I was willing to pay the $1000, but can't even find a tag available.

Are the days of trespass fees over?? Only one area here has a decent population of mulies. Again, I'm willing to shell out a trespass fee of a few hundred bucks, just to gain access to a decent area. But all the land hunting rights are bought up. Does this piss anyone else off??

It's hard for me to stomach why I have to suck hind tit, while some "people" from who knows where comes to my state as a non-resident and shoots game I can't get a crack at.

[This message has been edited by Jesse Jaymes (edited 05-01-2002).]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jesse Jaymes:
It's hard for me to stomach why I have to suck hind tit, while some douche bag from who knows where comes to my state as a non-resident and shoots game I can't get a crack at.

---

That "douche bag" is willing and able to pay more than you to hunt the same game. He/she pays MUCH higher license fees than a resident, has to pay air fare to get to the game, car rental, guide fees, etc., and he/she gets 2-3 days to fill their tag.

Face it, wildlife is a limited resource. While you've been sitting around, the landowners in your state have decided to maximize their income potential, and outfitters have invested real money to acquire hunting rights.

Invest in a lease of your own, so you'll have a place to hunt, or hunt public land.

George

------------------
Shoot straight, shoot often, but by all means, use enough gun!

On the other hand a local sportsman should have equal access to the tags. Most places that have good hunting also have lower wages for the local people and they can not or should not have to pay the same as an out of state hunter. Yes out of state hunters bring in allot of money but it is the local people that keep all the other things (gas stations,food stores,car rentals etc) that support a landowner in selling that tag in business. It would be a wise landowner who realized this and dedicated some of their tags to locals.

Russ

[This message has been edited by mtelkhunter (edited 04-29-2002).]

------------------
Thanks, Mark G

"Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything." Genesis 9:3

------------------
Doug Humbarger
NRA Life member

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jesse Jaymes:
Maybe a dumb post, just looking for anyone else that feels the same way. I can't find a New Mexico (SW) antelope tag because outfitters have sucked them all up already. They are paying $1000 and turning over a two day hunt for $2500-3000.

I was willing to pay the $1000, but can't even find a tag available.

Are the days of trespass fees over?? Only one area here has a decent population of mulies. Again, I'm willing to shell out a trespass fee of a few hundred bucks, just to gain access to a decent area. But all the land hunting rights are bought up. Does this piss anyone else off??

It's hard for me to stomach why I have to suck hind tit, while some douche bag from who knows where comes to my state as a non-resident and shoots game I can't get a crack at.

---

The douche bags are increasing in numbers in WY as well. Perhaps season on them?

Why don't these disgruntled rachers sell their ranches for multi mullions of dollars instead of throwing morals out the window?

Sure, New Mexico has tons of BLM land. I shoot my share of coyotes and jackrabbits, BUT, any area with any water, i.e. a stream that runs the majority of the year, is all private. If I could find a lease, I'd quit bitching and spend my money.

Landowners probably get 4-1 ratio of state tags to landowners for antelope. I have a 1 in 13 chance to draw while the rest go to someone with cash. Doesn't seem like a rewarding resident incentive to me.

When I was a boy starting to hunt back in the sixties, the old hands were telling me that hunting would become a rich man's sport in my lifetime and I see it snowballing to that rapidly.

Most avg guys down south belong to some kind of hunt club, maybe several. This opens up a can of worms in it's own right many times.

Looking at the situation realisticly leaves few options other than buying land.

That is the route I am taking. Locally I own my hunting land and like it that way. I took the money I was paying in dues and made land payments on a small property in a good place. It's the way to go for me and I am considering more to spread my boys out some.

I travel trophy hunting for whitetails and have paid small amounts to hunt on prime property ($100 a day is about tops for me). My preferred hunting is on land anyone that wants to hunt can hunt, parks, public land, or private land where permission is free for the asking. Of course I keep an open eye for small properties in these areas but haven't connected yet.

I know for hunters out west my way may not be a solution to the tag problem but if you own good land, I bet an outfitter would hook up something for limited use of the property.

Not many things compare to land ownership.

Ranching has always been hard. What's up with the trend to shut everyone out? Maybe if Pops gave me a ranch then I would understand the mentality of little Joe the new rancher.

Also, if WY had tons of high paying- low working jobs like NYC has then perhaps I would agree with the idea that I should have to pay out the ass just like the average big city guy does. Lately I spend much much more time hunting for area than hunting for game.

Also, as stated above, game and fish employees have become virtually all ranchers. I was going to school to become a G&F employee until I realized that I would likely not get hired, and if I did get hired I would not fit into the system. The G&F, outfitters, and ranchers are all shooting theirselves in the foot. With their non-support of hunters who is left to defend ranchers from the "tree hugger" movement?

Any of you WY guys heard anything about a land access (via Jolley) forum this year?

[This message has been edited by jeremy w (edited 04-30-2002).]

IMHO, yea, it probably would be a lot easier to save and shell out the dollars to hunt. But, I guess I just grew up having to hunt for places to hunt. That's always been part of it for me.

However you go about it, best of luck to you!

Happens internationally as well.

US hunters with too many dollars in their pockets come into a country and drive the prices up as much as 3 fold. Happening everywhere or has happened.

And in this case as mentioned here - what is the result? Locals find it difficult to hunt legally, so they hunt illegally instead.

As I sad its sad when the dollars buy the "hunt" or the "trophy". Perhaps a new scoring system should be introduced. Not how points did that rack go, but instead a certified statement how much it costed the "hunter".

------------------
John
alias Nitro

NitroExpress.com
communities.msn.com/NitroExpressCom

Bird hunting (pheasant) is even worse. Just look at some of the package rates out there....$500 a day and up! I must have received a dozen flyers for 3-day hunts between $1500 and $2200...unbelievable.

I do have a small amount of understanding for resident hunters who get priced out of the market but you might also take a look at the differential between what you pay for a license and what out-of-state hunters pay.

quote:

---

Originally posted by DB Bill:
This type of activity is one of the reasons hunting in Africa has become more popular. I used to hunt in Montana until they went crazy with the price of out-of-state tags,etc but who wants to spend over $3000 (and up) for a 5-day deer and antelope hunt.

Bird hunting (pheasant) is even worse. Just look at some of the package rates out there....$500 a day and up! I must have received a dozen flyers for 3-day hunts between $1500 and $2200...unbelievable.

---

Amen.

I was born and raised in NYC; no one in my family hunted. I wanted to hunt, so I went to college, got a well-paying job, and enjoy the fruits of my labor (mainly, nice guns and hunting trips).

I have paid for out-of-state hunts in the past (Montana, Texas, Missouri, Maine, South Carolina, Georgia, Wyoming, etc.), and I hunt Africa as often as possible (four safaris and counting).

Somehow, this makes me a "douche bag" in some people's eyes. If you look at the amount of revenue the F&G departments receive from "douche bags", you'll find that it is disproportionately higher compared to resident hunters, and this is just for the hunting licenses (and conservation stamps).

Believe me, we get very little value for our increased expenditure. We usually are entitled to fewer tags, fewer seasons and fewer areas to hunt in.

If some enterprising outfitter leases the hunting rights to a large block of private property, he somehow has "cheated" you out of some birthright to hunt where you please for free (or cheap).

Said outfitter then charges "douche bags" a huge premium to hunt there. If someone is willing to pay, where's the problem? IF you can't afford a nice car, do you feel that someone else should give you one?

I wouldn't pay the exorbitant sums people pay for pickup trucks and boats, but I don't mind if others do.

Now if I buy my own ranch, and close it to outside hunters, chances are goo that I'll be viewed as a "carpetbagging Easterner" who "locked up" a fine piece of hunting grounds (which the locals couldn't, or wouldn't buy).

Face it, folks, the time is coming where if you don't have your own place to hunt, you're going to have to forego hunting private land.
At least you have BLM and National Forest land out there.

We have problems here in the East, too: farmers are closing their lands to hunters due to liability concerns; trespassing (by people who feel they have the right to hunt wherever they please) is rampant; developers are subdividing the old properties; encroachment has resulted in no hunting zones.

The solution here is the same as the solution in the West: buy your own spread, and keep everyone except for invited guests off.

George

------------------
Shoot straight, shoot often, but by all means, use enough gun!

[This message has been edited by beemanbeme (edited 04-30-2002).]

quote:

---

Originally posted by GeorgeS:
Well, it seems that some of you want to wage "class warfare" instead of addressing your "problem".

I was born and raised in NYC; no one in my family hunted. I wanted to hunt, so I went to college, got a well-paying job, and enjoy the fruits of my labor (mainly, nice guns and hunting trips).

I have paid for out-of-state hunts in the past (Montana, Texas, Missouri, Maine, South Carolina, Georgia, Wyoming, etc.), and I hunt Africa as often as possible (four safaris and counting).

Somehow, this makes me a "douche bag" in some people's eyes. If you look at the amount of revenue the F&G departments receive from "douche bags", you'll find that it is disproportionately higher compared to resident hunters, and this is just for the hunting licenses (and conservation stamps).

Believe me, we get very little value for our increased expenditure. We usually are entitled to fewer tags, fewer seasons and fewer areas to hunt in.

If some enterprising outfitter leases the hunting rights to a large block of private property, he somehow has "cheated" you out of some birthright to hunt where you please for free (or cheap).

Said outfitter then charges "douche bags" a huge premium to hunt there. If someone is willing to pay, where's the problem? IF you can't afford a nice car, do you feel that someone else should give you one?

I wouldn't pay the exorbitant sums people pay for pickup trucks and boats, but I don't mind if others do.

Now if I buy my own ranch, and close it to outside hunters, chances are goo that I'll be viewed as a "carpetbagging Easterner" who "locked up" a fine piece of hunting grounds (which the locals couldn't, or wouldn't buy).

Face it, folks, the time is coming where if you don't have your own place to hunt, you're going to have to forego hunting private land.
At least you have BLM and National Forest land out there.

We have problems here in the East, too: farmers are closing their lands to hunters due to liability concerns; trespassing (by people who feel they have the right to hunt wherever they please) is rampant; developers are subdividing the old properties; encroachment has resulted in no hunting zones.

The solution here is the same as the solution in the West: buy your own spread, and keep everyone except for invited guests off.
George

---

You've taken things personally and failed to consider a few things:

1. The issue of exorbitant taxation. Most of us pay taxes, not just landowners and douche-bags.

2. one of the underlying and founding principles of this country: that the rights of one should not impose upon or limit the rights of another; inalienable rights; and natural rights.

3. Government's willingness to sell special privilege or license exclusive rights to individuals on government land at the expense of the general public. Hunting is not always allowed on BLM, state, and national forest land - depending on the state, though these same states often lease to or license "outfitters" to operate on these same lands while the general public is denied access. In some instances, companies that lease federal land, sub-lease back out to hunting groups - a practice that should cease immediately.

4. F&G departments' infiltration by environmentalists and politicos, and increasingly, an interest in hunters, insofar as their ability to fatten the departmental wallet.

5. Your solution is, essentially, the problem - and more indicative of "class warfare" than anything presented in the opposing view.

Your reply describes conflicts with governmental agencies and their policies, not the leasing of hunting rights on private lands by private parties.
If you have a beef with your government, seek redress (if you don't fight for it, you're going to lose it). There must be some sympathetic ears at your state and local levels. Enlist them in your fight.
Most land-use policies in the West have developed over the years due to intense lobbying (and campaign contributions) by "greens", agribusiness, mining, logging, oil, gas, and livestock interests, NOT non-resident hunters.

I do not support locking up access to public lands by closing roads on private land. Some compromise must be found whereby the public's access to its own land be assured while protecting the private property through which they must pass.

I honestly don't see how a state like New Mexico could run out of huntable public land when the population is so low. While it may not be ideal (no permanent water), there must be some game there.

As for rights, there are very few states that declare a right to hunt, and no state allows people to hunt on private property if the landowner does not permit it (either implicitly or explicitly).

No one is entitled to hunt someone else's private property. If you are unable or unwilling to pay the required trespass fee, you have to find somewhere else to hunt. You may not like it, it may not seem "fair" to you, but you don't get to make the rules on someone else's patch.

I think the complaint can be boiled downed to this: most of us were born too late, too poor, or too far away to obtain the hunting property of our dreams. This causes envy among some, and downright hostility in a few.

In any case, unless people are seeking an abrogation of indiviual property rights, the only solution is look harder (or pay more) for private land, or work on improving public land by building guzzlers and catchments. Several SCI Chapters are doing great work in the deserts out West.

George
P.S. We ALL pay taxes. I pay plenty in taxes, and I get little in return (no welfare, no subsidies, no government benefits, no "free ride", etc.).

------------------
Shoot straight, shoot often, but by all means, use enough gun!

quote:

---

Originally posted by GeorgeS:
No one is entitled to hunt someone else's private property. If you are unable or unwilling to pay the required trespass fee, you have to find somewhere else to hunt. You may not like it, it may not seem "fair" to you, but you don't get to make the rules on someone else's patch.

---

I'm ok with that. I'm saying that there is quite a bit of public land that is off limits to the general public. More than half of some southwestern states are owned by the government. The point I make is that government land does not belong to Washington - and that the Feds' denying the public access to these areas has had a hand in the rise of pay hunting and "trespass fees". The problem I have is when individuals or corporations through unnatural or political advantage gain access to these areas that are otherwise restricted.

My beef is not with the private landowner - provided that he himself wholly owns his property and is not a ward of the state. The land-owning ward of the state is something that has recently come into being - and it is something else entirely.

I agree with you 100%!

George

------------------
Shoot straight, shoot often, but by all means, use enough gun!

While you are not allowed to hunt anothers land the law also provides recourse for you gaining access to public land.

In many areas a private land owner who controls the only access to public land will be required to grant access to the said public land through an easment. You need to check to see what the rule of law is on this issue in your individual State. Many courts will hold a dim view on those who attempt to assert unlawfull dominion over identified and publicly funded and maintained public use land. The legal term is "conversion".

Rather than complaining, be courteous but exercise your legal options, Many times the land owner is being feed false information from outfitters etc. and if you have a letter drafted by a lawyer pointing out the law and issues to the owner, many times you will not have a problem with the land owner. Often he will be more than willing to grant you access to the BLM land with perhaps the Caveat that you cannot load your rifle while on his land, or that you may only cross at a designated point.

Failing that, you have the right to seek recourse through the court. Many who are trying to Convert public land for private gain will not want this brought before a court. It is very costly to be involved in losing litigation, and it is also unwise to have illegal activities brought to the attention of the legal system.

You are not perhaps as much in legal detriment as you may think.

Your other alternative is to move to a foriegn country where the Government owns all the land and socialism and welfare become a way of life, gimme, gimme, gimmie...

Nope, I take it the way it is and you should accept it unless your ready to give up all your freedoms...

My suggestion to you is to stop whining and drive your car a couple of years longer, live a different life style and spend that savings on hunting, we all have choices..

------------------
Ray Atkinson

ray@atkinsonhunting.com
atkinsonhunting.com

I would like to hear some specifics as to what and where land is allocated for certain people, or magnate giants etc. as opposed to a general statment or accusation...If such a thing exists we can certainly put a stop to it.

------------------
Ray Atkinson

ray@atkinsonhunting.com
atkinsonhunting.com

I went and changed "douche bag" for you. Didn't think it was that abrasive, sorry. Since I am just a lowly Law Enforcement guy, and only make a few thousand a year, maybe you can help me out. What are the non-resident rat and pigeon tags going for in NYC. Also what's the average rate for a one gun lease on a good rat area. I may be able to afford these. What are High Quality landowner rat tags going for up there?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Atkinson:
I would like to hear some specifics as to what and where land is allocated for certain people, or magnate giants etc. as opposed to a general statment or accusation...If such a thing exists we can certainly put a stop to it.

---

We could start with, say, NW Wyoming, that mountainous and forested part of the state where it is required that out-of-state hunters use a guide when pursuing big game. No big deal there, and possibly a good idea. But let us not forget that a good portion of this is government land. Several "outfitters" run their operations in this area, and have tracts set aside for their use - an "outfitter" being anyone able to afford the license. Not an accusation, but a statement of fact: the license grants exclusive rights to the holder and the land is not open to the general public. I wouldn't have a problem with an outfitter operating on private land.

The government sells rights and access to outfitters, timber companies, etc., etc. That's not a business that government should be involved in - and in many cases, that is not why these lands were set aside.

Remember that idea put forth by our founding fathers: not to delegate to government any authority that you would be unable to exercise yourself?

Put a stop to it my dear economist?

Atkinson, you'd surely want a hand in it.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

I never had a problem with the landowners at all, and this is the direction the thread swung to. Then it has gotten turned into a class/salary thing. Then I get told to spend more money.

I would spend it if I could!!!! But it's kinda like seeing the wholesale price of a gun and then having to pay retail to your gun shop owner. It's just hard to stomach.

I can hunt just as hard as an outfitter or one of his guides. I am still young. I have good quality equipment, and shoot well.

Just sticking to antelope, if an outfitter paid $1000 for the tag, why should I have to pay $2000 for him to drive me around in a truck for two days in my own state????

Never hated a rancher, and don't think they shouldn't make extra cash on game. I just want it to be my cash.

------------------
don't cuss farmers and ranchers with your mouth full

But I strongly disagree with those who think this is all about MONEY. That the one with the most bucks (bad pun) wins the hunting game. Attitudes like that are what have been killing the hunting tradition in America (and a few other values besides).

Hunting is about being able to take your son or daughter or father or nephew or brother or friend out and discover your roots, your hunting instincts, the circle of life, and the camraderie of the pursuit. None of that has anything to do with money.

That game is a scarce public resource is obvious. But it is a PUBLIC resource, and was never meant to be managed for profit by the government agencies entrusted with preserving the hunting legacy and our wildlife diversity for ALL to enjoy, not just the well-heeled.

You can't restrict a landowner's rights to use his property, nor do I want to. But the perverse incentives that cause landowners to give out exclusive leases for access must come to an end, for the good of hunting.

We keep hearing of how the number of hunters is down every year nationally. In that case you would think finding a place to hunt with game on it would be easy. Wrong. Hunters are taking up golf, boating, target shooting, etc etc because hunting ACCESS is becoming a rich man's sport. People want to hunt, they just can't afford it or find it.

The perverse incentives are those in which states dole out non-resident licences like candy to junkies with a pocketful of cash. The folks with limited time but larger coin will pay top dollar, in licences, guides and miscellaney, and that squeezes out the residents and non-residents alike of more modest means.

If I lived in a relatively rural state and accepted the inevitable lower wages for a lifestyle in which I had an expectation of enjoying lower cost and easier access hunting, I'd be flaming mad right now. And there is something to do about it, and it's not buying land at inflated prices - - it's booting out your elected representatives and electing ones that understand what public game management is all about.

Non-resident licenses should be on lottery and restricted. Some guy that chooses to live in New York City sacrifices easy hunting access for his urban lifestyle. It's that simple. In one sense our nations game animals are in trust for all Americans, so non-residents shouldn't be barred. But perhaps waiting 3 years or more to hunt in a particular state is the price one pays for living somewhere else.

And there is no reason the non-resident license should cost very much more than the resident license. That is just highway robbery. By keeping the cost of the licenses the same, and restricting the easy "pay me more on the spot" system, access will open up. The demand will level out, once the number of licenses is managed to reflect a strong preference for residents, and far less incentive to those who will pay almost any price for access.