDLIFE.

You're complaining about a very small percentage of wilderness that you cant hunt here without guide, while ignoring the amount of Federal Lands you can hunt. It would take you a lifetime to hunt all the federal lands that are available to you.

For the record, not one of the best animals my wife and I have killed in Wyoming were shot in designated wilderness.

As an example of public land abuse in NW Colorado the mines think nothing of fencing off public land access - of course all those little 3 acre strips are part of a "blast area" and much too dangerous for the public. Miraculously the mine employees and immediate family hunt those same areas safely.

Landlocked BLM is a huge scam. Buy sell or trade parcels to make public land accessible like you would if you ran it like any normal enterprise. The practice of enclosing hundreds or thousands of acres behind small private parcels does a disservice to the public.

Even though these abuses are commonplace much better to have the Feds inefficiently muddle around then have the states cash out our wildland heritage to cover a budget shortfall.

A few years ago I headed up a canyon about 70 miles from here. On every other post on both sides of the road were signs that read "Spirit Woman Ranch. Keep out". I drove close to 5 miles between those fences before I got to the 'ranch'. It was a cement pad with a very expensive motor home sitting on it. Some rich guy had bought a ranch to make it his private playground and he closed off access to many thousands of acres of public land.

Good to see you back here Buzz.


Thanks for understanding.



I am excluded from hunting on Federal land and have given several examples though I agree I'm not excluded from being on Federal land.


I agree there's more at stake than just hunting but since this is hunting forum that's what I'm going to argue.


This is BS. Landowners have full right to deny hunting and dictate management practices. Try hunting on private land without permission and tell us how it turns out for you.


Without land there is no hunting. The two are inseparable.


Glad to hear you are reasonable. I know you are a very smart guy.


Without this threat the states are just going to run roughshod over the non-residents. It's called checks and balances.


No you are not. Texas does not discriminate against non-residents for hunting on STATE or Federal land. You have the exact same(crappy) odds that a resident has


Fair enough. I'm using the most egregious cases to state my case. Overall Wyoming is a very good state for non-resident but these laws(and prices) are only headed in the wrong direction.


I don't doubt your hunting skills and accomplishments and yes Wyoming has many opportunities and I'd like it to stay that way.

It's not about dialing it back its about eliminating those agencies to have law enforcement at all! To then provide grants to the states to take over those law enforcement duties. IMO, it's a bad deal all the way around. So, please to study it and then contact your reps. I did so last week and will do so again this week.

Here's a link to the bill:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/622/text

Here's the 'official title':


And yes, lots of idiocy coming out of the Utah delegation.

This is a red herring. Like Buzz said, management of big game by state agencies has been delegated, litigated, and upheld time and time again. Citizens of one state have no legal standing to determine how another state manages its wildlife, issues driver's licenses, or performs any other regulatory action properly exercised at the state level.

The concept of “checks and balances” just does not apply; non-residents have no say in how other state agencies manage big game populations. And that's how it should be.




I thought one of your complaints was inflated prices for non-resident licenses, compared to residents? Every state has these, including Texas.

And comparing the way Texas manages its allotment of big game licenses to non-residents vs the way western states do it is apples and oranges. The reason is simple---supply and demand. The supply of big game animals (big game populations) in western states can’t support the number of people from across the country who want to come here and hunt. By necessity we have to limit the number of licenses issued/animals killed in any given year or the resource will suffer and decline. Not so in Texas. In Texas, a non-resident can buy an over-the-counter license and hunt anywhere in the state where he has access, because the resource can support that. Texas has no need to limit the number of big game tags issued, so it doesn't. Apples and oranges.

So it’s up to our western state wildlife agencies to come up with a system that allocates tags and regulates access to the resource. Not surprisingly, states that have to limit access by limiting tags favor the owners of the resource—the people of the state. If you want to make the case that it’s unfair for state agencies to favor state residents in allocating tags for wildlife within state borders, please do so. I guarantee that if demand outstripped supply for the deer population in TX, TP&W would favor state residents over non-residents in allocating tags. And that’s how it should be.