Snow Monkey Ambassador said:

---

txags92 said:

---

Snow Monkey Ambassador said:

---

txags92 said:

---

I wonder what the Venn diagram looks like between people who already own or have access to a large piece of property to hunt and use for recreation and people who are against the government buying land to make it available for public access hunting and recreation. I suspect it is close to a perfect circle.

---

So, I guess the Venn diagram between people advocating for the government to buy land to make it available for public access hunting and those who support projects like high speed rail between Dallas and Houston are also close to a perfect circle . . . right?

Let's be intellectually honest enough to admit that bias drives a whole bunch of philosophical inconsistencies in each of us.

---

I would disagree with that entirely. I am absolutely for people being able to choose to voluntarily sell their land at a mutually agreed upon price to be used for conservation of species while making more recreation opportunities available to the public. I am categorically against stealing land under eminent domain for tax payer subsidized boondoggles that will only put cash in the pockets of politically well connected contractors.

---

So it's a boondoggle when you disagree with the purpose and see no personal benefit, but it's absolutely acceptable to spend tax payer money when you don't disagree and will receive a personal benefit? And what do you think will happen when a land owner in the middle of the tract they're trying to purchase either refuses to sell or won't agree on a price? Because if you think the federal government won't use eminent domain for that purpose, I've got a bridge to sell you . . . cheap!

You're proving my point.

---

No, I am saying that a rail line that doesn't go from a central transit center to another central transit center is useless unless you are a land developer that owns land around the places the line will terminate. It doesn't do anything to benefit the people along the line whose land will be stolen against their will to build it. And the cost will be at least 5-10x the stated budget, such that we could subsidize flights for everybody who would use the train between the two cities for several decades for what it will cost to build. It is a boondoggle that will profit the builder and operator of the train and tracks and the land developers around the stations.

If it is such a good idea, and will be profitable to operate, somebody would have already built it privately.

Quote:

---

If it is such a good idea, and will be profitable to operate, somebody would have already built it privately.

---

Irony is my favorite metal.

AgLA06 said:

---

Snow Monkey Ambassador said:

---

You keep saying light rail for reasons that are not at all clear to me. I'm talking about the proposed high-speed rail (bullet train) from Dallas to Houston. That project involves the government purchasing land for public use, and would be used by orders of magnitude more people, but all of these people arguing for the same thing so they can hunt public land are against it.

Clear enough?

---

Sure. I just don't think you are correct.

From what I see it's mostly the same people against both because Biden bad or Feds bad. They want less government because it generally doesn't go well (which I get). Except both of these cases are exactly what a federal government is for.

---

This is where we disagree, and it's an argument as old as the nation itself. Federalism versus anti-Federalism. The sole purpose of The Federal Government is to protect the rights of the individual citizen (ie: enforce the Bill of Rights, and to provide for the national defense. Period! Everything else it does (or has done) is Extra-Constitutional. This business about building lite rail between Dallas and Houston is NOT the business of the Federal government! Nor is it ITS business to create a NWR. It just isn't! States can do that if they choose to, individually, or collectively, but it's not a legitimate role of the federal government. The fact they've been doing it for decades and longer notwithstanding.

We have NO business sending $$$ to Ukraine (among other places) as an example either, just to be consistent.

Once again. I'm not opposed to public/private partnerships that create wildlife refuges/habitats and hunting opportunities for the public, but am steadfastly opposed to the Federal government having any role in it.

Just a quick question. Another poster and I were discussing the Katy Prairie development. The Katy Prairie was, of course, one of the premier spots for hunting waterfowl in the state.

The government pretty much stayed out of it. Federal and state governments stayed out of the fray, despite pleas from many to turn it into a NWR. Local conservation groups, hunting groups, and Harris county preserved a fraction of the Prairie; but 95% of it will be gone and so will most of the hunting opportunities.

With such an amazing opportunity to provide a great and profitable hunting experience, why did no private entity step up and do something????

Simple really……the land is ALWAYS worth more for real estate.
Money rules…………..and conservation/hunting/fishing/etc can't return enough profit to make it worthwhile.

So here the anti-Feds get to be happy………..and most hunters will forever lose one of the best hunting experiences the state provided.

History is rife with examples of unintended victims of "progress". The function/role of the Federal government is, once again, to protect the rights of the INDIVIDUAL, and in so doing, guarantees them for ALL!

It IS/WAS the right of those many individual property owners to use their land for its" highest and best use", as THEY alone determined. Not some well-meaning group with "high ideals". An alternative would have been for that same "well-meaning" group to organize and purchase the land for the alternative use. But NOT to manipulate the Federal Government to confiscate private property in the name of "fill-in the blank". My rights supersede those of plants and animals. A few disagree, and thus, here we are!

Does that about sum it all up?

Look, personally, I much prefer all those houses were located somewhere else, and most of Texas was just as it was when my fore-bearers came here more than a century ago. But, progress! Gotta take the bad with the good.

" Does that about sum it all up? "

Well……if giving another lecture on the role of the Federal government was your intention…..yes.

If discussing alternative ways to protect wildlife (especially migratory types), habitat, and glorious hunting land, as I asked……..then no…….you totally avoided it.

You still have not provided one single workable way to protect wildlife and habitat (and again, migratory species) that doesn't involve the Fed government. Other than government bad, private rights good…….you don't seem to have a working plan.

Farmers and ranchers ain't it. Private groups are not going to do so for financial reasons. What's the plan???

What question have I avoided? You answered your own question. As for a plan, let nature take its course... but the Federal Government has NO active role, under the Constitution. Sorry if that disappoints or frustrates you, but it's the honest truth. Not that Leftists aren't doing their level best to circumvent the Constitution.

Irony is you have the skills of a politician at avoiding a question.
And yes…….argue as you surely will…….have done just that.

Snow Monkey Ambassador said:

---

Quote:

---

If it is such a good idea, and will be profitable to operate, somebody would have already built it privately.

---

Irony is my favorite metal.

---

Now do the interstate highway system or reservoirs or any other form of infrastructure that isn't economically viable for private companies to turn a profit, but is done by the government for good reason to be betterment of the general population.

To be honest. It has nothing to do with this discussion anyway and your argument is in direct conflict with the exact reasons why government exists that we learned in elementary school government class.

BoerneGator said:

---

What question have I avoided? You answered your own question. As for a plan, let nature take its course... but the Federal Government has NO active role, under the Constitution. Sorry if that disappoints or frustrates you, but it's the honest truth. Not that Leftists aren't doing their level best to circumvent the Constitution.

---

So under the constitution if the duly elected representatives of the people pass a law tasking the federal government with creating wildlife refuges and providing funding to do so, you still think that is unconstitutional? So are the Farm Bill and ag subsidies unconstitutional too? What about Superfund? What about interstates? NASA?

Snow Monkey Ambassador said:

---

Quote:

---

If it is such a good idea, and will be profitable to operate, somebody would have already built it privately.

---

Irony is my favorite metal.

---

Tragedy of the commons in wildlife habitat is my least favorite thing to watch in real time. I guess crony capitalism is your favorite economic system?

Here is my biased view. I am normally as anti fed as it gets, but federal public land is one of the few things that states and private property don't get the same results as they have different priorities.

What is best for the wildlife? Big congruent habitats are extremely rare and disappearing in our country. Outside of the fed lands and some huge ranches that are slowly being eroded this doesn't really exist.

What is best for hunter access? How many hunters currently have access to the private property? Laguna NWR had over a 1000 permits for deer, exotics, and alligator last year. The state does a pretty dang good job coordinating with the feds to host these hunts.

What is the best use of the land? Depending on the type of federal land they prioritize uses differently. Refuges will prioritize habitat and wildlife and still allow for use. National forest tries to balance both economic extraction and public use. BLM prioritizes economic extraction, but also has the most laxed rules for public use. Private property typically maximizes economic extraction and has extremely restrictive uses to the public.

If these are willing sellers, then there is absolutely no downside as far as I'm concerned.

States have a terrible record of selling off public land. Also see the lake fairfield disaster.

txags92 said:

---

BoerneGator said:

---

What question have I avoided? You answered your own question. As for a plan, let nature take its course... but the Federal Government has NO active role, under the Constitution. Sorry if that disappoints or frustrates you, but it's the honest truth. Not that Leftists aren't doing their level best to circumvent the Constitution.

---

So under the constitution if the duly elected representatives of the people pass a law tasking the federal government with creating wildlife refuges and providing funding to do so, you still think that is unconstitutional? So are the Farm Bill and ag subsidies unconstitutional too? What about Superfund? What about interstates? NASA?

---

I'd also add this to your comments. The ways in which NP's and NWR's were established, were done in a legal manor which was NOT at odds with the constitution. Environmental law in this country has survived the test of the court systems at every level, and with support from both parties.
It's only contested by people who simply refuse to accept what the government and courts have decided. Often without even knowing the laws they often refer to, which is quite humorous……and sad.

aggiedent said:

---

txags92 said:

---

BoerneGator said:

---

What question have I avoided? You answered your own question. As for a plan, let nature take its course... but the Federal Government has NO active role, under the Constitution. Sorry if that disappoints or frustrates you, but it's the honest truth. Not that Leftists aren't doing their level best to circumvent the Constitution.

---

So under the constitution if the duly elected representatives of the people pass a law tasking the federal government with creating wildlife refuges and providing funding to do so, you still think that is unconstitutional? So are the Farm Bill and ag subsidies unconstitutional too? What about Superfund? What about interstates? NASA?

---

I'd also add this to your comments. The ways in which NP's and NWR's were established, were done in a legal manor which was NOT at odds with the constitution. Environmental law in this country has survived the test of the court systems at every level, and with support from both parties.
It's only contested by people who simply refuse to accept what the government and courts have decided. Often without even knowing the laws they often refer to, which is quite humorous……and sad.

---

"Government" is just another word for what we decide to do together. Those our our elected representatives making those laws and taking those actions. If we don't like it, we need to elect others or educate enough people to help them elect better reps. People complaining about it on a message board doesn't do much towards making that happen.

I'm not anti-government. The world is run by those who "show up"! The Founders intended for states to retain all those powers not enumerated in the Constitution. You're guilty of poor reading comprehension and/or false assumptions. A very common error on a message board.

I'm all for people with common interests banding together cooperatively to accomplish common goals. The Federal Government is constitutionally limited to national defense and individual rights. Transportation projects and the like can certainly be accomplished by and amongst/between states cooperating with each other.

Arguably not as "efficient" as a Federal System, but look at the mountain of debt the latter has given us. It will be our ruination! Hardly worth it!

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-administration-halts-muleshoe-refuge-expansion-ending-federal-land-plan/ar-AA1JFFrJ

Quote:

---

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has cancelled the Land Protection Plan for the Muleshoe National Wildlife Refuge, ending a landgrab that would have expanded the refuge by over 10,000% by buying from private landowners.

House Budget Chairman Jodey Arrington celebrated the cancellation of the plan with a statement through his office on July 30.

"The Biden Administration finalized a plan to buy up 30% of the land in the U.S. by 2030, a significant part of which was expanding a wildlife refuge in West Texas by an outrageous 10,000%," Chairman Arrington said in a press release. "I'm proud to have led the fight to defend our tax dollars, private property rights, and way of life by advancing legislation to prohibit and defund this federal land grab. I applaud the Trump Administration's decision to withdraw the Biden Administration's unnecessary and overreaching expansion of federal lands."

On July 23, 2025, the House Natural Resources Committee passed out of committee the No Federal Expansion Designation (No FED) in West Texas Act, legislation introduced by House Budget Chairman Jodey Arrington (TX-19) on January 31, 2025, that would prohibit the Biden Administration's Final Land Protection Plan.

"This announcement is an important step forward in overturning the radical policies of the Biden administration and ensuring we don't take steps to dramatically expand the already bloated federal estate," said Rep. Bruce Westerman (R-AR), Chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee. "I'd like to thank Rep. Arrington for his leadership in this matter and look forward to working with him to further advance the natural resources issues facing West Texas."

---

If landowners were willing sellers, the cancellation of the Muleshoe purchase had nothing to do with private property rights as Arrington claims.

No more than TPWD's recent purchases of land from willing sellers that increased state park acreage.

Amen brother. If the federal government is such great stewards of lands why don't more people sell their house to them? Lol!