collapse
LockNLoad Outfitting Ė Central Alberta Outfitter A lightweight orange vest that complements your technical hunting apparel!

Author Topic: Transfer of Federal Public Lands?  (Read 7207 times)

Offline csaaphill

  • Anti Hunters are weird animals.
  • Off-Topics
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Old Salt
  • *
  • Join Date: Oct 2010
  • Posts: 9560
  • Hunting is non-negotiable it's what I do!
  • Groups: G.O.A., Rocky Mountain ELk Foundation
Re: Transfer of Federal Public Lands?
« Reply #50 on: January 23, 2017, 10:07:31 PM »
Since I supported the Bundy Revolution it'd be hypocritical of me to be against this. So I am for but think the state should get only if they promise to not sell it off. With certain things being legal now that weren't years ago this would be a great way to keep them public.
"When my bow falls, so shall the world. When me heart ceases to pump blood to my body, it will all come crashing down. As a hunter, we are bound by duty, nay, bound by our very soul to this world. When a hunter dies we feel it, we sense it, and the world trembles with sorrow. When I die, so shall the world, from the shock of loosing such a great part of ones soul." Ezekiel, Okeanos Hunter

Offline haus

  • Too Tall
  • Washington For Wildlife
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Longhunter
  • *
  • Join Date: Oct 2009
  • Posts: 952
  • Location: Shelton
Re: Transfer of Federal Public Lands?
« Reply #51 on: January 24, 2017, 07:11:56 AM »
Keep in mind that the new boss has two sons that both hunt, and this answer from a F&S interview when questioned about public land transfers:

DT: I donít like the idea because I want to keep the lands great, and you donít know what the state is going to do. I mean, are they going to sell if they get into a little bit of trouble? And I donít think itís something that should be sold. We have to be great stewards of this land. This is magnificent land. And we have to be great stewards of this land. And the hunters do such a great jobóI mean, the hunters and the fishermen and all of the different people that use that land. So Iíve been hearing more and more about that. And itís just like the erosion of the Second Amendment. I mean, every day you hear Hillary Clinton wants to essentially wipe out the Second Amendment. We have to protect the Second Amendment, and we have to protect our lands.

An aside here; I recall reading through a rather lengthy federal document(200+ pages) that covered the management of the national forest in our state. It included tables and image references of established borders for implementation of forest management procedures. I recall a specific section regarding the GPNF where it showed and detailed the rules to abide by for managing certain sections of the forest. I thought it was a 1994 document, but I'm unable to find it. Looked through the NWFP, but I don't see anything in there. Any help in finding this document would be appreciated.
Member:
WFW
RMEF

"The Wolf Plan was fine when there werenít any wolves"

Online baldopepper

  • Washington For Wildlife
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Sourdough
  • *
  • Join Date: Mar 2010
  • Posts: 1044
Re: Transfer of Federal Public Lands?
« Reply #52 on: January 24, 2017, 08:09:46 AM »
I think it's important to understand that because someone says they like to hunt, it doesn't mean they are in favor of free access to all public ground. Too many of us, hunting is a recreational activity that involves getting together with friends and relatives and hopefully putting a little meat in the freezer. We hope to get a trophy class animal but don't predicate our  hunt around trying to get a B&C class animal. Free access to our traditional hunting areas is critical and becoming more of a problem every year. Hunting is becoming a big business now with private land hunts or restricted permit hunts selling for many thousands of dollars.  Don't think for a minute that some of the organizations that offer these types of hunts wouldn't love the opportunity to tie up more of the now public access properties to expand their business. Turning Federal ground over to the states would make it just that much easier for them to negotiate these land lock ups. Then we have the anti-hunters who would love nothing more than to ban hunting on all public ground.  Again, much easier to do on a state level than a federal level (especially in Washington state).  Does anyone on here really think DT's sons go out hunting on public ground rubbing shoulders with we common hunters?  I see this idea as a major threat to a way of life most of us enjoy and look forward to every year.

Offline NumaJohn

  • Off-Topics
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Hunter
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2010
  • Posts: 161
  • Location: Spokane, WA
Re: Transfer of Federal Public Lands?
« Reply #53 on: February 06, 2017, 11:57:16 AM »
Hello, all.

FYI, here a recent article that some of you might find of interest if you have been following the debates regarding the pros and cons of whether to sell or transfer more federal lands to states and/or private interests:

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2017/feb/05/transferring-federal-land-an-old-idea-that-still-o/

Federal land is our land. Why would we--hunters and other Americans--relinquish or sell it off to others? That would be extremely short-sighted.

John

Offline MTMule

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Pilgrim
  • *
  • Join Date: Oct 2012
  • Posts: 32
  • Location: MT
Re: Transfer of Federal Public Lands?
« Reply #54 on: February 21, 2017, 11:45:35 PM »
The forest service budget is a few billion dollars or something like that. You'd have to be an idiot to attack federal public lands to minimize federal reach.

If it were up to me the budget would be tripled.

Offline Gobble Doc

  • Virtual Campfire
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Sourdough
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2010
  • Posts: 2064
  • Location: Snohomish, WA
Re: Transfer of Federal Public Lands?
« Reply #55 on: February 22, 2017, 11:19:12 AM »

Here's some public hunting land that went from State to Federal. Unfortunately ALL of the recreational activities like hiking and biking no longer includes hunting. Of course we are now able to protect the sensitive growth of dandelions and blackberries. The Land Bank managed to get it "Permanently protected for generations..." 



News Release Date: October 10, 2010

MITCHELL HILL BECOMES PART OF SAN JUAN ISLAND NHP

FRIDAY HARBOR, WA San Juan Island National Historical Park dramatically expanded its English Camp unit in September with the acquisition of 312 acres of woodlands and trails of Mitchell Hill, which adjoins the southeast boundary, eight miles north of Friday Harbor, announced Peter Dederich, park superintendent.

Making Mitchell Hill a part of the park is an action proposed in the parkís 2008 General Management Plan, and supported by a broad coalition of park stakeholders, and county, state, and federal agencies. It is the first major addition to the park since the 1970s and ensures that Mitchell Hill will be permanently protected for the benefit of future generations, Dederich said.

The property was acquired from the Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) through a $6 million Congressional appropriation included in President Barack Obamaís 2010 budget and backed by U.S. Rep. Rick Larsen and Sens. Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell. The transaction was completed in partnership with the San Juan County Land Bank, and The Conservation Fund, a national land trust headquartered in Arlington, Virginia. A planning process will be launched soon, Dederich said, to determine how the overall area will be managed. Once Mitchell Hill becomes part of the national park, the Code of Federal Regulations will apply, and "some of those regulations are stricter than the state's," Dederich said. However, the community will be invited to participate in the planning process throughout to divine a balance of conservation and "appropriate visitor use," he stressed.

The DNR managed the site as one of its "Common School Trust Lands" for the benefit of public schools. To that end the land was to be protected and conserved for sustainable forest productivity while maintaining water quality, and fish and wildlife habitat. While grazing has occurred and timber was harvested in the 1940s and again in the 1990s, much of the site is forested with trees ranging from seedlings to 120 years old, including Western red cedar, hemlock, Douglas fir and Garry oak. The area is laced with logging roads and hiking trails, many of which appear on San Juan Island Trails Committee maps.

But some of the most exciting features on Mitchell Hill are traces of the historic military road that bisects the northern edge of the property. This portion of the road was constructed by Royal Marines to travel between American and English camps during the joint military occupation of 1859-1872. The road followed the path of a sheep run cleared by Hudson's Bay Company and Cowichan laborers from Vancouver Island. Visible along portions of the road is rip-rap ó rock placed by British troops to reinforce the road ó as well as wheel ruts from wagons that once rolled along the road. A few road cuts are evident on rock faces along the canopied forest paths.

"The military road, in essence, captures the period before the U.S. took formal possession of San Juan Island when the boundary dispute was resolved," said National Park historian Mike Vouri, author of four books about the joint military occupation era. "Not only did the road symbolize peacekeeping, it tied one end of the island with the other," Vouri said. "This is very much a part of the island's heritage."

Besides its historical value, Mitchell Hill is also treasured by hikers, horseback riders, bicyclists, and naturalists.

"Protecting the historical and natural values of Mitchell Hill has been a priority for me for the last several years. Mitchell Hill is both a great place to go hiking and the home of an important part of San Juan Island history," said Representative Larsen at the time of Mitchell Hillís inclusion in the presidentís budget. "Funding for Mitchell Hill will enhance recreational and educational opportunities for the over 250,000 visitors who visit San Juan Island National Historical Park each year."

-NPS-

Offline Rob Allen

  • In constant need of The Savior
  • Virtual Campfire
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Hunter
  • *
  • Join Date: Nov 2014
  • Posts: 157
  • Location: Wishram
Re: Transfer of Federal Public Lands?
« Reply #56 on: May 01, 2017, 06:17:18 AM »
I am all for it under one condition.

Before one parcel is sold there must be buyers in place for  all of them every last bit of it. The sale proceeds must be ewual to or larger than our national debt. That money would  be required to be used for the immediate payment of the national debt and the government must from here on out operate on an annual  budget not to exceed the money brought in the previous year.

I however am not under any illusions this would destroy  every sector of the outdoor industry. Hunting fishing hiking camping all would disappear.  It would destroy everything i hold dear on this planet but i would  make that  sacrifice for our  country.
Yet while we were still sinners Christ died for us.

Offline Knocker of rocks

  • Off-Topics
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Old Salt
  • *
  • Join Date: Aug 2011
  • Posts: 6175
  • Location: the Holocene, man
Re: Transfer of Federal Public Lands?
« Reply #57 on: May 01, 2017, 07:00:12 AM »
I am all for it under one condition.

Before one parcel is sold there must be buyers in place for  all of them every last bit of it. The sale proceeds must be ewual to or larger than our national debt. That money would  be required to be used for the immediate payment of the national debt and the government must from here on out operate on an annual  budget not to exceed the money brought in the previous year.

I however am not under any illusions this would destroy  every sector of the outdoor industry. Hunting fishing hiking camping all would disappear.  It would destroy everything i hold dear on this planet but i would  make that  sacrifice for our  country.

How could you develop a plan, and find buyers for all the public lands at once.  The average price you seek is about $46,000/acre.

Also, why does the west and it's public lands have to be responsible for a debt created largely by other parts of the country?

Offline andrew_in_idaho

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Longhunter
  • *****
  • Join Date: Apr 2015
  • Posts: 667
  • Location: Nampa, ID
  • Groups: RMEF
Re: Transfer of Federal Public Lands?
« Reply #58 on: May 01, 2017, 07:03:12 AM »
45.8% of California is federal. 28.5% of Washington is federal. How's the hunting in Cali? I would need to be far more educated on this topic to take a stand but my gut says less FED is good. It is after all supposed to be THESE United States not, THE United States. It has been my impression that the fed was designed to play a small roll in this country? Any way school me people I'm all ears.

Thank you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Way to pick a couple of the worst examples. By that logic the hunting is also better in Washington than Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Nevada, Arizona and Colorado, Alaska, Utah, and New Mexico as all have more federal control. Way to argue like a liberal, excluding all but the most extreme of data points to fit your argument.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Offline Hunting CPO

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Pilgrim
  • *
  • Join Date: Oct 2016
  • Posts: 10
  • Location: Mt. Vernon
Re: Transfer of Federal Public Lands?
« Reply #59 on: May 01, 2017, 08:09:09 AM »
Federal doesn't own any land. They hold the land as a trust for the people. If land is transferred to state control it is no longer public lands, its is state lands. Don't think small, think big. Federal lands are for everyone in the US of A. Transfer to state and depending on how they want to treat it they could say you aren't from this state so you have to pay to use this land or that you can't use it at all. Most states control the animals in that state. So hunting and fishing is more controlled by the state not Feds.

Offline Stein

  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Frontiersman
  • *****
  • Join Date: Sep 2013
  • Posts: 2812
Re: Transfer of Federal Public Lands?
« Reply #60 on: May 01, 2017, 08:14:18 AM »
Federal doesn't own any land. They hold the land as a trust for the people. If land is transferred to state control it is no longer public lands, its is state lands. Don't think small, think big. Federal lands are for everyone in the US of A. Transfer to state and depending on how they want to treat it they could say you aren't from this state so you have to pay to use this land or that you can't use it at all. Most states control the animals in that state. So hunting and fishing is more controlled by the state not Feds.

Almost true.  If they transfer it to the states, it is State School Trust land.  In many states, you can't hunt, fish, camp or even enter it.  It isn't the same thing as a state park, it is set up to profit for the benefit of the public school system.

Offline Knocker of rocks

  • Off-Topics
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Old Salt
  • *
  • Join Date: Aug 2011
  • Posts: 6175
  • Location: the Holocene, man
Re: Transfer of Federal Public Lands?
« Reply #61 on: May 01, 2017, 08:23:48 AM »


Almost true.  If they transfer it to the states, it is State School Trust land.  In many states, you can't hunt, fish, camp or even enter it.  It isn't the same thing as a state park, it is set up to profit for the benefit of the public school system.

Depends on the state and how it gets transfered.  In Washington, if they transfered the massive USFS lands to an entitiy not the WaDNR, then it would not be State Schools land.  All depends of the tranfer and acceptance documents.

Offline Stein

  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Frontiersman
  • *****
  • Join Date: Sep 2013
  • Posts: 2812
Re: Transfer of Federal Public Lands?
« Reply #62 on: May 01, 2017, 08:35:42 AM »


Almost true.  If they transfer it to the states, it is State School Trust land.  In many states, you can't hunt, fish, camp or even enter it.  It isn't the same thing as a state park, it is set up to profit for the benefit of the public school system.

Depends on the state and how it gets transfered.  In Washington, if they transfered the massive USFS lands to an entitiy not the WaDNR, then it would not be State Schools land.  All depends of the tranfer and acceptance documents.

DNR manages the school trust land:

Quote
As a trust land manager, DNR is obligated to follow the common law duties of a trustee which include generating revenue, managing trust assets prudently and acting with undivided loyalty to trust beneficiaries (Washington Supreme Court: Skamania vs. State of Washington, 1984)

Note their charter, to generate revenue for schools.  It isn't to provide recreational access.

Quote
State trust lands are distinctive in that they are managed to produce non-tax revenue for specific beneficiaries.

Many people who aren't paying attention (most voters) think that the feds are bad, locals are good and they want to have more control over federal land.  What will happen is that the states will go broke trying to manage them and end up selling them off or exclusively leasing them to mining, ag, or other interest groups.  There is no doubt public access will either suffer or go away.

Offline Knocker of rocks

  • Off-Topics
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Old Salt
  • *
  • Join Date: Aug 2011
  • Posts: 6175
  • Location: the Holocene, man
Re: Transfer of Federal Public Lands?
« Reply #63 on: May 01, 2017, 08:41:13 AM »


Almost true.  If they transfer it to the states, it is State School Trust land.  In many states, you can't hunt, fish, camp or even enter it.  It isn't the same thing as a state park, it is set up to profit for the benefit of the public school system.

Depends on the state and how it gets transferred.  In Washington, if they transferred the massive USFS lands to an entity not the WaDNR, then it would not be State Schools land.  All depends of the transfer and acceptance documents.

DNR manages the school trust land:

Yes, I know that.  And how do you know that the lands in this theoretical transfer would be given to DNR?

My point remains valid.

Since DNR lands own their heritage to Washington statehood, transcontinental railways and the homestead act and all it's precursors and descendants, it would seem likely that a new management entity would be required for newly transferred federal lands because Washington lacks the ability at present to manage former national parks, rec areas and wilderness.
« Last Edit: May 01, 2017, 08:46:36 AM by Knocker of rocks »

Offline Stein

  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Frontiersman
  • *****
  • Join Date: Sep 2013
  • Posts: 2812
Re: Transfer of Federal Public Lands?
« Reply #64 on: May 01, 2017, 08:47:00 AM »
Who would they give it to?  I guarantee it isn't the WDFW.  Point is, nobody has the budget to manage it.

Offline Knocker of rocks

  • Off-Topics
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Old Salt
  • *
  • Join Date: Aug 2011
  • Posts: 6175
  • Location: the Holocene, man
Re: Transfer of Federal Public Lands?
« Reply #65 on: May 01, 2017, 09:44:55 AM »
Who would they give it to?  I guarantee it isn't the WDFW.  Point is, nobody has the budget to manage it.

 :yeah: Especially when payments in leu of taxes are removed from the states budget

Offline yakimanoob

  • Virtual Campfire
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Scout
  • *
  • Join Date: Jun 2016
  • Posts: 474
  • Location: Naches
Re: Transfer of Federal Public Lands?
« Reply #66 on: May 01, 2017, 11:24:38 AM »
The forest service budget is a few billion dollars or something like that. You'd have to be an idiot to attack federal public lands to minimize federal reach.

If it were up to me the budget would be tripled.
THIS.  For goodness sakes.  There's plenty to gripe about regarding federal over-reach and big-government, but federal land management is not one of them. 

The core issue, as has already been pointed out, is that most states are under a legal requirement to SELL state-owned land unless that land can be managed for a profit.  That is the antithesis of preserving land for recreation and conservation.  How the hell are you supposed to secure and protect enough habitat to support an elk or mountain goat herd AND manage that land for profit at the same time? If the states didn't have the requirement to sell, this would become an interesting question about who is better than who at land management.  As it stands, it's not even a question.  The Federal government is legally allowed to preserve our lands.  The states are not. 

Steven Rinella said something on his podcast that hit me hard, and should motivate each and every one of us to fiercely protect our federal public lands. 

"I own the title to 640 million acres of land, and so do each and every one of you." 

Offline yakimanoob

  • Virtual Campfire
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Scout
  • *
  • Join Date: Jun 2016
  • Posts: 474
  • Location: Naches
Re: Transfer of Federal Public Lands?
« Reply #67 on: May 01, 2017, 11:29:15 AM »
To take action:

Support RMEF, as I imagine many/most of you do already.  http://www.rmef.org/NewsandMedia/PressRoom/NewsReleases/RMEFonPublicLandsTransfer.aspx

If you don't mind linking arms with non-hunters who want the same thing you want, support Keep it Public - https://keepitpublic.org/

Also check out http://www.protectourpublicland.org/

Also do the things everyone else has already said! :)

Offline Special T

  • Truth the new Hate Speech.
  • Washington For Wildlife
  • Trade Count: (+11)
  • Explorer
  • *
  • Join Date: Aug 2009
  • Posts: 17154
  • Location: Skagit Valley
  • Wake me when you need me.
    • Silver Arrow Bowmen
Re: Transfer of Federal Public Lands?
« Reply #68 on: May 01, 2017, 11:43:52 AM »
If the USFS continued the management on the model Gifford Pinchots then there would money for maintenance brows for deer and elk, and maintained roads for sportsmen to access the woods mountains and lakes.

The whole reason why you see this pushback is because the USFS has not been operating in the public's best interest. When they have the $ to read out complete road bases but not to maintain them THEY made a natural allie a critic.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

The Truth is like Poetry, and most people hate Poetry

Offline Stein

  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Frontiersman
  • *****
  • Join Date: Sep 2013
  • Posts: 2812
Re: Transfer of Federal Public Lands?
« Reply #69 on: May 01, 2017, 11:48:16 AM »
So you expect the states to throw more money at it?

Offline Special T

  • Truth the new Hate Speech.
  • Washington For Wildlife
  • Trade Count: (+11)
  • Explorer
  • *
  • Join Date: Aug 2009
  • Posts: 17154
  • Location: Skagit Valley
  • Wake me when you need me.
    • Silver Arrow Bowmen
Re: Transfer of Federal Public Lands?
« Reply #70 on: May 01, 2017, 11:54:57 AM »
It's sad that so many don't see that the judicious cutting of timber generates more money than is necessary to provide access and maintenance.

All I ever hear is excuses for why it can't be done. If the USFS wants to prove its worth the perhaps they should be support solutions instead of just asking for more .  If Pichot cold do it why can't we now? If something needs to change then why not push Congress for a solution.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

The Truth is like Poetry, and most people hate Poetry

Offline Rob Allen

  • In constant need of The Savior
  • Virtual Campfire
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Hunter
  • *
  • Join Date: Nov 2014
  • Posts: 157
  • Location: Wishram
Re: Transfer of Federal Public Lands?
« Reply #71 on: May 04, 2017, 10:08:34 PM »
[quote author=Knocker of rocks

How could you develop a plan, and find buyers for all the public lands at once.  The average price you seek is about $46,000/acre.

Also, why does the west and it's public lands have to be responsible for a debt created largely by other parts of the country?
[/quote]

1. That is for  the people  who  want to steal my land to figure out i am not going to help them.
Not only is land transfer  a bad idea it's  an evil one. Stealing from the many to give to the few.

46000 an acre  huh?  That's  a bargain  price  should be 10 times  that.

Well  the only  issue  i can think of more important  than maintaining our  public land is our national debt. Someone has to be responsible  for it but none of us want to pony  up the bucks. If the country goes  bankrupt  no other issue  no matter how important  it seems  now will matter  one bit.
Yet while we were still sinners Christ died for us.

Offline AKBowman

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Sourdough
  • *****
  • Join Date: Nov 2008
  • Posts: 1446
  • Location: Kent, WA
Re: Transfer of Federal Public Lands?
« Reply #72 on: May 10, 2017, 10:57:50 PM »
Since I supported the Bundy Revolution it'd be hypocritical of me to be against this. So I am for but think the state should get only if they promise to not sell it off. With certain things being legal now that weren't years ago this would be a great way to keep them public.

If that is the case than you CANNOT be for this. Understand clearly: it is the states constitutional obligation to sell assets that are losing funds for the state. The western states cannot currently afford the land we have and the driving forces behind the idea of "state land transfer" damn well known it.

It would be a very short while before states would use this excuse to sell huge chunks of these now federal lands. It's already happening in OR. It would happen here. Think of how many folks recreate on Tiger Mtn State Forest and imagine it shut down to all access.

And if you think this huge surplus of land will get bought up by anyone who cares about wilderness or land management (like a timber company or large ranch used as an example in a previous post) think again. First likely buyer will be foreigners who will look to potentially develop the land.

The big thing that no one has talked about is how this will DRAMATICALLY dilute existing land values all across the western US.
"when the time comes for a man to look his maker in the eye, where a better place could a meeting be held...than in the wilderness"

Offline swanny

  • Washington For Wildlife
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Sourdough
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Posts: 1718
  • Location: Kent
    • 9to5active
Re: Transfer of Federal Public Lands?
« Reply #73 on: May 11, 2017, 09:05:17 AM »
The people spoke and the governemtn listened, Oregon will not be selling off Elliott Forest http://portlandtribune.com/pt/9-news/358272-238317-land-board-rejects-sale-keeps-elliott-state-forest-in-public-hands

Offline Stein

  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Frontiersman
  • *****
  • Join Date: Sep 2013
  • Posts: 2812
Re: Transfer of Federal Public Lands?
« Reply #74 on: May 11, 2017, 02:00:07 PM »
Another one was just stopped in Wyoming, they wanted to transfer for a piece that would cut off over 4,000 acres of other public land.  Personally, I can't see how any public land sportsman or lover of the outdoors could be anything but fanatically against this.

 

* Recent Topics

Magpul hunter stock by BULLBLASTER
[Today at 12:38:03 PM]


11 year Old daughters first Bear by Dan-o
[Today at 12:37:38 PM]


Blacktail Sheds by headshot5
[Today at 12:36:26 PM]


Wall tent canvas with stove jack by samsqatch
[Today at 12:36:13 PM]


SCI Banquet Feb 17th Southcenter by X-Force
[Today at 12:34:52 PM]


Poached Goat by bobcat
[Today at 12:34:29 PM]


Glass for sale (added rangefinder) by samsqatch
[Today at 12:34:25 PM]


WTB- canoe by samsqatch
[Today at 12:33:40 PM]


What size shot for both ducks & geese? by WSU
[Today at 12:33:06 PM]


Aladdin moose hunt by Buckblaster
[Today at 12:32:02 PM]


FS 650T rhino by elkslayer069
[Today at 12:30:58 PM]


Illinois Whitetail Hunt by carpsniperg2
[Today at 12:19:47 PM]


2017 HuntWA Christmas Gift Exchange - LIST IS CLOSED by Machias
[Today at 12:06:46 PM]


Dehydrator Recommendations by NRA4LIFE
[Today at 12:04:50 PM]


Idaho elk by BB11b
[Today at 12:04:04 PM]


Spectacular Jungle fowl trap and amazing baking method by 7mmfan
[Today at 11:59:58 AM]


Duck Decoys - What are your favorites? by Badhabit
[Today at 11:53:45 AM]


PICKLED EGGS, WHATS YOUR RECIPE? by Badhabit
[Today at 11:51:59 AM]


Article: Garbage Flowing at Mt. St. Helens by Southpole
[Today at 11:45:42 AM]


Landscapes (pics) by Cylvertip
[Today at 11:36:43 AM]