Post by: fireweed on November 10, 2014, 09:40:56 AM
Post by: Curly on November 10, 2014, 09:55:11 AM
Post by: idahohuntr on November 10, 2014, 10:01:45 AM
Post by: csaaphill on November 10, 2014, 10:47:24 PM
so ya duh.
Post by: bearpaw on November 16, 2014, 02:17:03 PM
Quote
The money goes to the Secretary of the Interior to distribute to states, based on a formula that takes into account the area of a state and the number of licensed hunters.
None of the money can be used by anyone other than the state's fish and wildlife agency. and the USFWS to plant Canadian wolves into the Rocky Mountain states.
There, I corrected the inaccuracy. It is part of the congressional record that funds were stolen for planting wolves.
Post by: mfswallace on November 16, 2014, 02:23:09 PM
QuoteThe money goes to the Secretary of the Interior to distribute to states, based on a formula that takes into account the area of a state and the number of licensed hunters.
None of the money can be used by anyone other than the state's fish and wildlife agency. and the USFWS to plant Canadian wolves into the Rocky Mountain states.
There, I corrected the inaccuracy. It is part of the congressional record that funds were stolen for planting wolves.
Sad that it's :chuckle:
Post by: idahohuntr on November 16, 2014, 03:47:35 PM
Weren't you just complaining about threads being hi-jacked? And here you are taking an article/thread about land access, something most sportsmen could agree on, and injecting a completely off-topic remark about some wolf conspiracy? :rolleyes:QuoteThe money goes to the Secretary of the Interior to distribute to states, based on a formula that takes into account the area of a state and the number of licensed hunters.
None of the money can be used by anyone other than the state's fish and wildlife agency. and the USFWS to plant Canadian wolves into the Rocky Mountain states.
There, I corrected the inaccuracy. It is part of the congressional record that funds were stolen for planting wolves.
Post by: mfswallace on November 16, 2014, 07:16:41 PM
Weren't you just complaining about threads being hi-jacked? And here you are taking an article/thread about land access, something most sportsmen could agree on, and injecting a completely off-topic remark about some wolf conspiracy? :rolleyes:QuoteThe money goes to the Secretary of the Interior to distribute to states, based on a formula that takes into account the area of a state and the number of licensed hunters.
None of the money can be used by anyone other than the state's fish and wildlife agency. and the USFWS to plant Canadian wolves into the Rocky Mountain states.
There, I corrected the inaccuracy. It is part of the congressional record that funds were stolen for planting wolves.
Seems like it follows the article and how funds are to be used :dunno:
Maybe your a little touchy about your pets :chuckle:
Post by: bearpaw on November 17, 2014, 10:36:44 AM
Weren't you just complaining about threads being hi-jacked? And here you are taking an article/thread about land access, something most sportsmen could agree on, and injecting a completely off-topic remark about some wolf conspiracy? :rolleyes:QuoteThe money goes to the Secretary of the Interior to distribute to states, based on a formula that takes into account the area of a state and the number of licensed hunters.
None of the money can be used by anyone other than the state's fish and wildlife agency. and the USFWS to plant Canadian wolves into the Rocky Mountain states.
There, I corrected the inaccuracy. It is part of the congressional record that funds were stolen for planting wolves.
Not a hijack at all, I quoted and corrected the original comment in the news story posted by the OP. It's part of the Congressional record in Washington D.C. that funds were secretly and illegally diverted from Pittman-Robertson by USFWS to fund wolf introduction. Not that I don't see problems with the Weyerhauser issue, but illegally funded wolf introduction has impacted hunting opportunities for many thousands of hunters in numerous states. With states admitting new herds have been impacted by wolves each year, I think it's arguable that more hunting opportunities have been lost to wolves than to Weyerhauser.
Another factor impacting hunters is the Discover Pass. I don't really see much difference between the Discover Pass fee than Weyerhauser charging a fee to access their own private lands. The biggest difference is that the DP is charging hunters a fee to access publicly owned lands. Many citizens have objected to the DP, but it is still in place.
I would suggest the collective impact of all these factors and others is the real problem. It seems very hypocritical for a public employee to single out a private company as a primary factor limiting hunting opportunities and North American wildlife management when the very state for whom he works is charging an access fee to access publicly owned lands. :twocents:
Post by: pianoman9701 on November 17, 2014, 11:25:28 AM
Post by: Bob33 on November 17, 2014, 12:06:27 PM
"Hunted wildlife species such as waterfowl, elk, pronghorn, white-tailed deer and wild sheep have rebounded from historic population low-points around 1900 under this system,'' Holman said.
"Wildlife that are generally not hunted have benefited from this as well due to the establishment and maintenance of habitats that support much more than game species and from the development of the science and tools used to manage all wildlife.
"This occurred because a large social-political entity (hunters) valued, funded and advocated for the animals and because large amounts of habitat on a combination of public and private lands was available for the wildlife and those who hunted them.''
Holman said it will take time to learn the management implications of the trend toward privatization of wildlife.
But he's not optimistic.
"Privatization, even when veiled in the form of access limitations, erodes this relationship and therefore the social and economic support for wildlife,'' Holman said.
"This is true whether it’s on a private game reserve in Europe, a fenced white-tailed deer ranch in Texas or and industrial tree farm with severe access restrictions.''
Post by: idahohuntr on November 17, 2014, 12:09:17 PM
You know wolf talk can easily derail these threads so I still don't see pointing it out as necessary given the topic.Weren't you just complaining about threads being hi-jacked? And here you are taking an article/thread about land access, something most sportsmen could agree on, and injecting a completely off-topic remark about some wolf conspiracy? :rolleyes:QuoteThe money goes to the Secretary of the Interior to distribute to states, based on a formula that takes into account the area of a state and the number of licensed hunters.
None of the money can be used by anyone other than the state's fish and wildlife agency. and the USFWS to plant Canadian wolves into the Rocky Mountain states.
There, I corrected the inaccuracy. It is part of the congressional record that funds were stolen for planting wolves.
Not a hijack at all, I quoted and corrected the original comment in the news story posted by the OP. It's part of the Congressional record in Washington D.C. that funds were secretly and illegally diverted from Pittman-Robertson by USFWS to fund wolf introduction. Not that I don't see problems with the Weyerhauser issue, but illegally funded wolf introduction has impacted hunting opportunities for many thousands of hunters in numerous states. With states admitting new herds have been impacted by wolves each year, I think it's arguable that more hunting opportunities have been lost to wolves than to Weyerhauser.
Another factor impacting hunters is the Discover Pass. I don't really see much difference between the Discover Pass fee than Weyerhauser charging a fee to access their own private lands. The biggest difference is that the DP is charging hunters a fee to access publicly owned lands. Many citizens have objected to the DP, but it is still in place.
I would suggest the collective impact of all these factors and others is the real problem. It seems very hypocritical for a public employee to single out a private company as a primary factor limiting hunting opportunities and North American wildlife management when the very state for whom he works is charging an access fee to access publicly owned lands. :twocents:
Back on point, yea, I would agree there is a bit of hypocricy for the state to charge fees for access but then potentially criticize or judge a private company for doing the same...probably a lot more subtleties and details that I'm not aware of about the discover pass though. I would say the states mismanagement of the private lands access program is more damaging to hunter access on the east side...its better than nothing but I just don't think some of those wdfw folks get it...all of the extra application money was supposed to improve access and all I've seen is a shell game and incompetence. We have the worst private lands program in the Western US and probably the greatest need of any western state...its frustrating. :bash:
Post by: fireweed on November 21, 2014, 08:43:06 AM
This article appeared in the Longview Daily news and I'm glad to see that paper recognizing the loss of hunters hurts everyone in the region.
http://tdn.com/news/local/hunters-sound-off-on-new-weyerhaeuser-land-access-fee/article_6a1ece06-6b88-11e4-ad3e-73bba99c40b4.html#utm_source=tdn.com&utm_campaign=hot-topics-2&utm_medium=direct (http://tdn.com/news/local/hunters-sound-off-on-new-weyerhaeuser-land-access-fee/article_6a1ece06-6b88-11e4-ad3e-73bba99c40b4.html#utm_source=tdn.com&utm_campaign=hot-topics-2&utm_medium=direct)
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on November 21, 2014, 09:18:26 AM
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.
Post by: csaaphill on November 21, 2014, 09:25:31 PM
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.exactly and what I/we seing as happening, and we should not support this at all.
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.
:bdid:
Post by: csaaphill on November 24, 2014, 11:09:28 AM
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. :chuckle:
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.
Post by: pianoman9701 on November 24, 2014, 11:24:02 AM
Post by: csaaphill on November 24, 2014, 11:29:52 AM
Apparently the post I was referring to was removed.:tup:
Post by: Special T on November 24, 2014, 11:32:12 AM
Post by: csaaphill on November 24, 2014, 11:43:32 AM
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. :bash::yeah:
Post by: DOUBLELUNG on November 24, 2014, 01:03:26 PM
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.
Post by: bearpaw on November 26, 2014, 01:05:29 PM
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. :P
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.
Post by: montana44mag on November 26, 2014, 01:22:46 PM
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.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on November 26, 2014, 10:54:32 PM
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.
Post by: bearpaw on November 27, 2014, 06:11:10 AM
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!
Post by: csaaphill on November 27, 2014, 05:42:14 PM
:yeah: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.
Post by: csaaphill on November 27, 2014, 05:43:47 PM
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.:chuckle:
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.