UncleNorby

I am originally from NH, that absurd place where you can hunt all privately or publicly owned land, that is not posted against hunting or tresspassing, without landowner permission. The tradition there is pro-sportsman, and hunting has not been viewed as a money-making enterprise by landowners. Things are changing there now, with more land being posted every year. I line in Indiana now,where the traditionis 180 degrees different. No access without permission, and nobody really wants to give permissionin the part of the state thatI live.

NH does have a substantial amount of federal land though. The White Mountain National Forest is huge.

Anyway, my point relates to federal land. I agree that the states should manage their game animals, even on federal lands.I don't agree that I should pay more than a resident to hunt federal land in a given state. The animalI shoot doesn't cost the state any more to manage than the one a resident shoots. The primaryreasons for higher out-of-state fees are to raise more money and to limit access. I see no justification for a state limiting access to federal lands. Absurb, I know.

enginegrunt

You forget who patrols most of these Public Lands. Very few Federal wardens out there. Mostly State Wardens and there are not enoughof them either. You take away the out of state money and guess what less wardens, MORE POACHING and Less Game. Oh don't say that the poaching is the locals only. Around here it is almost even with good old boys and out of staters. Just that when the out of staters get caught they usually have more..

wyote

So you guys that are for this bill are saying everything on federal land should be equeal for the resident and non-resident?

Be careful what you ask for!!!!! To take this one step farther, George Tallman's lawsuits ask for this very thing. BUT if every thing is equeal then residents are SOL. The reason is since non-residentslive in 49 other states then the number of permits should reflect that number. 49 permits go to non-residents and 1 goes to a resident. GET REAL!!!!!!!!

The states manage "all" aspects of game management period. You have to have a WY permint to hunt WY don't you? Private land, state land and federal land are all in the state aren't they?Then go by their rules. Hunting is good in the west because the G&F dept are doing a good job and have "total" control of the wildlife management, encluding pricing license. IF IT AIN'T BROKE DON'T FIX IT!!!

If you don't like the prices don't go or if you want to hunt a certain state.........then move there. Then you will have resident privledges.

As far as prices go, IL charges $366 for a non-resident archery deer tag. That is IL's "going rate" How many western states charge that for a deer license?

This bill can really open up a can of worms. If the states loose control...........where does it all end???? The anti's from other states could just get together and go to the federal goverment and say "no hunting on federal land in MT" BOOM!!! It's done.

Again I'll say this.........KEEP THE FEDERAL GOVERMENT OUT OF A STATES RIGHT TO MANAGE GAME!!!!

Besides all that what gives a non-resident the right to tell another state how to manage game or what to charge inthat or any otherstate!

Virginia Mike

TN, Sorry I misunderstood you. I love to hunt out by Craig County, you guys have some nice deer. Your right, we do agree. I think that is the kicker for most of us on this issue. Why don't they just make the cost the same to hunt on Federal Lands from east to west? The state will still have the right to manage the percentage of out of state tags. The number of out of state hunters would still be controlled. Just because the cost of a tag goes down does not mean that there will be more people in the woods. The state would probably realize more money in the end because more people would apply for tags at a lower rate. I am kind of getting the feeling that this is just an issue of locals not wanting more hunters taking game in their local areas. I understand and would probably feel the same if I lived out west. But as a taxpayer it's still just not fair.

hillbillyhunter1

Exactly. You guys don't know what you're asking for.

Rediculous to compare VA or FL to WY. It's a matter of scale. Scale of the land and animals that are managed. Anyone who thinks they are similar has not been West, I'd bet. If they have then they must know "inside" how foolish that sounds.

Wow!! Are you hunting Elk in the Washigton Monument??? We're not talking about visiting public land (actaully I bet it costs more to "visit" the Washington Monument than it does Bighorn National Forest.) We're talking about hunting animals that belong to the each individual state.

As was said above, if you guys want to cry about lower license prices, then move to whatever state you want to predominantly hunt in. You probably will experience a substantial economic impact to you own earning power but the tradeoff for awesome wilderness may well be worth it.

Bottom line is that control of hunting is and should be a state issue according to the U.S.Constitution and although others have tried to supplant the authority of the states before, they lost, and hopefully this bill will loseas well.

Virginia Mike

We are talking about Public Land! The land that you are calling public is Federal Land. I guess that you would be OK with the state not getting ANY Federal Taxpayer Funds to maintain and operate the Federal Land in your state. If that were the case, I would feel the state has the right to charge what they want. But when they get Taxpayers $'s, I should have the same standard as the next taxpayer regardless of where I live. And I'll take your bet, the Washington Monument, as well as the Lincoln and Jefferson Monuments and all of the Smithsonian Museums are Federally Funded and Operated and free to EVERYONE 6 days a week. What I think inside is that it is foolish that my tax $'s pay for land that I have to pay anything more than anyone else to hunt on. Teddy Roosevelt set aside these lands so that hunting would be available to EVERYONE for generations to come. Now the west is pricing the normal hunter out of the gamefor a profit. You can argue all you want, but the fact is if you lived somewhere else looking in, you would feel the same way we do. As for moving out west, I'd love to, but it is not in my cards right now and that isn't the issue. I'm sure that you have complained of gas prices like the rest of us, but you have not moved to Saudi Arabia. Simple thinking, just move out here and pay in state prices. You can't take all the Federal Aid and then scream about State rights.

wyote

Virgina Mike
If you draw a licenese, hunting on federal land is FREE TO HUNT ON. Just like it is for a resident.

Federal land is also free for one and all to camp, hike, snow shoe, take pic's, fish, take a sunday drive, cross country ski snow mobile, etc, etc, for free! Your federal taxes pay for this. ITS YOURS TO USE!!!!!

BUT the game is the states and you have to pay for the privledge to take it!

Do you hear any WY residents screaming "hey this is federal land so I want to pay less to hunt here than I do on private or state land in WY"?

Just because it's federal land doesn't mean you get a break on shootingWY's game. It's WY's property no matter if it's on private, state, or federal land!!!!!!

The game will cost you reguardless if it's on state, private, or federalland...............the cost of using federal land is free.

enginegrunt

I've been on the inside and now I'm on the outside looking into Wyoming. I have no problem with the states charging to take their animals.

Let's go one step farther then. The Federal government gives out subsidies to Farmers and Ranchers. These subsidies come from Taxes. So now can I hunt on a Rancher's or Farmer's lands. I think not!!!

Also one other thing. The Federal camp grounds charge fees to camp. They shouldn't do that either cause it the peoples land.

DBerrard

Even though I'd like to see lower prices, I'd say the boys out in DC need to stay out of this. Any time they interfere, things get worse, not better.

Federal land yes, but the game is managed by the State, yes?. Therefore, state fee to participate in their hunt.

hillbillyhunter1

LOL, I live in and am from WV. So I am "looking in" as far as western hunting is concerned and am not acting in my own self interest assome others here are. I have lived in the west though, so I think it's a lot easier for me to see this issue more clearly than some.

You win that bet.Admission is free to the Washington Monument, just likeadmission isfree to the Beaverhead national forest (MT).Although hunting in MT is not free.Mike, even if you yourself owned 100 acres in MT but lived in VA, you COULD NOT HUNT THERE WITHOUT a regular non-resident license. Why not? It's your land, right?? Because it's the states animals, and although you can go to any federal national forest land and frolic for free, you have to pay in order to pursue the state's game.