Hunting like you're on Downton Abby in Idaho...on public land

[AspenBud]

They'll only have a dress code and charge you $4000 for the pleasure to hunt your land.

http://www.outdoorlife.com/blogs/open-country/exclusive-upland-shooting-club-makes-play-public-land-idaho?src=SOC&dom=fb

[idahohuntr]

 

States need to reconsider this exclusive or primary goal of maximizing revenue generation for endowment lands - public access to public lands is a significant public interest - just as funding public schools is a public interest.  Horrible idea that will only continue escalation of making hunting exclusive to the wealthy.

[cbond3318]

  I hope they don't go through with such a proposal . I'll tell ya Harold this has put a cube in my tea and ruffled my trousers a tad.

[Henrydog]

I live on the boarder and do just about everything except buy groceries in Idaho.....if you dressed like that in Idaho I can safely say your in for a whoppin. 

[pianoman9701]

North American Game Management Model anyone? 

[denali]

Oh look, someone to carry my shotgun,  where do I sign up ? 

[ribka]

When I went bird hunting with my brother in England and Scotland was required to wear a jacket while on the estate. The guide about fainted when I asked if anyone shoots a semi-auto in their hunting estate

Many Americans love ( our think they love) the European socialist lifestyle and want to emulate it. This is not surprising

[pianoman9701]

I would have no problem with people doing this on private land. But, allowing this as restricted hunting on public land is not a very good idea.

[idaho guy]

 :

.....if you dressed like that in Idaho I can safely say your in for a whoppin.

  Major arse whoopin! 

[denali]

I would have no problem with people doing this on private land. But, allowing this as restricted hunting on public land is not a very good idea.

Indeed, with money they will charging you would think they could purchase a suitable ranch property.

[AWS]

Wasn't their a Vintagers get together in Oregon much like this, I believe they held it on one of the hunting preserves.

[bearpaw]

I wouldn't worry too much, I don't see this happening. I have a large lease on Idaho Endowment Lands for outfitting. It has been made abundantly clear to me by the Idaho Dept Of Lands that the public cannot be discouraged or prevented from using state lands. IMO the public would never stand for a club to have an exclusive lease preventing public use. Send a letter, it is always good for agencies to hear from the public. 

[runamuk]

Did anyone read the article. Because this is noteworthy if only due to the intent of the use of the public land, it was not granted for the public access interest but for the monetary interest.

The state of Idaho has a type of public land known as “endowment lands.” These state-owned and managed properties, for the most part, are lands that were donated by the federal government in the late 1800s for the purpose of providing financial support for the state’s rural, public schools. As is the case in many Western states, these “school sections” generate income in a number of ways, with grazing, timber, and mineral leases being most popular. In Idaho, the Department of Lands is required by statute to maximize income generation on these lands.

It’s the revenue-generation requirement that is noteworthy. In 2014, Blixt and Co. proposed a new source of revenue to the state, asking for an exclusive lease on a 580-acre piece of endowment land.

considering the state of Idahos schools money generation would be a huge motivator backed by statute

[pianoman9701]

Yes, the monetary value outlined by the law has been discussed.

[bigtex]

Did anyone read the article. Because this is noteworthy if only due to the intent of the use of the public land, it was not granted for the public access interest but for the monetary interest.

The state of Idaho has a type of public land known as “endowment lands.” These state-owned and managed properties, for the most part, are lands that were donated by the federal government in the late 1800s for the purpose of providing financial support for the state’s rural, public schools. As is the case in many Western states, these “school sections” generate income in a number of ways, with grazing, timber, and mineral leases being most popular. In Idaho, the Department of Lands is required by statute to maximize income generation on these lands.

It’s the revenue-generation requirement that is noteworthy. In 2014, Blixt and Co. proposed a new source of revenue to the state, asking for an exclusive lease on a 580-acre piece of endowment land.

considering the state of Idahos schools money generation would be a huge motivator backed by statute

Equivalent to WA DNR lands. $ is number 1, recreation/access is #.....?

[runamuk]

Did anyone read the article. Because this is noteworthy if only due to the intent of the use of the public land, it was not granted for the public access interest but for the monetary interest.

The state of Idaho has a type of public land known as “endowment lands.” These state-owned and managed properties, for the most part, are lands that were donated by the federal government in the late 1800s for the purpose of providing financial support for the state’s rural, public schools. As is the case in many Western states, these “school sections” generate income in a number of ways, with grazing, timber, and mineral leases being most popular. In Idaho, the Department of Lands is required by statute to maximize income generation on these lands.

It’s the revenue-generation requirement that is noteworthy. In 2014, Blixt and Co. proposed a new source of revenue to the state, asking for an exclusive lease on a 580-acre piece of endowment land.

considering the state of Idahos schools money generation would be a huge motivator backed by statute

Equivalent to WA DNR lands. $ is number 1, recreation/access is #.....?

Not exactly.   There are some huge differences if you read the laws and statutes and the original intents of various public lands in various states.  Just look at how many different bodies oversee "public lands".

[JDHasty]

I don't know.  Let them have their fun.  I don't dress like that, but it's all in good fun and play like they are shooting in Scotland.  It doesn't hurt me any.  And, make no mistake about it, if a politician gets an invite and has a good time - it helps me.  And they will. 

[constructeur]

:

.....if you dressed like that in Idaho I can safely say your in for a whoppin.

  Major arse whoopin!

They already have (and have had) multiple shoots scheduled for a few different places in Idaho. I've yet to hear of any dust ups yet...

I don't support any public land being 'leased/privatized' and we hunters being told to not trespass (goes for timber and other natural resource extraction outfits too) but ya'll need to remember that anyone toting a gun and enjoying shooting sports is on our side in the big scheme of things.

Also, thought this isn't exactly my flavour, I do have a 'when in Rome' policy, and when I finally do make it to the UK I certainly would love to spend a day at the Holland and Holland shooting course, to shoot on a peg as Ribka has, or to stone something funky like a Muntjac or Roe buck. But that's just me...

[JDHasty]

Just let them have their fun... and maybe, just maybe, they will let you have you have yours.  They are not hurting anyone.  It's not my style, but they seem to be enjoying themselves. 

[pianoman9701]

:

.....if you dressed like that in Idaho I can safely say your in for a whoppin.

  Major arse whoopin!

They already have (and have had) multiple shoots scheduled for a few different places in Idaho. I've yet to hear of any dust ups yet...

I don't support any public land being 'leased/privatized' and we hunters being told to not trespass (goes for timber and other natural resource extraction outfits too) but ya'll need to remember that anyone toting a gun and enjoying shooting sports is on our side in the big scheme of things.

Also, thought this isn't exactly my flavour, I do have a 'when in Rome' policy, and when I finally do make it to the UK I certainly would love to spend a day at the Holland and Holland shooting course, to shoot on a peg as Ribka has, or to stone something funky like a Muntjac or Roe buck. But that's just me...

Just let them have their fun... and maybe, just maybe, they will let you have you have yours.  They are not hurting anyone.  It's not my style, but they seem to be enjoying themselves.

 I wouldn't have a problem with this as long as the land isn't closed to other hunters and that they obey the hunting laws. However, if these "leases" meant that the land were closed to other hunters, that would be a huge problem and directly apposed to the North American Game Management model. And just because someone's "toting a gun..." doesn't mean we look the other way no matter what they do. We should never sit quietly in the face of lost public opportunities for all hunters.

[wapiti hunter2]

I have no problem with this. Here is my point.

First: It is less than one square mile. Two: The law states that the state must manage the land for income for the schools. So, they will be paying a lease to the state for that. Three: To make this worthwhile, they will have to raise and release birds to hunt. Not all will be shot and some will escape to the surrounding land and breed. The neighboring lands will become good hunting areas for us "peons". Four: The people who can afford this will bring additional money to the communities nearby supporting the local economy.

In the big picture, this is good for us all.

[JimmyHoffa]

I have no problem with this. Here is my point.

First: It is less than one square mile. Two: The law states that the state must manage the land for income for the schools. So, they will be paying a lease to the state for that. Three: To make this worthwhile, they will have to raise and release birds to hunt. Not all will be shot and some will escape to the surrounding land and breed. The neighboring lands will become good hunting areas for us "peons". Four: The people who can afford this will bring additional money to the communities nearby supporting the local economy.

In the big picture, this is good for us all.

Generally the escapees would need to be wild birds that were captured to successfully breed.  Game birds iirc that are pen/man raised don't get imprinted the right way and have a terrible survival rate--the chicks starve.  So the excess birds in an area would likely only be that one generation.  It would be tough to establish a new population off of pen raised.  Kind of why I think the antis argument about invasive birds with hunting operations is so weak.  Maybe someone can tell me if I've heard wrong.

[JLS]

I have no problem with this. Here is my point.

First: It is less than one square mile. Two: The law states that the state must manage the land for income for the schools. So, they will be paying a lease to the state for that. Three: To make this worthwhile, they will have to raise and release birds to hunt. Not all will be shot and some will escape to the surrounding land and breed. The neighboring lands will become good hunting areas for us "peons". Four: The people who can afford this will bring additional money to the communities nearby supporting the local economy.

In the big picture, this is good for us all.

No, it is not "good for us all".

I understand what the constitutional mandate is to maximize income from state school trust land.  However, to set the precedent for exclusive leasing of hunting rights on public land is an absolutely terrible idea.  The mere idea of this is a primary reason why I am so opposed to transferring federal lands to the states.  It's only one square mile for now, but think about what that can lead to down the road.

Planting birds and thinking you will increase the hunting quality on nearby properties is a fallacy.  Planted birds have a pitiful survival rate, hence the reason most preserves release the birds the day they are to be hunted.  A very small percentage lives past 48 to 72 hours.  Even less past one or two weeks.  So, the end benefit to hunters on neighboring properties is very slim.

There are better ways to make an economic impact on local communities than by promoting exclusive use of public lands to the wealthy.

[pianoman9701]

I have no problem with this. Here is my point.

First: It is less than one square mile. Two: The law states that the state must manage the land for income for the schools. So, they will be paying a lease to the state for that. Three: To make this worthwhile, they will have to raise and release birds to hunt. Not all will be shot and some will escape to the surrounding land and breed. The neighboring lands will become good hunting areas for us "peons". Four: The people who can afford this will bring additional money to the communities nearby supporting the local economy.

In the big picture, this is good for us all.

No, it is not "good for us all".

I understand what the constitutional mandate is to maximize income from state school trust land.  However, to set the precedent for exclusive leasing of hunting rights on public land is an absolutely terrible idea.  The mere idea of this is a primary reason why I am so opposed to transferring federal lands to the states.  It's only one square mile for now, but think about what that can lead to down the road.

Planting birds and thinking you will increase the hunting quality on nearby properties is a fallacy.  Planted birds have a pitiful survival rate, hence the reason most preserves release the birds the day they are to be hunted.  A very small percentage lives past 48 to 72 hours.  Even less past one or two weeks.  So, the end benefit to hunters on neighboring properties is very slim.

There are better ways to make an economic impact on local communities than by promoting exclusive use of public lands to the wealthy.

The constitutional mandate should not value revenue generation over the rights of the people, regardless of their income or social status.

Once wealthy people find out they can lease publicly-owned lands and have their use barred to the general public, it'll be a lot more than one square mile. One of the problems we have in this country is rich folks are held to different standards than us peons. This is a horrible precedent to set and again, in total opposition to the North American Game Management model. Your ability to spend money should never preclude you from access to publicly owned property.

[Bullkllr]

I have no problem with this. Here is my point.

First: It is less than one square mile. Two: The law states that the state must manage the land for income for the schools. So, they will be paying a lease to the state for that. Three: To make this worthwhile, they will have to raise and release birds to hunt. Not all will be shot and some will escape to the surrounding land and breed. The neighboring lands will become good hunting areas for us "peons". Four: The people who can afford this will bring additional money to the communities nearby supporting the local economy.

In the big picture, this is good for us all.

No, it is not "good for us all".

I understand what the constitutional mandate is to maximize income from state school trust land.  However, to set the precedent for exclusive leasing of hunting rights on public land is an absolutely terrible idea.  The mere idea of this is a primary reason why I am so opposed to transferring federal lands to the states.  It's only one square mile for now, but think about what that can lead to down the road.

Planting birds and thinking you will increase the hunting quality on nearby properties is a fallacy.  Planted birds have a pitiful survival rate, hence the reason most preserves release the birds the day they are to be hunted.  A very small percentage lives past 48 to 72 hours.  Even less past one or two weeks.  So, the end benefit to hunters on neighboring properties is very slim.

There are better ways to make an economic impact on local communities than by promoting exclusive use of public lands to the wealthy.

The constitutional mandate should not value revenue generation over the rights of the people, regardless of their income or social status.

Once wealthy people find out they can lease publicly-owned lands and have their use barred to the general public, it'll be a lot more than one square mile. One of the problems we have in this country is rich folks are held to different standards than us peons. This is a horrible precedent to set and again, in total opposition to the North American Game Management model. Your ability to spend money should never preclude you from access to publicly owned property.

Very well said!

[JLS]

I have no problem with this. Here is my point.

First: It is less than one square mile. Two: The law states that the state must manage the land for income for the schools. So, they will be paying a lease to the state for that. Three: To make this worthwhile, they will have to raise and release birds to hunt. Not all will be shot and some will escape to the surrounding land and breed. The neighboring lands will become good hunting areas for us "peons". Four: The people who can afford this will bring additional money to the communities nearby supporting the local economy.

In the big picture, this is good for us all.

No, it is not "good for us all".

I understand what the constitutional mandate is to maximize income from state school trust land.  However, to set the precedent for exclusive leasing of hunting rights on public land is an absolutely terrible idea.  The mere idea of this is a primary reason why I am so opposed to transferring federal lands to the states.  It's only one square mile for now, but think about what that can lead to down the road.

Planting birds and thinking you will increase the hunting quality on nearby properties is a fallacy.  Planted birds have a pitiful survival rate, hence the reason most preserves release the birds the day they are to be hunted.  A very small percentage lives past 48 to 72 hours.  Even less past one or two weeks.  So, the end benefit to hunters on neighboring properties is very slim.

There are better ways to make an economic impact on local communities than by promoting exclusive use of public lands to the wealthy.

The constitutional mandate should not value revenue generation over the rights of the people, regardless of their income or social status.

Once wealthy people find out they can lease publicly-owned lands and have their use barred to the general public, it'll be a lot more than one square mile. One of the problems we have in this country is rich folks are held to different standards than us peons. This is a horrible precedent to set and again, in total opposition to the North American Game Management model. Your ability to spend money should never preclude you from access to publicly owned property.

I agree with you in terms of the North American Model.  However, in many western states recreation is completely secondary to revenue generation when it comes to state school trust lands.  As I said, in Idaho where this article references, their state constitution mandates the state school trust lands to be managed for maximum revenue.  Other western states have similar mandates.  The only way to change it is to amend their state's constitution.

[jetjockey]

I have no problem with this. Here is my point.

First: It is less than one square mile. Two: The law states that the state must manage the land for income for the schools. So, they will be paying a lease to the state for that. Three: To make this worthwhile, they will have to raise and release birds to hunt. Not all will be shot and some will escape to the surrounding land and breed. The neighboring lands will become good hunting areas for us "peons". Four: The people who can afford this will bring additional money to the communities nearby supporting the local economy.

In the big picture, this is good for us all.

No, it is not "good for us all".

I understand what the constitutional mandate is to maximize income from state school trust land.  However, to set the precedent for exclusive leasing of hunting rights on public land is an absolutely terrible idea.  The mere idea of this is a primary reason why I am so opposed to transferring federal lands to the states.  It's only one square mile for now, but think about what that can lead to down the road.

Planting birds and thinking you will increase the hunting quality on nearby properties is a fallacy.  Planted birds have a pitiful survival rate, hence the reason most preserves release the birds the day they are to be hunted.  A very small percentage lives past 48 to 72 hours.  Even less past one or two weeks.  So, the end benefit to hunters on neighboring properties is very slim.

There are better ways to make an economic impact on local communities than by promoting exclusive use of public lands to the wealthy.

Not true at all.  Down here in the South many plantations do "early release" programs.  Your often hunting hirds that have been out for several months.  I've also hinted "early release" pheasants.  The problem in WA is they release the birds with no viable habbitat for them afterwords.  If you release birds you need to give them cover, food, and water.  How many reserves in WA release birds into milo and corn fields where they have a chance to survive like they do in the wild?  Cooke Canyon is a prime example. There's no viable cover or food for the birds once they are released. In SD the released birds live a LONG time in natural habbitat.

[idaho guy]

:

.....if you dressed like that in Idaho I can safely say your in for a whoppin.

  Major arse whoopin!

They already have (and have had) multiple shoots scheduled for a few different places in Idaho. I've yet to hear of any dust ups yet...

I don't support any public land being 'leased/privatized' and we hunters being told to not trespass (goes for timber and other natural resource extraction outfits too) but ya'll need to remember that anyone toting a gun and enjoying shooting sports is on our side in the big scheme of things.

Also, thought this isn't exactly my flavour, I do have a 'when in Rome' policy, and when I finally do make it to the UK I certainly would love to spend a day at the Holland and Holland shooting course, to shoot on a peg as Ribka has, or to stone something funky like a Muntjac or Roe buck. But that's just me...

Just let them have their fun... and maybe, just maybe, they will let you have you have yours.  They are not hurting anyone.  It's not my style, but they seem to be enjoying themselves.

 I wouldn't have a problem with this as long as the land isn't closed to other hunters and that they obey the hunting laws. However, if these "leases" meant that the land were closed to other hunters, that would be a huge problem and directly apposed to the North American Game Management model. And just because someone's "toting a gun..." doesn't mean we look the other way no matter what they do. We should never sit quietly in the face of lost public opportunities for all hunters.

the whoopin comment was just a joke ! I don't care what other people do as long as its ethical and legal. Idaho state lands do have to maximize revenue but I think there would be an absolute revolt if they start leasing public land so I am pretty positive they will find a way around doing this. In now way would this benefit us all. This would be a terrible precedent.
   

[runamuk]

http://www.idl.idaho.gov/cottage-sites/

http://www.idl.idaho.gov/for-sale/index.html

http://www.idl.idaho.gov/leasing/advertise/index.html

from what i see precedent was set way back when these lands were given to the state.  They don't look like they have ever been managed the same as open lands if people have been leasing the land that they live on for several generations.  Click on the 2015 expiring leases any of those could be what this group is working on acquiring which means it was already being leased before.  Looks like the state of Idaho has been managing these lands like this all along and maybe the only reason its suddenly causing a hoohaw is because some hunter perceives a loss in land that wasn't open to them to begin with  but they heard hunt club and lose their little minds.  So if it was going to be leased to a mining company that was going to limit access to the land that would be ok? or would it be posted here huffing and puffing about elitist this and whoopin that?

[Curly]

In this state I know that some DNR lands get leased to famers/ranchers. At least they used to. I know of one example anyway in Thurston County where the property was leased to a guy for grazing his cattle. And I do know that when the lease is up they won't be renewing the lease. They would have made much more money if they would have planted trees instead of leasing for grazing.  It was a screw up on part of DNR to have made that lease. 

My point is, that the timber business does bring in good money for the state for funding schools, but I bet if they could find a way of leasing the land that would make more money than timber, they would try it.  It's unfortunate that DNR in this state and other agencies like them in other states like ID, don't have outdoor recreation as one of their priorities. 

[idaho guy]

http://www.idl.idaho.gov/cottage-sites/

http://www.idl.idaho.gov/for-sale/index.html

http://www.idl.idaho.gov/leasing/advertise/index.html

from what i see precedent was set way back when these lands were given to the state.  They don't look like they have ever been managed the same as open lands if people have been leasing the land that they live on for several generations.  Click on the 2015 expiring leases any of those could be what this group is working on acquiring which means it was already being leased before.  Looks like the state of Idaho has been managing these lands like this all along and maybe the only reason its suddenly causing a hoohaw is because some hunter perceives a loss in land that wasn't open to them to begin with  but they heard hunt club and lose their little minds.  So if it was going to be leased to a mining company that was going to limit access to the land that would be ok? or would it be posted here huffing and puffing about elitist this and whoopin that?

I think this would be different than the leases that have gone on forever. The state land by my house was leased for cattle but it did not restrict anyone from using and hunting on that property. Priest lake leases are usually small parcels for peoples lake cabins(or mansions!) that don't really restrict anyone from using the lake. This is a larger piece of state land where the main intent is to restrict anyone else from using it.
Again my whooping comment was just a joke based on the goofy outfits etc and I am not calling this group elitist or anything else. They can do what they want. What I would hate to see is the state of Idaho start leasing public lands to hunting clubs that would restrict the average joe from being able to hunt. To my knowledge this has never been done before and would be a terrible precedent to set. I have always been gratefull for the vast amount of public land we can hunt and do whatever on and I want my kids and eventually grandkids have the same opportunity.