Without commment. -TONY

****

Washington, D.C. – U.S. Congressman Duncan Hunter (R-CA) today announced the introduction of the Teddy Roosevelt Bring Back our Public Lands Act in the U.S. House of Representatives. The legislation seeks to reduce costs incurred by out-of-state American outdoorsmen who hunt exclusively on federal property.

Congressman Hunter’s statement of introduction follows:

“In 1909, when President Theodore Roosevelt signed the last piece of legislation successfully creating over 42 million acres of national forest, the American outdoorsman came into his own. Our great “Outdoor President,†with a stroke of his pen, dedicated more land to American citizens for hunting and fishing than all the royal estates of Europe combined.

“From the Adirondacks and the Blue Ridge of the East to the Sierra Nevada of California, every outdoorsman could now be the master of enormous sporting opportunities. The only price was a stretch of the legs and an investment of time and a modicum of woodsmanship.

“Because of Teddy’s Roosevelt’s leadership and efforts, the public land of the federal government became truly the “estate†of the average American.

“A carpenter in Indiana or Iowa could saddle up the old Chevy pick-up and take his sons elk or deer hunting on a long weekend in Colorado. A steel worker in Pennsylvania could drive “straight through†with his pals to that certain Aspen grove in Western Wyoming where big bucks always abounded on opening morning. Thus, until a few years ago, the outdoor legacy of Teddy Roosevelt and the birthright of outdoor Americans were secure.

“Not any more.

“Today, bureaucracies in state governments are closing down the outdoor opportunities for average Americans. They are slamming the door on outdoor families the old fashioned way: with outrageous fees for non-resident hunters, even when the hunting is done exclusively on federal land.

“For example, the out-of-state license fee in Wyoming is $281 for deer, $481 for elk; in Colorado it is $301 for deer, $501 for elk; in Montana, it is $643 for both. In New Mexico, if two sons decide to take their dad on a weekend getaway, they each face fees of $355 for deer and $766 for elk.

“What makes these high prices so unfair is that they are applied to out-of-state American outdoorsmen who hunt exclusively on federal property. The 190 million acres of national forest and 258 million acres of BLM are the birthright of all Americans. The notion that they are viewed as the domain of state legislatures runs against the principle of public usage of federal property.

“Certainly, individual states have the right to regulate the private land and state-owned property within their boundaries. No one quarrels with that. But placing prohibitive fees on hunting that is conducted on federal public lands quickly becomes a method of exclusion.

“What happens, for example, if New Mexico should raise its out-of-state fees to $2,000 for bull elk? This increase would have the same effect as a locked gate for thousands of average Americans who want to hunt elk on any of the six national forests in New Mexico, over 11 million acres of federally owned land.

“The bill I am introducing today will restore acres for all American hunters to Theodore Roosevelt’s “Great Estate†of national forests and other public land. I acknowledge that some small amount of states’ wildlife resources are expended on federally owned and managed lands. Therefore, it is only right that out-of-state hunters share in this minimal expense.

“My bill, therefore, says this: No state may charge more than $200 for a big game license, specifically, elk, deer, antelope or bear, for hunting that is carried out exclusively on national forest or BLM federal land.

“The $200 fee strikes a balance between two interests. The first interest is the state’s legitimate need to recoup the few dollars that it expends in the management of federal land. The second, and most important, is the interest of helping that father with two teenagers who does not have the $2,300 the state of New Mexico will charge this year for a family of three to hunt on national forest for bull elk.

“In most cases, even a $200 fee will be a windfall for states; far out-pacing any help they give the federal government for wildlife management in national forests. Any American, from any state, should be allowed to earn a fall morning hunting elk in the Rockies with a healthy hike and a good shooting eye, regardless if he has a large bank account. My bill restores that opportunity.â€

The Teddy Roosevelt Bring Back Our Public Lands Act has been referred to the House Committee on Resources for further consideration.

Interesting idea. States will have to manage federal state and private lands seperately.

I can already hear the screams of the haves and have-nots now. I hope people here can keep their discussions civil.

Good luck with that one...


MG

Sounds good to me.

Take a look at some of the states hunting regulations... Their books are thicker that some big city phome books.

Recently in Idaho there was a question between me, the local Sherrif officer and the State Game Warden about the fishing season on "Mountain Streams.

None of them knew what a "Mountain Stream" was.

Heck I thought it was a stream in the mountains....

The regulations were so complicated not even the local Law could figure it out.

A National Forest/BLM hunting license, and game tags makes sense to me.

There is no way that this would work. Let's take a look at my home state of Colorado for instance. In the Northwest Corner of that state where I hunt, you can take off on foot and within a couple miles you can walk on National Forest Land, State Trust Land, Department of Wildlife Leased Land and Colorado State Forest Land. None of the borders of these various properties would be marked. It's all considered public land, so there is no reason to indicate the exact borders.

How can you have a different license for these various properties? Nobody would be able to enforce this type of regulation in the courts because you would have to mark and lable evey border of Fed/State/Private land across the country. What would happen to somebody caught on State owned or leased land when all they had is a "Federal Land" permit? Would the courts even recognize the right of a State Wildlife Official to cite someone with a Federal Tag?

All this sounds like a way to get big government involved in what has always been a matter for the individual state. I sure as hell don't want Hillary, Diane Fienstien, John Kerry etc... involved in my right to hunt and making laws about my license cost. Fedral involvement will lead to over regulation and the elimination of the right to hunt via restrictions and sanctions. Besides, the Federal Courts already went on record as giving the individual states the right to manage the game animals and to handle license distribution whe USO filed papers against Arizona a couple years ago.

And lastly, this law is discriminatory against states with lots of Fed land vice those that have none. I don't imagine someplace like Rhode Island or Texas or Conneticut has much Federal land for hunting and therefore could charge whatever they want.

Mac

But in those days, the population wasn't 300 million plus. Can you imagine if even 5 % of the hunting population took advantage of this type of legislation and headed to the empty spaces of the West.
Grizz

****





“A carpenter in Indiana or Iowa could saddle up the old Chevy pick-up and take his sons elk or deer hunting on a long weekend in Colorado. A steel worker in Pennsylvania could drive “straight through†with his pals to that certain Aspen grove in Western Wyoming where big bucks always abounded on opening morning. Th

Well said MAC.

"I acknowledge that some small amount of states’ wildlife resources are expended on federally owned and managed lands." Now that there's funny.

I don't think Teddy Roosevelt would like this.

One will never know if it would work if it is never tried. I would guess that the people who live in the big game rich states like Montana, Colorado, Wyoming, Idaho and Utah would be dead set against it...for obvious reasons and none of them has anything to do with equality of opportunity. You bet there are a lot of people in these states making lots of money off of the federal lands from out of state hunters, of which they have no real legal right to have. Its like taxation without representation. I agree with the legislation...its way overdue.

I would have to state the fear of the swarms and hoards of hunters flushing to the west for "cheap hunting" would be an unfounded fear.

I see NOTHING in the intended legislation that provides for unlimited hunting in the areas involved. IF four milllion out of state hunters show up in New Mexico to elk hunt, that they have to give four million licenses. There is STILL a game management system. What it does is tell the person making a draw if that is what the process, is that they will not be gouged by hunting land that he already holds title to as a taxpaying american citizen.
there is nothing about cheap guides fees or free accomodations or anything else that changes anything other than instead of being BONED because you are from out of state you have a $200.00 fee to pay.

AS for the question about enforcement and finding a fed holder on state ground.. what do you do now for state vs private land incursion?
also in this world of to 30 feet GPS navigation systems it would clearly be the hunters... as always, responsibility to know where he is.
AND
the appropriate remedy would have the off boundry hunter responsible for paying a "fine/fee" that puts him back to a regular out of state hunter class that is normally charged for state and private land.
you dont make him a criminal just get more money from him.

Well said MAC. Now I don't have to type a lengthy response.

I can see the way this would go: A $200 license to hunt "our" public lands + the States would then charge a FEE to actually hunt the State's animals. Costing us all more in the end.

quote:

Originally posted by MAC:
There is no way that this would work. Let's take a look at my home state of Colorado for instance. In the Northwest Corner of that state where I hunt, you can take off on foot and within a couple miles you can walk on National Forest Land, State Trust Land, Department of Wildlife Leased Land and Colorado State Forest Land. None of the borders of these various properties would be marked. It's all considered public land, so there is no reason to indicate the exact borders.
Mac

Colorado already requires you to know if you are on private, state or federal lands. Try hunting on unmarked private property without permission. Try telling the game warden that the property is unmarked and you didn't know you were hunting on private property. You're still getting fined.

I hunt the northwest corner of Colorado every year and every year I hear of someone getting caught on private land.

A good hunter should always know where they are and should not be on private property without permission. If I were a land owner, I would be pissed if someone was hunting on my property without my knowing about it.

Back on mute.

Keep the friggin' Federal gov't out of it. Want to say goodbye to hunting if the antis win over the bleeding heart liberals who want our firearms anyway?

quote:

Originally posted by MAC:
There is no way that this would work. Let's take a look at my home state of Colorado for instance. In the Northwest Corner of that state where I hunt, you can take off on foot and within a couple miles you can walk on National Forest Land, State Trust Land, Department of Wildlife Leased Land and Colorado State Forest Land. None of the borders of these various properties would be marked. It's all considered public land, so there is no reason to indicate the exact borders.

How can you have a different license for these various properties? Nobody would be able to enforce this type of regulation in the courts because you would have to mark and lable evey border of Fed/State/Private land across the country. What would happen to somebody caught on State owned or leased land when all they had is a "Federal Land" permit? Would the courts even recognize the right of a State Wildlife Official to cite someone with a Federal Tag?

Mac

You can buy a pocket sized GPS unit that'll tell you CLEARLY where you are for as little as $80.

One thing I have NOT seen mentioned...

There is a tendency for SOME western states to make more non-resident licences available because they are able to sell those licenses for many times what a resident license goes for....

If you remove most of the incentive for them
to SCREW you, mabey you could actually draw a tag more often than you do?



AD

And the Federal Gov't is sooooo efficient with our monies...............

Allen, A quick check and I find that Pennsylvania charges nonresidents 4 to 10 times more than what they charge residents. That is on par with what most Western States' ratios are for fees (as well as most other states). Maybe you should change your system before complaining about others'.

I don't want to have to depend on a GPS unit to hunt.

I don't want some IDIOT in another state dictating what we can do in our state.

And I sure don't want the Feds involved in any aspect of hunting.

And for the record, I would be more than willing to pay $300 for a resident elk tag and $200 for a resident deer tag in my home state if I could be assured of getting the tag every year. One problem we have out west is that our game is nowhere as plentiful as it is down south or out east. Some of those state allow their residents to take upwards of 10 deer or more per season and then those same hunters want to come to states where the tags are completely limited and take even more deer. And then they call those of us out west greedy!!!!!!

There has been years when my family was unable to hunt together because we failed to draw tags. Try explaining to a young boy that he can't hunt deer at the same time as his grandfather because the state gave some dude from California the tag instead of him. And he doesnt even lives here. It ain't fun to have to tell a kid things like that.

Bottom line, if you want the cheaper tags, then move out there and pay the cost of living out there. You too can be privilaged to work for lesser wages and pay higher taxes so you can lenjoy the resident tags fees. It's a hell of a deal we have here. Less wages, higher taxes and less representation in Congress. We sure cut us a fat hog here in the Rockies didn't we?

If you choose to live in a shithole state, then that is a choice you make and by making that choice, you agree to pay the higher non resident fees. If you don't want to pay them, then stay home and hunt your own state. I won't miss you come fall in elk country. Hunting is not a right, it is a luxury, and like almost all luxuries, it has costs attached.

Nobody has ever said anybody can not use Federal land, but the state owns the game, not the Feds. And the state determines the license fees. Always have, always will. Every state in the unon charges an average of 8 times more for non resident tags than they do resident. Check the regs and do the math.

In other words, DEAL WITH IT.

Mac

A non-resident can hunt in Pennsylvania A LOT CHEAPER than a Pa resident can hunt in ANY western state. Why hell...its only natural for the "haves" to keep out the "have nots"...no matter what the stake is.

quote:

I don't want to have to depend on a GPS unit to hunt.

I don't want some IDIOT in another state dictating what we can do in our state.

And I sue don't want the Feds involved in any aspect of hunting.

And for the record, I would be more than willing to pay $300 for a resident elk tag and $200 for a resident deer tag in my home state if I could be assured of getting the tag every year. One problem we have out west is that our game is nowhere as plentiful as it is down south or out east. Some of those state allow their residents to take upwards of 10 deer or more per season and then those same hunters want to come to states where the tags are completely limited and take even more deer. And then they call those of out west greedy!!!!!!

quote:

Nobody has ever said anybody can not use Federal land, but the state owns the game, not the Feds. And the state determines the license fees. Always have, always will.

I do not draw a tag every year either, 3 years since my last any elk tag, and 5 years since an antelope tag, unless I want to kill a doe or fawn or calf. No desire to do that.


States rights. It was settled last year. It would be an absolute nightmare to police all the lands in a state like Wyoming, to many state, and federal, and private lands intermingled. The game is not always on federal land, many, many, many herds in Wy. are migratory.

individual states still manage the wildlife numbers in thier states - there will still be a lottery for tags. $200 non-resident OK I guess but not unlimited tags for non-residents. That will not happen.

I think the Adirondak Park is state land, so he is a little wet on that one.

What this knucklehead fails to realize has already been stated - the game animals belong to the people of the state, not to the federal gubmint. The feds should have no right to override the state and mandate pricing structures. That's like a Pennsylvanian telling me what I can sell my 3/4 acre lot for. It's BS, plain and simple. If the difference between a $200 tag and a $600 tag is the deciding factor on whether or not you travel thousands of miles to hunt one animal that you probably won't eat anyway, then you couldn't really afford to go on that hunt in the first place.

Non-residents should really dislike this as it will inevitably increase the number of NRs that apply for hunts, thereby making it even more difficult to draw a tag. Just think how many Arizonans, Texans, and others from nearby states will apply for elk in NM if it only costs 200 bucks. You folks from back east and the left coast will nevery draw. Of course, you can still suck it up and buy landowners tags, which are guaranteed. But their prices will also skyrocket with demand. Simple economic principles will ensure that non-residents, especially those far removed geographically from the state they want to hunt, will draw even less frequently. Support this if you will, but it's only shooting us all in the foot...

A non-resident AK license is only $85. Too cheap imo.

even if i wasn't from montana, i would have a hard time supporting this. i agree with the notion that hunting is becoming a rich man's sport in too many places and would support measures to stop that from happening, but this seems very close to usury of states' rights.

people think nothing about spending 50$ for a box of 50 bullets for loading, citing that "if it's going to be the hunt of a lifetime, the cost of a premium bullet is nothing." or they will literally throw money at leupold or swarovski, spending much more for a piece of glass in a steel tube than they spent on the rifle that it will sit on.

the same applies to this issue. if you really have to come to montana or colorado etc. to hunt, and if it is going to be the hunt of a lifetime because your state is so overcrowded that you can't hunt, then you should be prepared to pay for it, not take it away from those who live there.

as i have said before, thank God i live in montana. if you want to enjoy the benefits, move your ass out here and put up with the weather, the lack of wal-marts and starbucks and the low wages. personally, i wouldn't have this state any other way.

We already have to have a GPS top hunt on federal subsistance hunting land here in Alaska.Today there is a vote in my home town of Delta junction Alaska to ban all hunting and shooting within the town .I moved to Alaska thinking it was a wide open place that had alot of freedom to hunt and shot and the opposite is true.Dont move to Alaska for the hunting the Govt controls you totally on your own land and federal land.They are having a hudge cow hunt to get rid of our herd due to car accidents and the fish and game playing God.I am looking at other places to move to but am not sure where to go from now.If Alaska is not a free state to hunt and fish where to you go?Check out our rule book for hunting its written by the guys that wrote the irs tax book.

While I do see the common sense that this offering represents... I don't hold much hope for our politicans and special interest groups giving up what they have effectively stolen.

quote:

Originally posted by hikerbum:
I think the Adirondak Park is state land, so he is a little wet on that one.

Price to hunt the Adrondacks (All New York)for NR is $250 that includes fishing and small game for the entire season. If you just want to hunt deer I think the price is around $ 110 We get alot of Vermont people hunting now, Due to the long season. I don't blame them it's a good deal. I hunt in Idaho as much as I can as I have most of my relatives living there. I got to admit the prices to hunt, at least there are getting stiff. I remember the last time I was there the fish and game budget was funded 60% +/- % by non residents. So the point I'm trying to make is we all have a stake in keeping hunting affordable to the Working class people or we will just be watching rich people hunting on TV.

quote:

Originally posted by Woodrow S:
One will never know if it would work if it is never tried. I would guess that the people who live in the big game rich states like Montana, Colorado, Wyoming, Idaho and Utah would be dead set against it...for obvious reasons and none of them has anything to do with equality of opportunity. You bet there are a lot of people in these states making lots of money off of the federal lands from out of state hunters, of which they have no real legal right to have. Its like taxation without representation. I agree with the legislation...its way overdue.

There are Wyoming residents who don't draw antelope licenses where they'd like because of set-asides for non-residents; not sure how they'd view this but doubt they'd be any too pleased. I wonder if there are other states with this condition.

quote:

Originally posted by tasunkawitko:

as i have said before, thank God i live in montana. if you want to enjoy the benefits, move your ass out here and put up with the weather, the lack of wal-marts and starbucks and the low wages. personally, i wouldn't have this state any other way.

If my wife ever says OK, we will be in the truck headed north the same day. The big decision will be, "where in Montana?". Hopefully we can get that part sorted out somewhere south of Dillon...