In the western US context, this is generally not the case.
Some state-owned land was purchased for reasons related to hunting, but this is a very small proportion of the total (in New Mexico, my ballpark guess is 0.2%; I expect it’s somewhat higher or lower in other western states, but probably not wildly different; Texas, if one considers it part of the western US, would probably be an exception). Sometimes hunting fees do go back to management of that land in some fashion, but specifically to management of that land for hunting—ecological benefits or benefits to other user groups are likely to be incidental or absent, so the “they shouldn’t be getting the benefits of something someone else paid for” thinking does not really apply.
This topic seems to have drifted from the original topic of private land owners blocking access to public land to issues of who should be allowed to hunt. Maybe that should be a new topic?
If for protected species (some small cordened off plots) hunters have access - and map to stay off that small plot.
If for roads, keeping them good - well hunt season is during our wettest time of year - the time that does almost 100% of the road damage to these dirt roads (mudslides, bad rutting, etc). So if anything, it would make sense to close the roads during hunt season and open them the rest of the year when they will be damaged much less during dryer seasons!
In Canada public lands (know as Crown Lands) can be used by lease for logging and mining. The companies that own the lease build and control access to the roads. They do commonly allow access to those roads during the hunting season. It seems to me though that it is the opposite of what you are suggesting. Logging/mining is best done when the road is dry and firm or completely frozen. Hunting season is generally in the sloppy fall season when big industrial trucks can’t navigate the dirt roads. Since they aren’t driving at that time it is safe to let the public, including hunters, in.
Yeah, it’s only open for hunters, which is the weird thing, and what a lot of people are (rightfully, I think!) upset about! If it’s public land, why do only hunters have truely open access?
Oh, I mean, the gates are only open for the hunters during hunt season. Could others go then? Sure!
…but hunters are…well they don’t like others wandering in the woods when they are there, and a lot of us not there for hunting don’t feel exactly safe going at the same time, for obvious reasons of not wanting to be shot. yeah you can wear orange, but people are sometimes of dubious intelligence to put it kindly!
In Virginia where I grew up, they have Wildlife Management Areas. These areas are managed specifically for and are funded by hunters. People are allowed to use them for non-consumptive recreation as well, but the state doesn’t have the resources to police/maintain the areas year-round for full-capacity use, so the gates are only open during hunting season. The state also manages many areas (e.g., state parks) that are managed specifically for and are funded by non-consumptive recreation users. Hunting and general recreation access are allowed on state forests, but the gates are always closed to the public and both have to walk in.
While I generally think the public should have access to public land, it is important to note that public land that does not have public access can still provide a public service. I’ve worked on a few National Wildlife Refuges (federal public land) that were closed to the public, not because of private property limiting access, but because there are extremely sensitive organisms that cannot handle even relatively small amounts of disturbance. The purpose of this public land is to hold the natural resources (in this case, the species found there) in a public trust. Note: these refuges do allow some guided public access on specific days (e.g., birding festivals) for short periods of time.
In the U.S., but likely in most countries, different agencies have different mission statements. Knowing the mission statement can go a long way to understanding why they permit/don’t permit access. The US Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management have multiuse missions, of which recreation is only a small part. US Fish & Wildlife Service prioritizes wildlife and the National Parks Service prioritizes preservation (different from conservation). Many federal public lands are open to the public, but recreation is not central to many of the missions of these agencies (it is most central to NPS).
Interesting. Here in Wisconsin Wildlife Managment Areas are also managed with primarily hunting in mind, but they have don’t have gates and are open year-round. The roads are not always maintained so access even during hunting season isn’t always easy, but it is always possible.
I’m sure it depends largely on the resources of each state. Virginia simply doesn’t have enough personnel/money to manage all their land as full-access year round. It’s important to note that even “non-consumptive” recreation does take a toll on natural resources, even if it is not as apparent as with hunting.
and as I pointed out logging and mining are done when the area is either dry or frozen. Whether or not people are afraid to go does not indicate discrimination or denying access to non-hunters.
Where it says ‘wildlife reserve’ on the map, I’ve tried to get in there both ways and landowners have it blocked off. It seems that it is only accessible by water. Whether what the landowners are doing is legal or not I don’t know. I suspect in many cases where they have blocked access by fencing the area off, locking gates, and erecting “No Trespassing” signs, it is not legal. It seems to me that the government’s land management policies, the development of public access plans, funding, education and awareness are a bit lax on this particular issue.
I’m gonna hard disagree here. Making a group of people feel unsafe to be somewhere is definitely discriminatory / denying of access rights. Hunters here may be slowly becoming an minority of the general outdoor enthusiast crowd, but they are…hmm. I guess you’ve never been meet but a few burly folk with shotguns in the woods saying “you’d better be careful miss or you’ll be shot if you stick around here where we are hunting”. When wearing full bright safety orange vest, and on the roadway still, I may add.
ETA: and while some hunters are totally friendly and careful - i am well aware of the news every hunting season where bystanders get hit because…well to be stereotypical it is alabama and some people don’t have enough brains. This is why people here want equal ability to access outside of hunt season - then we won’t mess with the hunting (which upsets the hunters at best, is dangerous and deadly at worst), and those of us with desires other than hunting have access as well.
Who exactly do you think is discriminating? Please refrain from nut picking or anecdote. Just name who you think is responsible for the discrimination. Hunters? Land owners? The government? Someone else?
Any group of people has its creeps. I’ve had friends hiking alone experience similar situations with non-hunter hikers before too. Unfortunately, the wilderness has a way of emboldening creeps to show more of their true selves because there are fewer people around to witness their horrid behavior.
I think that hunting really is incompatible with non-hunting uses. I mean, they can’t be safely done at the same time. Even on my own property, I stayed out of the woods during deer season. The relatives who had permission to hunt there were careful, but with firearms small errors can have serious effects. Many trespassers hunted there and their skill and levels of care . . . varied. (My husband stopped deer hunting the year a couple trespassers shot right past him, by accident.) And the hunters who had permission didn’t want me walking through there when they were absent because I might scare the deer away to other woodlands where my relatives wouldn’t be hunting them. Better to just stay away.
All the hunters I’ve met at a local wildlife area have been polite, but some have warned me that I might get shot accidentally if I stay, even though I’m in very open areas.
So. Opening land to the public only during hunting season does not make it available to most of us, even though technically we’re all allowed to go there then.
Right, which really goes back to the different mission statements of different land management agencies. In Virginia, WMAs are set aside specifically for hunting (with other recreationists free to use it if they wish to hike a little further during the non-hunting season). And State Parks are for non-consumptive recreationists. It is not discrimination to have certain areas prioritized for different activities.
I agree it would be nice for WMAs to be open year round, but the state just doesn’t have the funds to manage it at full visitor capacity year round.
