Reply
Go Back   TexasBowhunter.com Community Discussion Forums > Topics > Around the Campfire
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-26-2016, 10:23 AM   #1
BTGuard
Ten Point
 
BTGuard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Iowa
Hunt In: Iowa
Default National parks for sale?

http://www.outsideonline.com/2100586...n=facebookpost

What do you folks think?

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
BTGuard is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 07-26-2016, 11:03 AM   #2
Texans42
Ten Point
 
Texans42's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: High plains
Default

Been a big deal since Cruz ran his mouth about giving fed land back to the states
Texans42 is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 07-26-2016, 11:13 AM   #3
rladner
Pope & Young
 
rladner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Coppell
Hunt In: San Saba
Default

not buying it. This whole article is based on the fear that States will sell the land. Not drinking that cool-aid. I'm a fan of states having more control and federal government less control. While some states may outsource management of lands, I doubt any will actually sell the land. That's not why they are fighting for control of it. That's just silly.
rladner is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 07-26-2016, 11:18 AM   #4
AntlerCollector
Pope & Young
 
AntlerCollector's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Hunt In: Votaw, Hardin/Polk Co., TX. Bon Weir, Newton Co., El Dorado, Schleicher Co., TX.
Default

I agree with rladner
AntlerCollector is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 07-26-2016, 11:21 AM   #5
Hydestik
Ten Point
 
Hydestik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Hunt In: Hill Country
Default

The article says the state governments don't have the funds to manage these lands but it did mention how much revenue these parks generate from outdoor activities as a whole . If the revenue goes back to the state, I don't see any reason why it wouldn't be successful. The federal government is terrible at managing the taxpayers resources but there are some states that are equally as bad . In either situation , the lands should be accessible by all that pay the fee to hunt, fish, or play on them .
Hydestik is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 07-26-2016, 11:23 AM   #6
GarGuy
Pope & Young
 
GarGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Default

All I can say is... If Ratcliff Lake National Park comes up for sale...IM BUYING IT! That would be the best deer lease in East Tx.
GarGuy is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 07-26-2016, 11:25 AM   #7
BTGuard
Ten Point
 
BTGuard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Iowa
Hunt In: Iowa
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hydestik View Post
The article says the state governments don't have the funds to manage these lands but it did mention how much revenue these parks generate from outdoor activities as a whole . If the revenue goes back to the state, I don't see any reason why it wouldn't be successful. The federal government is terrible at managing the taxpayers resources but there are some states that are equally as bad . In either situation , the lands should be accessible by all that pay the fee to hunt, fish, or play on them .
This is exactly what I said. I know many states seem to be way better at managing money. The reason the feds can afford seems to be they have no issue going into debt.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
BTGuard is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 07-26-2016, 11:27 AM   #8
Texans42
Ten Point
 
Texans42's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: High plains
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rladner View Post
not buying it. This whole article is based on the fear that States will sell the land. Not drinking that cool-aid. I'm a fan of states having more control and federal government less control. While some states may outsource management of lands, I doubt any will actually sell the land. That's not why they are fighting for control of it. That's just silly.
History says other wise.
Texans42 is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 07-26-2016, 11:41 AM   #9
Texans42
Ten Point
 
Texans42's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: High plains
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BTGuard View Post
This is exactly what I said. I know many states seem to be way better at managing money. The reason the feds can afford seems to be they have no issue going into debt.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
States like Texas that only have to manage <600k of state land? What about Neveda how much state land do they have left? What about CO how much state land can you actually hunt on?
Texans42 is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 07-26-2016, 11:43 AM   #10
BTGuard
Ten Point
 
BTGuard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Iowa
Hunt In: Iowa
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Texans42 View Post
States like Texas that only have to manage <600k of state land? What about Neveda how much state land do they have left? What about CO how much state land can you actually hunt on?
So I gather you don't like this idea either? For the record, I'm not necessarily for it. If it were to happen I think it would need some pretty serious structure. Not just a free for all, here's your land type of thing

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
BTGuard is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 07-26-2016, 11:49 AM   #11
CEO
Ten Point
 
CEO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: The Woodlands, TX
Default

I've heard quite a bit of debate on this issue lately. There seems to be a serious concern of states not being able to afford management and in turn selling off land.
CEO is online now   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 07-26-2016, 11:58 AM   #12
WItoTX
Ten Point
 
WItoTX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Katy
Hunt In: Wisconsin, New Mexico, Colorado, Montana
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BTGuard View Post
This is exactly what I said. I know many states seem to be way better at managing money. The reason the feds can afford seems to be they have no issue going into debt.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
Exactly. Not to mention, I don't see what the issue is with individuals owning land instead of some omnipresent creation which has no business, nor right, to own property.
WItoTX is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 07-26-2016, 12:00 PM   #13
Texans42
Ten Point
 
Texans42's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: High plains
Default

I'm not a fan. We are sheltered here in Texas, not to mention the state was deeded out well before we entered statehood. For the most part we have excellent elected legislation that is very pro-hunting... With that said a perfect example in Texas is we have a history of robbing TPWD budget(hunting lic revenue and Pittman tax revenue) to balance state budgets, thus robbing GW budgets and park budgets. Who wants to see first responders capped by gas budgets...(wait our GW's are)

Federal system isn't perfect but as it is right now it's public use for ALL and can't be sold

Randy Newberg has some great podcasts and YouTube video out on the subject. He has done his research and it shows with his factual examples
Texans42 is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 07-26-2016, 12:01 PM   #14
BTGuard
Ten Point
 
BTGuard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Iowa
Hunt In: Iowa
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WItoTX View Post
Exactly. Not to mention, I don't see what the issue is with individuals owning land instead of some omnipresent creation which has no business, nor right, to own property.
I think in this instance the "omnipresent" being is somewhat necessary. Public land is a huge point of pride for us in America. If that's all privatized there is no way we would have access to this huge resource of the outdoors. Now whether the state or federal government owns it makes less difference I think.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
BTGuard is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 07-26-2016, 12:26 PM   #15
rladner
Pope & Young
 
rladner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Coppell
Hunt In: San Saba
Default

still not buying it. I mean, sure, it could happen, if you let it and you really don't make an effort to be successful. But there are lots of ways you could successfully transfer and maintain these lands at the State level. Its not that complicated and also doesn't have to be so simple.
rladner is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 07-26-2016, 12:31 PM   #16
jaker_cc
Ten Point
 
jaker_cc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Floresville,Tx
Hunt In: Webb Ct., Karnes Ct.
Default

It's happened in Colorado, Nevada, Utah, and Idaho. States see the dollar signs and sell the land. Some are worse than others, I think there's a gritty bowmen podcast or maybe a full draw full time podcast about just how bad it's gotten in some states
jaker_cc is online now   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 07-26-2016, 12:33 PM   #17
Chuck Webb
Eight Point
 
Chuck Webb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wallis, TX
Hunt In: Anywhere
Default

Feds can't manage themselves much less money, back when Roosevelt set aside these national parks, they had no value I terms of todays dollar. Let the State that they reside in manage and get the feds out of the way
Chuck Webb is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 07-26-2016, 12:41 PM   #18
Texans42
Ten Point
 
Texans42's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: High plains
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rladner View Post
still not buying it. I mean, sure, it could happen, if you let it and you really don't make an effort to be successful. But there are lots of ways you could successfully transfer and maintain these lands at the State level. Its not that complicated and also doesn't have to be so simple.
Fed spent 1.7 billion last year on just firefighting out west.... Some states they spent almost 200million fighting wildfires. Let that sink in.

Federal control isn't perfect with that said majority of states will sell they won't have a choice. Most states struggle keeping F&G offices going
Texans42 is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 07-26-2016, 12:45 PM   #19
rladner
Pope & Young
 
rladner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Coppell
Hunt In: San Saba
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Texans42 View Post


Fed spent 1.7 billion last year on just firefighting out west.... Some states they spent almost 200million fighting wildfires. Let that sink in.

Federal control isn't perfect with that said majority of states will sell they won't have a choice. Most states struggle keeping F&G offices going
Noted. And again, easy work around if desired.
rladner is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 07-26-2016, 12:49 PM   #20
PantherCity
Six Point
 
PantherCity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Fort Worth
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rladner View Post
still not buying it. I mean, sure, it could happen, if you let it and you really don't make an effort to be successful. But there are lots of ways you could successfully transfer and maintain these lands at the State level. Its not that complicated and also doesn't have to be so simple.
Please do a little research on the subject before pontificating. It is a very complicated topic and the states just don't have the resources to keep these lands public. Past history points to this leading to privatization of these public lands that currently all Americans own and can use with very little restrictions.
PantherCity is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 07-26-2016, 12:50 PM   #21
Froggy
Pope & Young
 
Froggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Decatur, Texas
Hunt In: Wise/Montague/Public land
Default

If you are truly interested in this subject I suggest reading some of the history about how the public lands came into federal ownership. Here's a link to a pdf article titled:

America’s Public Lands: origins, history, future

http://www.publicland.org/misc_docum...cument_web.pdf

I spent a career with the U.S. Forest Service working in Lands, Minerals, Recreation, Fire and Special Uses.

I can honestly say I worked with some great professionals from many different disciplines such as fire, wildlife, fisheries, archaeology, engineering etc.

These folks work hard everyday to fulfill the Forest Service motto of "Caring for the Land and Serving People".

Most folks don't realize that 25% of revenues (timber, oil and gas, recreation etc.) collected on public lands managed by federal agencies are returned to the local counties for schools and roads.

I realize I'm biased but feel it would be a big mistake to turn federally owned lands over to the states.
Froggy is online now   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 07-26-2016, 12:53 PM   #22
rladner
Pope & Young
 
rladner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Coppell
Hunt In: San Saba
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PantherCity View Post
Please do a little research on the subject before pontificating. It is a very complicated topic and the states just don't have the resources to keep these lands public. Past history points to this leading to privatization of these public lands that currently all Americans own and can use with very little restrictions.
I've done my research. Put some thought into it and came to the conclusion it really isn't that complicated. It can be done fairly easily with safeguards in place. Just put a little thought into how to address your concerns. Boom, plausible solution. Its not rocket science.

The biggest concern I hear here is money. Well, that is easily solvable.
rladner is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 07-26-2016, 12:58 PM   #23
PantherCity
Six Point
 
PantherCity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Fort Worth
Default

We also have a problem with the legislature purposefully under-funding and handicapping the management of these lands so that they can point to these shortcomings and say "look its not being managed very well" so they can turn around and support land transfers. Many of the legislators supporting public land transfer are the same ones currently responsible for the "mismanagement" of the lands.
PantherCity is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 07-26-2016, 01:00 PM   #24
BTGuard
Ten Point
 
BTGuard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Iowa
Hunt In: Iowa
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rladner View Post

The biggest concern I hear here is money. Well, that is easily solvable.
What is the easy solution to this... I could sure use one!


Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
BTGuard is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 07-26-2016, 01:00 PM   #25
PantherCity
Six Point
 
PantherCity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Fort Worth
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rladner View Post
I've done my research. Put some thought into it and came to the conclusion it really isn't that complicated. It can be done fairly easily with safeguards in place. Just put a little thought into how to address your concerns. Boom, plausible solution. Its not rocket science.

The biggest concern I hear here is money. Well, that is easily solvable.
If these solutions are so simple, please edify us and let us hear you easy solution.
PantherCity is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 07-26-2016, 01:01 PM   #26
Froggy
Pope & Young
 
Froggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Decatur, Texas
Hunt In: Wise/Montague/Public land
Default It's already been done

A couple of quotes from the article I posted above.

"Two-thirds of the original 1.8 billion acres of public domain
acquired by the United States were subsequently transferred
to individuals, corporations and states."

"Most of the public lands were transferred out of the public domain by:

Military Bounties – Over 61 million acres of public domain
lands west of the Appalachian Mountains were granted to
veterans of the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812 as
compensation for their service.

Land Grants to States – Each new state that joined the
Union gave up claim to federal public domain lands within
its borders, but received large acreages of public domain in
land grants. These were to be leased or sold by the state to
help raise funds for public schools, colleges, universities and
other public institutions in the state."
Froggy is online now   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 07-26-2016, 01:02 PM   #27
BTGuard
Ten Point
 
BTGuard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Iowa
Hunt In: Iowa
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rladner View Post
Noted. And again, easy work around if desired.
And what is the workaround for this?

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
BTGuard is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 07-26-2016, 01:03 PM   #28
Saddle Tramp
Eight Point
 
Saddle Tramp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Rockport
Hunt In: Most Public some private
Default

Don't think it will happen. But we could form a CO-OP and buy it up, all it takes is a little down and a little a month.
Saddle Tramp is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 07-26-2016, 01:11 PM   #29
Razrbk89
Ten Point
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: NE Arkansas
Hunt In: Northern & Eastern Arkansas
Default

Totally against it here. These lands are national treasures and I don't trust states to handle them responsibly in all cases.

I'm lucky enough to live in close proximity to some truly awesome Federal (and state) land here in Arkansas and I want to see it remain preserved and intact. AGFC has created one of the best WMA systems in the country, but couldn't handle all the federal land here in the state the same way.

As outdoorsman and HOPEFULLY conservationists, the hunting and fishing community should be able to see through this brand of politics.

Last edited by Razrbk89; 07-26-2016 at 01:13 PM.
Razrbk89 is online now   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 07-26-2016, 01:13 PM   #30
Froggy
Pope & Young
 
Froggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Decatur, Texas
Hunt In: Wise/Montague/Public land
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rladner View Post
I've done my research. Put some thought into it and came to the conclusion it really isn't that complicated. It can be done fairly easily with safeguards in place. Just put a little thought into how to address your concerns. Boom, plausible solution. Its not rocket science.

The biggest concern I hear here is money. Well, that is easily solvable.
It's obvious that you have never worked within a federal bureaucracy. Nothing is ever simple when dealing with lands issues. Congress would have to do away with a long history of federal laws beginning with the General Mining Law of 1872. That will never happen due to the revenues from mineral development on public lands.

In 2015 alone Onshore Oil and Gas revenues were 28.9 billion dollars. I just don't think the federal government will hand that over to the states.

Last edited by Froggy; 07-26-2016 at 01:15 PM.
Froggy is online now   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 07-26-2016, 01:21 PM   #31
mhunter6
Four Point
 
mhunter6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: spring
Hunt In: anywhere they let me
Default

Every state has a state land trust. Upon statehood this trust was set up and depending on a number of metrics the federal government gave the state a certain amount of land into that trust with the main objective being to be run for a profit to fund public schools. The issue is not just money for the management, its that by the governing documents of most state land trusts if these lands do not show a profit for the state and in its intended purpose it gets sold. Every state land trust has a website and you can see how much they once had and compare it to what is available now. The track record almost across the board is profoundly negative when public access is concerned. Most is sold, the land that is not sold is typically leased to oil and gas, logging, etc. And within the lease it basically is private and only available to the company holding the lease. States like Colorado do not allow hunting on state land. Montana allows hunting on state land but does not allow camping, making back country hunting on state lands virtually impossible. We as Texans should now first hand how abysmal states run land when it comes to fair and equal use and access.
mhunter6 is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 07-26-2016, 01:23 PM   #32
backwoods
Eight Point
 
backwoods's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Hunt In: South East Texas
Default

Im extremely opposed of transferring ownership to the states.
These lands belong to the people.
Local governments are fueled by taxation of private property.
Federally owned land is not taxable so it is lost revenue to the city / county / state.
The only goal of the state in owning the land would be the ultimate development of that land by private interest. They desire the highest and best use of the land to increase taxable base.

Texas has a hard enough time managing their state parks and is often times in a budget crisis. As such, many parks are "off loaded" to cities or counties which makes it even easier to transition to private development.

Honestly, Its hard to understand why anyone would want to give up their land.
Further, I fully support the federal acquisition of more Texas land (eg expansion of Big Thicket National Preserve, Big Bend, National Forest, etc.) Without federal involvement, the Big Thicket would have been lost in its entirety.

Last edited by backwoods; 07-26-2016 at 01:27 PM.
backwoods is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 07-26-2016, 01:24 PM   #33
rladner
Pope & Young
 
rladner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Coppell
Hunt In: San Saba
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Froggy View Post
It's obvious that you have never worked within a federal bureaucracy. Nothing is ever simple when dealing with lands issues. Congress would have to do away with a long history of federal laws beginning with the General Mining Law of 1872. That will never happen due to the revenues from mineral development on public lands.

In 2015 alone Onshore Oil and Gas revenues were 28.9 billion dollars. I just don't think the federal government will hand that over to the states.
Isn't the point of this debate to remove the "federal"
rladner is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 07-26-2016, 01:26 PM   #34
rladner
Pope & Young
 
rladner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Coppell
Hunt In: San Saba
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BTGuard View Post
What is the easy solution to this... I could sure use one!


Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
Subsidize. These lands can still be federally subsidized. Again, not simple, but not overly complicated. Plenty of stipulations can be attached. That's what our government does best
rladner is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 07-26-2016, 01:28 PM   #35
rladner
Pope & Young
 
rladner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Coppell
Hunt In: San Saba
Default

Alright, I've had my fun. Time for lunch boys. Carry on
rladner is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 07-26-2016, 01:31 PM   #36
mjbtexas
Ten Point
 
mjbtexas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Central Texas
Hunt In: Texas, Nebraska, Missouri
Default

less fed control the better. I know tons of guys that would love to run a national park. and make $ at it. I just paid $25 for access to arches national park and it was worth every penny.

Washington seems to have lost the ability to manage what they have, in any sense of the word.
mjbtexas is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 07-26-2016, 01:37 PM   #37
backwoods
Eight Point
 
backwoods's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Hunt In: South East Texas
Default

Quote:
less fed control the better.
I agree with this in terms of our constitutional rights, but why do you think this applies to the land that all Americans own?

Quote:
Washington seems to have lost the ability to manage what they have, in any sense of the word.
Do you believe that Washington can not manage the nation's public land? If so then why?

Quote:
I just paid $25 for access to arches national park and it was worth every penny.
Then why would you support transferring it the state which might ultimately mean the demise of the park?

Last edited by backwoods; 07-26-2016 at 01:41 PM.
backwoods is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 07-26-2016, 02:11 PM   #38
Texans42
Ten Point
 
Texans42's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: High plains
Default

Nevada had 4million acres of state land... Now only have 3000 acres(not a typo)

Colorado had 4.5 million acres now only 2.8 million(-38%)... Kicker only 18% of the current 2.8 has hunting, and the state has to lease those hunting rights back from leasee

Idaho has sold 42% of thier 4.2 million acres. Means they sold 1.7 million acres.

There is an 89,000 acre state park that Oregon is selling if your interested?
Texans42 is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 07-26-2016, 02:24 PM   #39
ladrones
Pope & Young
 
ladrones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: NM
Default

Sell it all back to the native tribes and let the take care of it.
ladrones is online now   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 07-26-2016, 02:25 PM   #40
Etxbuckman
Pope & Young
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Spring
Default

I don't have a problem with the feds turning this land over to the states. I don't necessarily even have a problem with the states selling the land. I DO have a HUGE problem with the states selling the land to developers, which is what I see happening. I would much prefer to see what's left of our wilderness areas stay that way.
Etxbuckman is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 07-26-2016, 02:37 PM   #41
WItoTX
Ten Point
 
WItoTX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Katy
Hunt In: Wisconsin, New Mexico, Colorado, Montana
Default

Regardless of the great benefits of the federal government owning land, where does it say they have the right to own property other than for situations such as military bases, post offices, and other governmental buildings?
WItoTX is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 07-26-2016, 03:20 PM   #42
Sahelian Jeep
Four Point
 
Sahelian Jeep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Tatum, TX
Hunt In: Rusk County
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GarGuy View Post
All I can say is... If Ratcliff Lake National Park comes up for sale...IM BUYING IT! That would be the best deer lease in East Tx.
Right in the heart of the Davy Crockett National Forest
Sahelian Jeep is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 07-26-2016, 03:28 PM   #43
SMUMan02
Ten Point
 
SMUMan02's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Tyler, TX
Default

So our state parks are chronically underfunded, but we can afford to and will actually manage more land? That seems incredibly unlikely.
SMUMan02 is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 07-26-2016, 04:36 PM   #44
backwoods
Eight Point
 
backwoods's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Hunt In: South East Texas
Default

Quote:
Regardless of the great benefits of the federal government owning land, where does it say they have the right to own property other than for situations such as military bases, post offices, and other governmental buildings?
Well…for starters the Constitution gives the federal government the right to own property.
Its called the property clause.
backwoods is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 07-26-2016, 04:51 PM   #45
backwoods
Eight Point
 
backwoods's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Hunt In: South East Texas
Default

Quote:
I DO have a HUGE problem with the states selling the land to developers, which is what I see happening. I would much prefer to see what's left of our wilderness areas stay that way.
It is the state and counties goal to develop land to its highest and best use. Local governments are funded by sales tax dollars, hotel occupancy tax, and property taxes. Wilderness (aka unproductive land) does not generate direct tax revenue and is very undesirable. The state will do everything in its power to get acres into taxable status and real estate developers are their best friend in this goal. It gets pretty corrupt. More acres are taken via eminent domain with private economic development interest in mind than are reported.
backwoods is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 07-26-2016, 09:25 PM   #46
bpa556
Eight Point
 
bpa556's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Kinney County
Hunt In: Terrell County
Default

I'm absolutely opposed to the transfer of federal lands to the states. Having said that, anyone who forms an opinion on the matter, solely based on that "article", should stay home every election day until they develop the ability to differentiate propaganda from reality. That thing is a load of patchouli and granola smelling hogwash.
bpa556 is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 07-26-2016, 10:52 PM   #47
Bisch
Pope & Young
 
Bisch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Sonora, Tx
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rladner View Post
not buying it. This whole article is based on the fear that States will sell the land. Not drinking that cool-aid. I'm a fan of states having more control and federal government less control. While some states may outsource management of lands, I doubt any will actually sell the land. That's not why they are fighting for control of it. That's just silly.
What he said^^^^^^^^

That article has a very biased slant to it!!!!

Bisch
Bisch is online now   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 07-27-2016, 12:51 AM   #48
backwoods
Eight Point
 
backwoods's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Hunt In: South East Texas
Default

So Uncle Sam has successfully held these lands for the last 160+ years, lands that Americans fought and died for, and now it's time to just turn loose of them? Like someone said, these lands are a national treasure. America isn't growing in size. We lose land to development at astonishing rates and these lands are held for all Americans to access and enjoy.

For those that say the states won't sell...they most certainly will. It happens all the time. It's understandable that people distrust our country but there are some things this nation gets right.

Last edited by backwoods; 07-27-2016 at 12:54 AM.
backwoods is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 07-27-2016, 01:08 AM   #49
Outback
Ten Point
 
Outback's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Pearland
Hunt In: Llano primarily
Default

I find it funny that we are concerned whether states can afford to manage the land. Can our federal government afford to manage them without going into debt? I'm for keeping the parks as parks and don't have a dog in this fight, but neither the state nor federal governments have much money to spend on things such as this.
Outback is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 07-27-2016, 08:04 AM   #50
Froggy
Pope & Young
 
Froggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Decatur, Texas
Hunt In: Wise/Montague/Public land
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Outback View Post
I find it funny that we are concerned whether states can afford to manage the land. Can our federal government afford to manage them without going into debt? I'm for keeping the parks as parks and don't have a dog in this fight, but neither the state nor federal governments have much money to spend on things such as this.
They could if the budget process allowed revenues from timber, oil and gas, coal, uranium and other mineral royalties to go directly into budgets for public land management agencies. Instead it goes directly into the treasury for politicians to waste as they see fit.

I'll repeat this. In 2015 Onshore Oil and Gas revenues were 28.9 billion dollars. That doesn't include revenues from all our other natural resources.
Froggy is online now   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:21 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Copyright 1999-2012, TexasBowhunter.com