This is not going to be a popular statement and it might be one of the most unpopular statements on here. The state has no constitutional obligation to provide, nor has it enshrined any legal requirements to use tax dollars to provide public land for the citizens to hunt or fish on. With the way big govt is today, those of you using the WMA's and state provided resources should probably just be happy to have what you have. Many states have produced and legally enshrined the "right to hunt and fish" within their state constitutions, but none to my knowledge, have in any way legally provided for a state to have an "obligation" to provide land upon which to do either. Everyone complains about welfare; free housing, free medical, free phones and free food, I guess providing public land for hunting is like recreational welfare for those that don't want to have to spend their own money owning or leasing a privately owned place to hunt.
Exactly and I guarantee you 99% of the hunters in Alabama and every other state have ever heard of the Robertson Pittman act. Most don’t know that the federal government subsidizes state fish, and wildlife budgets for conservation and other Hunter perks. That’s why I thought it was really funny people were agree with banning other hunters. Like I said in a previous post if they banned non-resident hunters they should shut down all federal lands, including core of engineer, national Forest, etc... It’s not rocket science.
