Your Opinion

[ChesterCopperpot]

You've missed the whole point. Have a good evening.

No, I get you absolutely. And we fundamentally disagree. You believe you have a right to all opportunities allowed on federal land as an American citizen regardless of whether or not you have residency in the state where that federal land is located...and regardless of whether or not the opportunity you're taking advantage of may strip that same opportunity from someone who actually lives there. In the end, the law disagrees with you, for now, and for that I'm thankful.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Dougas]

We are now a very mobile nation and Federal land should be equally available to all.

How would this federal land be accessed? Would one be able to hunt on federal land, but not on state land? Who would be tasked with patrolling the federal land to ensure that rules are followed? State patrol? Federal patrol? What type of license would be necessary? A state license? A federal license? Both? Would someone who has a license to hunt the federal land (if a federal license would be required) also be considered a nonresident or be considered a US resident? If the hunter would be considered a non resident, then there would be no difference and that one could hunt state wide. If they are not considered a non resident, but a US resident, would the state have to reduce the non resident tags to account for the US resident tags?

[joey46]

We've entered the phase. Relax it will all work out.  "National" obviously doesn't really mean National. It only means "sort of" National when the forest are concerned.  Don't have one season for some U.S. residents and less for others on federal land.  Not the American way.   Private land and State land is in a state's purview.  Federal land should not be.  For a state such as MS to happily sell high dollar non-resident licenses and then deny hunting privileges on NF land for the first two weeks was a real eye opener on how screwed this system nationally really is.  Of course it was all for the good of the turkey and not a resident appeasement cave in.  What a hoot and a bold faced lie.

[Dougas]

Why not address my questions?

[joey46]

Why not address my questions?

The logistics are not my concern. The fairness to all U. S. residents is.   The current trend is to appease the state's residents at all cost

[ChesterCopperpot]

The convolution of "privileges" as "rights" is the braidwork of entitlement.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Dougas]

The logistics are not my concern.

Why not make it your concern and be a part of the solution? You seem to be passionate about this, why not do something about it?

I would like to see how your idea would work at a government level.
Here in Oregon, hunters lobbied for the right to use government lands that were landlocked by private land. Now, in most cases, all people can use a right of way through private property to access them. People who enjoy our public lands had a desire and did something about it beyond complaining on a website. The people took action and accomplished that goal.

[joey46]

Good for you. Oregon's problems solved. To repeat the logistics not my concern.  The end results are.
I am intrigued about the Oregon easement solution to landlocked public land.  The lack of access to BLM land throughout the west has been a decades long conflict.  Please give us detailed information on the Oregon situation as it now stands.  I'm sure hunters in MT, WY, CO and others are all ears. 

[joey46]

The convolution of "privileges" as "rights" is the braidwork of entitlement.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Is that a Bernie Sanders quote?

[merriamsman]

You've missed the whole point. Have a good evening.

No, I get you absolutely. And we fundamentally disagree. You believe you have a right to all opportunities allowed on federal land as an American citizen regardless of whether or not you have residency in the state where that federal land is located...and regardless of whether or not the opportunity you're taking advantage of may strip that same opportunity from someone who actually lives there. In the end, the law disagrees with you, for now, and for that I'm thankful.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well said.

[merriamsman]

The convolution of "privileges" as "rights" is the braidwork of entitlement.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Chester, you are just making too much sense.

[Prospector]

You know, we just arguing to be arguing. Our conversations aren't gonna change a thing. "For that you are grateful"- absolutely- right up to the minute you don't agree with it either or it doesn't protect your personal intrest. Truthfully, I could see closing Mississippi to all NR hunters. It would actually be personally better for me if it did. BUT it is  a step in the wrong direction to limit a citizen in one way while telling another it's ok based only on where they live. Please don't throw the word " elite" at others when you believe that is the right way to handle this.
As a resident you get proximity, cheaper tags,and the beauty of your state all year. As a NR, I'll gladly pay more, incur travel costs etc to expierance the beauty of your state for a limited time.
Sorry, but not sorry

[ChesterCopperpot]

The convolution of "privileges" as "rights" is the braidwork of entitlement.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Chester, you are just making too much sense.

Selfishness is always shortsighted and the saddest part of all of this is that they can't see far enough down the line of their own "logic" (evidenced by the, "The logistics are not my concern," type statements) to realize they're arguing for bigger government. They're arguing for federal hands clenching its fingers around a game species. And that's the very last thing any of us should want for any species. When the federal government steps into game management that game species is in dire straits. They can't see it so won't admit it, but that's the inevitable end of that line of logic if game population and hunter demand continue at their current opposing trends. In the now it's, "I want access to the same privileges of resident hunters on federal lands in a given state." And that's perfectly fine if the resource can sustain that pressure. It can't. The answer to that is quota hunts. Quota hunts with equal opportunity granted to residents and nonresidents (which is why I asked that question a ways back, because like it or not that IS what they're proposing) is a burden that cannot be expected for states to carry. So who carries it at that point? That's the inevitable end to that line of logic. And it's not just arguing to be arguing here. This is a very real threat and it's something that we're already witnessing as opportunities are stripped away as a result of nonresident demand exceeding population thresholds. It's happening in certain states with turkeys (that demand issue being greatly compounded by steep and so far unalterable population decline). It's happening in places like Colorado with elk. So to be clear, I'm not arguing for the sake of arguing. I'm arguing because this line of thought is a very real threat. But none of that will matter to the ones spewing this nonsense because as Captain Hook said of children, "He took my toy! She hit my bear! I want a party! I want a cookie! I want to stay up! I want, I want, I want, me, me, me, me, mine, mine, mine, mine, now, now, now, now!"


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Prospector]

How is saying it's ok for the STATE government to make the rule not more government?!? The way it is or was is less government! That is Americans can all use American lands the same as any other American! And the dissidents, err, I mean Americans,have every right to travel to utilize americas land in other states as well.

[Prospector]

and while we are spouting the differences between privileges and rights, it it still a privilege for a resident to hunt their home state..... not a right. No more, no less