Don't see an issue with the remaining 37 of the lower 48 where the average Federal land ownership is 5-7%.
Seven in 10. That’s the number of Western hunters who rely on public lands for part or all of our annual trips afield. That figure is from a news source out of Missoula Montana. I'd be interested in the number of eastern hunters who hunt the west and how many use public lands, I'm sure it's nearly all. I'm embassassed other hunters are arguing points to end all public lands, makes the future feel more bleak that I'd originally imagined.
Hmmm... You already ruled yourself out by saying you only hunt private. Which is fine, but I don't expect you to know the value. The West already has a problem with rich guys buying up land and cutting off stream access. What do you think will happen if the public hunting areas go up for sale? You expect the regular Joe to be able to buy this land? Think again. It will be corporations or other countries buying vast chunks and who knows what will happen after that. The large amounts of undisturbed habitat will disappear for a short term bump in the budget. As hunters, we should know the value of having land more than anyone else. That's why I'm confused with some of this talk. Why can't we just have these lands without putting a price tag on them? There's no amount of money that could come close to the value of the public lands.
Let it be known that the land is there for them to make money off, whether by logging, grazing, or other means. Conservation is not about not using resources, it's about using them wisely Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Funny that isn't a problem for the other 37 of the 48 lower states where the Federal Government on average owns 5-7% of the land rather than 30-80%. I is becoming more and more clear, this is about hunting land without having to pay more than anything else. It isn't the governments job to provide free hunting for the people.
The states (need to) make the money off the land to pay for schools and services. This and the checkerboard access are legacies of how the fed originally granted land to states and the communities. The federal government doesn't have the same motivation, though they do make $ from lumber, oil/gas, mining, grazing, etc. I do agree conservation is the wise stewardship and management of the resources.
Actually, the checkerboard land was created by the government because they gave away every other section to the railroad companies(basically a subsidy with the idea that it would spur growth out west with the advance of the railroad). The railroad companies eventually sold off those lands to others leaving a checkerboard of land that is nearly worthless to the public unless there are cooperative land owners. Many of the roads that would grant access to some of the larger tracts of BLM block land run through private property and are either inaccessible to the public or you are forced to pay the landowner a trespass fee. Here's a pretty long article, but worth a read Private property blocks access to public lands
We pay taxes and buy tags. Nothing is free. But this isn't just about hunting. It's about all outdoor recreations, protecting habitat, and clean water. Go talk to our friends across the Atlantic. They'll gladly switch spots with you when it comes to public access. We've just had it for so long that people don't realize it's importance. When it's gone, it's gone forever.
BLM lands are definitely an issue that needs to be addressed. But there are organizations like BHA working toward better access. There's not enough bad things to throw in the towel now and take the chance. Instead, we should be pushing for better laws and regulations.
I don't have to go across the atlantic. My state is only about 5.5% federal owned and there is no shortage of public land. There is no justification for that land to be federally owned. It should go to the states. If your state leaders can't manage it the way you think it should be done, elect different leaders. It is not and should not be a federal issue.
If these Federal lands get transferred, they become state trust land. States like Colorado, you cannot hunt or fish or camp or step foot on. So in essence, elk hunting there is completely wiped out for the average guy. Even outfitters use that land. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Not according to Colorado's government websites. What may not have been available in the past, is shifting towards hunting. Currently something like 500,000 acres with plan to increase that to 800,000 if that hasn't already happened. That is a shift in thinking and policy within the States government. That is how these lands should be handled, by the state not feds.
Maybe I'm a bit ignorant since I'm an Ohio boy but I grew up hunting state game lands in PA. Why can't western states manage the land themselves? People are bringing up cost but that all comes from taxes either way and if a state owns the land, state hunting and fishing licenses, and tags, would help pay as well, right? Could they not come up with a tag drawing system for the animals that actually need careful management to prevent certain game from being wiped out? Everyone always says that hunters are the biggest conservationists, maybe with help from the state game commission, hunters can prove it. I would think some of the land could be sold off in private land auctions while still ensuring each state keeps an equal percentage of land currently owned by the federal government. Maybe I'm just ignorant to the whole topic but if done correctly I don't see why it would be such a bad thing.
Would it really be that hard for the federal government to transfer the land to the states with provisions that required the states to keep the land and manage it in a way to maximize profits from mineral rights and logging while still maintaining it's availability for recreational use. I don't think that would be too far fetched.
PUBLIC LAND TRANSFER - Colorado Example of "state transfer" (Episode 6 of 15) - YouTube Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
If you're referring to me, at least I was honest about it. Maybe I just don't know much about the topic but I honestly don't see what the big deal is, PA has thousands upon thousands of acres of state game lands and they are reintroducing elk and other animals, etc. So I'm not sure what your stance is on the matter but ignorance can be found on either side of any topic and what's truly scary here is that people have an opinion but don't offer a solution. I'm at least seeing proposed solutions from the side that supports the states owning the land, I see nothing but moaning and groaning from the side that supports the federal government owning the land.
