Page 22 of 26 FirstFirst ... 122021222324 ... LastLast
Results 211 to 220 of 259
  1. #211
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Wyoming
    Posts
    518
    Thanks
    318
    Thanked 63 Times in 52 Posts
    Congratulations
    2
    Congratulated 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Musket Man View Post
    Isnt most of that land landlocked and is not useable to the public anyways?
    In a word, NO.

  2. #212
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Allegan, MI
    Posts
    1,126
    Thanks
    98
    Thanked 288 Times in 216 Posts
    Congratulations
    29
    Congratulated 42 Times in 6 Posts
    That is correct! We take more deer and elk from a square mile section of state land that we know how to get to legally than anywhere else we hunt, including the private land we have access to. They can be some real honeyholes if you can find them and they have legal access.

  3. #213
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Kingwood, TX
    Posts
    1,712
    Thanks
    76
    Thanked 227 Times in 171 Posts
    Congratulations
    41
    Congratulated 29 Times in 3 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by vince View Post
    You summed it up quite well.
    The Feds aren't good at much except wasting money in my opinion.
    States are usually the same way just on a smaller scale.

  4. #214
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    107
    Thanks
    23
    Thanked 13 Times in 13 Posts
    Congratulations
    0
    Congratulated 1 Time in 1 Post
    Quote Originally Posted by packmule View Post
    States are usually the same way just on a smaller scale.
    Yes but I'd rather waste a little rather than a lot.

  5. #215
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    colfax, wa
    Posts
    5,158
    Thanks
    1,256
    Thanked 649 Times in 560 Posts
    Congratulations
    187
    Congratulated 24 Times in 11 Posts
    Atleast states have to balance their budgets. The Fed being able to spend more then they make has gotten out of hand. Only the Federal government could own that much land and loose money on it.......
    "Now two flags fly above my land that really sum up how I fee. One is the colors that fly high and proud The red, the white, the blue. The other one's got a rattlesnake With a simple statement made "Don't tread on me" is what it says and I'll take that to my grave. Because this is me. I'm proud to be American and strong in my beliefs. And I've said it before but I'll say it again 'Cause my family's always fought and died to save this land. And a country boy is all I'll ever be."

  6. #216
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    north idaho
    Posts
    326
    Thanks
    11
    Thanked 40 Times in 28 Posts
    Congratulations
    18
    Congratulated 32 Times in 4 Posts
    I went and rode my mountain bike on a trail this weekend, that will be the last time I can legally ride it. Forest service is going to be treating the area as wilderness, so no more mountain biking in there.
    Fricking greenies, thinking they are saving the world by keeping people out of the woods.

  7. #217
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    NW Nebraska
    Posts
    140
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 20 Times in 18 Posts
    Congratulations
    13
    Congratulated 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Musket Man View Post
    Atleast states have to balance their budgets. The Fed being able to spend more then they make has gotten out of hand. Only the Federal government could own that much land and loose money on it.......
    +1,000



    Give that land to a rancher and he will make money with it.
    Give it to a farmer and he will make money farming it.
    Give it to a logging company and they will make money with it
    Give it to a drilling company and they will make money with it.
    An outfitter, etc.....

    Give it to the federal government and it will cost taxpayers a fortune to manage.

    The way the feds treat it managing land is so expensive that only they could afford to lose that much money so nobody else can mange it. Makes no sense, but that is what they want you to believe. Basically they are saying "Nobody else can afford to waste this much money managing public land so you really have no choice in letting us manage the land"

    Then you look at examples of states managing land successfully. Look at what Wyoming does with its state school land, makes a nice pile of $ for the state. Look at what states like South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, and Oklahoma can accomplish managing wildlife and large pieces of land that they pay landowners so the public can access.

  8. #218
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    NW Nebraska
    Posts
    140
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 20 Times in 18 Posts
    Congratulations
    13
    Congratulated 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Topgun 30-06 View Post
    That is correct! We take more deer and elk from a square mile section of state land that we know how to get to legally than anywhere else we hunt, including the private land we have access to. They can be some real honeyholes if you can find them and they have legal access.
    Interesting. If I remember correctly you are not a fan of states managing land successfully but you do spend time successfully hunting state land even when you have the choice to hunt other private or federal lands. Do you see the irony in telling us how bad the state is at managing land and then telling us you are heading out to hunt state land. The real interesting thing is that much state land in Wyoming is not managed like the federal land is but in your example the state land has really good hunting as well. That has been my experience as well. The federal land that has biologist doing studies and spending manpower on all sorts of unnecessary crap has the same wildlife as the unmanaged state and private that it shares borders with.

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to okielite For This Useful Post:


  10. #219
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    162
    Thanks
    8
    Thanked 50 Times in 33 Posts
    Congratulations
    1
    Congratulated 0 Times in 0 Posts
    If public land transitions to private hands, it then transitions to its' highest and best use, PERIOD. Whether that helps or hurts hunters has absolutely no bearing on the decision, it is all about dollars and cents.

    Perfect example is the coveted Kentucky cow elk archery tag I drew this year. I drew the Hazard Limited Entry Area, consisting of parts of three or four public Wildlife Management Areas, but most of the public access land was owned by the International Coal Group. ICG had an agreement with KDFWR to lease 15K acres to the state and allow public access in exchange for 1 elk tag for every 5k acres in the program. In 2013 52 of 55 elk killed in that LEA came from the ICG Hunter Access Area.

    Here is where hunters (me) get screwed. ICG was bought out by a couple of investors. Those investors are trying to figure out who owns what in this tens of thousands of acres land deal, and decided that they had to pull the land from the public access program.

    I've had to be re-drawn for the South at Large area, and have to gain access to private ground to be able to go on my elk hunt.

    This is in stark contrast to my Colorado elk hunt where I simply buy an OTC tag, drive out, find some BLM or NF on a map, hike in and start hunting.

    The East is primarily privately owned, and that private ownership is killing our hunting tradition. I spoke with a Fish and Game employee about this last week in preparation of writing an article on these issues and he said "By far the number one reason given for hunters to quit hunting is that they don't have a place to go."

    In the West we have a place to go. We should protect it while we can, and enjoy it while it lasts.
    Paradox Packs
    Ultralight Hunting Backpacks

  11. #220
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    NW Nebraska
    Posts
    140
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 20 Times in 18 Posts
    Congratulations
    13
    Congratulated 0 Times in 0 Posts
    We have already established that some states already have rules and regulations to prevent public land form being sold so it would be quite easy to set similar guidelines for future use and ownership if the land was transferred. This whole doom and gloom outlook that all public land will be lost forever is not based on reality. Seriously we already know how states are spending lots of $ to open up private land for public hunting to keep hunters coming to their state so why would we believe that suddenly Wyoming is going to get all the federal land and sell it off ? It makes no rational sense when people say that.

 

 

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •