RIGHT TO USE OUR FEDERAL LAND, RESIDENTS VS NON RESIDENTS

[JAD29]

This may have been covered to death, I just rarely hear it mentioned and wondered if I'm the only one annoyed by this.

Too me any american should have a equal right to hunt game on our national forest, It has never made since for the a state to charge a non resident 10-20 times the resident permit price and offer only a fraction of the availble permits to hunt game on land suppposably owned by all of us. I realize they may try and justify it since a nonresident isn't paying state taxes that help the game and fish deparement but even then, the enourmous price difference does not make sense. Its hard to have a problem with a state setting the rules for state land, but federal land in any state should be equally avialable to all of us..............right?

Am I missing something.

Jad

 

[NMRaptor]

JAD29,
You're right about this subject being hacked to death. However, my opinion is that its the states right to manage the game. I guess I figure people can camp, hike, take pictures, etc. on federal land but hunting and fishing should be up to the state.
-Raptor

 

[swivelhead]

Non-migratory wildlife is regulated and owned by the state in which the wildlife resides. Whether the land be federal(except sovereign tribal lands), state, municipal or private the wildlife is the property of the state. Raptor is correct on this issue. Non-residents are welcome to lawfully use federal lands wherever they occur. Non-residents wanting to "take" state property pay a heavy toll. Non-residents are not represented in state legislatures hence limited opportunities and high cost.