02-04-2021, 10:29 PM
(02-04-2021, 10:03 PM)catchinon Wrote: Maybe they should do like they have with certain big-game hunts. Residents would have unlimited fishing licenses but non-residents would have a quota. That would probably never work because it would hurt the bottom line. How about charging an exorbitant fee for the non-residents? Of course many residents would scream that it was too expensive for their Idaho cousins or whatever. How about we limit the number of licenses per state based on how many of our residents bought non-resident licenses in their state.
To previous posters: be careful what you wish for. Moving lands, etc. from federal to state ownership/control often backfires. Sometimes the states then sell "our" lands to private entities who proceed to charge huge fees to use them or lock everyone out. One example: I used to pore over land-ownership maps to find pockets that I thought might be good places to hunt. I always considered the blue school sections to be open to public use. Not so. Many have been leased to individuals and companies for various uses but they are almost always posted like private land. The silver lining was that the monies obtained went to the public schools. I'm not sure but I'm afraid some of them were sold and "we" lost the benefits.
So the USFS fiasco at Pineview where the public is locked out of using the reservoir is a better idea? And as a person who leases State school sections i can verify that it CANNOT be locked by ANY lessee!!! If you find locked state land, Call the school trust administration and report it. Its highly illegal.