If the federal govt is going to own the land, why am I having to apply for state licenses and preference points to hunt my tax payer funded land? Is Montana going to charge me a grand to get an elk license so I can go hunt on federal land? Why should a resident of the state get a cheaper license than myself to hunt federal land? Nobody wants a big govt except to protect their interest.
The fed's own the land, but the state is responsible for the wildlife unless they end up on the Endangered Species List. One thing I want to point out too, not related to your post, is that the Federal Lands can't be "returned" to the states, because only that land granted for schools was ever the property of the states. The federal government purchased the land (and if it was unconstitutional would probably have been fought at the time) and granted it to the states when they joined the Union. At that time the states recognized that they only owned the school trust lands, and had claim to no other land.
I had an entire rant posted but decided to tone it down. Dmen stated that he believes it is unfair to charge an non resident a $1000 while residents can buy tags for a tenth of that, but you think all these lands should be paid for solely by those that use them. Do you guys honestly think prices will go down if states have to completely fund these lands? The licences will either get double or the land will be sold/destroyed. The notion of only those who use the land should pay for them is not how our country works. Like others have said, its not the governments fault you dont use it, but we cannot pick and choose what we pay for in this country. America has a lot of great things and being an American citizens comes with a lot of perks, the fact that I have an interstate I can travel 70mph down instead of some middle east dirt road with holes and land minds, and the fact that I can hunt elk in some of the most beautiful scenery in the world - but neither of these things come free. I am willing to put my tax dollars towards wildlife conservation. I will gladly accept a tax hike. Can I ask you what you would rather have your tax dollars going to? If you are that concerned about the dollars, why not take up arms against the overused welfare programs, or congressional salaries and pension? Those are far more expensive items than conservation, yet you use neither of those? I found two articles, the first stating congress costs $804 million per year. The second states the cost for Montana to manage it's 25 million acres is roughly $500 million. Another website states we spend 1.5 trillion on welfare in this country each year. Why don't we cut the excess out of that instead of giving up the one thing unique to the American Hunter.
It was people like you that allowed for us to have these magnificent public hunting lands back in the days of Teddy Roosevelt. People voluntarily being taxed more to pay for something they knew was worth it!
Yep. This is true for all the Western states. Only states that owned land and it was transferred to the Feds are the first 13 and possibly some others East of the Mississippi. That's why timber harvested off of Federally Managed land (we own it) goes back to school systems here in the East. Majority of schools that are still in existence today were built off of timber revenues from these forest Don't Hate While I Conservate – Ambitions of a Flunky. Just a hunter and angler attempting to answer the call of our Conservation Heritage in the 21st Century
There is a difference between interstates and federal land being owned for no real purpose. I have no problem paying registration on my car or gas taxes to go towards the roads. I have no problem paying for the registration on my boat, or for usage fees for the boat landings use. I don't have problem with buying hunting and fishing licenses. If I go to another state I don't mind paying what they deem reasonable for the use of their resources. Problem is, people see this as a one or another and that isn't the case. States and heaven forbid private entities can own the land and still have it available to the public for recreation. WI is a prime example. over a million acres of privately owned land open to the public for hunting, fishing, and recreation. All the land I hunt is privately owned open to the public. And not only is it open to the public, it is generating some tax revenue at the same time for the state and counties. As far as what I'd rather have my tax dollars go to? Id rather my money fund what I choose to do. Sure lets cut welfare abuse and save money, cut congressional pensions and save money, cut waste and abuse from every section of government, and leave that money in each of our pockets so we can choose to fund more of what we feel is important. Hunting is a hobby of mine, it is not the federal or state governments job to fund my hobby. and not their job to tax me to fund some other persons hobby no matter what it may be.
remmet you read up where it was explained these federal grounds are not nor have ever been owned by the State and honestly are property of the United States of America not any state. I am understanding your thoughts, just wanted to make sure you'd read that.
And this land is open to the public with no financial compensation? No tax benefit to the owners? Just out of the goodness of their hearts? Don't Hate While I Conservate – Ambitions of a Flunky. Just a hunter and angler attempting to answer the call of our Conservation Heritage in the 21st Century
Not debating history or why things are they way they are. Only stating how I believe they should be in the future. Minimize federal government and let states manage the land within their borders.
If I knew the states could take ownership of Federal Land and had 0% chance of being able to sell it or change it's use, I would probably be for it. The problem is there is a very bad history of states selling land that has been transferred to them. Losing access to public land is a very bad thing for hunting and the future of hunting.
Tax benefit to both the owners and the state and counties that are getting some taxes where they wouldn't be if the lands were all government owned. Win for the land owner, win for government, win for the public.
Actually it's a payment on top of a tax incentive ( Voluntary Public Access and Habitat Incentive Program - Wisconsin DNR ) comes from the 2008 Farm Bill and was renewed by the 2014 Farm Bill and if it's CRP it's a payment as well. From the USDA, which is funded by my tax dollars as well as yours.... Also, re reading the establishment of our federal land system would be great. The Feds manage, we own, we have been silent too long Don't Hate While I Conservate – Ambitions of a Flunky. Just a hunter and angler attempting to answer the call of our Conservation Heritage in the 21st Century
It's essentially public land that skirts NEPA.... Don't Hate While I Conservate – Ambitions of a Flunky. Just a hunter and angler attempting to answer the call of our Conservation Heritage in the 21st Century
Just to be clear, there are forms of legislation that would solve a lot of this. It's just been politically polarized yet again, and certain groups do not like the Good Neighbor policies or any state involvement which is idiotic. But I guess I like the thought that I can openly walk and scout on any land and then make a decision if I want to hunt out there. And with the license pay the state which manages the wildlife in the public trust. Don't Hate While I Conservate – Ambitions of a Flunky. Just a hunter and angler attempting to answer the call of our Conservation Heritage in the 21st Century
That is a different program that I wasn't aware of. It is the right idea because it is trying to make more private land open to the public, primarily ag land, even though I don't agree with it being federally funded.
Love to see the program you are referring too Don't Hate While I Conservate – Ambitions of a Flunky. Just a hunter and angler attempting to answer the call of our Conservation Heritage in the 21st Century
I've said this before and I'll say it again... the ones most at risk here are the wildlife that we have to stand up for. Not just game species, but songbirds and bugs of every size. These are WHY America IS great! My brother spent four months teaching in Latvia... do you know what kind of wildlife he saw? Strays cats, dogs and crows. That's it. No songbirds, no deer, geese, squirrels etc... we have all of those things here, and that isn't by accident.
An extension of the PUV programs. Cool stuff. So, they give a tax benefit per acre based on practices and associated BMPs. And then they get a better rate if it's opened up to the public. Mirrors the federal EQIP, CSP and CRP programs. Cool program, don't research how many federal dollars go to the DNR. In any state, you won't like it. I'm all about less big govt. But the USDA is one of the few worth a damn. Also, the needs to create these federal lands came about due to the fact of over exploration at an insane rate. Teddy and Company did this not just so all US citizens were land owners, but also to slow the roll/eliminate the hunting for profit. Scares me to think what would be if they hadn't.... A sale of federally managed lands isn't the answer. A re structure is a better solution. But that's just my opinion and I'm sure this will be twisted into my fan-boying for the Feds. Don't Hate While I Conservate – Ambitions of a Flunky. Just a hunter and angler attempting to answer the call of our Conservation Heritage in the 21st Century
