Let's talk about federal vs state control of land.

[BoneDigger]

I do think citizens have more influence on state government than on federal. It's much easier to pressure the texas legislature to do the right thing than it is to get congress, which is full of liberals, to do what's right. The only downside I see is that states with lots of federal land will not be able to pay for much services. But how much service do we really need on hunting land anyhow? Most of what is done now is paid for by conservation groups.

No, not really. The TFS supplies personnel to manage some state lands and TPWD has a large workforce for state parks and WMAs.

As for what is needed on hunting lands? Road and trail maintenance, LEO duties, prescribed fire, etc.

[gonehuntin68]

This is about taking public land and letting the individual states manage it for timber production, which means leasing to timber companies. Under federal control, the US logging industry has been devastated with federal regulations.

I have hunted plenty of National Forest in Cali that has been leased for timber, it's not restricted access at all.

This is not true at all. Logging companies do lease the land to hunting and the general public can no longer access it. Majority of it is not leased and you can hunt it but don't think for a second that you can hunt all of the timber companies land. You probably have seen several of these properties but didn't realize it since once SPI Leases them to hunting, whoever leases it puts their own no hunting sings up. Have you ever seen Wilderness Unlimited signs or Golden Ram signs while driving around in the National forest, if you have then you seen it but just didn't know. I know of several properties in Trinity county and Mendocino county that used to be land I could hunt but now SPI (logging company) has leased to Wilderness Unlimited or Golden Ram that only Members of WU can hunt. I used to be a member of WU and Golden Ram and they leased several properties from SPI that I used to hunt growing up.

[B Littleton]

This is about taking public land and letting the individual states manage it for timber production, which means leasing to timber companies. Under federal control, the US logging industry has been devastated with federal regulations.

I have hunted plenty of National Forest in Cali that has been leased for timber, it's not restricted access at all.



I can't speak for the great state of Texas, but in Cali the DFW manages large tracts of land for public hunting. If there are fires in the National Forest, it's CDF (California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection) that fights the fire, not the feds.

What type of infrastructure or regulatory resource are you referring to? Having state GWs instead of the Federal GWs to enforce game laws? The Federal GWs are so stupid in Cali that they need to have a state GW present to tell them what ducks hunters have shot, to try to write a ticket for guys who mistake one species for another on federal areas.

Putting the management of large portions of the public land, for the purpose of timber production, under state control seems like a great idea to me. For hunting on the timber leases, that's what you have elected representatives for to express your views.

I'm not arguing for federal control of the actual wildlife (i think we can all agree that is best suited for state fish and game agencies), just that the land remains public access. Historically, federal land has remained open access to outdoor recreation, whereas state land (at least in many of the western states) is often times more restrictive in terms of use (i.e. no hunting on Colorado state lands). Also, there is the whole issue of the lands being sold off to generate more public funds once the state realizes the revenue from timber, minerals, etc is not as much as if they sold it outright.