Outdoors
Sponsored by

Biden admin expanding wildlife refuge areas in Texas

13,492 Views | 161 Replies | Last: 4 days ago by aggieSO
WestTexAg12
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
https://www.fws.gov/story/2022-03/expanding-conservation-muleshoe-and-grulla-national-wildlife-refuges

Quote:

On Tuesday, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) released final land protection plans for three National Wildlife Refuges in Texas. The Muleshoe National Wildlife Refuge, located on the Texas-New Mexico border, will be expanded by up to 700,000 acres in western Texas, northwest of Lubbock. The Aransas and Big Boggy National Wildlife Refuges in the Texas Coastal Bend, on the coast of the Gulf of Mexico, will be expanded by 150,000 acres collectively.

Under the FWS land protection plans, these areas have been identified as limited acquisition boundaries. These boundaries are set so that the FWS has approval to purchase land within the area's borders, making it easier for the agency to move quickly and protect at-risk wildlife and the wild spaces they inhabit.


Feds are planning on using taxpayer money to purchase private lands from taxpayers.

Muleshoe NWR is currently about 6,000 acres. They're planning on expanding to a whopping 700,000 acres! This is insane and should be blocked.

Here is the full 60 page plan from FWS.
https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Draft_Muleshoe_LPP%26EA.pdf

Quote:

Additionally, functional ecosystems benefit the human environment and any actions covered under this plan should not place an undue burden on any minority or low-income communities but instead stand to benefit local communities in their access to nature, clean water, and clean air.


Quote:

Environmental Justice
Within the CPA the largest communities are Clovis, NM and Portales, NM. Apart from these population centers and the smaller communities including Muleshoe, Sudan, Tahoka, Littlefield, Morton, and Brownfield the CPA encompasses mostly rural areas.
Collectively, Clovis and Portales are roughly half minority populations, and in the 31st percentile nationwide for low-income population. Low-income and minority communities in the area are among the top third nationwide for unemployment, linguistic isolation, and individuals that did not finish high school.
The refuge employs Youth Conservation Corps members recruited from local communities every year to support refuge facility maintenance and habitat management projects. Youth Conservation Corps members gain an understanding of local ecology and new career opportunities, which may translate to increased awareness of the ecological services and recreation opportunities provided by the refuge.
SteveBott
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Why should it be blocked?
WestTexAg12
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
SteveBott said:

Why should it be blocked?

I don't want more federal government control of agricultural land and interests.
Teslag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Is this voluntary sale by current owners or is it all eminent domain? If it's the former I don't really have a problem with it. Major problem with the latter.
Apache
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
How productive is land in that area?
We do need more land preserved in Texas from rampant development and fragmentation. (Not via imminent domain)
WestTexAg12
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Teslag said:

Is this voluntary sale by current owners or is it all eminent domain? If it's the former I don't really have a problem with it. Major problem with the latter.


I agree. It's not via eminent domain.
Quote:

Land Acquisition Process
The Service would acquire the minimum interest in land from willing sellers to achieve habitat acquisition goals. This land acquisition project would be authorized under U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C.742 a-742). The main sources of federal funding to acquire land and conservation easements include the Land and Water Conservation Fund, Migratory Bird Conservation Commission, and North American Wetlands Conservation Act. There could be additional funds to acquire lands, waters, or interest therein through sources such as congressional appropriations and donations. The Service would also use land exchanges, withdrawals, donations, and transfers to acquire lands.
The basic considerations in acquiring land are landowner interest in the project, the biological significance of the area, the biological requirements of wildlife species of management concern, and existing and anticipated threats to wildlife resources. The purchase of fee-title or conservation easements will occur with willing sellers only and will be subject to available funding.


TH36
How long do you want to ignore this user?
If it's not imminent domain and we can hunt it, I'm all for it. We need more public land in Texas.
WestTexAg12
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
TH36 said:

If it's not imminent domain and we can hunt it, I'm all for it. We need more public land in Texas.

That's "if" we can hunt it.

Problem with public land in Texas is the extreme limited hunting and fishing rights we have on refuge land.
At the moment there are only 8 archery spots for one either sex white tail or mule deer and 4 upland spots available.

Quote:


Hunting
The Service prioritizes wildlife-dependent recreation opportunities, including hunting, when those opportunities are compatible with the purposes for which the refuge was established and the mission of the NWRS. Adding hunting opportunities is consistent with the Service policy on wildlife-dependent recreation and hunting as mandated by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, and Secretarial Order 3356 (Hunting, Fishing, Recreational Shooting, and Wildlife Conservation Opportunities and Coordination with States, Tribes, and Territories).
Hunting may expand on acquired refuge lands. Additional hunting opportunities will be analyzed and offered on a case-by-case basis following the Service's hunt and fish rulemaking procedures. The proposed action would not affect existing hunting opportunities at the refuges.
TH36
How long do you want to ignore this user?
WestTexAg12 said:

TH36 said:

If it's not imminent domain and we can hunt it, I'm all for it. We need more public land in Texas.

That's "if" we can hunt it.

Problem with public land in Texas is the extreme limited hunting and fishing rights we have on refuge land.
At the moment there are only 8 archery spots for one either sex white tail or mule deer and 4 upland spots available.

Quote:


Hunting
The Service prioritizes wildlife-dependent recreation opportunities, including hunting, when those opportunities are compatible with the purposes for which the refuge was established and the mission of the NWRS. Adding hunting opportunities is consistent with the Service policy on wildlife-dependent recreation and hunting as mandated by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, and Secretarial Order 3356 (Hunting, Fishing, Recreational Shooting, and Wildlife Conservation Opportunities and Coordination with States, Tribes, and Territories).
Hunting may expand on acquired refuge lands. Additional hunting opportunities will be analyzed and offered on a case-by-case basis following the Service's hunt and fish rulemaking procedures. The proposed action would not affect existing hunting opportunities at the refuges.



Yea I should've capitalized the "IF" part cause I have the same feelings as you about that subject.

Even if that included a WMA portion in with it, I'm totally fine with that.
concac
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
TH36 said:

If it's not imminent domain and we can hunt it, I'm all for it. We need more public land in Texas.
It's okay unless it's YOUR land that you're forced to sale.
TH36
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unemployed said:

TH36 said:

If it's not imminent domain and we can hunt it, I'm all for it. We need more public land in Texas.
It's okay unless it's YOUR land that you're forced to sale.


Reading is hard, huh?
Apache
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Re-read. No one is being forced to sell.
WestTexAg12
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Unemployed said:

TH36 said:

If it's not imminent domain and we can hunt it, I'm all for it. We need more public land in Texas.
It's okay unless it's YOUR land that you're forced to sale.

And I never trust feds. If this "willing seller" tactic doesn't get them what they want, they will move from conservation funds and increase payment via congressional appropriations (read "taxes"). If that doesn't work and private landowners don't budge… well, that's when they attempt ED.
water turkey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I'm all for adding to the refuge system. The excise fees we pay on hunting and fishing equipment pay for it. This gives them authority to move forward with acquiring land from willing sellers, as it becomes available.

If we don't protect it (the stuff on the coast) it will all eventually be developed.
SunrayAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
It's my understanding that the area west of Muleshoe has a whole bunch of "former" farm land that ran out of water, and a whole bunch of landowners who will be happy to unload it.

I would assume that's the land they are looking at.
CanyonAg77
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Negatives:

  • Biden Administration
  • Federal government
  • Today's "voluntary" is tomorrow's "mandatory"
  • What I perceive as poor management of my local NWR (Buffalo Lake, Umbarger)
  • Lack of public access to NWR land (most is always off limits)
  • Tons of taxpayer money (likely $1000 per acre minimum for 700,000 acres)
  • An additional 6,300,00 acres of the high plains being brought under a "partnership" in this plan


Positives

  • Protect wildlife
  • Increase public lands
  • Area close to Muleshoe NWR is mostly low production rangeland and sandhills
  • Some land will be brought in under conservation easements, not bought outright
CanyonAg77
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Apache said:

Re-read. No one is being forced to sell.

Yet.
concac
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
TH36 said:

Unemployed said:

TH36 said:

If it's not imminent domain and we can hunt it, I'm all for it. We need more public land in Texas.
It's okay unless it's YOUR land that you're forced to sale.


Reading is hard, huh?
My bad...didn't real all the posts.
CanyonAg77
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG


CanyonAg77
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Have to say here's the one that scares me. Seven million acres of "partnership" including lots of cotton country and the Permian Basin oil fields.

JustPanda
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
You can't hunt it as is since it's private so what does it matter who owns it?
Bradley.Kohr.II
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Has anyone ever seen properly managed Federal land?
TH36
How long do you want to ignore this user?
JustPanda said:

You can't hunt it as is since it's private so what does it matter who owns it?


Because our tax dollars will be used to buy it therefore "We the people" should be able to have multi-use access to it.

I'm not even talking the whole thing but some of the most successful public hunting areas are WMA's that are next to or within NWR's.
montanagriz
How long do you want to ignore this user?
S
Agree. We should get hunting access. Tired of taxpayer money being used on stuff we cant enjoy.
WestTexAg12
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
JustPanda said:

You can't hunt it as is since it's private so what does it matter who owns it?

As a matter of fact, I can and do. I've got permission on much of the land surrounding the Muleshoe NWR and hunt it regularly for quail and Sandhill crane.
JustPanda
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Yup. There are some very well managed BLM and other Federal property in CO.
AgsMyDude
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Great. Win win.
Teslag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Bradley.Kohr.II said:

Has anyone ever seen properly managed Federal land?


Yes. Yellowstone. Grand Teton. Zion. Yosemite. The Everglades. And many others.
CS78
How long do you want to ignore this user?
All for more public property. But not this BS draw excuse that they use to limit access to a few days a year.
WestTexAg12
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
CS78 said:

All for more public property. But not this BS draw excuse that they use to limit access to a few days a year.

If Texas had lands that were equivalent to Colorado and the public had the access that they do, I'd be all for it.
Mas89
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
WestTexAg12 said:

CS78 said:

All for more public property. But not this BS draw excuse that they use to limit access to a few days a year.

If Texas had lands that were equivalent to Colorado and the public had the access that they do, I'd be all for it.
Texas Parks and Wildlife has purchased a good number of properties and owned them for years without ever making available to the public. I looked at one of them from the road a while back. Davis Hill. Which is supposed to be a state park one day. Lots of other properties they own but haven't opened around the state.

I wish it was the state and not the Feds buying the listed properties in the op. But at the same time, why haven't they opened the other purchased properties for public hunting and recreation. How many years of planning do they need? Seems like the one I mentioned Tx has owned for 10 or more years with no public access.
ETA that it was purchased by Texas in 1983…
A google search of it shows lots of other future parks purchased but unopened.
TPWD guys, what are y'all doing every day/week/year since 1983?
Wearer of the Ring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
This seems to me to just a land grab by environmentalist government "experts" who want to get rid of ranching (cuz cows fart and that causes global warming) oil production (because everyone knows how horrible that is) and agriculture (because while normal people think farming is generally helpful, the true experts know that really its killing us all).

Having said all that, I think it's pretty neat to see a herd of pronghorns running around up in those part.
I feel so much better since about 11 a.m. CT on 20 Jan. 2025
SteveBott
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The reason those lands are not open is the state politicians you vote for won't spend the money to fund a permanent access. Go ask Austin why they won't allocate your taxes on the land.

And most of those lands were donated by Texas families thinking they were giving something to the citizens to use.
Mas89
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The tract I reference has a bunch of county road frontage. Great access.
It's a neat place with the highest elevation of the entire Tx. Coastal region. Named after General James Davis, who was a Texas Revolutionary War hero and had a plantation home on top of the hill.
CS78
How long do you want to ignore this user?
SteveBott said:

The reason those lands are not open is the state politicians you vote for won't spend the money to fund a permanent access. Go ask Austin why they won't allocate your taxes on the land.

And most of those lands were donated by Texas families thinking they were giving something to the citizens to use.


We have a problem in Texas that the state thinks they have to micromanage every piece of dirt they own. We don't need fancy buildings and full time employees sitting on their arses all day. Just give us legal access. It cost basically nothing.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.