GOP House Moves Against Public Lands on Its Opening Day

[WItoTX]

This does not change the fact that the land was sold. It went from complete control of the state to the timber company. What happens if they decide they don't care about the lower tax rate? I bet they can shut it down to access. I do not know that however. And that is wisconsin.

But besides that. Most timber companies do not give a crap about wildlife. They will do the bare minimum legal requirements and that's it. Given some wildlife species benifit from some of those timber practices. The state could manage it for timber and wildlife and public access.

Also, when you start talking about selling land out west some would be timber companies but I would bet a lot would be sold to million/ billionaires and nobody will step foot on it to hunt again. You just have to look at the valleys around Aspen and Vail Colorado to see that.

This is not good guys! If you think it's hard to hunt out west now wait till it's mostly private land.
Also if the western states didn't limit the number of tags there would be no wildlife left to hunt. Think about it. There is no reason to limit tags in texas because it's mostly private land. Theres no reason to to limit tags in most eastern states because they are mostly private land and not many people travel to hunt there. saying you don't care what happens to the land because it's hard to draw a tag for big game is a bit vindictive. Plus they are open to small game, fishing, camping, hiking to everybody at the moment. Will not be the case if sold.

I appreciate the opinion, its definitely a good discussion. In WI, if you want the tax credits, and they are substantial, you have to meet certain criteria, including how the land is managed. The DNR manages the deer herd yearly, and issues tags based on populations in the unit you are in.

Yes, timber companies can up and sell. But the land loses so much value after the timber is removed, its a huge loss for them. Also, entering into the favorable taxes means you will keep land as managed land for a certain period of years. So if a timber company decided it wanted to buy land, log it, and sell it, its required to stay as public, and the land takes a huge hit in value.

I would ask this. How much land has the Federal Government taken in the past 10 years, vs how much have they given back?

Yes, tags are currently relatively easy to get, for public land, which contains significantly fewer animals, especially ones of size. Private lands offer much larger, as well as lands controlled by the state (Colorado has a select few units with giant elk, but it takes years and $$$ to get tags to those units for out of state folks)

I also know there are 50 states which manage their own public land differently from the next. Maybe we need to look to what each state does, see what works and what doesn't, and model the federal system after that. But what is happening right now isn't the best we can possibly do.

You mention land around Vail and the price. In the grand scheme of the Rockies, this is but a fly on the ***** of an elephant. It's insignificant.

[Shane]

You serious? Texas has some of the suckiest public land hunting access anywhere in the country!

Yep, and we all still hunt on all that private land. I'm not worried at all about the federal government giving some of it's land to the states. All the "sky is falling" hooplah about it is over-blown. It's mostly a reaction by people who live in western states who get almost all the tags for next to nothing on land that the rest of the country pays for. If they want to keep all the tags for themselves, let them pay for it themselves to. We're here paying to hunt on private land in our state AND paying taxes to support the land they hunt for free in their states.

I don't buy the argument that the federal government is the best and most responsible caretaker of the land either. The federal government isn't the best at much of anything.

[mcanderson83]

You serious? Texas has some of the suckiest public land hunting access anywhere in the country!

^truth ... relatively speaking there is very little public hunting land, unless you want to fight 800 people for the same 10 acre plot, you have to hunt private

[.270]

In this case it's better protected with the feds.. Alot of states would sell the land off to build condos in a heart beat..

Utah sold off a bunch in a cash crunch. Texas did it a long time ago, which is why we have less than 3% public land.

[WItoTX]

You serious? Texas has some of the suckiest public land hunting access anywhere in the country!

Coming from a state with tons of public land, it's practically non-existent here.

[Ryango]

This is groundwork for the privatization of public land, and hunting outfitters are not the most profitable use of that land so don't expect get more hunting out of the deal. Also, don't expect your grandkids to ever be able to get it back.

[Etxnoodler]

I appreciate the opinion, its definitely a good discussion. In WI, if you want the tax credits, and they are substantial, you have to meet certain criteria, including how the land is managed. The DNR manages the deer herd yearly, and issues tags based on populations in the unit you are in.

Yes, timber companies can up and sell. But the land loses so much value after the timber is removed, its a huge loss for them. Also, entering into the favorable taxes means you will keep land as managed land for a certain period of years. So if a timber company decided it wanted to buy land, log it, and sell it, its required to stay as public, and the land takes a huge hit in value.

I would ask this. How much land has the Federal Government taken in the past 10 years, vs how much have they given back?


Yes, tags are currently relatively easy to get, for public land, which contains significantly fewer animals, especially ones of size. Private lands offer much larger, as well as lands controlled by the state (Colorado has a select few units with giant elk, but it takes years and $$$ to get tags to those units for out of state folks)

I also know there are 50 states which manage their own public land differently from the next. Maybe we need to look to what each state does, see what works and what doesn't, and model the federal system after that. But what is happening right now isn't the best we can possibly do.

You mention land around Vail and the price. In the grand scheme of the Rockies, this is but a fly on the ***** of an elephant. It's insignificant.

Out west there are numerous units that have trophy class animals. Because they are limited.

For those mentioning the tags are expensive for public land. You still have to pay the tag fee even if you hunt private. PLUS trespass or guide fees.

[Etxnoodler]

Y'all are also just focusing on hunting. What about fishing camping, backpacking? Will all land be sold? No. but many states will sell most of it.

[Txcatsailor01]

I don't know about other states but if its a choice between TPWD or the Fed managing our lands than the Fed can go pound sand for all I care.

^^^^ Whole heartedly agree!

If I have to find another way to hunt in order to keep the F...ing Feds away, then so be it!

“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

Hasn't the last eight years been enough to illustrate that there is no quenching the Federal appetite of grabbing control. Put another way, say the Fed was successful in grabbing 75% of all land in the US. It would just take one more guy like Obama that didn't like hunters to say, No More Hunting On Federal Land.

[wolfslair]

states rights all the way.

[Etxnoodler]

^^^^ Whole heartedly agree!

If I have to find another way to hunt in order to keep the F...ing Feds away, then so be it!

“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

Hasn't the last eight years been enough to illustrate that there is no quenching the Federal appetite of grabbing control. Put another way, say the Fed was successful in grabbing 75% of all land in the US. It would just take one more guy like Obama that didn't like hunters to say, No More Hunting On Federal Land.

Ummm they have control of the land now. And they let everybody use it. They arnt trying to take control of anything in this instance. They already have it.

[alec73065]

I really don't know much about this , I hunt in Davy Crockett annually and like how they run that, but isn't Rocky Mountain national park federal and there is no hunting season there ?? Family went there on vacation several years ago and when I mentioned you should be able to hunt there one of the rangers about had a heart attack. Also in RMNP I kept hearing the stories of the bark beetles that were killing all of the trees but they don't allow logging. They were just pushing these dead/dying trees into piles everywhere which someday will turn into a giant wildfire. Again I don't have all of the details other than a few experiences.

[Txfire409]

That must explain why I haven't drawn a hunt on TX state land in 5 years and instead settle for open access to the LBJ National Grasslands.

When it comes to public land hunting, the last thing this country needs is another Texas. The federal public lands out west are a priceless resource for hunters.

I don't know what you are doing wrong but my son and I have been drawn for at least one hunt EVERY year we have applied. This year we got drawn for four of them. A lot of the land used for tpwd drawn hunts are state parks so you wouldn't be able to hunt there anyways. SHNF has over 160k acres to hunt year round, Moore Plantation has over 25k, same with Bannister WMA and other year round public access hunting areas in the state. Most of the land in Texas that is controlled by the feds is by permit only and is off limits to hunt the rest of the year. Balcones Canyonlands WMA is a prime example. The feds bought that property with our money for the protection of two stupid little birds and access to the vast majority of the property is off limits to everyone all year long.
Granted, Texas has very little public land compared to other states but that is due to private ownership. What little public land we have is better managed by the state than the feds imo.

[crawdaddct]

I would hate to see Texas take over any Federal land in Texas, just because they have such a bad track record and are not going to spend the money to maintain it. The state would most likely sell most of it off. Any loss of hunting land is bad. I haven't deer hunted public land in a long time, but its still nice to take the shotgun and go walk in the woods after deer season. Get some squirrel and rabbit. Its just part of our heritage. I don't have to drive to a ranch somewhere. I just go ten miles down the road. I just don't want that messed up.

[Txcatsailor01]

Ummm they have control of the land now. And they let everybody use it. They arnt trying to take control of anything in this instance. They already have it.

The topic of conversation was whether its a good idea for TX to wrestle control away from the Feds.
So, yes Federal lands are available for hunting, currently. The problem with your logic is that, hunters are only one PETA Loving-Tree Hugging president away from restricting hunting on Federal lands.

http://www.mrctv.org/blog/obama-seizes-land-3x-size-texas-8-years

This article illustrates what I am speaking about. Our country has had a long and glorious history or developing fossil fuel production for us AND the world. AND because fossil fuels are not in vogue with the left, all Federal land AND a new 553 million acres are off limits to fossil fuel production. If that doesn't sink in, then there is the 583 million acres of ocean that was designated "Protected from Commercial Fishing" off the coast of Hawaii earlier this year. There were probably some commercial fishermen that were proponents of the Federal Government, right up to the point where their livelihood was taken away.

I've always believed the big government types are huge fans right up UNTIL they get F..ed by their government. But then it's too late!