PDA

View Full Version : hunting national forest lands



trophyhill
03-27-2011, 10:32 AM
time and again i read where "some" nr's think that just because national forest is set aside for all to enjoy, they have the right to hunt the animals that reside there despite the fact that the state's have the duty and task of managing big game within its states boundries. what is so hard to understand about that? what gives with this argument? is this a liberal argument for the most part or am i missing something here? help me out with this.

nylogger
03-27-2011, 12:01 PM
"national forest is set aside for all to enjoy" except you can't enjoy it while hunting if your a NR #1 Who's tax dollar go's to fund the Dept of Interior (BLM) or Dept of Agriculture (USFS) ? #2 Who funds the Federal Fish and Wildlife who in turn does the wildlife studys and funds and grants the state study's ? Who do you think sets population objectives on the federal land ? If 20% of the tags on NF go to the NR than 20% of the NF budget should go to the NR.

trophyhill
03-27-2011, 12:18 PM
you can enjoy hunting NF lands if you draw a tag which is set by the respective states game commissions. the states g&f dept's manage the game within its states boundries though. do you want to see the federal government take that authority away from the states and manage the game? if i'm not mistaken our management system was set up the way it is for a reason and that is to keep management in the states control so there would never be a possibility of having a system like King George had. personally i am not a fan of the USFW. i see what the effects of wolves have done. it wouldn't hurt my feelings to see this agency dissolved. that would save all of us a litte tax money.

nylogger
03-27-2011, 02:09 PM
"IF" is the problem . My issue is with game that spends most of it's life on Federal land. Some places a NR can't even hunt on the NF. How can this be OK?

trophyhill
03-27-2011, 04:25 PM
"IF" is the problem . My issue is with game that spends most of it's life on Federal land. Some places a NR can't even hunt on the NF. How can this be OK?

even residents deal with the "IF" aspect year to year. are you talking wilderness areas in WY? but regardless whether game resides on federal land or not, the states game commisions decide the # of tags that get doled out because that is the model. and let's keep in mind that states do not have to issue any big game tags to non residents if they choose not to. i think 1 of the Dakotas issues 0 elk tags to non residents.

nylogger
03-27-2011, 05:27 PM
I think that all wildlife departments receive federal financial assistance from the USF&W service. In doing so they agree not to discriminate , violate civil rights and abide by a bunch of other Acts of congress. I understand about the game commissioner's role and who they answer to. I agree with states rights. What I have a problem with is the feds giving my tax dollars to state F&W that limit NR hunting on federal land. As far as I'm concerned if a state will not give equal opportunity to all residents of our country to hunt our federal land than no dollars should go to state F&W.

nv-hunter
03-27-2011, 06:02 PM
i belive that Nevada fish and wild life is funded soley by lic and tag sale and apps and we are over 80% federally owned how about congress matches federal ownership in all states then you could complain. the forest service and the blm wildlife biologists don't count or deal with "game animals " they deal with all the animals and the endangered spiecies act ( the worst act passed to date imho). F&W deal with this act also and migartory birds mainly and the refuges.
That being said no body is violating your rights animals that don't " cross state line " do not come under federal controll. Nylogger go hunt forerst service land just please do it east of the Mississippi !

nylogger
03-27-2011, 06:47 PM
if NV takes no federal dollars than NV can have all wildlife for it's residents. If your post is accurate and 80% is federally owned than NV takes a bunch of our money so why are we paying full price for limited opportunity. It"s like saying to a NR, "you can go to the grand canyon but you can't take any pictures without a permit and we don't give many out".

Livesilly
03-28-2011, 12:04 AM
When I lived in Idaho I never had a problem with the NRs. They paid three times the fees, stayed on the flat land and hunted from the roads. For some reason everything ran up hill to me ;)

llp
03-28-2011, 11:53 AM
Trophyhill,

This thread is a clear an attmept to justify your own lobbying for the NM reduction in nonresident tags. The urge to extort NRs and fill the state treasury with money from non-voters is a sign of the moral bankruptcy in our state governments.

I am strongly in favor of states rights. I don't believe any sane person wants the feds involved in wildlife managemetn decisions. Ask Alaskans, or think of the wolf issue. Terrible idea to have the feds involved. We are all, however, citizens of the US. The continuing trend to try to generate additional revenue from NRs is only justified by saying"there is nothing they (NR) can do about it". This doesn't make it right. Fees that are often more than 10x the cost of resident licenses, upfront license costs, and smaller tag quotas each year will eventually kill the golden goose. And the residents almost always buy into this scheme (at least initially) thinking they will magically have better or more hunting once the evil NR are gone. The states with the most discrimination (against NR) have the highest resident fees, and generally the worst resident hunting.

The federal land issue is jsut a side issue, that is really not the question. It isn't too different than asking why someone from NM has to pay taxes for the US Navy, since NM is not a coastal state. We should at least try to treat all US citizens equally.

llp

trophyhill
03-28-2011, 02:21 PM
Trophyhill,

This thread is a clear an attmept to justify your own lobbying for the NM reduction in nonresident tags. The urge to extort NRs and fill the state treasury with money from non-voters is a sign of the moral bankruptcy in our state governments.

I am strongly in favor of states rights. I don't believe any sane person wants the feds involved in wildlife managemetn decisions. Ask Alaskans, or think of the wolf issue. Terrible idea to have the feds involved. We are all, however, citizens of the US. The continuing trend to try to generate additional revenue from NRs is only justified by saying"there is nothing they (NR) can do about it". This doesn't make it right. Fees that are often more than 10x the cost of resident licenses, upfront license costs, and smaller tag quotas each year will eventually kill the golden goose. And the residents almost always buy into this scheme (at least initially) thinking they will magically have better or more hunting once the evil NR are gone. The states with the most discrimination (against NR) have the highest resident fees, and generally the worst resident hunting.

The federal land issue is jsut a side issue, that is really not the question. It isn't too different than asking why someone from NM has to pay taxes for the US Navy, since NM is not a coastal state. We should at least try to treat all US citizens equally.

Bill

Ha,well obviously you don't know me to well. Your assumption that I lobby against non residents is just that. The OP addresses the issue that some believe states should somehow pull away from the current system in place and nothing more. Nowhere have I ever lobbied against nr's Bill. Do I have issue with how things are done in my home state? You better believe it. But that has nothing to do with the question thank you very much,

nylogger
03-28-2011, 03:27 PM
Lets just leave well enough alone. The downward trend of NR opportunity will someday land in federal court. Liberal judges can do almost anything as we have seen. There will be no winners. Wildlife is too valuable of a resource to have it's fate determined for political agenda.

trophyhill
03-28-2011, 03:35 PM
Lets just leave well enough alone. The downward trend of NR opportunity will someday land in federal court. Liberal judges can do almost anything as we have seen. There will be no winners. Wildlife is too valuable of a resource to have it's fate determined for political agenda.

and just how would that happen?

nv-hunter
03-28-2011, 08:24 PM
they have been there and done the court thing it didn't work. The big problem with this issue is that in western state with a large amount of federal land people have to remember that ever inch of federally owened land takes away property taxs and other sources of income from the state . States get money to replace that value from other federal programs like fish and wildlife service. How ever that amount is very small compaired to the lost funds.Nr are not the only ones seeing their chances go down so are the res hunters. I think until the amount of federal land is equaled in all states then there should be no more increase of federal owened property in the west or change of status like to wilderness.

llp
04-04-2011, 02:39 PM
trophyhill,

I am assuming you are one of the officers in UBNM. If not I stand corrected and will apologize. While not necessarily anti-NR by design, UBNM lobbied hard this year to change the NR allocations in NM. After getting many of the politicians riled up, the ultimate result was not exactly what your group requested, but in the end was a major slap in the face of all NR's and businesses within NM who rely on the tourism dollars hunters provide. UBNM deserves at least some of the blame / credit for this change, depending on your viewpoint. I've seen you post elsewhere that you are unhappy with the result of the legislative session, and hope to make further refinements in the future. For all we know you will continue to make things worse. Take some responsibility for opening this can of worms and getting a raw deal for NR, while protecting the outfitter allocation. I do believe this was not your original intent. Being niave is not much of an excuse. UBNM hurt a lot of NR and will effect the economy of NM hunting for years to come.

llp

Mrelite
04-04-2011, 10:12 PM
llp, You and I both know your accusations against the UBNM are baseless and not true.

Tell everyone what you have done to fix New Mexico's broken system, we would also like to know what you have done to make the NR pool an all equal draw.


I do not know where you have gotten your info but if you have any questions about why the current NM system is broken, feel free to PM me or just start another thread, I will try to answer your questions in an unbiased way.


Like I said before, if you like to hunt NM, do something positive! If you are young, do it for yourself! if you are my age, do it for the future!


Sorry Trophyhill, I am not trying to change the OP.

JP, UBNM Treasurer

eye in sky
04-05-2011, 08:09 AM
I think non resident license fees in most states are ridiculous and in some cases the tag allottments are unfair. Including my home state. I think $410 for an archery tag for a non resident is insane. I personally head to WI to hunt whitetails for $160. From information that I gather, a large portion of most fish and game budgets, comes from the Pittman-Robertson act. This money comes from all sportsman who by firearms and sporting equipment. This money is from people from every state. The rest of the money is from license sales of which a high percentage of is generated from the higher non resident fees. I have no problem paying higher fees to hunt out of state. I think some of the fees are preventing a lot of people from venturing out of state due to the economy. I would just like to see better than ten percent of the tags in some states go to non residents. I believe that more than ten percent of the fish and game budgets are paid by non-residents.

trophyhill
04-05-2011, 08:40 PM
trophyhill,

I am assuming you are one of the officers in UBNM. If not I stand corrected and will apologize. While not necessarily anti-NR by design, UBNM lobbied hard this year to change the NR allocations in NM. After getting many of the politicians riled up, the ultimate result was not exactly what your group requested, but in the end was a major slap in the face of all NR's and businesses within NM who rely on the tourism dollars hunters provide. UBNM deserves at least some of the blame / credit for this change, depending on your viewpoint. I've seen you post elsewhere that you are unhappy with the result of the legislative session, and hope to make further refinements in the future. For all we know you will continue to make things worse. Take some responsibility for opening this can of worms and getting a raw deal for NR, while protecting the outfitter allocation. I do believe this was not your original intent. Being niave is not much of an excuse. UBNM hurt a lot of NR and will effect the economy of NM hunting for years to come.

llp

interesting point of view. i want to thank you for being so concerned about NM economy and resident opportunity or should i say "lack of" for the last 15 years or so. ok, i will take responsibility for opening this can of worms, (even though i nor the UBNM had nothing to do with introducing the original 90/10 split bill you are talking about) but you are right, i supported it. believe it or not there are some of us that don't like the bill in its current form. is it perfect? no. but it's a start. Tell me about what you know as far as what the resident hunting opportunity has been like here in NM for the last 15 years if you could and let me ask you, are you a diy guy or do you apply in the outfitter pool? here in NM a nr can apply in the outfitter pool for a price with better odds to draw a tag than a r or nr in the public draw and not even have to use an outfitter or guide when he hunts other than to call in and make contact with his/her guide every day (like they really do this). do you see more nr license plates in your hunting areas in your state year after year than resident plates while you year after year sit at home watching the hunts on saturday morning knowing that you should be out there afield doing what you love to do? and your comments totally hijacked the OP by the way in case you hadn't noticed. NM's unique situation had nothing to do with the OP but go ahead and lets continue now that i've opened this can of worms. i was kinda burnt out on the subject but you've lit a fire under me and i'm ready to go another 15 rounds.

faP1800
04-06-2011, 10:05 AM
I think the money is the issue for the majority of NRs. But if you think about it, even the guys out west still front boat loads of money to hunt the other western states. A NM res is still forking out $1,850 for a CO sheep tag or paying $50 for a WY elk PP. Bottom line is that a resident should get preference when it comes to the draws...they live there. But I do think some states take it too far.

nv-hunter
04-09-2011, 12:04 AM
If truth be told we have to put out a boat load just to apply in our own state! My nevada apps will cost me between $100 to $150 and i live here and nonres think that they should get more tags? Heck if i draw half the tags i'll probley put in for it will cost me $210 more to hunt and thats just 3 tags deer, antelope, cow elk all bow hunt and i have 3 points for cows. Then if i kill an antelope i can't even put in for 5 years, ten if you kill a bull elk, five if you don't take a bull. And to be honest the sucess rates arn't any better with this limited draw format just bigger animals . Maybe the eastern states will figure out how much money they are giving up each year and go to the same draw format as western states and charge the res hunters back east like we get charged just to apply! Then charge the same fees for tags then maybe everybody will understand how we feel about just getting the chance to hunt .

llp
04-11-2011, 02:23 PM
For the record, I am a DIY hunter and have never used a guide except in those few areas which require a guide. NM has a problem with reserving 12% (now 10%) of their tags to hunters who hire a guide. These can be resident or NR hunters. I understand the unique land grant status of NM, and recognize the number of extremely large private properties in the state. Few other states aside from Texas have this many large private properties where hunting is largely conducted by guides. This makes NM different than WY and ID, for instance. It also increases the pressure on the remaining public lands for the resident hunters. It is extremely difficult for the resident hunter in NM to draw a tag regularly, just like it is tough to draw a public land tag in AZ or Texas.
The current move to further restict NR's who do not use a guide is not progress, however. It will make very little difference in resident draw odds, but have a staggering effect on the economy of many businesses and ultimately lead to much higher tag prices for residents. The game and fish tried to make up this budget shortfall by including a nonrefundable license fee for NR to apply. It is a downward spiral where all loose.
The original post realted to whether you have a right to hunt BLM or NF lands is not right the question. There is a longstanding practice of charging NR more for hunting tags in the west than residents. Most states have settled on tag fees roughly 5x to 10x the cost of resident tags. I have little issue with this practice, unless it exceeds 10x.
I would propose putting all applications in the same pool and drawing names randomly, regardless of resident or NR, or at least with minimal preference. If this was done universally it would be nearly a free market approach. Are residents in NM willing to spend ~$800 for a quality elk tag? I doubt it. Think about the revenue to the state if market pricing was equal for all of these tags.

I acknowledge some problems with this scenario, but you get the idea. States need to stop conferring "special" status to various hunters. I'm not holding my breath for this approach, given the politicians involved, however.
llp