Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire A warning to you people out west

Some people who live in the western states, you want federal lands to go back to the states. Do you realize if that happens that you won't get exclusive hunting and fishing rights. Large companies, or wealthy millionaires will end up buying any land for sale,and you...................like those of us back east, will be locked out of those pristine mountains for good.

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

As a general comment, if you are reduced to quoting NPR to support your statements you are already in the hole.

You don't think that the Feds will reduce access to public lands every time liberals are in office? How many acres did Obama open up to hunters and fisherman? The issue isn't as simple as you think it is.

Really? Have you actually read up on the issue in the different states? Or did you find it all in one biased article?

Find a credible source and stop quoting from the PSYOPS section of the Propaganda Corps.

It might matter what the the state constitution says and how 'progressive' their legislature is.

Some states might sell state property for the bucks.

I hope you're not the brightest one in the family.

Some small states, like Idaho, can't afford to maintain all that non-producing land. One big fire season will kill any state budget. They'll have to sell part of it to pay the bills.

Lands that are managed properly ought to pay for their own maintenance.

Public recreation is a drop in the bucket compared to revenues generated by grazing, logging, mining industries when allowed to actually do something with the land.

I'm also sure that the fire fighting programs would be kept in place as a public health issue, if nothing else.

It's never a black and white issue. There's grey there too.

Then there's the "state sale issue".

What if the states were NOT allowed to sell a square inch of it? Seems like an easy fix to me... because the mission statement of state lands in school trusts is different than holding the land forever as public lands with Multiple Use as the main mission.

I am HOPING that we don't see large scale sales of Federal lands.

Have enjoyed camping, hiking and hunting those lands at minimal or no cost my entire life. Pretty nice to be able to head out to the mountains, wander where I will... I'd like to see my grandkids have that opportunity too.

The situation bears watching.

Regards, Guy

The same thing as the situation in Mexico.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/0...ico-over-gas-price-hike-turn-deadly.html

When government propping up becomes unsustainable, and they have to let the natural markets and demands take over, the natives get restless when they lose their entitlements. Even when everyone knows continued government subsidies will sink their country.

Jfc . Go mow the ditch and enjoy your version of the outdoors

States are reviewing, and acting on, the sale of highways and bridges. Garbage dumps and prisons have been sold. Future tax revenues are commonly borrowed against. Over-promised, ie under funded, government pension plans are common.
My faith is the ability of state and local government to wisely manage is less than my faith in the feds.
Guessing these sort of issues is why a Non-professional politician won the last election.

I'll bet my version of the outdoors and dealing with state and federal government agencies and bureaucracy might be a little more encompassing than you know.

What, you don't consider hunting, fishing, hiking, and camping to be "doing something" with the land?

That's a pure value statement on your part, I hope you realize that. Besides, most of the public land I hunt on has no minerals, oil, or gas, and is worth more to the local economy with the timber intact and without ATV trails.

And as far as a "drop in the bucket" I'm not sure which states you're talking about but that doesn't come close here. Big game hunting alone has a huge financial contribution and lots of it goes to small independent operators--restaurants, hotels, gas stations, outfitters, etc.

Not to mention fishing, hiking, and just sightseeing in general. Go to a town like Estes Park in the summer and you can hardly drive down Main Street or find a vacant room.

And that doesn't even count the biggest revenue generator, the ski industry.



I'd be all for that but it'll never happen. The people pushing for this don't want the burden of managing all that land, and they're not doing it to be better stewards of it. Make it so they can't sell the land and their interest will disappear.

The whole premise and value of "public land" went down the toilet when the management of such strayed from the Multiple Use Act that kept things in harmony for so long.

I have no problem with any recreational use on public land. I encourage it. But, that is in danger too. Real danger.

As far as the ski industry generating income for the management of public lands, or any other recreation for that matter, I'd have to see the amount put into the management budget from that before I can evaluate it.

How much money goes to the BLM or Forest Service from ski tickets? Or hunting? Or shooting?

I think we're talking about two different types of revenue generation. I'm talking about revenue that goes into the local economy, not management fees. Although the ski resorts do lease their lands.

So it's indirect, in the form of tax revenues.

In fairness as far as tax revenues are concerned...

How fair is it that half the United States pay taxes on something that will never have the chance to use or enjoy?

Perhaps we could institute a tax that pays for hunting leases for those that don't have public land to hunt?

How fair is it that the majority of the environmental terrorists that have been responsible for the closing and added regulations of public lands have never paid a fee, or taxes for that matter, to support public land in any fashion?

Should they even have any say-so in the matter?

That's nice for the local economy. But does the land support its self. Who pays when there is a fire. I got an idea it's the taxpayers in the rest of the country. Hasbeen

How fair is it that people in the sparsely populated west pay the enormous welfare bill generated by the big cities on both coasts? It all balances out.
We'll exempt the east if the east will exempt us.

Each of these sportsmen and women positively impact our economy through the purchase of tags, licenses, guns, ammunition, bows, gear, hunting trips (that pump money into local economies through meals, lodging, etc.), memberships, and the state and federal taxes that go along with those purchases (2).

....."In 2011, the money spent on all of these hunting products and activities added up to a total of $38.3 billion (3), with an economic multiplier effect (the final income arising from a new injection of spending) of $86.9 billion! That $38.3 billion in 2011 was more revenue than Google brought in for that same year. Sportsmen are spending an average of $8 million per day, an impressive total that few recreational industries can boast. When it comes to local economic impact, that amounts to $11.8 billion in state and federal tax revenues, annually...."

http://protecttheharvest.com/2014/11/14/hunting-america-economy/
This article would seem to say that hunting use is seriously an economic force to be reckoned with. Any use that did NOT include hunting would be economic suicide.