Transfer of Federal Lands to States

[JustinB]

I did a quick search and didn't see an existing thread on this subject.....

Looks like Republicans are moving to open the door for Federally owned lands to be transferred to the states. I'm not an expert on this subject. My gut says it is not a good thing for people who enjoy these federal lands to camp, hunt, fish, etc.

Chime in.

http://www.fieldandstream.com/gop-house-moves-against-public-lands-on-its-first-day

[backwoods]

There has been heated discussion on this.
That anyone would support the transfer is difficult to comprehend.
States have a well documented record of selling off their public lands

[SolocamShooter]

Not a good thing. This is the one instance where the Feds having control of it is a good thing.

[Razrbk89]

There has been heated discussion on this.
That anyone would support the transfer is difficult to comprehend.
States have a well documented record of selling off their public lands

I agree. Horrible idea.

I don't see how any conservation minded person could support this.

[bossbowman]

http://discussions.texasbowhunter.com/forums/showthread.php?t=628239

[ultrastealth]

Sorry, but I'm on the side of the states. The states have a much better track record of making hunting on public lands a priority. Take a look at all of the stupid rules to hunt Laguna Atascosa vs. any state wildlife management area.

[.270]

http://discussions.texasbowhunter.com/forums/showthread.php?t=628239

[Etxnoodler]

Sorry, but I'm on the side of the states. The states have a much better track record of making hunting on public lands a priority. Take a look at all of the stupid rules to hunt Laguna Atascosa vs. any state wildlife management area.

Texas isn't the best example for this topic given we have very limited public land. But on areas that are small you have to limit the number of hunters if you want to have anything worth hunting. Many wma's are very limited also for good reason. This transfer is a bad idea.

[Ironman]

Sorry, but I'm on the side of the states. The states have a much better track record of making hunting on public lands a priority. Take a look at all of the stupid rules to hunt Laguna Atascosa vs. any state wildlife management area.

Have you ever hunted National Forest in western states?

[froghunter]

[quote=Ironman;12080271]Have you ever hunted National Forest in western states?[/quote


National forest here ain't that great as far as hunting goes.

[ladrones]

Do y'all think that Federal bureaucracies who's only mission is survival and expansion has done a great job with management of these lands?

[Vermin93]

Sorry, but I'm on the side of the states. The states have a much better track record of making hunting on public lands a priority. Take a look at all of the stupid rules to hunt Laguna Atascosa vs. any state wildlife management area.

I'll stop laughing when I finally draw a tag to hunt state land in TX.

Pretty much every hunting, fishing and conservation group out West, which is ground zero for this issue, opposes the transfer of these lands to the states. What do you know that they don't?

[Dave_]

Sorry, but I'm on the side of the states. The states have a much better track record of making hunting on public lands a priority. Take a look at all of the stupid rules to hunt Laguna Atascosa vs. any state wildlife management area.

Laguna Atascosa is a wildlife refuge. Wildlife refuges Public Recreation goals ere much different than that BLM or FS lands.

Most states natural resource departments don't have the funding to manage these lands. A lot of land will be sold off.

It is not even a question of whether states or feds can manage better or who has managed better in the past. That is state by state and Texas is not a good example. It is a question of whether these lands will be lost to public recreation forever if they are sold. And are you willing to take that risk, given the states terrible track record.

[JustinB]

So if I oppose this, what should I do? Call my congressman?

It's John Ratcliffe. I couldn't find on the website how he voted on the rule change on Tuesday.

[Etxnoodler]

Laguna Atascosa is a wildlife refuge. Wildlife refuges Public Recreation goals ere much different than that BLM or FS lands.

Most states natural resource departments don't have the funding to manage these lands. A lot of land will be sold off.

It is not even a question of whether states or feds can manage better or who has managed better in the past. That is state by state and Texas is not a good example. It is a question of whether these lands will be lost to public recreation forever if they are sold. And are you willing to take that risk, given the states terrible track record.

X2 this is worded better than I could have.