The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) uses non-taxpayer money from offshore oil & gas drilling to benefit public lands and waters like the Valles Caldera and many others. LWCF has funded at least one project in every county in the country with New Mexico receiving $37.8 million over the course of the program. LWCF is set to sunset on September 30 of this year. Visit the Take Action of our site to submit your comments in support of LWCF. https://www.backcountryhunters.org/take_action#/

For anyone in the know, is there really any chance that no action will be taken regarding the LWCF?

Bueller?

Haven't ever heard about this until i listened to the Meat Eater podcast.

Sent

I understand the want to preserve natural resources. I do.

But that entire webpage reads like a leftist socialist's wet dream.

SWCBonfire said:

---

I understand the want to preserve natural resources. I do.

But that entire webpage reads like a leftist socialist's wet dream.

---

Pretty sure leftist socialist don't give a **** about hunting and fishing. And I would venture to say that most don't give a **** about public lands.

As much as I want to agree with that, I simply can't.

The land should rightfully belong to the state. When a state is created, it's pretty specific in the Constitution as to what can and cannot be owned or held by the federal government. When the west was divided into territories, it was all under the ownership and purview of the feds. But the constitution does not give the feds the right to own land inside state boundaries for unenumerated purposes, which is what the overwhelming majority of BLM and other federal lands are classified as.

The federal lands west of the Mississippi were historically sold by the feds to private citizens to pay off debts, unburden the federal government of management responsibilities, etc.

It's a double edged sword - the idea of huge areas of uninhabited or undeveloped land is great, but I also believe that there is no right for the feds to own and manage and make arbitrary rules without congressional oversight or vote, of such land.

LEJ said:

---

Feds don't own it. The people own it. I realize the devil's in the details, but this is fact.

---

On paper, sure. But the people cannot access the land or use it without approval from the feds, so the effective owner is the feds. Splitting hairs, but it is what it is.

There is absolutely nothing in the constitution that grants the federal government the authority to own land outside of specific enumerated items in an area that is not a territory. When the territories entered the union as states, the legal authority of the federal government to own land not dedicated to enclaves ended. That's how the constitution reads. There is not a whole lot of case law on it by my understanding, which kind of suprises me to be honest.

This is somewhat of a divergence from LWCF but if you've never listened to any of Randy Newberg's podcasts regarding public lands, episode 89 of Hunt Talk with Brian Cal of Gritty Bowmen is a great start.

One important topic he discussed was exposing
this concept of turning over federal mgmt of NFS and BLM lands to the state for the fraudulent land grab that it is.

If this did happen, in Colorado, 23 million acres of NFS and BLM land that belongs to all of us would be forfeited to the state of Colorado. I've never hunted state land in Colorado but in order to do so my understanding is that you have to get permission from the leaseholder.

So all of the land owned by USFWS that is fenced off and vacant is accessible to citizens?

TwoMarksHand said:

---

SWCBonfire said:

---

I understand the want to preserve natural resources. I do.

But that entire webpage reads like a leftist socialist's wet dream.

---

Pretty sure leftist socialist don't give a **** about hunting and fishing. And I would venture to say that most don't give a **** about public lands.

---

What do they call government ownership of the means of production again (BLM grazing land, NFS)?

Like it or not, this nation is built on the private ownership of land. Texas has been quite successful due to it. I don't think we lack for hunters and anglers in Texas, and if we do, having to drive to public lands in Colorado is probably more of a barrier to entry than just getting a hunting lease on private land.

SWCBonfire said:

---

TwoMarksHand said:

---

SWCBonfire said:

---

I understand the want to preserve natural resources. I do.

But that entire webpage reads like a leftist socialist's wet dream.

---

Pretty sure leftist socialist don't give a **** about hunting and fishing. And I would venture to say that most don't give a **** about public lands.

---

What do they call government ownership of the means of production again (BLM grazing land, NFS)?

Like it or not, this nation is built on the private ownership of land. Texas has been quite successful due to it. I don't think we lack for hunters and anglers in Texas, and if we do, having to drive to public lands in Colorado is probably more of a barrier to entry than just getting a hunting lease on private land.

---

This nation is built on hard work and sacrifice. This nation is THE PEOPLE. The "omg socialist" angle is an interesting one. I'll admit that. It's very misguided, but interesting. Have you ever been to a socialist country? Is wildlife conservation a focus of the Socialist Party? I'm not sure we're talking about the same definition of "Socialism" here. What I'm talking about is land and water and wildlife conservation.

I wouldn't say that Texas excels in this arena either. Texas is becoming increasingly efficient at high fencing and protein feeding, and less successful at hunting access and opportunity.

Yes, I've lived in France for a summer on an A&M program, and worked in the UK. Socialism blows.

We're going to agree to disagree here. And although this board (and myself personally, but that's another topic) bemoan the high fencing of private land, you cannot dispute that private landowners have made it much less expensive to hunt and shoot many exotics from other continents.

I personally think that private ranchers would be the best stewards of all that land, and should have the opportunity to purchase it.

Quote:

---

I personally think that private ranchers would be the best stewards of all that land, and should have the opportunity to purchase it.

---

I don't necessarily disagree with you here, in whole. However, that's not the way it works. When states decide to dispose of their public lands, ANYONE can buy them... The Chinese, The cartels, The cartels posing as a cattle ranchers,... etc, etc.

So in other words, just like all land everywhere else?

I'm bowing out. If preserving public access to lands is a worthwhile endeavor to you, you should pursue those interests as a free citizen. That is your right. It is also my right to question the best use of those lands. I just ask someone with the means to do so, check out the funding and background of this group before giving them any money. (And I am not trying to accuse this group of anything, it may be perfectly legitimate.)

PineTreeAg said:

---

The Supreme Court has been very consistent in maintaining that the Property Clause of the Constitution allows the Federal Government to own and manage lands within all of its possessions in perpetuity.

---

Because the SC never gets anything wrong? And almost all of the case law on this has happened post 1900, which is a completely different time and interpretation of government versus what the Framers actually intended. This is the same SC that has upheld income tax, the creation of a host of federal bureaucracies that are comprised of un-elected officials that get to make law outside of the voting process, etc.

The Constitution is specific on what can and cannot be owned by the Feds.

Quote:

---

So in other words, just like all land everywhere else?

I'm bowing out. If preserving public access to lands is a worthwhile endeavor to you, you should pursue those interests as a free citizen. That is your right. It is also my right to question the best use of those lands. I just ask someone with the means to do so, check out the funding and background of this group before giving them any money. (And I am not trying to accuse this group of anything, it may be perfectly legitimate.)

---

This is getting a bit off track again, but I don't like the idea of foreign interests owning American soil, period. Our forefathers sacrificed a ton to be where we are today. I'm not about to turn loose of it to eurotrash socialists, bullet train degenerates or the like. My family's land has been in Ag production for well over 100 years, in Texas. There's no way in hell I'd ever sell it to a foreign investor.

Lastly, I'll tell you straight up that I don't agree with everything that BHA (Backcountry Hunter's & Anglers) supports, but I'm a member because I love wild places and want to see them continue to be a part of the American way of life. If and when we lose them, they are gone... forever.

I'd also suggest that you pay close attention to the name Will Coggin, who he works for, the agenda, and how they're trying to discredit orgs like BHA, TU (Trout Unlimited) and the TRCP (Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership).

BHA is the one of the most well organized hunter/angler/outdoorsman groups to be associated with if you love American public lands. They are an advocate and they're pissing some people off, including politicians. I think that's pretty refreshing.

http://www.santafenewmexican.com/opinion/my_view/reader-view-trashing-sportsmen-and-public-lands/article_aa905b2a-3250-5fc7-9036-490dbdf9ed4b.html

SWCBonfire said:

---

I personally think that private ranchers would be the best stewards of all that land, and should have the opportunity to purchase it.

---

That's interesting. Why?

AgLA06 said:

---

SWCBonfire said:

---

I personally think that private ranchers would be the best stewards of all that land, and should have the opportunity to purchase it.

---

That's interesting. Why?

---

Looks like I'm getting sucked back in.

Ranching most closely mimics the historical natural use of the land. Ranching has minimal impact on wildlife compared to almost all other uses, gets the property off the taxpayer's tit and onto the local tax rolls.

Sale and use of land can be managed via conservation easement and other stipulations. Like the original homestead act - you couldn't be an absentee landlord or you would lose your claim. But private property is private property, and the owners (or whomever they want to sell it to once they own it) can do whatever the hell they want to with it unless there are deed or use restrictions in the legal description.

If a rancher declines to purchase the BLM land that he currently grazes, some city dweller can come and purchase it for use on the weekends. Maybe even not graze it at all anymore to encourage wild game populations. Maybe subdivide it and build houses on it. Who knows, but it won't be on the taxpayer dime. I don't expect the taxpayers in Colorado to keep someone from buying the pasture next to me so that I can lease it for cheap here in Texas, no more than they should expect me to pay as a taxpayer to keep their adult outdoor playground open for them.

Non taxpayer?

These offshore oil and gas companies sure are thoughtful.

SWCBonfire said:

---

AgLA06 said:

---

SWCBonfire said:

---

I personally think that private ranchers would be the best stewards of all that land, and should have the opportunity to purchase it.

---

That's interesting. Why?

---

Looks like I'm getting sucked back in.

Ranching most closely mimics the historical natural use of the land. Ranching has minimal impact on wildlife compared to almost all other uses, gets the property off the taxpayer's tit and onto the local tax rolls.

---

I've never seen a pump jack overgraze a pasture or a hunter or hiker for that matter either.

Good, they can pay to buy the land and pay property taxes, too.

ETA: I bet for damn sure that bison have overgrazed that land at some point in time as well.

LEJ said:

---

Quote:

---

But the people cannot access the land or use it without approval from the feds, so the effective owner is the feds. Splitting hairs, but it is what it is.

---

We're in charge of the feds. They work for us. We tell them what to do. The wheels may turn slow, but that's the system.

---

The ATF is calling on line one.

SWCBonfire said:

---

And although this board (and myself personally, but that's another topic) bemoan the high fencing of private land, you cannot dispute that private landowners have made it much less expensive to hunt and shoot many exotics from other continents.

---

Um, yes. We've made it less expensive to shoot invasive species from another continent. I know this firsthand.

SWCBonfire said:

---

AgLA06 said:

---

SWCBonfire said:

---

I personally think that private ranchers would be the best stewards of all that land, and should have the opportunity to purchase it.

---

That's interesting. Why?

---

Looks like I'm getting sucked back in.

Ranching most closely mimics the historical natural use of the land. Ranching has minimal impact on wildlife compared to almost all other uses, gets the property off the taxpayer's tit and onto the local tax rolls.

---

I'm on the side that - legally speaking - the feds do not have the inherent right to own and control the land that they do outside of very specific items listed out in the Constitution within state boundaries.

That being said, I completely disagree with this statement. Ranching and farming have had the most impactful changes to the land, at least along the gulf coast they have. Which is why there is less than 2% of the original prairie land left remaining and that several species show either significant declines in population or aren't around at all. The introduction of bermuda grass and its various strains in lieu of the natural prairie grasslands has decidedly changed the lay of the land, and we hardly have any quail down here anymore as a result.

malenurse said:

---

LEJ said:

---

Quote:

---

But the people cannot access the land or use it without approval from the feds, so the effective owner is the feds. Splitting hairs, but it is what it is.

---

We're in charge of the feds. They work for us. We tell them what to do. The wheels may turn slow, but that's the system.

---

The ATF is calling on line one.

---

And IRS, and VA, and DMV and EPA and DWFS and a whole lot of other alphabet soup organizations.

SWCBonfire said:

---

SWCBonfire said:

---

I personally think that private ranchers would be the best stewards of all that land, and should have the opportunity to purchase it.

---

That's interesting. Why?

---

SWCBonfire said:

---

Ranching most closely mimics the historical natural use of the land. Ranching has minimal impact on wildlife compared to almost all other uses, gets the property off the taxpayer's tit and onto the local tax rolls.

---

I can see this to some extent. However, the second that land is changed yo improved pasture land with fertilizer and different grasses, I think that argument goes out the window. Especially with pasture land notorious for clearing needed habitat, cover, and native grasses needed by many other species.

SWCBonfire said:

---

If a rancher declines to purchase the BLM land that he currently grazes, some city dweller can come and purchase it for use on the weekends. Maybe even not graze it at all anymore to encourage wild game populations. Maybe subdivide it and build houses on it. Who knows, but it won't be on the taxpayer dime. I don't expect the taxpayers in Colorado to keep someone from buying the pasture next to me so that I can lease it for cheap here in Texas, no more than they should expect me to pay as a taxpayer to keep their adult outdoor playground open for them.

---

I think my issue is there's no reason to sell the land to relieve the tax payer burden. It's entirely possible to lease yet keep money coming in on the property and still provide access to the public. I think many of us Texans can't truly see the benefit of public land unless we experience it ourselves. My view was very different before I started hunting up there on a yearly basis. Now I'm extremely envious and wish the state of Texas wasn't as short sighted on public space.

AgLA06 said:

---

SWCBonfire said:

---

SWCBonfire said:

---

I personally think that private ranchers would be the best stewards of all that land, and should have the opportunity to purchase it.

---

That's interesting. Why?

---

SWCBonfire said:

---

Ranching most closely mimics the historical natural use of the land. Ranching has minimal impact on wildlife compared to almost all other uses, gets the property off the taxpayer's tit and onto the local tax rolls.

---

I can see this to some extent. However, the second that land is changed yo improved pasture land with fertilizer and different grasses, I think that argument goes out the window. Especially with pasture land notorious for clearing needed habitat, cover, and native grasses needed by many other species.

SWCBonfire said:

---

If a rancher declines to purchase the BLM land that he currently grazes, some city dweller can come and purchase it for use on the weekends. Maybe even not graze it at all anymore to encourage wild game populations. Maybe subdivide it and build houses on it. Who knows, but it won't be on the taxpayer dime. I don't expect the taxpayers in Colorado to keep someone from buying the pasture next to me so that I can lease it for cheap here in Texas, no more than they should expect me to pay as a taxpayer to keep their adult outdoor playground open for them.

---

I think my issue is there's no reason to sell the land to relieve the tax payer burden. It's entirely possible to lease yet keep money coming in on the property and still provide access to the public. I think many of us Texans can't truly see the benefit of public land unless we experience it ourselves. My view was very different before I started hunting up there on a yearly basis. Now I'm extremely envious and wish the state of Texas wasn't as short sighted on public space.

---

I think many can, and it's not really a case of Texas being short sighted - we had a completely different beginning than the majority of the western states did. Our country and then state was founded on the promise of private land ownership - most of the west was founded through significant land purchase (Louisiana Purchase) or the ceding of land after the Mexican-American war when we still fought to win. You are literally talking about apples to oranges in terms of the initial beginnings of the land.

Texas had plenty of public land. It belonged to the state of Texas. They sold it off to pay for debts instead of taxing the people of Texas. The capitol building was paid for in land (which became the XIT ranch). The public debt of Texas was settled with land in the compromise of 1850.