http://www.fieldandstream.com/articles/hunting/2016/08/transferring-control-of-federal-lands-would-devastate-hunting-and-fishing?src=SOC&dom=fb

quote:

---

Basic natural resources are most at risk. "Think about the water we'd lose access to if these lands were privatized70 percent of the headwaters of our streams and rivers in the West are on public lands," Tawney says. "That is why the lands were set aside in the first place. We knew that under federal management we'd be able to harvest timber and still protect the water resources. With private ownership, there was no guarantee."

And "no guarantee" applies to hunting and fishing, too, Tawney says. "The transfer of these lands to state control would change American hunting forever. State lands have an entirely different set of rules for management. And private lands are mostly not accessible for the average hunter. The experiment, unique to our country, where the fish and wildlife and the public lands belong to the people, well, that would be the end of that."

---

Excellent article

If federal lands had been transferred to the state of Kansas in the past few years I can almost guarantee most of it would be privately owned now.

quote:

---

If federal lands had been transferred to the state of Kansas in the past few years I can almost guarantee most of it would be privately owned now.

---

Same in Idaho. As an example of the mindset, the Legislative leaders lobbied the Governor of my state to not reappoint a couple of the directors of Fish and Game. Why? Because they resisted passing out numerous Elk tags to large landowners (that were also political supporters). The landowners want to be able to resell them for profit.

quote:

---

Selling access to private lands for hunting and fishing has become an added business for many farmers and ranchers, and a new generation of wealthy sportsmen have purchased large ranches primarily to hunt and fish.
These conflicts have prompted traditional hunters, especially, to worry that giving big game tags to landowners or selling game tags at auction will erode the traditional view that fish and game are public resources that belongs to the state.

---

quote:

---

In 1938, Idaho voters passed an initiative, placing Fish and Game under an independent, nonpartisan commission. Winning 76 percent of the vote, it was Idaho's first successful initiative.

---

This is not the politics forum, so I will limit my comments. I will say one-party rule leads to crap like this. We underestimate how important it is to have opposing parties to keep each other honest. And the lege and Governor are in the process of subverting the will of the people from that initiative almost 80 years ago. SMH.

Texas sold out to the big ranches long ago. High fencing is a damned shame.

quote:

---

Texas sold out to the big ranches long ago. High fencing is a damned shame.

---

I don't understand this trust of the Fed and automatic distrust of the states.

Let's say that they are transferred from fed parks to state parks. What's so wrong with that? You can hunt in state parks.

If you think your state gov will mismanage the parks, change it. At least you have a chance at influencing things on the state level. The fed doesn't give a crap what you think.

Like it or not, the fed doesn't have the constitutional authority to own those lands.

Here are the tx state parks.



Here the fed parks.



Tx could absorb those with no problem.

I know western states have a lot more fed park land. Get involved and make sure they are run properly.

quote:

---

Texas sold out to the big ranches long ago. High fencing is a damned shame.

---

Well, for now, we still have private property rights.

This is a double edged sword issue to me.

On the one hand, the federal government does not have the authority to own the lands that they do. The second that they carved states out of the lands west, constitutionally those lands should have transferred to the states and out of the control of the feds.

On the other hand, odds are that some of the land (I do not believe all of it by any stretch) would not be "public" land at this time had it become state land as it should have. And I enjoyed access to a lot of open land living out west that is not as readily accessible here (without a boat anyway at least).

However, to me this is not an either/or issue that we seem to think it is. And as a poster pointed out above, with state control over land, we would individually have a significantly higher margin of say in how the land is managed versus it being land held under the umbrella of a faceless alphabet soup agency that pretty much has zero actual responsibility to the citizens. I think there could well be a good solid medium between what is now and what people fear with state lands. Yeah, kind of a dream world, I know.

How much of that federal land is off limits to hunting, BTW? I know in AZ that a whole lot of the BLM land is technically land that is off limits and even target shooting is illegal on. How has that federal control of Gulf of Mexico fisheries been going? The feds are far from perfect, as are states.

The other aide of your argument is that it js easier to buy what you want from a politician in Austin than in DC.

Most states can't afford to manage that much land. Then they're forced to sell it off. That's the dirty secret.

quote:

---

Most states can't afford to manage that much land. Then they're forced to sell it off. That's the dirty secret.

---

So where does the fed get all that money to run them?

From the people and the states. Stop giving it to them. Keep it in the states.

quote:

---

Most states can't afford to manage that much land. Then they're forced to sell it off. That's the dirty secret.

---

What exactly is there to "manage" that is an absolute requirement that cannot be passed through to the companies that are either leasing the land (timber, minerals, etc.) or at least partially offeset though increased fees for hunting tags and/or licenses (game managers)?

Fact of the matter is that if you look at the resources the feds dedicate to the amount of land they own, they don't do much managing either.

It all boils down to what politicians spend money on. We seem to continually ignore that problem as a country while $400MM of your and my tax dollars get flown to Iran or while the president and his family take $100MM vacations once every 6 weeks.

quote:

---

The other aide of your argument is that it js easier to buy what you want from a politician in Austin than in DC.

---

At least you have a shot at exposing it at the state level. You'd never find out what's going on in DC.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Most states can't afford to manage that much land. Then they're forced to sell it off. That's the dirty secret.

---

So where does the fed get all that money to run them?

From the people and the states. Stop giving it to them. Keep it in the states.

---

Here in WY most of the BLM revenue comes from mining and O&G royalties.

Federal Collections from BLM-Managed Lands and Minerals (2015)

Recreation fees....................................................$228,518
Grazing fees........................................................$2,162,710
Lands and realty management...............................$9,119,512
Timber management ............................................$93,822
Mining claim location/maintenance.........................$5,957,425
Mineral materials..................................................$5,162,533
Mineral royalties/revenues.....................................$1,787,143,028

The feds might be willing to give up the surface management one day, but they'll never release those royalties.

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Most states can't afford to manage that much land. Then they're forced to sell it off. That's the dirty secret.

---

So where does the fed get all that money to run them?

From the people and the states. Stop giving it to them. Keep it in the states.

---

Here in WY most of the BLM revenue comes from mining and O&G royalties.

Federal Collections from BLM-Managed Lands and Minerals (2015)

Recreation fees....................................................$228,518
Grazing fees........................................................$2,162,710
Lands and realty management...............................$9,119,512
Timber management ............................................$93,822
Mining claim location/maintenance.........................$5,957,425
Mineral materials..................................................$5,162,533
Mineral royalties/revenues.....................................$1,787,143,028

The feds might be willing to give up the surface management one day, but they'll never release those royalties.

---

Then the fed has usurped too much power from the states/people.

quote:

---

On the one hand, the federal government does not have the authority to own the lands that they do.

---

This has been argued back and forth for generations. The courts have consistently upheld for at least the last 175 years that the constitution does in fact grant the federal government authority to own lands.

quote:

---

I don't understand this trust of the Fed and automatic distrust of the states.

---

Uncle Sam can be trusted on some things and not others. When it comes to public land, I think they do a pretty good job. Alternatively, the state does a not so great job on public land. Texas is consistently dealing with funding shortfalls and lack of resources. Several holdings remain undeveloped (for example Davis Hill State Park). Many holdings end up getting transferred from the State to local cities (for example Lake Houston State Park).

I had no problem with Fed land until King Barry the Petulant closed the public lands when he didn't get his way. Then there's the issue of agenda driven decisions like stocking wolves and not allowing state biologist to determine control measures.

I don't know what was/is best and both sides make some good points, but I'm damn sure glad these fed lands have been preserved for the public's use and for hunting and fishing. In my opinion, Texas has missed the boat big time on public land availability and access for public use.

If it takes the feds to be involved for states like AK, Montana, Idaho and Wyoming to exist in their natural state without a beef cow, crop field or a high fence every couple miles then I'm all for it.

It isn't perfect, but the heavy fed ownership states are doing it much better than the heavy private landowner states such as TX for land access. Admittedly terrain and populations are huge driving factors that make it perhaps an unfair comparison, but I still think TX should have much more public/natural land by % than it does.

quote:

---

quote:

---

The other aide of your argument is that it js easier to buy what you want from a politician in Austin than in DC.

---

At least you have a shot at exposing it at the state level. You'd never find out what's going on in DC.

---

Depends on the state. When one party has a supermajority and people just vote for the Letter in parentheses after the name..well it doesn't work. A few years ago the lege passed 4 education reform laws that were B.S. All four were overturned by the people with four different citizen initiatives. How did the lege react? Well they gave the middle finger to the voters by passing a law making it much harder to get initiatives on the ballot in the future. The voters' reaction? They re-elected most of those idiots. LIVs indeed. I don't trust the Feds. I trust our state leaders even less. If the Feds relented and gave Idaho all of the Fed lands I guaran frickin T you that there would be some awesome sweetheart deals for the politically connected. Think Boris Yeltsin level cronyism when the Soviet Union collapsed.

in texas this isnt much of an issue as the above maps show. additionally, the vast majority of texas is already privately owned. what id like to instead see is wider support of the public hunting through tpwd. if more people would spend the $50 there would be much more purchasing power allowing greater access across the state while still leaving the land in private ownership. since moving to the panhandle i have taken advantage of this often and have found tpwd to be professional and responsive. last year i was able to contact the local guy and ask that he attempt to secure better waterfowl land this year. they responded by getting some of the best hunting in the area this year. the guy was so eager to build the program here that he personally called me to tell me about the new land and also talked up some new land available for quail.

Can you expand on this? Are you saying that TPWD leased from landowners? Similar to the WIHA programs in the midwest? I'm genuinely curious. I'm familiar with the $50 pass for hunting TX public lands (used to us it around Granger lake growing up), but was not aware of this program.

Is there a map of leased lands available?

Also, I think TX has a problem getting the info out there. I know I put in for public land draws now that it is online (as did many others), but rarely did before. Make the info easier to find and the program better known and I'm sure you will get alot more usage.

It's also very hard to use Texas as some type of example on land ownership - the vast majority of the land was privately owned from the inception of settlement by SFA. We weren't some vast stretch of undeveloped and un-civilized land like the overwhelming majority of the western US was when we bought the land from Mexico after the Mexican-American war. You are talking about two completely different circumstances with respect to land ownership between here and there.

it is also revealing how many people who typically despise an overbearing federal government are more than willing to promote that very same government owning vast swaths of land, pretty much for selfish wants when you get down to it.

Or for the greater good?

And private land ownership isn't for selfish wants but vasts swaths of natural public land for future generations is?

quote:

---

Or for the greater good?

And private land ownership isn't for selfish wants but vasts swaths of natural public land for future generations is?

---

You are walking down a dangerous path when you start justifying everything "for the greater good".

You are missing the point of what I said as well concerning general comments on fed government. Or I didn't state it well, either way.

quote:

---

it is also revealing how many people who typically despise an overbearing federal government are more than willing to promote that very same government owning vast swaths of land, pretty much for selfish wants when you get down to it.

---

I don't know if your comment was directed at me, but if it was I certainly see your point. But it is sad when one realizes the state where you reside has a government more corrupt and less trustworthy than the Feds. So yes I am conflicted.

It has been argued back and forth, but the fact of the matter is that there is exactly nowhere in the Constitution that grants the feds power to own anything outside of a 10 square mile block of land (D.C.) and establishing postal routes. Every bit of interpretation beyond that has strictly been interpretation.

The western half is a weird issue, for sure though. The original states and Texas were colonies and independent states prior to joining the union. The argument is that, if one were to actually look at how the framework of the country was set up, we are a confederation of independent states whom agree on a central government for a very limited reasons, not the opposite (which is kind of what we have morphed into as a country). Adhering to the original framework mindset would tell you that when the feds granted lands in the west to individual states, they should have granted all of the lands, not just the idea of a state. Look at Nevada, for example - 96% or so of it s federal land. How do you really justify that as being a state? It's really a ward of the federal government when you get down to it.

Each side of the discussion has good points and drawbacks. Hard to say one way or another which is really better, but I generally err on the side of not liking the feds to have power and control simply because the things they do have power and control over typically become nothing more than political pawns (oil leases, for example) or get royally effed up due to woefully inefficient or flat out poor management practices (Gulf Fisheries, for example).

quote:

---

Can you expand on this? Are you saying that TPWD leased from landowners? Similar to the WIHA programs in the midwest? I'm genuinely curious. I'm familiar with the $50 pass for hunting TX public lands (used to us it around Granger lake growing up), but was not aware of this program.

Is there a map of leased lands available?

Also, I think TX has a problem getting the info out there. I know I put in for public land draws now that it is online (as did many others), but rarely did before. Make the info easier to find and the program better known and I'm sure you will get alot more usage.

---

You've got it. Tpwd leases private land for various seasons. There's much more in the panhandle than anywhere else, but I'd assume if there was more public demand there would be more available. I'm on mobile, but if you Google Texas Public hunting it will take you to their site. There is an interactive map and a pdf of the booklet they send out when you buy the permit.

Thanks. It's been quite a few years since I lived in TX but I'll check it out.

quote:

---

quote:

---

it is also revealing how many people who typically despise an overbearing federal government are more than willing to promote that very same government owning vast swaths of land, pretty much for selfish wants when you get down to it.

---

I don't know if your comment was directed at me, but if it was I certainly see your point. But it is sad when one realizes the state where you reside has a government more corrupt and less trustworthy than the Feds. So yes I am conflicted.

---

It wasn't directed at anybody in particular, more of a general observation at how many people seem to be more than happy with the idea of a huge federal government owning lands.

Generally speaking, these are the same people that lament the handling of the red snapper season in the gulf or would castigate the government for now allowing drilling on fed lands in Alaska or offshore when oil was over $100 a barrel or hate the feds for shutting down the coal industry or criticize the feds for fighting the oil sands pipeline from Canada.

And, generally speaking, the biggest reason (my assumption) for such an argument is because too much of Texas is privately owned in their opinion and they want access to land they don't have access too, or want more convenient access to large areas of land for their personal enjoyment, or because they simply don't like how one aspect of private land ownership is trending here (example: high fencing).

General observations.

quote:

---

it is also revealing how many people who typically despise an overbearing federal government are more than willing to promote that very same government owning vast swaths of land, pretty much for selfish wants when you get down to it.

---

You dont have to be anti-government to be a constitution loving American.
While I criticize attacks on the constitution I do not "despise our government"
I love my country and I love being an American. This is the best country in the world and there damn sure are things Uncle Sam gets right.

Secondly, the national parks are established for "For the Benefit and Enjoyment of the People"
The public lands are indeed "America's best idea" and are envied across the world.
It is not for "selfish wants". It couldn't be further from that. It is for our national and cultural heritage and for future generations.

One thing I detest is organizations such as the Nature Conservancy. As a non-profit, they pay no taxes on their properties.

At present:

quote:

---

In general, the Conservancy does not take a formal position either for or against hunting or fishing.

Because our primary focus has always been to protect the entire spectrum of native biological diversity, we do not encourage hunting or fishing on the majority of conservation sites that we own or manage. At the same time, when these activities are carried out within the guidelines of applicable state and federal laws, we would not oppose those who wish to take part in them.

For more information, please refer to this document that outlines our approach to hunting and fishing.

If you would like to know whether hunting or fishing is allowed on a particular preserve, please contact the chapter office in the state in which the preserve is located.

---

The link in the text is:http://www.nature.org/member-care/hunting-and-fishing-factsheet.pdf.

Basically, they will permit hunting and fishing in certain circumstances such as if it is necessary to restore the ecological balance.

I'd love to see them have to pay property taxes on all their "protected" land so that they would have to at least make reasonable decisions on what to preserve and what not to preserve. As it is now, it's just a black hole -- land goes in, may never come out.

I'm confused. I thought we all wanted less government.