Tired of the public land argument
 

This USO deal has brought up some interesting points but one argument that jumps out that I've never liked is the rights of non-residents and hunting public land. Keep in mind this post is focused in one this one point and nothing else.

I've never understood what public land has to do with drawing tags. THE ANIMALS BELONG TO THE STATE!!! It has nothing to do with the land. The state manages and OWNS the animals, therefore residents of that state should have preference when hunitng and harvesting that animal at least based on this one point. The animal can be on BLM, National Forest, in a State Park or on your buddies ranch and that tag is good for all of them. Why? Because the animal belongs to the state and a tag means that state has given you permission to harvest one of its animals, thats why.

RE: Tired of the public land argument
 

No argument from me on that one! Just hunt New Mexico where the outfitters and landowners got the politicians to institute private land hunting tags. It's big dollars for both and I have been stopped by USO guides lieing about what was private land. Told me they owned a lease on what is absolutely public land. Told them to KMA in front of their clients. The state does own the animals and that has been clearly established. Now USO hires Johnny Cochran to pull a sneaky one through the 9th district court of fools. I see a real war a comin'.

RE: Tired of the public land argument
 

If we keep leting them drive up tag cost they will take an out of stater before a resident.


I agree with you guys even being an out of state elk hunter you guys in your own state should get first pick.

RE: Tired of the public land argument
 

Public land means nothing because they put no money/effort into maintaining it. Even the fences are maintained by locals (i.e. ranchers who lease the grazing rights are usually required to maintain it). Most COUNTIES in the west maintain roads on FEDERAL lands, so the access used to hunt is often supplied by county tax dollars.

RE: Tired of the public land argument
 

RBH

I'm with you, I keep hearing over and over how "anyone" should be able to hunt national forest, and BLM. WELL THEY CAN!!!!

All they have to do is get a hunting permit from the state to hunt. (just like the residents do) Every one keeps acting like they should be able to go into the NF and BLM and start blasting away because they (US citizen) owns the land. They might own the land but they don't own the animals

GOOD POST!!!

RE: Tired of the public land argument
 

It's getting to where the gov't not only owns the animals and land but the people as well.
The more people,the more laws.I'm glad I won't be around in a hundred years from now.You would probably have to draw tags to play a hunting video game and charge more for non-res.I'm sure USO would be the name of the game,or wal-mart.
Elkshed

RE: Tired of the public land argument
 

Maybe you should consider another view of federal lands and your so called state game mangagement funding. I am familier with some of the stats from Co. and when a resident pays $30.00 for the same tag I pay $480.00 for, I have serious doubts that many residents taxes are putting $450.00 directly into the DOW's pocket!
Maybe you should look at the DOW's budget and see just how many more MILLIONS of dolllars the non-residents put toward game management than do residents or state and local funding you might be surprised, not to mention the boost to the local economy from their stay in your hotels, their spending at your stores etc. I aggree that a resident should have the larger share of the tags drawn each year but what if you had no non-resident hunter you might not have any DOW. Your game commissions all over the west do a fantastic job of manageing your game animals but they need ALL of us and our money and support to continue. I am getting so tired of this resident /non-resident arguement that accomplishes nothing, we are all hunters wanting to fulfill that same passion, the thrill of the chase, can't we get past the bull and get down the hunting the lands we all own and support!

RE: Tired of the public land argument
 

You might be right about CO but thet non-res dollar stuff sure don't hold in AZ. We have no over the counter tags and no private land tags so the 800 tags paid by non-res isn't squat here.

RE: Tired of the public land argument
 

Tired of the "Public Land" argument?

It's public land. That means you, me and anyone who lives in America can use and enjoy it. The animals that live on it are as tied to it as the trees and grass. Yes, they require management, and that effort is very intensive .. but it is all part of the whole. How can Idaho "own" an animal that can step 3 feet one way and be in Washington? Or do you think an Elk knows if it is an Arizonian or New Mexico bull? Each state "manages" it's little piece of the puzzle man. You aren't a Utahian dude, you are an American. You don't get special rights and privelages over the rest of use because of who issues you a drivers license. Western states "manage" their herds of animals as best they can, and are helped out by the entire country financially to do it. That land is "ours"... not yours.

RE: Tired of the public land argument
 

You are wrong.

In Colorado, the DOW is cash-funded not general funded. In other words, no federal tax dollars (or state tax dollars for that matter) are used to manage the game. Its all from license sales, tickets, etc.

RE: Tired of the public land argument
 

That is Colorado ... which gives almost all hunters an equal shot at hunting and collects a lot of money from them all.

There are 49 other states.

RE: Tired of the public land argument
 

I am also tired of the public land argument. The federal land belongs to every citizen of the U.S.A. The animals on that federal land belong to the state.
If you kill a animal without a license the state goes after you not the federal goverment.
The state manages the animals, the state issues licenses, the state issues fines. These are state owned animals.
If you want to enjoy federal land? Get off you a$$ and go for a hike in the national forest. Just don't kill an animal without the proper license or the state will come after you.

RE: Tired of the public land argument
 

I'm sure glad the animals know where the state line is and never cross it.

When you except federal dollars you have to follow federal rules. If you don't want to, then don't except federal funding.

RE: Tired of the public land argument
 

No kidding. You can come to Utah and hike in any of the National Forests at anytime you want and you'll never hear a peep outta me. But the elk that roam on that land, well they belong to Utah. In Utah we have the dedicated hunters program. I volunteer (that means without pay) so many hours a year to a service that directly benefits wildlife. I go to public meetings and vocally speak out my opinion about management in Utah. I live here and have to deal with the decisions our DWR makes. I just don't see how somebody who doesn't live here can get as a tag as easily as me leaving me out in the dark unable to hunt my own backyard. Non-res tags should be limited.

Think of it like this. Because a car is on a public road does that mean you have as much right to that car as the actual owner. NO. If he decides to sell that car he may give his family the greatest opportunity to buy the car and would give them a better deal he would to a stranger.

So just because elk live on public land, why should somebody in Texas have as much right to hunt that elk as me when it belongs to the state of Utah? Thats like Canada suing the US saying we all live on the same continent and have as much to hunt the animals as you do wanting as many tags to go to Canadians as Americans. The land belongs to everyone, the animals belong to the state. I am completely unaware of why that distinction can't be made.

Next you'll be suing some rich saying the money he has in his bank account belongs to the Federal government and we all should have a right to it. Come on.

RE: Tired of the public land argument
 

CO DOW's 02-03 Statement of Revenue indicates total income of $86,978,681. That amount includes $12,845,370 as Colorado's share of Federal Excise Tax on hunting and fishing gear (15%) and $8,890,067 of Federal Grants, Donations and Lottery proceeds (10%). $60,654,392 was generated through the sales of licenses (70%), and 5% misc...

AZ lists $55,893,700 in revenue, with $20,657,500 as their share of the tax on hunting and fishing gear, 37%!!!!! I'd hate to see it, but won't AZ have to raise prices on NR tags to exorbitant prices to preserve enough tags for residents?

RE: Tired of the public land argument
 

When the animal crosses state lines, it changes ownership.

Most western states accept very little to no Federal funding for game management. The Federal dollars that go to public land go to cleaning up campsites, dumping the crappers, things like that. If those dollars do end up benefitting widlife it's almost always indirect and the main intention was meant to for some other purpose.

RE: Tired of the public land argument
 

Listen .. some Western states accept money, Arizona .. and they started the discussion, accepted $21 million of its $56 million budget.... but that is not the point.

The point is if every state pinches off the ability to hunt to only the very few and the VERY rich .. you KILL the whole sport!!!! You think a few thousand **** kickers in Utah is going to continue our hunting heritage???? Of course not. It will be the guys from states where they don't have elk, moose, or sheep or some other animal who are the future of our ability to hunt. Can you be any more narrow minded? Think of one generation from now .. and they limit the amount of nonresident tags to 5% of the total .. guess what happens .. NOBODY gets to hunt. You think you can hold on to the right to hunt without the efforts of guys like me in the East???? Dream on. You don't have the money or the political clout to pay the legal bill ... and guess why we pay .. for an honest shot.. not a better shot .. not strict privelages to the best spots ... just a shot at the privelage to hunt.

Think just a little bigger ... act just a little bigger.

RE: Tired of the public land argument
 

The Western states have done just fine for the last 100 years or so without "you guys from the east". I really don't know why we need you now. As a matter of fact, the decline in quality if life in the west can pretty much be attributed to you "guys from the east".

Just a little rant here, why do you people think you have the right to come here and tell us how the cow ate the cabbage? We live here, why do you guys decide that we need wolves, need to have more nonresident hunters, etc? Now, I may sound a little "not in my backyard" but why shouldn't I? I have lived in the west all of my life, and I'll be damned if some guy from Maryland or New Jersey is going to tell me how my state should manage its game.

RE: Tired of the public land argument
 

Yep and from what I can recall it's the easterners moving here that have screwed up just about everything in the western culture. Always movin here then screaming about their "rights" and makin stupid laws. Outlaw lion hunting then bitch when they get eaten. Build homes at the highest part of the desert and complain that yotes ate the poodle. Don't like us carryin guns 'cause it's not PC in the east. Maybe we can have three tag prices for non-res. $475 for west, $480 for midwest and $15000 for east.

RE: Tired of the public land argument
 

No but having a bunch of greenhorn pompous know it all's from back East running around shooting up our elk and deer herds sure as hell ain't the answer.

RE: Tired of the public land argument
 

ROTFALMAO ...Glen you're being Californicated for the most part ,not "easterners".
But I will say most western states get a very large portion of their operating budgets from the fees they charge non res. hunters. That and the fact non res. sportsmen pump billions into the western economy without which people couldn't make ends meet.
I don't have a problem with limited license allotment provided states use a point system towards the applicants. But I do have a problem with the outrageouse increases for out of state hunters and the outright rape by outfitters.
As example a 3 or 4 years ago one would book an antelope hunt for say $850 for a 5 day hunt. Today that same hunt might be $1250 and only 3 DAYS. Almost a 50% increase for the hunt and a 40% decrease in time allotted for the hunt. Any way you try to explain that one can't justify such an increase with the time reduction.

RE: Tired of the public land argument
 

The "western culture" is just what a bunch of "easterners" brought with them when they populated it.

I do agree that the majority of hunting licenses should go to resident hunters guys. Here in the NorthEast we have drawings for moose in our own "trophy areas" that are as hard to win as any good Bull elk area. In PA many of us put in to draw one of the 80 or so elk tags.... but the difference in the draws in place that I reference is that while the majority of the tags go to residents, non residents get an honest shot based on the odds. In NH a resident could wait 5 to 10 years to draw a moose tag, while a non-resident might go 10 to 20 .. or longer. All hunters share the load... and when you compare the odds residents and non residents have to get one of the few tags, they are skewed in favor of the resident, as they should be, but not completely one sided ... and I'll use Arizona as an example .. just 10% to 90%. I have been fortunate to hunt a few of the Western states, but my son who has about 2 more months in the oven may never get the chance. I don't want to have to buy the right ... I want the same shot as the next guy. Anyone who thinks me paying over $1000 for a single big game tag is not paying my fair share is sniffing to much manure.

Now if guys like you can at least throw me the bone that somethings have to be improved, if my son and I are to be able to hunt out West some day 15 or 20 years from now. I am not a big fan of the alternatives that are popping up because people are throwing their elbows up and saying "not in my back yard". Such as outfitters "guaranteed tags" for huge money, or game farms where you pick your animal from a menu, or leasing for huge fees the rights to hunt some outfitters 400 acres.

RE: Tired of the public land argument
 

Ruddy you're right about Cal but most of them that have screwed up California couldn't take the cold on their pinko butts and moved out to the sun from the east.;) Now they are movin here by the hordes. If you read my stuff I really don't want to hog it all or have your cost go through the roof. I also know that I won't stand for 50% of our tags to go to non-res and especially not the pompous know it alls who wag there fingers in my face from behind a computer. My money is on the couple thousand p&$$ed off rednecks from Utah kickin' some pompous butt if it comes down to a faceoff. Also doubt that billions of dollars from non-res is plowed in to our state game programs. We are the ones buying the sporting goods that generates most of the fed dollars we do get. By now most of you have looked at the annual report. Our state lottery is a good chunk too. Non-res tags and license is a part but we could do fine without it. Bottom line is we will get past this and you will probly end up with better odds than I have of gettin drawn. See you boys in the woods.(banjo music)

RE: Tired of the public land argument
 

Ok. You got an elk that lives part time on national forest, part time on state land, and part time on private land. This happens in every western state. I don't think that anyone here would advocate letting the feds control the hunting on federal land, the state on state land and private landowners when on private land. Obviously this is not a workable situation. Or do landowners in the east get to do what they want with the game on their land?

Ad to that the FACT that, BY CURRENT LAW, the people of that state own the animals that reside within it's borders. Now you may not like that law, but it is the law of the land. That gives the state the sole right/responsibiltity to hand out hunting licenses and decide who gets them.

Also, be careful what you wish for. Think about it. If USO is successful in opening up western states to nonresidents in their drawings, the state can very easily figure out another way to limit nonresidents. Can you say $2500 for an elk tag??? The courts have already said a differntial pricing structure is ok, so they can play that card. That would cut the NR numbers down again while putting more money in their coffers. I would certainly be sorry to see that because I wouldn't be able to hunt elk again.

As it is, nonresidents supply 70% of license revenue collected in Colorado and it is going up every year. I would rather they keep us at a reasonable fee and limit our numbers than have unlimited tags and keep pricing more and more hunters out of the market.

RE: Tired of the public land argument
 

Let's just stop and think about it ................. We are all Americans and we are all hunters that enjoy the outdoors. We need to share all the wonders that nature has to offer us. There needs to be a balance between resident and non-resident hunting rights. In other words, smooth out the need of those who pay state taxes (residents) and those who generate DNR revenues (non residents).

At the end of the day, we all want the same thing!!!!!!!!!!!!

RE: Tired of the public land argument
 

I'll be damned!! I think all these easterers puffin their feathers has got to you Txhunter and I can't beleive I agree with what you just said. I bet you can smell those new yorkers rubbing their hands and see the next move as having Gerragos and Johnny the glove suing Texas for the right to hunt on your ranch. I really would like to see you have a chance to hunt elk here and hope things don't go nuts so you can someday. You easterners can stay home. We're gonna start agreeing out here and secede from the union. We will have President Bush and you can have Herman Munster.

RE: Tired of the public land argument
 

"better to remain silent and thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt"
Take it for what it's worth glen. I got a better idea ,let's just give all the hunting rights back to the Apache. After all before people came From The East came it was thier land.
P.S. I think I saw some of your eastern realative in Deliverance. That's about your mentality.

Ruddy

RE: Tired of the public land argument
 

Those out there that think that "Their" federal tax dollars are supporting the AZ elk herd simply don't know what they are talking about.

Federal dollars coming in for the game and fish come from the Pittman/Robert act which was enacted by hunters to tax themselves thru purchases of guns ammo etc. in order to manage wildlife. Later the Dingle/Johnson act was passed to tax fishing products to promote and foster fishing in each state. These monies are divided up by the amout of supplies sold in each state and are used by the game and fish. I don’t see NR money in large quantities supporting the Arizona game and fish. The out of state fees at 10% of the tags is not even 1% of the budget.

Either way you look at it, AZ G&F meet in less than 2 weeks to discuss proposals on how to deal with this issue. One idea that I have heard floating around is removing all bonus points for non-res. Another idea that I have heard is to make it illegal to sell antlers and illegal to transport game meat out of the state. If that were the case, AZ could legally not allow any NR the opportunity to hunt. Before you pound your fist on your desk at AZ, keep in mind that several other states currently have hunts (moose, turkey, etc) that are not open to NR.

RE: Tired of the public land argument
 

You eastern boys do have purdy cheeks! Ruddy-you need to read carefully the post from PLB in the "ruling in AZ is bad" thread. The animals never did belong to the nation, they were bought by locals, non-res hunter have equal chances of getting drawn to me, we have paid for the expansion of elk to the east and you guys still keep yelling about your rights. If you are a real hunter and not an outfitter or rich boy who buys his trophies then you should be working against the USO position. After they sell/kill the very finest bulls in each unit here and get paid big premiums for it they will move on to the next state. After we are down to a bunch of cows and bachelors will you want to hunt here so bad? I think we need to keep one of the best and least selfish and non-political game management systems in the country as it is so you will have a chance at that 400 bull.

RE: Tired of the public land argument
 

PLB and Glenin-

Don't you see??? This is our point!!!!

If anti's are trying so hard to keep us from hunting .. and residents are fighting to not allow non-residents to hunt, how the hell can we win? If this is the future of hunting .. then I really hope you enjoy it in Arizona. Because according to your logic every state in the Union can and should make it EXTREMELY hard for you to hunt outside of it. I've been to Arizona, other than a shot at a truly large Bull ... the hunting quality and diversity is very weak in comparison to most states west of the Mississippi ... hell, even compared to East of the Mississippi.

RE: Tired of the public land argument
 

Jay-I have no disagreement there. This state has very poor hunting in most of it and a very small population of animals in the rest. I have never stated a position on lowering the number of non-res tags. This USO thing has nothing to do with us hogging game and everything to do with greed. Why do you suppose they sued on the interstate commerce clause and not on general hunting discrimination? I would hope that you will someday understand that our Game and Fish department is #1 non political and #2 has done an exceptional job of fairly managing the resource. Taulman really wants unlimited access and private land tags like he got in NM. We will manage the resource here and end up beating the 9th district and I hope you do have a chance to creep up on a big bull someday.

RE: Tired of the public land argument
 

Now I'm new to this issue, but here's what I think USO is trying to do.

Okay, a lot of nonresidents are going yeah, sic' 'em boy, but what you ought to be doing is putting together a posse to lynch those USO guys right now, because as I see it, it's going to be nonresidents howling up a storm when this all plays out. In the long run, I don't think this USO action is going to have much effect on resident hunters.

Here's what I think is going to happen. For starters, remember that NM has a law that nonresident hunters must have a guide or an outfitter. WY has a similar law, applicable only in wilderness areas. Well, guess what every state in the west is going to do in the first ten years after the USO action takes effect? They are going to pass laws just like NM, saying to nonresidents, "Hey welcome to our state, but you gotta hire a guide!" Where do you think the champions at USO are going to be when this happens? Why, they're going to be popping champagne corks in the back office, that's where.

The days of the do-it-yourself nonresident hunt are numbered. That's USO's real target.

RE: Tired of the public land argument
 

First no one here is saying "NO non-res's should hunt in my state." We're not even calling for less tags. Just to simply keep it as it was. No one was complaining before. You as a non-resident have so many tags alotted for you guys to go get and thats fine. But we as residents want a decent chance to hunt our own state. You're right, the hunting isn't even all that great out here anymore. Can you see why this we don't want this. If the animals belonged to the nation then I guess we'd have to grin and bear it. But they belong to the state so we should get a majority of the tags. Besides if the hunting isn't all that good then what are ya bitching about?

RE: Tired of the public land argument
 

Thats not any good either. I'm fine with an outside chance of drawing a tag to hunt another state but making an outfitter mandatory isn't good. Only promotes the "rich man". Thats not good for the future of hunting for the average Joe.

RE: Tired of the public land argument
 

That's not true. The Federal Aid dollars are distibuted according to the land area and the number of licenses issued by that state. So your NR's help to get you federal money.

RE: Tired of the public land argument
 

Pittman-Robertson Act funds are used to "maintain" national forests, and perhaps enhance game management. They also use them to build Kiosks, Visotors Centers, pave parking lots, and in the case of Colorado, purchase land to build a prison (interesting court case if you want to look it up).


There is probably no other fund out there more abused than this one. Hunters should wake up and see where their dollars are going.

RE: Tired of the public land argument
 

Very true. Just don't stop there.

RE: Tired of the public land argument
 

To be honest, I don't understand all of the legal mumbo jumbo contained in these quotes, but at least it should put the debate on wildlife ownership to rest. I pinched these quotes from the Siskiyou County Farm Bureau site. There's a lot of information there, but I think these excerpts are faithful to the underlying arguement.

This is a cross-post with a USO thread, but given its relevance I thought it fitting to share it in this thread as well.
__________________________________________________ _______________________

In Baldwin v. Montana Fish and Game Comm'n., 436 U.S. 371 (1978,) Justice Blackmun explains the reasoning behind early claims:

"Many of the early cases embrace the concept that the States had complete ownership over wildlife within their boundaries, and, as well, the power to preserve this bounty for their citizens alone. It was enough to say "that in regulating the use of the common property of the citizens of [a] state, the legislature is [not] bound to extend to the citizens of all the other states the same advantages as are secured to their own citizens." Corfield v. Coryell, 6 F. Cas. 546, 552 (No. 3,230) (CC ED Pa. 1825).

It appears to have been generally accepted that although the States were obligated to treat all those within their territory equally in most respects, they were not obliged to share those things they held in trust for their own people. (emphasis added)

Geer v. Connecticut, 161 U.S. 519 (1896) In Geer, a case dealing with Connecticut's authority to limit the disposition of game birds taken within its boundaries, the Court roundly rejected the contention "that a State cannot allow its own people the enjoyment of the benefits of the property belonging to them in common, without at the same time permitting the citizens of other States to participate in that which they do not own." 161 U.S., at 530. (emphasis added)

"In more recent years, however, the Court has recognized that the States' interest in regulating and controlling those things they claim to "own," including wildlife, is by no means absolute. States may not compel the confinement of the benefits of their resources, even their wildlife, to their own people whenever such hoarding and confinement impedes interstate commerce. Foster-Fountain Packing Co. v. Haydel, 278 U.S. 1 (1928); Pennsylvania v. West Virginia, 262 U.S. 553 (1923); West v. Kansas Natural Gas Co., 221 U.S. 229 (1911). (I imagine the USO case will fall into this category)

And a State's interest in its wildlife and other resources must yield when, without reason, it interferes with a nonresident's right to pursue a livelihood in a State other than his own, a right that is protected by the Privileges and Immunities Clause. Toomer v. Witsell, 334 U.S. 385 (1948). See Takahashi v. Fish & Game Comm'n, 334 U.S. 410 (1948).

Yet, in his concurring opinion in Baldwin, Chief Justice Burger still reveal an attachment to the belief in common public ownership of game found within a State and a State obligation to manage as a public trust.

"The doctrine that a State "owns" the wildlife within its borders as trustee for its citizens, see Geer v. Connecticut, 161 U.S. 519 (1896), is admittedly a legal anachronism of sorts. See Douglas v. Seacoast Products, Inc., 431 U.S. 265, 284 (1977). A State does not "own" wild birds and animals in the same way that it may own other natural resources such as land, oil, or timber. But, as noted in the Court's opinion, ante, at 386, and contrary to the implications of the dissent, the doctrine is not completely obsolete. It manifests the State's special interest in regulating and preserving wildlife for the benefit of its citizens. See Douglas v. Seacoast Products, Inc., supra, at 284, 287. Whether we describe this interest as proprietary or otherwise is not significant."

RE: Tired of the public land argument
 

Cal-Good info and this was why those sneaky lawyers sued based on the interstate commerce and the transport of hides, horns, ivories and meat. I feel pretty confident that with multiple state lawsuits the supremes will have to take the appeals and make a final decision with the weight of precedent on game animals in favor of state control. Guess we will have to wait for the final decision.

Thanks.

RE: Tired of the public land argument
 

Hmm..I feel like I've been in a box regarding this topic. I'm not sure what the conflict is.

I believe that in my location the license fees go to the folks that do the enforcement, regulations, etc. So wouldn't that be the same whether the land is owned by the feds, staties, or even privately?