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

[Sneaky]

https://www.outsideonline.com/2093281/great-public-land-heist-has-begun

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk

[Razrbk89]

Absolutely sickening what they're moving towards.

I guess there's a price on everything these days. This should prompt every person who enjoys the outdoors to contact their representatives and let them know how they feel.

[txjustin]

This is one of those things where real political colors will show. I'm a state's rights guy, so what do you think I believe?

Note: I may not like that decision necessarily, but the COTUS trumps all.

[Thumper]

Its still public lands, just now its owned by the state.

The issue is access for public use, the feds are continuously cutting back on public access to our public lands they manage. No where in the Constitution does it say the federal government is permitted to own public lands other than for a specific use as needed. The feds for sure do not need to own 7O of a state, nor should they own and control 65% of a state's coast line like they do here in TX.

Edit: Also when the federal govt doesn't pass a budget it shuts down and closes all the lands they manage, they kick all the hunters and campers off, this would not happen with state owned and manage lands.

[garby]

Its still public lands, just now its owned by the state.

Until the states get in a financial bind and then sell it off to the highest bidder. Also, state land often comes with a lot more restrictions for those using it.

https://youtu.be/qc5yljh2Y-Y

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

[Razrbk89]

Until the states get in a financial bind and then sell it off to the highest bidder. Also, state land often comes with a lot more restrictions for those using it.

https://youtu.be/qc5yljh2Y-Y

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

Thank you. This could be a huge step backwards for conservation and sportsman.

[Johnny Dangerr]

Wow.......

[donpablo]

What if they tacked on an amendment forbidding sale and guaranteeing public use/wildlife management? I know there's a stigma against logging, but I've also read about the thousands of acres of public lands that could be receiving Pittman-Robertson funds if they were doing the controlled burns and the thinning that are required by the program. Of course maybe this is a reluctance by the states to take advantage of this. But if they used this bill to push/guarantee year-round access and management it could go from being a bad thing to being a great thing.

[B Littleton]

states don't have the infrastructure or regulatory resources to manage these lands properly. do the feds do a perfect job, of course not, but generally they have done a great job of managing our public lands and wildlife resources, which is why we have the fantastic access to public hunting, fishing, camping and other recreation (mainly west of here, but Texas has a good amount of national forest and grasslands as well). in the past, federal to state transfer of land has resulted in significant degradation and ultimately the outright sale of these lands to private entities.

I know we are used to having to pay for hunting access in Texas, but I personally would love it if there were more public access land in Texas so that I didn't have to spend $2,000 plus to have decent hunting access. I am generally a smaller government = better government kind of guy, except when it comes to our public trust, wildlife, and natural resources. our past leaders did a great thing when they developed the public trust conservation model, it has been more effective and efficient at conserving and protecting our natural resources and wildlife than any other system on earth. why mess with a good thing?

[Bill]

“This bill directs the Department of Agriculture, through the Forest Service, to convey to a state up to 2 million acres of eligible portions of the National Forest System (NFS) in it that it elects to acquire through enactment by the state legislature of a bill meeting certain criteria. Portions of the NFS conveyed to a state shall be administered and managed primarily for timber production.”

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.

states don't have the infrastructure or regulatory resources to manage these lands properly.

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.

[M16]

Meh, who cares. It's not like we get to hunt federal land in other states without paying through the nose anyhow. They shut out the non-residents by limiting access for hunting so let them deal with it.

[BoneDigger]

The Texas legislature is well known for screwing over its constituents. There have been more than a few mandates voted in by public vote that were later blatantly robbed for the general fund. As of right now 30% of the state owned public land in Texas is divided into two holdings, Devils River SP and Big Bend State Park. Parks and WMAs have been sold or closed before. It's nothing new.

TPWD and TFS both have personnel to manage the lands we have now, including prescribed burning, but more lands would require significantly more hiring. Thus, the number of people working off of our state taxes goes up.

In my experience, the state legislature is just as corrupt as the federal legislature. You are more likely to see state land sold than you are federal. I'd say it's better for us as sportsmen to have more federal than state land.

[Bill]

If the people are on the state payroll, in theory they should come off the federal. But it does not work like that.


..... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

[Ironman]

Are there state lands that can be hunted without a drawing?

[treestand]

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.