Biologists say land access fess bad for hunting

[csaaphill]

Uncalled for. Try and be civil. It's a family site.

I think he was, didn't read any hostilites at all in his message.
If you meant me I just agreed because I see this as a threat to us as a whole.
Family has nothing to do with it lol my wifes family is loud noisy and constantly fighting.
Holidays no exception just worse.
Still I see this as a threat if you have to pay hundreds of dollors to access land and can't afford to go to Public which BTW might not be there either since Majoritys now think they can take things at a whim! Were pretty much screwed unless you can afford it. I can't thats for sure.

[pianoman9701]

Apparently the post I was referring to was removed.

[csaaphill]

Apparently the post I was referring to was removed.

[Special T]

Story did a good job of laying it out there... Kinda "Duh!" Sad that we have to pont out the basics of comon sense because too ew can understand it. 

[csaaphill]

Story did a good job of laying it out there... Kinda "Duh!" Sad that we have to pont out the basics of comon sense because too ew can understand it. 

[DOUBLELUNG]

The "average" hunter is already considerably wealthier than the average American.  Supply and demand will continue, unfortunately; with auction opportunities the ultimate perversion of the "public ownership" of wildlife - selling public wildlife to the highest bidder to fund "public" management.  (Note, I do NOT fault the bidders and buyers at all, I fault the existence of the auction tags created by the states).  While I would love to hunt with my son, in some ways I am glad he is not interested, as I am afraid I can't provide him the opportunities I found as a young hunter.   

On the subject of theft of PR funds from state wildlife agencies to create a USFWS slush fund, including its use for introducing Canadian wolves into the greater Yellowstone ecosystem, as Dale stated that is a matter of public record.  It was the investigation into the USFWS funding sources for the wolf introduction that brought this theft to light.  The PR Act allowed the USFWS to retain up to 8% of the funds collected to cover the costs of implementing the Act, all monies above that cost are to be allocated to the state wildlife agencies by a formula based on total population and number of license buyers.  USFWS instead took a full 8% off the top every year, and rather than returning the difference between the costs of implementation (about 2%) to the states, it was illegally funneled into pet projects. 

[bearpaw]

Dale, you don't seem to have much sympathy for hunters affected by the access fees. But thinking about it, as someone who leases and ties up land for hunting, these fees are right up your alley and actually probably make your services more attractive to some people. In other words, you have something to gain from this trend.

But to the average hunter, this is the death knell of hunting as we know it and a turn towards a European style of hunting where only the well off can afford to hunt. Overall, hunter numbers are going to fall because of this. All businesses that support hunting are going to feel it.  When an area that supported thousands of hunters is limited to a few hundred, it's going to affect spending locally, just like the impact you place on wolves. Only this will be way bigger as hunting traditions die and most people quit caring about hunting. It's also going to reduce the base of people defending hunting from anti hunters. The less people hunt, the more irrelevant hunting will seem to the non hunting majority and VOTERS. This trend is not good for hunting as a whole.

FYI - I charge just as much for a top quality hunt on public land as for most of my hunts on private land, there's so much more to a guided hunting experience than some people realize! There are hundreds of outfitters who only operate on public lands. I think you are confused about the issue. 

I don't agree that we should give special tax breaks to land owners who are getting special tax breaks for providing recreational spaces and then charging access fees for recreational access.

But, private property owners absolutely should be able to charge an access fee if they choose. After all, it's privately owned property. Do you go to Disney World and tell them they cannot charge an access fee? Do you go to a vegetable farm or xmas tree farm and expect free access?

The biggest impact that access fees have on hunting in this state is the access fees to public lands. Are these really public owned lands or are these simply lands controlled by the ruling class and being rented to the public? Now hunters are stuck paying access fees to hunt on state land that the public supposedly owns.

[montana44mag]

Everyone--private landowners and public agencies--are treating hunters like the proverbial "Golden Goose"  where they squeeze and squeeze to get more and more.  At some point the goose stops laying and folks quit hunting.

I think thats the point/endgoal for about 15 - 20yrs out. Across all agencies and many private interests.
 Forests full of wolves, grizzlies, and gates and cameras.
 citys full of people, living "carbon neutral" (poor) lifestyles, in the name of the collective.
 nobody has guns, except those with enough connections and money,
 and only elites can afford/pass thru all the hoops to live rural and hunt.

[Sitka_Blacktail]

But, private property owners absolutely should be able to charge an access fee if they choose. After all, it's privately owned property. Do you go to Disney World and tell them they cannot charge an access fee? Do you go to a vegetable farm or xmas tree farm and expect free access?

I do if they get a tax break to provide public access.

[bearpaw]

But, private property owners absolutely should be able to charge an access fee if they choose. After all, it's privately owned property. Do you go to Disney World and tell them they cannot charge an access fee? Do you go to a vegetable farm or xmas tree farm and expect free access?

I do if they get a tax break to provide public access.

I don't agree that we should give special tax breaks to land owners who are getting special tax breaks for providing recreational spaces and then charging access fees for recreational access.

Looks like we agree then!

[csaaphill]

Everyone--private landowners and public agencies--are treating hunters like the proverbial "Golden Goose"  where they squeeze and squeeze to get more and more.  At some point the goose stops laying and folks quit hunting.

I think thats the point/endgoal for about 15 - 20yrs out. Across all agencies and many private interests.
 Forests full of wolves, grizzlies, and gates and cameras.
 citys full of people, living "carbon neutral" (poor) lifestyles, in the name of the collective.
 nobody has guns, except those with enough connections and money,
 and only elites can afford/pass thru all the hoops to live rural and hunt.

[csaaphill]

The "average" hunter is already considerably wealthier than the average American.  Supply and demand will continue, unfortunately; with auction opportunities the ultimate perversion of the "public ownership" of wildlife - selling public wildlife to the highest bidder to fund "public" management.  (Note, I do NOT fault the bidders and buyers at all, I fault the existence of the auction tags created by the states).  While I would love to hunt with my son, in some ways I am glad he is not interested, as I am afraid I can't provide him the opportunities I found as a young hunter.   

On the subject of theft of PR funds from state wildlife agencies to create a USFWS slush fund, including its use for introducing Canadian wolves into the greater Yellowstone ecosystem, as Dale stated that is a matter of public record.  It was the investigation into the USFWS funding sources for the wolf introduction that brought this theft to light.  The PR Act allowed the USFWS to retain up to 8% of the funds collected to cover the costs of implementing the Act, all monies above that cost are to be allocated to the state wildlife agencies by a formula based on total population and number of license buyers.  USFWS instead took a full 8% off the top every year, and rather than returning the difference between the costs of implementation (about 2%) to the states, it was illegally funneled into pet projects.