quote:

---

. As it is now, it's just a black hole -- land goes in, may never come out.

---

Isn't that the point? They are conservation driven for biological and ecological diversity. I think they do great work and are key in the preservation of various rare animals/plants/ecosystems that get no protection otherwise.

quote:

---

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.

---

Then they can submit for ranching for wildlife exemption or something else.

Why give the gov an expressway to seizing land for taxes you can't pay?

I specifically staed "overbearing government". Do not confuse that with "government". I think we all agree that government is necessary, no need to argue that point or the fact that we are still better than everybody else and still have a lot of internal issues that could be better managed.

However, generally speaking, the overall sentiment of the board is that big fed government = bad. And few things, if any, are managed by the feds well.

There is also a difference between BLM lands and National Parks/Forests/Shorelines, etc.

BLM land is simply land that feds claim ownership over that they can essentially do with as they please Not literally, I know, but leasing, mineral extraction, grazing, etc are all implemented on BLM lands. National Parks or areas are legislatively created and have a different set of rules and significantly more restrictions. There is a difference.

Correct me if I am wrong, but you are talking about two different things when talking about National Parks versus BLM land. I think they are even under separate agency jurisdictions, no?

I think we all want just the right sized efficient govt. I fail to see how public lands has to fall into big govt overreach.

I consider the military in the same category as federal lands in that both could likely be improved, could definitely be more efficient, but at the end of the day we have the best in the world and should work on improving without throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Nature Conservancy gets a pass like most non-profits do...for example: churches.
The difference is that people donate lots of money and title to land to them which has allowed them to grow.
Also keep in mind that a lot of their "protected land" is through conservation easements and the land itself is still privately held and utilized to its highest and best use.
Of all the non-profits I support, Nature Conservancy gets the second most amount of money from me (behind the NRA). The work they do is crucial and very under appreciated

Yes...you are right...there should be a distinction between national parks vs BLM vs USDA (national forest) but the latter two provide the most benefit to sportsman which is why I want them protected and out of states hands which would surely spell their demise.

We do all want less government. Some hunting types just tend toward communism at times and ignore the deplorable state of most national forests BLM land etc

quote:

---

We do all want less government. Some hunting types just tend toward communism at times and ignore the deplorable state of most national forests BLM land etc

---

Thanks for the laugh.

quote:

---

ignore the deplorable state of most national forests

---

Huh?
You could not be more wrong

As a Texan with very limited public land options, I'll admit to being selfish with federal lands out west. I use them every chance I get and proudly claim them as my own. Am I just naive to think the feds got this one right?

quote:

---

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

---

You were definitely confused if you thought we all wanted anything in particular. I agree with a few people, and usually different people, on lots of things. And I agree with basically no one on everything. Just because some people, myself included, are louder, or more obnoxious doesn't mean that is what everyone wants.

As someone else said, there are things the government seems to do well, there are things the government seems to do poorly. I want more efficiency. Like it or not there will always be some overreach in government because lots of people are A-holes and act as such. Whether it's keeping costs down by dumping chemicals directly into drinking water, or driving 100mph on city streets. There has to be something to reign those people in. And since we're not allowed to simply walk up and shoot them in the face you get bureaucracy created to limit their mischief.

In this particular case, the federal government being slow to change, and expensive to deal with is actually somewhat of an ironic benefit. Because it makes it less likely that large swaths of land will be sold/timbered/farmed/etc. for once, Government being inefficient and burdensome is a benefit to people that like nature and unspoiled places.

quote:

---

quote:

---

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.

---

Then they can submit for ranching for wildlife exemption or something else.

Why give the gov an expressway to seizing land for taxes you can't pay?

---

The federal government makes "payments in lieu of taxes" for the land it owns in the states.

There are 25.5 million acres of public land in Texas: 22.5 million acres owned by the State and 3.0 million acres owned by the Feds. If my math is correct, this represents approximately 15.2% of the state. To me, that is a large % of government ownership. By comparison, the Feds own 47.7% of California. I can't image what Texas would be like if the Feds owned 47.7%.

For those on here that believe that 47.7 % of Federal ownership of Texas would make for a better state, why is that?

quote:

---

Correct me if I am wrong, but you are talking about two different things when talking about National Parks versus BLM land. I think they are even under separate agency jurisdictions, no?

---

They are both within the Dept. of the Interior, but fall under the direction of different Assistant Secretaries within the Agency itself.

quote:

---

I think we all want just the right sized efficient govt. I fail to see how public lands has to fall into big govt overreach.

I consider the military in the same category as federal lands in that both could likely be improved, could definitely be more efficient, but at the end of the day we have the best in the world and should work on improving without throwing the baby out with the bath water.

---

All one has to do is look at the way the gulf fisheries are managed. Recreational anglers are essentially eliminated from catching red snapper. Wahoo is next on the list.

Look at some of the fights over how BLM practices are done out west as well. Look at the EPA's ever expanding role - they are one of the most powerful government arms out there and are sometimes like a black hole. These are pretty much Exhibit A of big government overreach. Think about the fact that the feds literally own more of the western US than the states or people do.

Look at how the feds have managed drilling leases over the past few years. Let's just say that it's not been an example of a government that is there to do anything other than find an excuse to prove a need for themselves.

I would have loved to still see huge swaths of native prairies in TX, with prairie chickens, song birds, quail, etc. Would be really cool to have had a consistent native population of elk, wolves, bears, bison, big horns, etc that have been and still are roaming Texas for hundreds of years.

The western federal lands give us the closest glimpse to what our country used to look like and what it hopefully still will look like in 100s of years in many of those places. Some parts of TX give you a similar glimpse, and most were thankfully protected.

Perhaps a better question, is can you imagine Alaska, Montana, Wyoming and our national parks all split up in 100 acre ranchettes when we have close to a billion people or more in this country in a few decades.

I don't have a set number on % of acreage that needs protrcting, but I will say that I'm damn happy Texas has protected what it has with those millions of acres and I sure do value the trrasure we all have in our national parks and federal lands.

F&S has long advocated anti-gun, anti-private land ownership.

Nevada/Idaho/AK/AZ, many other western states are strangled by the Feds.

Why should non-residents get a say in their land management? It's purely by accident of history that TX/the South/CA/the East Coast/FL aren't subject to the same abuse.

The gulf fisheries are managed that way in large parts due to commercial fishermen and poor science. I am 100% against that decision, but there are plenty of success stories as well to go with the negatives. Elk may not even exist today or would be more like bison had the fed lands not been protected.

Believe me, i am not stating the federal govt has it all right. There is plenty they can do better and much that is completely incompetent, but I also don't think there is a boogy man behind every decision that is just waiting to screw over America.

Again, as our population booms I think we will value our protected lands even more. Look no further than China to see what happens when it's a free for all in the name of progress and being stewards of a resource is an after thought. Hell, I might put the Katy Prairie in that same category. Huge number of people and protecting wildlands and waters is a balancing act and needs some oversight.

quote:

---

F&S has long advocated anti-gun, anti-private land ownership.

---

I get it now. You're trolling! Or drunk. Or both

quote:

---

Look at some of the fights over how BLM practices are done out west as well. Look at the EPA's ever expanding role - they are one of the most powerful government arms out there

---

While there is a lot of truth in this, the "overreach" that has been mentioned several times is also the only reason that cattlemen haven't burned out every sage brush flat in the west.

Managing a land resource for it's best natural use, vs. it's most profitable individual use are often very different things. And frankly that single issue is at the heart of almost every Public Land v. Private Land spat, and it's the heart of every "right" of private landowners fight.

You need look no further than the overappropriated and fully mined aquifers, the rivers that have been dammed to create flood control/water supply/power, the prairies that were plowed, forests that were leveled to see what can, and will, happen in most private property right situations. ...and it's what results in high fences. My neighbor may have a right to do what HE wants, but that isn't what I want, so by God I'll (insert angry/offensive/protectionist thing here).

If you move to a peaceful Colorado valley to retire...



And then your neighbor decides to strip mine the entire opposite side of the valley... well, I'd dare say people will be mad.



But it's his, right? To do with as he like. I think most of us hold that general belief. ...at least until you get a d*ck for a neighbor. Don't believe it then just look at how many of you live in an HOA, the most petty, mean of quasi-government I see on a regular basis.

The easy answer is that we wouldn't need public land, or even government if people were nice (and of course if they believed exactly what we believe) but that's a ridiculous notion. I believe the world is way too overpopulated and the entire planet is pretty much F'd, it's just a matter of when, not if. So I'll be a curmudgeonly old jerk and go enjoy as many wild and native places as I can before it gets sold off or flooded to create another reservoir to provide water for Los Angeles and Vegas so they can spray big ass fountains 100 feet into the air in the desert in August.

quote:

---

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

---

Yes you are.

I want smart government. Letting the federal government maintain land and resources that we all get to enjoy via hunting, fishing, hiking, etc., is a good example.

The state of Texas has difficulty providing funding for the state parks we have now. That's the reason so many are in such poor condition. Could we do better? Sure. So why don't we? The answer is that it's not a priority with our politicians.

Like the article says, turn that land over to the states, much will end up private, and then it's all over.

quote:

---

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

---

I agree with the high fencing, but fail to see how the State sold out to big ranches. How did they sell out?

I completely agree, and would have love to seen a lot of things that we'll never get to see. But most of what you are talking about, especially with Texas, disappeared a long time ago - long before the modern idea of conservation ever came about.

Hell, I'd love to have seen the Southern Buffalo Herd when it was estimated to be 13 million head strong. Would have been awesome.

I think there is a great balance, and like i said - this issue is a double sided sword. The libertarian/small government person in me does not agree with the fact that the feds own the land that they do in the west. The conservationist/outdoorsman in my likes the fact that there is as much untouched land as there is. A lot of that though is dependent on population density and the ability to work the land. Some areas are simply more prone to lack of human intervention than others.

I pretty much agree with that.

There is tons of great insightful thoughts in this thread. As Sean has stated, I agree with some folks some of the time, and everyone none of the time. This is a complicated issue with tons of great discussion.

DVM

quote:

---

There is tons of great insightful thoughts in this thread. As Sean has stated, I agree with some folks some of the time, and everyone none of the time. This is a complicated issue with tons of great discussion.

DVM

---

Shut up! No one cares what you think!

Well said!

"Anti-gun" is abuse?

Interesting conversation.

Easily one of the best discussions in a while, add to it the fact that schmelba99 agreed with Sean98 and I can only assume the End if Days is near. Repent.

quote:

---

quote:

---

. As it is now, it's just a black hole -- land goes in, may never come out.

---

Isn't that the point? They are conservation driven for biological and ecological diversity. I think they do great work and are key in the preservation of various rare animals/plants/ecosystems that get no protection otherwise.

---

They are for wealthy people in big cities to make themselves feel good about doing something for the environment.

One problem that some people now have in cold areas where so much property is in conservation easements and which pay no property taxes to fund local services, they cannot charge enough property taxes on the property remaining to do things like keep the roads open in the wintertime. One guy from Maine was complaining a few years ago about this where he lives -- his property taxes go up but they cannot pay to keep all the roads clear in the wintertime. He is, effectively, unable to live on his own property in the wintertime, at least not if he wants to go to work or be able to get out for groceries, medical visits, or other problems. And if his house catches fire, the fire department doesn't have the capability of showing up without having the roads cleared first. Until a few years ago, that was never a problem for him.

quote:

---

quote:

---

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.

---

Then they can submit for ranching for wildlife exemption or something else.

Why give the gov an expressway to seizing land for taxes you can't pay?

---

You have to fund local services somehow and property taxes is generally the way it is done in the US.

What would happen with a sales tax instead? First of all in areas with lots of absentee owners, the absentee owners would pay very little toward the services that they use as well as everyone else. That would leave them having to collect higher and higher sales taxes which would drive people going to other places when available to buy goods.

I did some calculations four or five years or so ago for my county. If we did away with property taxes entirely and went to sales taxes to pay for services in the county and if we assume that nobody changes their purchasing behavior because of the sales taxes, sales taxes would have to go to about 160% (I don't remember the exact number) to be revenue neutral.

That means, if you wanted to take your family of four out to a meal at the local restaurant and the bill came out to $30, you would have to pay $48 on top of the $30 in sales taxes for a total of $78.

Need to buy clothes and school supplies for your kids? Suppose it costs $250 per kid and you have two kids. Then you would pay $500 for school supplies and $800 in taxes for a grand total of $1300.

Obviously, spending patterns would change. I think it is safe to say that every business in town would end up having to lay off their employees and close the doors. This would be a ghost town as a result. And, of course, with no stores to charge the ridiculously high sales taxes, there would be very few, if any, local services.

Another change we would likely see is that everything would be taxable. That 160% sales taxes would quickly apply to everything including food items that are currently tax-free in Texas.

The answer would be for all local sales tax money to be paid to the state which would then disburse the sales taxes to wherever it is needed. In big cities which would still be able to pay for their own services via somewhat more reasonable sales taxes, it wouldn't be a problem, but for everyone else in small towns and rural communities, much of the local services would have to be paid by people shopping in the big cities. If you live in a big city, would you really like to be paying loads of extra sales taxes to fund all the rural areas?

Another choice would be to shut down the schools (do it yourself at home), shut down the fire departments, shut down the police and sheriff's departments, shut down the ambulance service, shut down the area hospital, and leave the roads dirt. For the Gunsmoke fans, they'd pretty much get to live that lifestyle today.

In my case, it wouldn't be too bad. Oklahoma isn't very far away. I'd just do all my shopping in Oklahoma with far more reasonable sales taxes and Texas businesses would just have to get by without my purchases.

You may not like property taxes, but trying to replace property taxes with sales taxes would create enormous hardships in the rural areas and enormous resentment in the big cities.

quote:

---

They are for wealthy people in big cities to make themselves feel good about doing something for the environment.

---

I'm not going to lie, this is one of the dumbest things I've read in here ever. So casually offensive and wrong that I don't know where to start.

The vast majority of conservation easements I've dealt with, be it the nature conservancy or others, have been developed by rural citizens who love their property and want to preserve it for future generations of their family or for people who enjoy the outdoors the way they do. Many of them are land rich but cash poor.

As for your contention that this non profit is just a way for rich people to feel good about themselves, you could make that came claim about every non profit. I'd much rather give my money (mine, not yours) to a habitat organization than I would most charities. I'd rather see a square mile of Tallgrass prairie saved them I would see another million dollars sent to the Vatican so the pope can wipe his ass with gilded toilet paper.

I don't disagree that non profits should pay taxes but I believe ALL non profits should pay taxes. Especially churches. I assure my property taxes would be much lower if the proliferation of churches in my County paid property tax.

Or I've actually read editorials in F&S and canceled my subscription after their anti-AR article by... **** Metcalf, I think, and read another article about how land owners shouldn't be allowed to own trout streams in the West.

Our ranch in MT had intact sod and old growth Ponderosas because it had been privately held and was sold with a gentleman's agreement not to timber it.

The BLM land was sagebrush and regularly timbered.

DC doesn't care about preserving nature, outside of the parks, it's just about obtaining the max short-term funds - hell, what in DC is well run?

If it was locally controlled, especially in a small state, one journalist/ticked off old lady can get it to the attention of the electorate.

No one will ever get the country worked up enough over some abused BLM land in rural MT/WY/AK, etc to make DC care.

Good thread! I didn't catch up on it until this morning. I'll just add that as a Texas transplant living in Wyoming it has been interesting seeing the relations between forest service, BLM, and private land owners within this state. I live in a BLM "checkerboard" region along I-80 that is mixed with private and BLM lands. It certainly limits the amount of expansion certain cities are capable of and the amount of usable land available for sale is quite limited (thus HIGH prices). However, if you are to talk with local residents they don't seem to mind and I think most Wyomingites don't want to see urban or commercial development take off unchecked. The folks that have land have it because it was passed down generationally and the rest of us just enjoy the public access to state and federal land while residing on our residential lots. My neighborhood in particular backs-up to thousands of acres of public land that is chock full of trails and wildlife.

The BLM seems to get most of it's criticism in this part of the state from mineral extraction companies and their employees (add my name to the list). Sometimes it can be a little unclear about what their mission is for certain lands that have been offered up in lease sales. For our O&G business in the Greater Green River Basin it is increasingly difficult to follow and adhere to BLM specific rules and regulations. Everything we do has to have the involvement of the agency and there are fees for every step and fines for every misstep along the way. Then once you get your ducks in row and start producing it's 15% royalties off the top and frequent audits and regulatory check-ins along the way. It certainly feels like a money grab from the start through the finish. My thoughts are that if you are going to offer the leases up for development then you need to allow for a reasonable development and production plan that does not put undue stress on companies. If they're trying to limit commercial development, then don't offer up the leases in the first place.

With that said, I don't necessarily want to see the lands be transferred wholly from federal to state and private control. In a perfect world I'd like to see the BLM manage the lease sales and then step aside a bit and let the state agencies manage the regulatory and compliance side of things. They would still be able to control the development from a lease availability stand-point and they would still collect a portion of the royalties. However, it would temper their span of control a bit and let companies adhere to a single set of regulations set forth by the state.