Access to public land over private land?

The best approach is like KAG stated, just ask. You might be surprised on the answer you get. I use to pondle an area for over 3 years that was land locked. I finally got the courage up to ask. Now, I can hunt there anytime I want.
 
Public hunting land, it is land that is maintained with state and federal tax dollars. Some see it is a form of welfare for hunters that do not own or pay to lease private land to hunt on. Maybe the sale of all public lands would be in the best interest of all of the taxpayers, not just the few that have access to it.

The annual tax dollar savings could be in the billions.
 
Originally Posted By: dogcatcherPublic hunting land, a form of welfare for hunters that do not own or pay to lease private land to hunt on.

What has happened to us as hunters/stewards if this train of thought exists? Seems to sum up just about everything wrong with our current hunting culture.
 
Originally Posted By: dogcatcherPublic hunting land, it is land that is maintained with state and federal tax dollars. Some see it is a form of welfare for hunters that do not own or pay to lease private land to hunt on. Maybe the sale of all public lands would be in the best interest of all of the taxpayers, not just the few that have access to it.

The annual tax dollar savings could be in the billions.

Wow! Really? Here in Ohio most of the public land is paid for with funds from hunting license sales.
I'm with ya Workman......I read that and i'm sitting here in disbelief.
 
Last edited:
10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Nowhere in the constitution does it authorize the feds to control game management.


Quote:public hunting land, a form of welfare for hunters that do not own or pay to lease private land to hunt on.

If hunters and fishermen didn't supply the revenue to purchase the land, they almost certainly supply the revenue that pays for it's maintenance.

In either case it could be said that it's a "welfare program" for everybody else who ever enjoys the land payed for by sportsmen.
 
Originally Posted By: nmleonIf hunters and fishermen didn't supply the revenue to purchase the land, they almost certainly supply the revenue that pays for it's maintenance.

In either case it could be said that it's a "welfare program" for everybody else who ever enjoys the land payed for by sportsmen.


Hunters and fisherman only provide a very small percentage of the cost to maintain the federal lands, a very small percentage. The costs include all of the Department of Interior, BLM, their employees and all of the equipment, building etc.. Then add in the PILT/PILOT payments to all of the local governments for the loss in property tax revenue. The PILT/PILOT payments are around a billion dollars a year, every year.

That other very large percentage of funds to maintain these public lands comes from the US Taxpayers. The majority of which are not hunters or fisherman and never have access to the federal public lands.
 
Originally Posted By: dogcatcherOriginally Posted By: nmleonIf hunters and fishermen didn't supply the revenue to purchase the land, they almost certainly supply the revenue that pays for it's maintenance.

In either case it could be said that it's a "welfare program" for everybody else who ever enjoys the land payed for by sportsmen.


Hunters and fisherman only provide a very small percentage of the cost to maintain the federal lands, a very small percentage. The costs include all of the Department of Interior, BLM, their employees and all of the equipment, building etc.. Then add in the PILT/PILOT payments to all of the local governments for the loss in property tax revenue. The PILT/PILOT payments are around a billion dollars a year, every year.

That other very large percentage of funds to maintain these public lands comes from the US Taxpayers. The majority of which are not hunters or fisherman and never have access to the federal public lands.
NEVER have access to the federal public lands?
You may need to see your physician about having your dosage changed.
Who is preventing them from accessing our land the way that we do? Nobody! Everywhere that I go on federal lands I meet joggers, birdwatchers, lookie-loos ect it is OUR land we all use it.
 
Originally Posted By: Harvey7
NEVER have access to the federal public lands?
You may need to see your physician about having your dosage changed.
Who is preventing them from accessing our land the way that we do? Nobody! Everywhere that I go on federal lands I meet joggers, birdwatchers, lookie-loos etc it is OUR land we all use it.

I included the birdwatchers, the lookie-loos etc. in one of my above statements when I said outdoorsman. The public land is an on going cost to all of the taxpayers, not paid for by the users. If the government was handling as it would be handled in the private sector, the people that use the federal land would be paying for the up keep. As it is now the average taxpayer that does not use it supports your recreational habits along with the birdwatchers, and the lookie-loos, etc..

By the way what is a lookie-loo?
 
Originally Posted By: dog1whckrA BIG +1 Harvey.

Maybe dogcatcher lives in a high rise.

Sorry, no high rise, I am either at the ranch in west Texas, the cabin in the New Mexcio, or our house in town.
 
Originally Posted By: AlecOriginally Posted By: NM_HighPlainsOriginally Posted By: Alec In California the game animals are owned "by the people of the state of California". Its in the Fish and game code that way. I think it should be "the people of the USA".

Who's responsibility should it be when the peoples' animals eat crops on private land?



Wildlife as always been here, damage to crops has always happened. It goes with the territory.

Well, that's interesting.

The reason I asked this question is because I want to know who- in this law that ya'll'uns are fixing to pass- is going to be responsible for the gates left open on my private land, the damage to my private land when you get stuck in the mud, the maintenance on my private road after you've torn it up, and the trash that people leave behind on my private land while you're on the way to our public lands?
 
dogcatcher
Spoken like a true Texan! Where there is almost zero public land and if your not one one the fortunate that own land in Texas you pay very darely to hunt! Where there is zero free ranging deer, all tucked behind High fense! Thanks for your input! Unfortunately for you there are alot of hunters that don't want to spend thousands above what we pay in license fees to hunt!
 
Last edited:
You are lucky shanksalot, my friend in WY is going to have to pay 700$ probably because the land owner used to grant an easement into a shed hunting area, 50yds is all it was. My friend didn't know they closed it. Game warden, sheriff were waiting for him when he came out.
Got nailed for driving around snow drifts, 20ft off trail on blm 175$, and the big one on private land for maybe 700$. The jerk between Kaycee and the bighorns is the warden who called the sheriff, and got him in trouble. Seems there could have been a sign or warning if it was changed from yr before. Not even hunting, just shed hunting.
And I thought you had 100 yds on blm, but I guess you better stay real close to trail!
 
Originally Posted By: 454 Pumadogcatcher
Spoken like a true Texan! Where there is almost zero public land and if your not one one the fortunate that own land in Texas you pay very darely to hunt! Where there is zero free ranging deer, all tucked behind High fense! Thanks for your input! Unfortunately for you there are alot of hunters that don't want to spend thousands above what we pay in license fees to hunt!

There is no high fence on my place, never has been and won't be as long as I am alive. Your license fees do not provide for the up keep and management of federal land. That is maintained by tax dollars.

Why should my tax dollars go to provide recreational areas for others. Everyone seems to believe that we need to get the government out of our lives, well do it. Sell the federal lands, let private industry provide the recreational lands. A lot of people think that private industry can do it better, so let them try. Most government recreation areas are fee based, why not the BLM land? Or do you prefer to have a welfare system for hunters? Might well be food stamps.
 
I would settle for officials keeping private property owners from ilegally posting state/federal land. If they get called on it they claim ignorance. Heck many of the old fence lines arent even the legal boundry. There are land owner who have owned parcels of land for three generations and they don't even know for certain where the line is. All they know is what grandpa told them 30 years ago. And by Go* that is gospel...
 
Originally Posted By: NM_HighPlainsOriginally Posted By: AlecOriginally Posted By: NM_HighPlainsOriginally Posted By: Alec In California the game animals are owned "by the people of the state of California". Its in the Fish and game code that way. I think it should be "the people of the USA".

Who's responsibility should it be when the peoples' animals eat crops on private land?



Wildlife as always been here, damage to crops has always happened. It goes with the territory.

Well, that's interesting.

The reason I asked this question is because I want to know who- in this law that ya'll'uns are fixing to pass- is going to be responsible for the gates left open on my private land, the damage to my private land when you get stuck in the mud, the maintenance on my private road after you've torn it up, and the trash that people leave behind on my private land while you're on the way to our public lands?



Who pays to put out a wildfire when it starts on public land and crosses to your property?

I will also bet that if there is an established road crossing your property on to public land that the road was in existence long before you owned your property.
I will also bet that 95% of the problem with gates and other damage is because some one is doing it to cause you a problem for lack of access to the public land

Dogcatcher just because you also pay taxes and run livestock on public land does not mean that your money earns more credit to public land than my money.

I will say this again you do not have to allow access across your property. But if you don't then why should your livestock have access to that public property you have locked up from the rest of us. Keep your animals on your private property and feed them 365 a year.
 
In AZ, there is a Landowner Access Program where sportsmen adopt ranches and do clean ups, maintenance, provide signage, and install gates or cattle guards for landowners. It is administered by the AZ Game and Fish Dept and paid for by lottery money. The program allows landowners to control access across their private property to public land; they benefit from the sportsmen conducting maintenance on their land, landowners can get free cattle guards, free gates, and custom signs installed as needed. The program is a win-win situation that has been in place for over 20 years. If it does not work out for the landowner, they can opt out of the program. The only requirement is landowners must provide access to sportsmen to receive the benefits. Here is a link for more info about it. http://www.azgfd.gov/outdoor_recreation/land_access.shtml
 
Originally Posted By: TrapShooter12Dogcatcher just because you also pay taxes and run livestock on public land does not mean that your money earns more credit to public land than my money.


I have never leased public grazing land. I never said that leasing grazing rights should entitle anyone to extra "credits", not sure where you got that idea.

I feel the the public lands should be leased to hunters, to make the land pay the expenses of maintaining and managing it, or sold to the highest bidder. Then let the new landowner decide what he/she wants to do with their land. This gets the government out of the land business, frees ups billions in tax dollars each year. Why should all of the non using taxpayers help fund the hunters and the bird watchers, and the rest of the users of the public land?
 
It is always wise to consider other sides of an argument. I don't necessarily support this approach, but...

Land owners:
At some point, likely in the distant past the land you now "own" was taken without compensation. I could reasonably argue that you are in possession of stolen public land.

We profess to be a land of the free. At what point does your right to own property supercede the right of a 'free' man to travel 'freely' in any direction. I would argue this to be a fundamental to the concept of freedom (I believe Voltaire sarcastically agrees).

Everyone Else:
Am I the only one who is sickened by the state of this country. I remember growing up in ND, very little land was posted, and maybe I am being nieve, but I don't recall hearing about destruction to property despite being around many farmers.

When hunting I treat ALL land with respect, the public and the private.

I believe in the free market but this attempt to extract every last cent out of your property is getting out of hand. Heck, I saw a post the other day where someone actually advocated shooting people for trespass. I couldn't help thinking about that person's 12 year old daughter cutting through my backyard on her way to school. Should I shoot her?

Maybe instead of arguing about this we can work harder to propose ideas that will improve the relationship between landowners and those without land but who love to hunt. Fursniper, that program you mentioned sounds great.

Sorry, off my soapbox.
 
Oh, and sorry OP. We passed a bunch of laws to protect landowners above the public. Then we did the same thing for mega corporations. The end result of course being a dramatic reallocation of wealth to the already wealthy and continually worsening conditions for the workers in the country. Oh, but yeah, your screwed on wanting to cross. Write your Senator.
 


Write your reply...
Back
Top