|
Forums46
Topics537,995
Posts9,731,557
Members87,053
| |
Most Online25,604
Feb 12th, 2024
|
|
|
 Re: GOP House Moves Against Public Lands on Its Opening Day
[Re: Hunter307]
#6629984
01/13/17 02:17 AM
|
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 241
Whiptail
Woodsman
|
|
Woodsman
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 241 |
The western states have done everything possible to exclude nonresident hunters which has done little to keep public lands public. They shouldn't be surprised that their selfish behaviors are having consequences.
Please explain how they have done so. I'm intrigued. Price? Amount of tags allocated? Do tell. Here's a few examples: In Montana, an elk tag costs a nonresident 29 times more than a resident. In Wyoming, it's illegal for an unguided nonresident to hunt on Federal Wilderness land. In New Mexico, 84% of tags go residents, 10% to guided hunters, and 6% to DIY nonresidents....all for hunting on Federal land. Nonresidents can't even apply for cow elk tags.
|
|
|
|
Re: GOP House Moves Against Public Lands on Its Opening Day
[Re: Hunter307]
#6630011
01/13/17 02:29 AM
|
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 241
Whiptail
Woodsman
|
|
Woodsman
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 241 |
What do you think the price should be? Do you really think non residents should have the same number of tags available as residents? What states don't allow non resident hunters?
Is $500 too much for an elk tag? Is 20% too few tags?
For a hunting unit that's 100% Federal land, I think 51% of the tags should go to residents and 49% to nonresidents for the simple reason that both wildlife(state asset) and land(federal asset) are both equally required for hunting to take place. The number of nonresident tags should decrease proportionally if the amount of Federal land is less. I feel nonresidents should pay 3-5X what a resident pays.
|
|
|
|
Re: GOP House Moves Against Public Lands on Its Opening Day
[Re: rattler03]
#6630036
01/13/17 02:41 AM
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 5,271
Palehorse
OP
THF Trophy Hunter
|
|
OP
THF Trophy Hunter
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 5,271 |
Has anybody received a response from their elected officials after signing the petition?
I got an email from congressman Pete Sessions. He basically agreed we should preserve public land for future generations, but then advocated transferring them to the states because of issues regarding the national debt. Typical politician talk ... completely ignores the fact that states have repeatedly sold their lands to private parties. I got one back. It was just an automated email from our Representative that said they received my message and they will get back to me. We need to keep up the heat and let them know that if they give away our lands, they will soon be looking for another job.
|
|
|
Moderated by bigbob_ftw, CCBIRDDOGMAN, Chickenman, Derek, DeRico, Duck_Hunter, hetman, jeh7mmmag, JustWingem, kmon11, kry226, kwrhuntinglab, Payne, pertnear, rifleman, sig226fan (Rguns.com), Superduty, txcornhusker
|
