# WPA's closed to hunting



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

Waterfowl production areas and all federal lands closed to hunting or any access during gov't shutdown

http://www.startribune.com/sports/blogs/226053411.html

http://www.doi.gov/shutdown/fy2014/uplo ... -Sheet.pdf


----------



## dakotashooter2 (Oct 31, 2003)

I really doubt WPAs are affected by the shutdown. They are unstaffed and generally patrolled by the state enforcement agencies. Besides........ with no staff who is going to stop you from hunting them?...........Federal refuges are a different matter, Many of those are staffed..... but again....in many cases, who is there to stop you?.............


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

Federally owned land. Federal wildlife agents remained on the job.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

It's kind of funny in a way. If the law says this ground is closed to hunting and someone does anyway, that is poaching. Is it not?I'm thinking a guy could lose his hunting privileges. Votes for candidates have consequences.


----------



## dakotashooter2 (Oct 31, 2003)

Poaching no...............trespassing maybe,at least in ND, and only if it is posted as such. While there is staff on hand to post places such as refuges before they leave I doubt the handfull of WPA management personel were sent out to post the hundreds of WPAs. If the closing of these lands is considered a political statement so is their continued use by sportsmen................


----------



## the professor (Oct 13, 2006)

Federal wardens are working and enforcing the WPA closure here in SD.


----------



## 6162rk (Dec 5, 2004)

nothing better to do. let's go bust those bad citizens hunting on their own land.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

6162rk said:


> nothing better to do. let's go bust those bad citizens hunting on their own land.


That's right, as a citizen of the United States it is your land. Sometimes the truth is stranger than fiction. Surely you have heard of the Clean Water Heritage Fund Constitutional Amendment Drive that is currently going on.

http://cleanwaterwildlifeparks.org/

They want 5% of the oil extraction taxes or about $100 million dollars per year for conservation. That amounts to about $200,000 a day for the next 25 years.

Minnesota passed a similar law a few years ago except it is a sales tax. Here is where some of their money is going.

http://www.lsohc.leg.mn/FY2014/accomp_p ... pprop.html

You will notice in all these land acquisitions that Ducks Unlimited or Pheasants Forever only hold the properties for 18 months and then they deed the land to the US Fish and Wildlife Service.

Now there is a real novel idea. You buy it with your tax dollars and then these surrogates of the fed/gov, DU PF turn it over to the USFWS who then shut down hunting because they are furloughed or out of money.

And then there are easements and perpetual easements. In the Minnesota plan there is buku money spent for the monitering and policing of those easments. There is a giant sucking sound coming from the headquarters of DU and PF.

Using oil extraction tax dollars to purchase real property and then turn it over to the fed/gov is a really bad idea.


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

shaug said:


> 6162rk said:
> 
> 
> > nothing better to do. let's go bust those bad citizens hunting on their own land.
> ...


I'm not so sure it's a bad idea. Seriously, how often does the gov shut down for more than a few days? At least we have access most of the time. Leave it in the hands of the few anti-sportsman landowners out there and we have no access at all. And I'm not talking about the majority of landowners, most of whom are willing to allow hunting access. I'm talking about a few who own prime habitat and refuse to allow hunting, or who charge an exorbitant "tax" (read, trespass fee) for the privilege of hunting the animals that belong to us anyway.

This issue isn't about the USFWS owning land and closing it during a shut down, it rarely happens. This issue is about the worst president this country has ever seen and how he is forcing his socialist agenda down our throats no matter what the cost.

And if you can't see that shaug, you are part of the problem.


----------



## Old Hunter (Mar 8, 2002)

If waterfowl production areas are shut down wouldn't all fishing and boating on Sakawea be closed?


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Old Hunter said:


> If waterfowl production areas are shut down wouldn't all fishing and boating on Sakawea be closed?


http://www.bizpacreview.com/2013/10/05/ ... down-84722

Above, certain parts of the ocean are close to fishing.

huntin1 wrote,



> I'm talking about a few who own prime habitat and refuse to allow hunting, or who charge an exorbitant "tax" (read, trespass fee) for the privilege of hunting the animals that belong to us anyway.


There are those in high places that know exactly what it is that you desire. They want to help you get it. All you have to do is help them convert more private real estate to public domain. Of course they will promise you that you may hunt. Because they know what you desire.

huntin1, if you think Obama is bad, then what guarentee can you give that the next five Presidents won't be worse?

Your poisonous attitude plays right into the socialist agenda.


----------



## KurtR (May 3, 2008)

dindt see any one on the wpa's yesterday other than other hunters. state wardens were told that it was not their concern this closure bs so they just checked birds and license and went on their marry way


----------



## dakotashooter2 (Oct 31, 2003)

It's a good thing Obama can't run for another term because he would have lost a lot of southern democrats with this move.


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

shaug said:


> huntin1 wrote,
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I am not against reasonable trespass fees, but let's be real. $100 - $500 per person, per day, in some cases more? Then a "trophy" fee if I shoot an animal that technically belongs to me in the first place. That is the kind of unreasonable greed that prompts me and others to believe that at least some of this land should be in the public domain.

It's not that I think he's bad, he is, and he is proving it on a daily basis. As far as the next five presidents, who knows. I will predict that if things don't change within the GOP, our next president will be another Clinton, and this one will be worse than the last Clinton we had.

My poisonous attitude? That's rather funny coming from you. Your attitude is more poisonous and vindictive than anyone I can think of right now.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

huntin1 wrote,



> Then a "trophy" fee if I shoot an animal that technically belongs to me in the first place.


Give me an example...........


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

shaug said:


> huntin1 wrote,
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You know as well as I do that in most cases outfitters don't put this information on their website. You get it when you call to book a hunt. And private individuals who charge a trespass fee with no guide services generally don't advertise on the internet, or any place else in most cases. So, you are pretty safe asking for an example, aren't you?

Here's one I did find, not really a daily trespass fee, but if you book a Fallow deer hunt with them, doe is $500, buck is $1000 - $1750, you get to archery hunt on their land for free, you supply the ND license.



> With the purchase of any big game hunt, you have the opportunity to archery hunt a remote private area with many trophy deer. Hunting is done from blinds, tree or ground stands.
> 
> Non-resident archery tags can be purchased for $150. *Buck trophy fee $500. Doe trophy fee $100.*


http://www.swrbiggamehunts.com/

Start asking to hunt, you'll find the ones I'm talking about, especially in western ND.


----------



## prairie hunter (Mar 13, 2002)

Signs need to be changed especially in ND where land is open unless posted closed with no hunting/trespassing signs. In fact WPAs are posted OPEN!!!

Now if the USF&WS really is going to spend dollars resigning land (they are in some locations of MN) ... what a waste of money ... be it tax dollars or other revenue sources !!! What a waste of time for the employees still on the job.

_Years ago - they was similar event in the fall ... the USFW&S did not take this stance. Many on furlough just went hunting or fishing and then were back paid to boot._


----------



## dakotashooter2 (Oct 31, 2003)

I figure I'm just enforcing the closure..........Those nasty ducks and geese just keep sneaking in and using them when they are supposed to be closed............................ oke:


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

huntin1 said:


> shaug said:
> 
> 
> > huntin1 wrote,
> ...


 :lame: response huntin1.............First a person has to harvest a Fallow deer and after that they can access the rest of the private property for a fee. How many takers on that offer do you suppose they have? Very few I'd wager.

Hardly cause to turn a bunch of private ground into federal ground. Public ground is owned by millions of people with millions of different ideas how to best manage it. Multiple use. During the gubment shut down many types of multiple use kept right on going, but not hunting. I believe Safari Club International is one of those that has been leading the charge to adopt legislation guarenteeing the right of Sportsmen to hunt wildlife on Department of the Interior lands. But what can be legislated today can be legislated away tommorrow also. It could happen at some later date, the people in the cities will be told that you are out here KILLING "their" wildlife, how do you think they will vote.

This gubment shutdown and the closing of DOI lands to hunting could be a forerunner of things to come.


----------



## blhunter3 (May 5, 2007)

dakotashooter2 said:


> It's a good thing Obama can't run for another term because he would have lost a lot of southern democrats with this move.


They would still vote for him no matter what.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

huntin1 did you notice a couple of years ago they were auctioning an elk on ebay? Also, many places they have trail cam pics. You pick the deer you want to kill and they tell you the price. They certainly don't charge the same for a 120 class deer as they do a 170 class deer. Like always shaug is trying to muddy the water so people don't have a clear picture.



> But what can be legislated today can be legislated away tommorrow also. It could happen at some later date, the people in the cities will be told that you are out here KILLING "their" wildlife, how do you think they will vote.


The same goes for grazing public land. You may think you have purchased grazing rights, but they can be gone tomorrow. It's a low number, but I am surprised than any farmers or ranchers are so willing to crap on hunters these days and loose support. At every turn the North Dakota Farm Bureau works against us more than most of the bunny huggers. They are a greater danger to our sport than PETA. They don't want to stop hunting, they just want to turn it into a rich man sport. They don't see a fellow American approaching their door, they just see a wallet that needs to be empty.

Edit: Just to be clear Shaug I agree with that statement. However, last time the Forest Service adjusted their management plan the Sierra Club had a plan, and local ranchers were asking us to sign petitions. The ranchers wanted more control of the land. I would not sign the petition because of their attitude. When a number of guys ride into my hunting camp on horseback and tell me I want be hunting anymore unless I sign their petition the chances of me signing it are zero. I had t make a judgment about which more endangered my rights to hunt public property, the Sierra Club or the ranchers. Things may change, but currently the ranchers are a far greater threat. To be clear there are still a lot of very nice people on the ranches out west. However, the good guys don't run the show at the meetings I have attended. Groups like the NDFB and the Stockmens Association are composed of mostly good people, but their public relations would be a lot better if they didn't keep voting for the people with the biggest and nastiest mouths.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

We all get it Plains, you used to work for the federal government and you're here to help. Psh!!!!!


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

Hmm, how did I know that you would respond the way you did? I think we've drifted the thread far enough.

Huntin1


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Yeah, sometimes the conversation can lurch a little this way and that. But you have to admit Plains is consistant. Like a dog returning to its vomit.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> That's right, as a citizen of the United States it is your land. Sometimes the truth is stranger than fiction. Surely you have heard of the Clean Water Heritage Fund Constitutional Amendment Drive that is currently going on.


Your consistent also Shaug. Your always here to make sure hunters don't get anything. Your not here as a sportsman, your here to divide us while groups like the North Dakota Farm Bureau shaft us yet again. It's landowners who demand pay to hunt that drives the need for more public land. If the common man and not only the rich are going to continue this American tradition it will require access programs or public land. Your goal is to prevent that.

I notice you call that socialism. If an organization can bid on a tract of land they should have as much right to it as anyone else who bids on it. I think the problem is you don't want the competition of free market. That's why the North Dakota farm dictated to legislature created the stumbling block for purchase of Waterfowl Production Areas. That comes into the intended conversation of WPA's and their closing.

I also see you mentioned I worked for the government in the past. Yes, and I have lived through a number of shutdowns and no WPA were ever closed in the past. I see no need for it other than making the public miserable and blaming it on the republicans. I think it's a pure political move and of no necessity. The reality is the land is managed by the government, but for the people who own it which is you and me. It was purchased as the words indicate "Waterfowl Production Area". I know you think it should be grazing land at the whim of the ag community and that gets you.

I'm not sure how you will do it, but I am sure you will have more black helicopter and drone theories.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

We can do greater things working with the people that own and care for the land than we can with the fed/gov owning the land.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

shaug said:


> We can do greater things working with the people that own and care for the land than we can with the fed/gov owning the land.


Yes we could, but will we? If left to people like California it would be mostly public land. People would be starving, the economy would be worse than it is now, and their civilization would collapse. Here in North Dakota there would be no public land and we would be plowed from border to border. There has to be a better answer somewhere in between. We can't let pro big government have all the power, but we also can not let those who want no public land and want no regulations have all the power. There are those who want everything public and those who want everything private. Both are greedy. Our resources need to be diversified to meet the needs of the variety of our citizens. When an acre comes up for sale anyone who wants it should be able to purchase it providing they are an American citizen and offer the highest bid. If you disagree your either socialist or want an agriculture oligarchy. I don't want either.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Now you want to pretend "you" are somewhere in the middle. P-L-E-A-S-E


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Shaug you know one time I was giving you a bad time about North Dakota Farm Bureau. A fellow no longer here asked me if I knew I was talking to a representative of Farm Bureau. It would explain your stand against sportsmen. So I'll ask again, are you a representative for Farm Bureau?

I'm not in the middle politically, but I am close to the middle of conservatism. I think the extreme is just that extreme. I think we debated the Farm Bureau stand about not wanting regulations. At one time a fellow named Swift on here posted their web site page asking for that. We have not seen Swift since some low life on fishingbuddy posted his wife's business page complete with her picture. Some people don't have enough integrity to know where the line is.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Plains wrote,



> Shaug you know one time I was giving you a bad time about North Dakota Farm Bureau. A fellow no longer here asked me if I knew I was talking to a representative of Farm Bureau. It would explain your stand against sportsmen. So I'll ask again, are you a representative for Farm Bureau?


The fellow who got thrown off of this site was Gabe Thompson. GST maybe thought I was a Rep for Farm Bureau because I appear at a lot of places like the Capitol with Representatives from Farm Bureau. I know just about everyone of them........ Good people and good sportsmen. Try as you might to convince others that Farm Bureau is anti-sportsmen, it just isn't working for you anymore. Your mojo is gone.



> I'm not in the middle politically, but I am close to the middle of conservatism. I think the extreme is just that extreme. I think we debated the Farm Bureau stand about not wanting regulations. At one time a fellow named Swift on here posted their web site page asking for that. We have not seen Swift since some low life on fishingbuddy posted his wife's business page complete with her picture. Some people don't have enough integrity to know where the line is.


Using a psuedo name like Swift (not his real name) and then yelling from behind the dumpster was fine with him until everyone knew his name. You still miss him don't you?

Not sure if you noticed but they're making fun of you over on FBO.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Using a psuedo name like Swift (not his real name) and then yelling from behind the dumpster was fine with him until everyone knew his name. You still miss him don't you?


Interesting idea. So since you don't like that you will tell us who you are?


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

http://bismarcktribune.com/lifestyles/o ... 963f4.html


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

From indsports tribune article,



> Bonham said while signs have been posted in some areas, the vast amount of land involved and sheer number of areas make it impossible to sign every area.
> 
> He said law enforcement personnel for the service have been exempted from the furloughs, and the primary mission is to protect federal property and resources during the closures.


Bonham said, the primary mission is to protect "federal" property and resources during the closures. Protect it from the people who already own it????? Hmmm!!!!!! Is it closed to miners? Nope. Is it closed to grazers? Nope. Is it closed to hunters? Yep.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Bonham said, the primary mission is to protect "federal" property and resources during the closures. Protect it from the people who already own it????? Hmmm!!!!!! Is it closed to miners? Nope. Is it closed to grazers? Nope. Is it closed to hunters? Yep.


Good point Shaug. I'm surprised and pleased you included grazers. Don't get me wrong, it's not that I want to take a poke here. I'm just impressed you included them. Also please understand that my opinion is since the bison are gone cattle are a good management tool when grazing is done at proper rates. I'm not one of those guys that want cows off all public land.


----------



## dakotashooter2 (Oct 31, 2003)

They are protecting grass and water from................... what??????????????????????????


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

> The Park Service appears to be closing streets on mere whim and caprice. The rangers even closed the parking lot at Mount Vernon, where the plantation home of George Washington is a favorite tourist destination. That was after they barred the new World War II Memorial on the Mall to veterans of World War II. But the government does not own Mount Vernon; it is privately owned by the Mount Vernon Ladies' Association. The ladies bought it years ago to preserve it as a national memorial. The feds closed access to the parking lots this week, even though the lots are jointly owned with the Mount Vernon ladies. The rangers are from the government, and they're only here to help.
> "It's a cheap way to deal with the situation," an angry Park Service ranger in Washington says of the harassment.* "We've been told to make life as difficult for people as we can. It's disgusting."*


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... -the-game/

Additionally, they are closing the pull-outs on roads in the area of Mt. Rushmore if it can be seen from the pull-outs.

http://siouxfallsbusinessjournal.argusl ... anger-S-D-

In my opinion this is all part of Obummers plan. I believe that he wants to pressure us to contact our representatives and convince them to stop opposing the funding for Obamacare and is using the shut down as a tool to ram it through. Pure Chicago style politics.

This guy is nothing more than a bully and he should be impeached.

Of course, this is just my opinion.

Huntin1


----------



## dakotashooter2 (Oct 31, 2003)

I'm contacting my congressmen alright............................ and telling them to hold their ground.

FYI I didn't see any mention of the WPA closures on The ND Game and Fish website........... They may be just ignoring it too..........


----------



## the professor (Oct 13, 2006)

huntin1 said:


> In my opinion this is all part of Obummers plan. I believe that he wants to pressure us to contact our representatives and convince them to stop opposing the funding for Obamacare and is using the shut down as a tool to ram it through. Pure Chicago style politics.
> This guy is nothing more than a bully and he should be impeached.
> Of course, this is just my opinion.
> Huntin1


I'm sure Obamalongadingdong was just sitting around brainstorming about how to pressure the retardlicans and the first thing he thought of was "lets close some public hunting land so some duck hunters get ****** and call their retardlican and representatives and tell them to end the slimdown."

Crap like this will end when these career criminals get removed from congress, lobbyists get banned from taking administration positions, the banking industry is re-regulated, and the Fed is abolished.


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

I'm not saying that he brainstormed or planned anything. But he is clearly an opportunist, he knows how to take advantage of a developing situation and work it to his advantage.


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

I agree that the shutdown of WPA's to hunting is foolish and unenforceable, but the facts are two fold. Back during the last shutdown, Clinton and the Republicans agreed to a set of processes and decisions as to what is to be shutdown and second, authority to determine each individual case was delegated to the secretary of each federal department and then to the director of that bureau. The president, regardless of party, wouldn't be involved in something as minor as closing the WPA's.


----------



## KurtR (May 3, 2008)

huntin1 said:


> > The Park Service appears to be closing streets on mere whim and caprice. The rangers even closed the parking lot at Mount Vernon, where the plantation home of George Washington is a favorite tourist destination. That was after they barred the new World War II Memorial on the Mall to veterans of World War II. But the government does not own Mount Vernon; it is privately owned by the Mount Vernon Ladies' Association. The ladies bought it years ago to preserve it as a national memorial. The feds closed access to the parking lots this week, even though the lots are jointly owned with the Mount Vernon ladies. The rangers are from the government, and they're only here to help.
> > "It's a cheap way to deal with the situation," an angry Park Service ranger in Washington says of the harassment.* "We've been told to make life as difficult for people as we can. It's disgusting."*
> 
> 
> ...


they had the turnouts closed till the dot guys went and threw the cones off the road and told them this is a state hi way


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

indsport said:


> I agree that the shutdown of WPA's to hunting is foolish and unenforceable, but the facts are two fold. Back during the last shutdown, Clinton and the Republicans agreed to a set of processes and decisions as to what is to be shutdown and second, authority to determine each individual case was delegated to the secretary of each federal department and then to the director of that bureau.  The president, regardless of party, wouldn't be involved in something as minor as closing the WPA's.


This deceiving Marxist is. His healthcare bill isn't to help people, it's meant to drag America into Marxism. When the government has control over your health and life they can make you bend. They become the master, and not the people.


----------



## dakotashooter2 (Oct 31, 2003)

indsport said:


> I agree that the shutdown of WPA's to hunting is foolish and unenforceable, but the facts are two fold. Back during the last shutdown, Clinton and the Republicans agreed to a set of processes and decisions as to what is to be shutdown and second, authority to determine each individual case was delegated to the *clueless appointee *put in charge of each federal department and then to the director of that bureau. The president, regardless of party, wouldn't be involved in something as minor as closing the WPA's.


 I fixed it for you.......


----------

