Don't let the US Senate and Congress sell of Public Lands

[moose1am]

 A US Senate proposal to sell of public lands out West is moving though the legislature and could have disastrous effects on public land hunting out West.

Check with your Senator and see how he/she voted for this bill.  And if you hunt public lands out West tell your Senators that you want to continue to be able to hunt those Federal Public Lands out West.  If the States take over these lands they may not let you hunt these lands anymore according to this article I found today.

www.grandviewoutdoors.com/articles/5778-selling-public-land-a-hunters-nightmare#sthash.GmveXKUw.dpbs 

[Genesis 27:3]

I have taken the steps to contact them about 2 weeks ago. Surprisingly, I did get a response and we shared about a dozen emails back and forth. I was nice not getting the automated email with a generic "we appreciate you sharing your concerns". Hopefully the lands won't sell.

[Russ Koon]

I read several years ago that some conservative legislators had proposed the idea.

At first thought, I was also against any such proposal.

However, after thinking about it for a while, I'm not sure we as hunters would be any worse off if the federal lands were sold.

The states already own the animals on the federal lands, and we non-residents get stuck paying many times the resident rate for one of the few NR tags available. And often we have to buy a license in order to accumulate points for their draw to have a chance at drawing a tag.

Also, federal lands are grazed by ranchers at low rates, but hunters are prevented from leasing the same lands for hunting, even at a higher rate.

Then there are travel restrictions in many areas. Reasonable ones are a good thing, to prevent overuse and abuse, but "reasonable" and "federal" are usually not seen in the same sentence.

The spectre that comes to mind is miles and miles of five acre lots with new residents and their dogs and dirt bikes where the elk used to roam. But realistically, facilities such as water, roads, and power to the remote areas would likely keep them remote for at least a few generations longer.

Some of the ground becoming available for purchase would likely be bought by hunters, either as individuals or as members of cooperatives, investing in bare land and hunting on their investment in one or another arrangement.

And if those lands are managed for game habitat as pne of their primary objectives rather than as a grudgingly permitted alternative use as many are now, we might come out ahead.

I know, it would no longer be "free".

I hope there aren't too many guys on here who think it is now.

The truth is that the best hunting even in the western states is on private land that is available only by trespass fees or through an outfitter.

And I've hunted the public land here in IN for a long time, and experienced much of the joys and frustrations of doing so. I still enjoy it when I can canoe into some less travelled areas during bow season, or what there is left of it. But even there, there are signs that the area is run by people with little concern for the users.

One example that I've complained of for years to property managers and CO's is the requirement on the federal lands around Monroe Reservoir that the hunter must sign in at a provided station in the areas that he intends to hunt. I understand that that requirement helps them to document the usage of the property. But the requirements specifically forbid using the same permission card for more than the day on which it is taken, and also forbids taking more than one card at a time. So, without actually prohibiting camping and hunting, they have effectively made it illegal unless one is to hike, paddle, or whatever out to a sign-in station at midnight to get a fresh permission card.

There are others examples I won't bother going into right now, but they are mostly the same sort of rules and regulations that come from folks who find rules easy to make when there is no penalty for silly ones, and too bothersome to change even after they've been made aware of their useless or thoughtless nature.

Pretty sure private owners who wanted hunters to visit their property would be more attuned to their paying customers.

As a general rule, anything that is being run by a government could be run more efficiently and more effectively by private enterprise. If you see a case that doesn't appear to follow that rule, examine it more closely....you're missing something there.

[lawrencecountyhunter]

Copy and pasted (with permission) from Randy Newberg's website, HuntTalk.  Newberg is the best advocate for the average Joe hunter out there, in my opinion.

Seems many hunters often have a positive initial response to the idea of states taking ownership of Federal lands, so some have asked that I post this information I have on a few of the western states and what policy they have for hunting/camping/shooting on their State Trust Lands. Once you roll back the covers of what State transfer would mean to hunters, there's a skunk in the bed.


Arizona – land.az.gov/natural-resource...mits/places-go

AZ affirmatively states that “trust land is not public land”

--> $15 permit required for general recreation
--> Target shooting prohibited
--> Camping is restricted to no more than 14 days per year

California- If anyone thinks state transfer of the 40 million acres of Federal land in CA will allow hunting and shooting has a different impression of CA policy leaders than I do. FWIW, you must make a formal request to the land board in order to use school lands.


Colorado - trustlands.state.co.us/Projec...ecreation.aspx

Per the CO State Trust Land website, “Unlike federally owned land in Colorado, state trust land is not open for public recreational use.” That would apply to 23+ million acres of BLM and USFS lands currently open to access in Colorado.

--> The majority of lands are leased to private interests
--> Currently, only 18% of Colorado’s three million acres of state lands are open to public hunting. Budget constraints make it impossible for CPW to lease more.
--> Most lands “are not accessible by motor vehicle, all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) or snowmobiles, and there are restrictions on camping, parking and off-road driving.”

Idaho - www.idl.idaho.gov/recreation/index.html

--> Dispersed recreation generally is allowed on endowment lands as long as it does not conflict with the revenue generating capacity of the land

Montana - dnrc.mt.gov/divisions/trust/r...-of-state-land


--> Hunting prohibited on cultivated cropland during the growing season.
--> Dispersed campfires are prohibited.
--> Dispersed camping is limited to 2 consecutive days and 14 days in the calendar year.
--> Horse camping is prohibited.
--> Trapping requires application for, and approval of, a special use permit from State DNRC.
--> Off-road vehicle and snowmobile use are limited to existing roads.
--> All hunters and anglers pay a $2 fee to access state lands for hunting and fishing.
The above changes would apply to the 30+ million acres of BLM and USFS lands in MT. Good bye backpack hunts.


Nevada - Not really worth giving their website address, given they have disposed of almost all of it.

--> Nevada has sold off 99.9 percent of its original 2+million acres of public land they were allowed to hand-pick as part of their statehood settlement. Only a few thousand acres are left.


New Mexico - www.nmstatelands.org/Recreati...s.aspx#Camping

--> Camping is prohibited
--> Recreational shooting is prohibited
--> Campfires are prohibited
--> Off-road vehicles are prohibited
Good luck hunting elk on the Gila and having to drive from Reserve or Datil every morning/evening, once hunters are no longer allowed to camp on these lands.


Wyoming - soswy.state.wy.us/Rules/RULES/899.pdf

Wyoming started with 4.2 million acres of state land. They have liquidated 700,000 acres of that.

--> Hunting prohibited on cultivated cropland
--> No dispersed camping
--> No dispersed camp fires
--> No off-road vehicle use
No camping, so I wonder how one would hunt deer in Region G or H if you had to hike in each morning and out each evening? Same with the elk hunts in the NW part of the state. Some are 20 mile horse rides, each way. That should make for a long day.



Feel free to add any information or links you have that might be helpful in making this a repository for information related to "State Transfer." Share with any folks you feel might benefit from this information.

[Deleted]

Russ Koon is the only one I've heard gripe about the stupid sign in cards. I think they are the most stupid thing the state does.for all the reasons Russ said plus a few more how come u don,t have to sign in when u are fishing the same property I was stopped by a co at hovey.s f&w area and he told me he could ban me from hunting there. I asked him how come some body fishing parking right next to me did,nt have to sign in he really did,not have a answer