Trespass Fee
- Thread starter Gunner46
- Start date
Non-residents would?
Um, no shit. I am guessing pretty close to 100% of the public would concur. BTW, if I am a "you people" who else would than include?
So if a person pays more money, he/she is entitled to better opportunities? That Texas must be a wonderful state.
I have had a few folks contact me about hunting in MT. I don't give out honey-holes, but do what I can to give general help. None of the folks have mentioned anything about deserving more because they paid more for their tags and in all cases, they have been interested in hunting public lands or areas that do not require extra dollars.
It works both ways, I hunt other states and do my research before I go. I don't kill a monster often. I don't have the dinero to pay for a tresspass fee, but I guess I get more fulfillment taking an animal that the public has an equal opportunity to kill as well. $20K and a lease certainly doesn't make you a good hunter and I personally don't see the fulfillment from it.
I guess I got a little carried away, but to sumarize, see my post above.
Washington Hunter
Well-known member
mtmiller said:Sorry Tom, but I just had two glasses of wine. Maybe that is why I have no flippin' idea what you just said.
mtmiller, wine??? You got a chick over there or something?
Elkgunner
New member
Miller's a Chardonnay Sipper!!!
Tom,
Your argument that the Easterners can't scout, so they need to pay for good access pretty much implies that the Easterners are just buying their animal. They don't have time to scout, so they want to lock up 1000 acres and have the landowner tell them about the buck that feeds in the South pasture and then beds in the thicket near the Center Pivot??? That ain't hunting, that is shooting. If that is the quality of hunt they want, they might as well go hunt in Texas where that kind of stuff takes place.
Sorry, but I would get no satisfaction from buying a lease in order to fly in and shoot a quickie animal. That is not hunting.
I have travelled out of state and came up empty handed on a number of hunts. They were immensely satisfying hunts in my book. If somebody only values a hunt if they whack a 16" lope or a 30" buck and will pay for the animal, then they are not much of a hunter in my book. If that is the way hunting is headed, then let's hurry the process along.
I think you will find most of us who hunt out west (and live here) pretty protective of our public land hunts, and a 150 buck on Public Lands is WAAAAAAY better to me than a 205 buck behind a fence on somebody's pasture.
Tom,
Your argument that the Easterners can't scout, so they need to pay for good access pretty much implies that the Easterners are just buying their animal. They don't have time to scout, so they want to lock up 1000 acres and have the landowner tell them about the buck that feeds in the South pasture and then beds in the thicket near the Center Pivot??? That ain't hunting, that is shooting. If that is the quality of hunt they want, they might as well go hunt in Texas where that kind of stuff takes place.
Sorry, but I would get no satisfaction from buying a lease in order to fly in and shoot a quickie animal. That is not hunting.
I have travelled out of state and came up empty handed on a number of hunts. They were immensely satisfying hunts in my book. If somebody only values a hunt if they whack a 16" lope or a 30" buck and will pay for the animal, then they are not much of a hunter in my book. If that is the way hunting is headed, then let's hurry the process along.
I think you will find most of us who hunt out west (and live here) pretty protective of our public land hunts, and a 150 buck on Public Lands is WAAAAAAY better to me than a 205 buck behind a fence on somebody's pasture.
Nut
New member
Elkgunner said:
Some of us in the east feel the same way. (Unless it is a critter shot by your son on a good friend's private land
)
noharleyyet
Well-known member
"If that is the way hunting is headed, then let's hurry the process along."...?
The Hedgehog
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2000
- Messages
- 11,634
Texas
This is probably cheaper than a MT hunt, more bang for your buck, right Tom:
This is probably cheaper than a MT hunt, more bang for your buck, right Tom:
Elkgunner
New member
Wow!!!! Great Pictures. And inthat top picture, you have to look really hard to even see the fence.....
Tom
New member
Well, I'm just describing how I see people think. I'm not saying those people deserve more, for paying more, I'm saying they seek more, for paying more, and they get it. If you don't like that, its your problem. The landowners can get sick of rich people's attitude sometimes too, they'll take less. People here who have had a lease for the last 20-30 years still pay the old low lease price a lot. The landowners appreciate that they know the rules, they follow them, and they all do well for the wildlife.
You people that protect your honey hole by not talking, like most of us do, and then tell the man who protects his honey hole with his money that he shouldn't do it are confusing. It sounds pretty hipocritical. You tell me it happens in Texas, you sound like idiots. We're talking about it happening in Montana, that's where the $20,000 example came from. Texas has $6 over the counter tags for children. Out of state people pay the same animal fee as in state people for most of the animals here. You're blind to things like that.
This issue has been around a long time, the elite upper middle class hunter versus the less privaledged hunter. Our public land protects the public, at least the local, somewhat for non-residents. The public, maybe they have to be middle class, but at least they don't have to be rich elite, gets to hunt the public land. The rich guy doesn't want to waste their time there. Except when a tag gets to $1100 and up, I haven't checked those Montana guaranteed tags lately, and you put the travel in, then you're talking pretty rich hunting the public land, if they got those tags for that. That's not even the guide or the outfitter. The guys who paid $5000 and hunted that ranch, were probably more of a hunter, had a better hunt, etc. than people who hire a guide and an outfitter.
I don't think you people, some of you, know what you're talking about, if you've never been around leases, where its 98% like that. Its not your fault, you can't think about it, you haven't been around it, if you're around a lot of public land. You have no more use for a lease, than the rich guy, has for public land. You can't walk through south Texas brush country, mtmiller. Come try it. That's why they make sanderos and sit and wait for animals, one of the reasons. I know the guy in that picture Greenhorn. He's 70 some years old, he just had surgery a few months ago. I hunted with him a few weeks ago. He got a ram for $190 bucks, with two nights lodging. Hunting is for the young, the old, female, male, rich and poor, we support all of that here. More than any other state. Some young people walked the ranch where he got the ram a few weeks ago and enjoyed that, and didn't get a shot. He sat in a blind, down low, didn't climb the hills, he got a shot. I hunted with him a few years ago too. He got the biggest hog that hunt, sitting and waiting. We'll see what you're hunting when you get to the 70s, maybe.
I guess he could have gone to Montana and shot a prairie dog or something instead of either of those hunts where I was with him, but it would have cost him a lot more and took a lot longer and it wouldn't eat as well. I guess if he would have shot a lot of prairie dogs, that would be more bang for his buck, but that is not what he's interested in.
I'm all for any kind of hunting that is done under sound game management principles. I don't like chasing animals around, so I'd rather wait them out on a trail, if I can scout enough to find a good trail. If not, I'll chase them around, but I try to avoid it.
mtmiller, I guess I'm bascally saying you have the value in Montana that you want to stay in Texas. Don't be blind to it there. Those guys leased for $20,000 in Montana. Don't think its just in Texas, its there in Montana too. The private leases, the outfitters, the guides, other things too, I'm sure. Your public block management program even recognizes the landowner deserves something for hosting public hunters.
You people that protect your honey hole by not talking, like most of us do, and then tell the man who protects his honey hole with his money that he shouldn't do it are confusing. It sounds pretty hipocritical. You tell me it happens in Texas, you sound like idiots. We're talking about it happening in Montana, that's where the $20,000 example came from. Texas has $6 over the counter tags for children. Out of state people pay the same animal fee as in state people for most of the animals here. You're blind to things like that.
This issue has been around a long time, the elite upper middle class hunter versus the less privaledged hunter. Our public land protects the public, at least the local, somewhat for non-residents. The public, maybe they have to be middle class, but at least they don't have to be rich elite, gets to hunt the public land. The rich guy doesn't want to waste their time there. Except when a tag gets to $1100 and up, I haven't checked those Montana guaranteed tags lately, and you put the travel in, then you're talking pretty rich hunting the public land, if they got those tags for that. That's not even the guide or the outfitter. The guys who paid $5000 and hunted that ranch, were probably more of a hunter, had a better hunt, etc. than people who hire a guide and an outfitter.
I don't think you people, some of you, know what you're talking about, if you've never been around leases, where its 98% like that. Its not your fault, you can't think about it, you haven't been around it, if you're around a lot of public land. You have no more use for a lease, than the rich guy, has for public land. You can't walk through south Texas brush country, mtmiller. Come try it. That's why they make sanderos and sit and wait for animals, one of the reasons. I know the guy in that picture Greenhorn. He's 70 some years old, he just had surgery a few months ago. I hunted with him a few weeks ago. He got a ram for $190 bucks, with two nights lodging. Hunting is for the young, the old, female, male, rich and poor, we support all of that here. More than any other state. Some young people walked the ranch where he got the ram a few weeks ago and enjoyed that, and didn't get a shot. He sat in a blind, down low, didn't climb the hills, he got a shot. I hunted with him a few years ago too. He got the biggest hog that hunt, sitting and waiting. We'll see what you're hunting when you get to the 70s, maybe.
I guess he could have gone to Montana and shot a prairie dog or something instead of either of those hunts where I was with him, but it would have cost him a lot more and took a lot longer and it wouldn't eat as well. I guess if he would have shot a lot of prairie dogs, that would be more bang for his buck, but that is not what he's interested in.
I'm all for any kind of hunting that is done under sound game management principles. I don't like chasing animals around, so I'd rather wait them out on a trail, if I can scout enough to find a good trail. If not, I'll chase them around, but I try to avoid it.
mtmiller, I guess I'm bascally saying you have the value in Montana that you want to stay in Texas. Don't be blind to it there. Those guys leased for $20,000 in Montana. Don't think its just in Texas, its there in Montana too. The private leases, the outfitters, the guides, other things too, I'm sure. Your public block management program even recognizes the landowner deserves something for hosting public hunters.
The Hedgehog
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2000
- Messages
- 11,634
He had to pay $190 to shoot that thing, and had to stay 2 nights also. Painful!
Probably not, but I can tell you where you won't see me.
Wow, we have some oil wells here in MT as well, so we must be just like Texas.
True, there are leses here in MT, but I would not compare that to what is in Texas. Would you agree?So in theory, those paying less are seeking less?
So that must mean...time out, what the hell is the point of that statement. Maybe you jumped to another thread there. I don't see the relavence in this discussion anyway (oh well, nice filler).
I guess if they charged more for those NR tags you would see more "deserving" hunters. Apparently if I had more disposable income I would be a better, sorry "more of a hunter". |oo
Oh yeh, the kettle called; your black.
If this is a cost to meat ratio, might as well shoot one of those herefords behind the fence. Same kind of hunt as far as I can tell. True I have not taken one, so I will have to guess.
Finally, something we agree on. I agree, landowners deserve something for hosting all public hunters, but not just "rich public hunters".
Tom, I am sure you are a decent guy in person, but I just don't get you over the net. We will just have to agree that we have completely different values as far as hunting goes.
OSOK
New member
To me there is a BIG difference between an animal that is bought, and an animal that is earned. Just because an animal is taken on Private property doesn't necessarily degrade that animal in my book. Sure private land usually holds greater amounts of quality game, therefore affording one more opportunity. It does not however make things a walk in the park, slam dunk deal necessarily. I've successfully hunted both public and private lands throughout my career. To me, the difference is just getting off you azz to do a lil more work... There is opportunity a plenty on public land if a guy will just do a bit of research and work for it. There is ALSO opportunity on private land for the average JOE, if he'll just get off his azz and make it happen for himself...
"Bought Animals", are in a class by themselves. It's like going over to Bill Rancher and asking him, how much to shoot that Heffer standing over in the back corner of your property? There is no meaning to it in my book. Unless it's a species/critter you just absolutely have to have for your collection, that may be obtained no other way realistically. Sooo, basicly, I'm saving the "Texas" "Shooting" house hunts until I'm too gimped by age and physical ability to go on a "Real" hunt...
"Bought Animals", are in a class by themselves. It's like going over to Bill Rancher and asking him, how much to shoot that Heffer standing over in the back corner of your property? There is no meaning to it in my book. Unless it's a species/critter you just absolutely have to have for your collection, that may be obtained no other way realistically. Sooo, basicly, I'm saving the "Texas" "Shooting" house hunts until I'm too gimped by age and physical ability to go on a "Real" hunt...
Wait until I am done for gosh sakes.
http://www.hunttalk.com/forums/gallery/showimage.php?i=13597&c=178
OSOK
New member
Great minds think alike...
Tom
New member
I don't know of any hunting like going to a rancher and asking to shoot a cow. I value public hunting, I value private hunting, I value lease hunting. I don't agree with most of your ignorant conclusions about places you have not been and not seen and not hunted.
Pedro, the piglet hombre probably was at a place with no limit on hogs or that one was standing behind the one he shot or it was a baby and he shot the mother, so he shot it too. I wasn't on either of those hunts with him, the axis or those pigs. We don't call them pigs, you guys do. A pig is on a farm. A hog is out in the woods. Using pig is like calling wolves or coyotes dogs, kind of a stupid use of the word.
I'm not calling your kettle black, I'm saying you can't see the kettle. You look right past it and only see what you want to see. You guys see a wire and you think the worst, without knowing.
That Montana lease is just like a Texas lease it sounds to me. Montana has more public ground that Texas, that's not the discussion. The Montana lease is no different than the Texas lease. A lease is where you pay, to get to hunt, and you have the hunting rights, no one else, to a specified place and a specified time period, for specified game animals/species. Montana has that. Texas has that. We have it for a greater percentage of our land, I'll agree to that, if that's what you want me to agree to.
Maybe someday, we'll go one statement at a time and not mix everything up and see what is the same and what is different about what we think and what we don't think. Half the net is what we imagine about the words, I think.
Hey, I'm kind of pissed about the federal bill stating a state can charge a non-resident as high a price as they want for hunting on our federal land, supported by our excise taxes. That's a black kettle there. Its a major rip off. I think the residents should pay a higher share of their own wildlife management than is occuring now in lots of states. At least the poacher residents for sure.
Here's the thought to make that more fair. Residents ought to pay the proportion of their state wildlife budget that they harvest, at least. Plus, pay more, because they have use of the federal land. Maybe, just everyone pay a trespass fee, to the feds., the same whether you're in state or out of state. That's fair, you agree?
Pedro, the piglet hombre probably was at a place with no limit on hogs or that one was standing behind the one he shot or it was a baby and he shot the mother, so he shot it too. I wasn't on either of those hunts with him, the axis or those pigs. We don't call them pigs, you guys do. A pig is on a farm. A hog is out in the woods. Using pig is like calling wolves or coyotes dogs, kind of a stupid use of the word.
I'm not calling your kettle black, I'm saying you can't see the kettle. You look right past it and only see what you want to see. You guys see a wire and you think the worst, without knowing.
That Montana lease is just like a Texas lease it sounds to me. Montana has more public ground that Texas, that's not the discussion. The Montana lease is no different than the Texas lease. A lease is where you pay, to get to hunt, and you have the hunting rights, no one else, to a specified place and a specified time period, for specified game animals/species. Montana has that. Texas has that. We have it for a greater percentage of our land, I'll agree to that, if that's what you want me to agree to.
Maybe someday, we'll go one statement at a time and not mix everything up and see what is the same and what is different about what we think and what we don't think. Half the net is what we imagine about the words, I think.
Hey, I'm kind of pissed about the federal bill stating a state can charge a non-resident as high a price as they want for hunting on our federal land, supported by our excise taxes. That's a black kettle there. Its a major rip off. I think the residents should pay a higher share of their own wildlife management than is occuring now in lots of states. At least the poacher residents for sure.
Here's the thought to make that more fair. Residents ought to pay the proportion of their state wildlife budget that they harvest, at least. Plus, pay more, because they have use of the federal land. Maybe, just everyone pay a trespass fee, to the feds., the same whether you're in state or out of state. That's fair, you agree?
Talk about a budget fluctuating year to year.
Disagree, the Federal land is open to everyone for the same price, doesn't matter if you are from Texas or Montana. Now if you want to put a price on the critters out there, they belong to the State, therefore there is no Federal issue here.
Sorry you feel that way. Have you found anyone yet that agrees with opinions you have posted. I have yet to see anyone come to your defense as of yet.
I guess Websters also disagrees with you. HOG--Any of various mammals of the family Suidae, which includes the domesticated pig as well as wild species, such as the boar and the wart hog. A domesticated pig, especially one weighing over 54 kilograms (120 pounds).
Man are you in left field. Do you even understand the meaning?
The Hedgehog
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2000
- Messages
- 11,634
Other than the subtle difference that there are no high fences and the animals still belong to and are managed by the state.
You can do whatever you want on federal land, hunting licenses are specific to the big game animals, not the land you are on. Cornfusing I know. By the way, if it's a rip off, go to the game farm.. much better deal eh?
MarvB
Well-known member
Miller's taking the gloves off today ....his hand must have turned him down after he was done sipping the vino!
Tom- don't you have as much right accessing Federal land as the rest of us?? (Notice I said the "right" not ability or ease of access) The Feds aren't holding being from Texas against you are they I don't really get the meaning of your last couple of posts?
....his hand must have turned him down after he was done sipping the vino! Tom- don't you have as much right accessing Federal land as the rest of us?? (Notice I said the "right" not ability or ease of access) The Feds aren't holding being from Texas against you are they
I don't really get the meaning of your last couple of posts?Similar threads
