Exactly. Just let the local game wardens and other state officers patrol or respond to calls. Would be a great place to hike and explore the wooden property. You would think in 40 plus years of owning it Texas could figure out something simple. Or they could just ask me and you…

Yea great idea. Just let every redneck with a gun or squatter with a tent just do as they please.

I'm against this, even if the owners want to sell. I hope they can sell it, just not to BLM or any part of the federal government.

Ok Steve. Maybe in 40 more years TPWD will finish the studies and open it and the others. I bet they are working on it in shifts. And of course they probably need more funding…

Or MAYBE, just maybe, the greedy ass politicians in Austin will actually dedicate 100% of our hunting, fishing and outdoors taxes and fees for the access we are paying for already.

That was the original deal right? We pay and they direct the money to our parks and environment? Well they have never done that. They divert our money into the general fund to use as they want. Like school vouchers

Agreed. And all the state lottery money was supposed to go to the schools…

SteveBott said:

---

Yea great idea. Just let every redneck with a gun or squatter with a tent just do as they please.

---

The rest of the country seems to manage just fine.

And so what if someone does shoot a gun or go camping on it.

This press release was from March 2022. Why is it news today?

SteveBott said:

---

Yea great idea. Just let every redneck with a gun or squatter with a tent just do as they please.

---

Sounds like Steve has never spent time on BLM or National Forest land out west. There are plenty of rednecks shooting guns and campers with tents. It works out great for the most part.

He is a liberal Austinite posing on the outdoor board. I'd highly recommend never taking his opinion or his business seriously.

And since he is a mod, this will probably be deleted.

96ags said:

---

He is a liberal Austinite posing on the outdoor board. I'd highly recommend never taking his opinion or his business seriously.

And since he is a mod, this will probably be deleted.

---

He's no longer a Mod, but you're first sentence is spot on!

Not opposed to more public lands in Texas for hunting/recreation purposes, but adamantly against the Feds having ANY involvement in it. TEXIT

CivilEng08 said:

---

This press release was from March 2022. Why is it news today?

---

I think the plan got finalized. I just heard word of it this week and Lubbock Avalanche Journal wrote a piece on it 24 days ago.
https://www.lubbockonline.com/story/news/environment/2024/04/17/federal-agency-finalizes-plan-to-expand-muleshoe-national-wildlife-refuge/73359988007/

Noted

Mas89 said:

---

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?

---

Until very recently, the TPWD budget was extremely constrained by accounting monkey business at the state level restricting them from using all the money they were supposed to be getting from sporting goods taxes and license fees, etc. The parks budget was not even enough to keep up with fixing what needed fixing at the existing parks, much less adding infrastructure to open new ones. They are now getting more of the money they were supposed to be getting all along and a good chunk of that new money will be going towards building out newly acquired properties to allow for use by the public,

Except public land doesn't need any of that out west to be used and enjoyed...

Really interesting to read the opinions here. I'm all for more public land in TX as its a stark contrast how much we have when comparing to other states.

I don't view this issue through a political lens and strictly through the public being able to access such lands. To me that's an easy win here.

I have a hard time thinking every land owner in the proposed footprint would willingly sell.

This is USFWS - one of the most powerful Fed law enforcement agencies there is. Never trust them.*


*I say this as a retired Fed from the world's largest conservation agency.

jja79 said:

---

I have a hard time thinking every land owner in the proposed footprint would willingly sell.

---

and I wonder what kind of crazy quilt mess will result if even 25% refuse

CanyonAg77 said:

---

jja79 said:

---

I have a hard time thinking every land owner in the proposed footprint would willingly sell.

---

and I wonder what kind of crazy quilt mess will result if even 25% refuse

---

We don't need an idiotic "National Grasslands" situation for sure.

Quote:

---

I don't view this issue through a political lens

---

I think you have to. The motive of the party in power is always in question. You should always wonder whose cronies will benefit. And you must always look to the future, and wonder how a repressive or simply left-wing government will handle these lands in the future.

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Quote:

---

I don't view this issue through a political lens

---

I think you have to. The motive of the party in power is always in question. You should always wonder whose cronies will benefit. And you must always look to the future, and wonder how a repressive or simply left-wing government will handle these lands in the future.

---

None of that amounts to a hill of beans for the "me, me, me" mindset. As long as something affects (or may affect) them favorably, other consequences are irrelevant.

600 hunting permits were available for Aransas NWR last season. As the size of the NWR increases, let's hope that number goes up.

AgLA06 said:

---

Except public land doesn't need any of that out west to be used and enjoyed...

---

That is great when you are dealing with wide open land in the middle of nowhere in a state with a population that is less than the population of Harris County, like Utah. What TPWD has been trying to focus on is acquiring land for new parks within a few hours of the major population centers. So land within about 2 hours drive of 5-10 million people that may be wooded and have delicate ecosystems that need to be protected is going to be different than wide open desert or mountain terrain that is within 1-2 hours of a few hundred thousand people. Letting a few million people loose on a few thousand acres of land with no infrastructure and no limitations is a recipe to destroy the property.

Now do the east or west coast. New York has 130k acres of public land 20 miles from the city. Las Angeles has 700k acres 26 miles from town.

I'm glad we have state pride, but when it comes to stuff like public lands and hunting this state has no clue.

"Within this new limited acquisition boundary, the Service would work with willing sellers to expand conservation through fee title and easement acquisitions, according to a news release."

From the article above….

Hard to read, I know.

Take the name "Biden" out of the equation which I'm sure his decrepit ass didn't even start this to begin with and I'm sure it'll make it a whole lot easier for some of you to read it

Same kind of thing happened with the Powder Horn Ranch and although I don't like that at least a section of it wasn't made a WMA…it still is in the Draw system which I agree totally sucks in Texas but at least it is an option there for us.

https://www.conservationfund.org/projects/powderhorn-ranch

AgLA06 said:

---

Now do the east or west coast. New York has 130k acres of public land 20 miles from the city. Las Angeles has 700k acres 26 miles from town.

I'm glad we have state pride, but when it comes to stuff like public lands and hunting this state has no clue.

---

I totally support anything that legally and willingly gets private land into public nature types of things. I wish we have public land like in other states. I d much rather sell to a public wildlife or park entity than to a developer to put 6,000 houses on. But at the end of the day, the highest bidder gets it. I know the gubmint likes spending money so why they don't compete, I don't know.

Count me as another person totally for this, despite any possible minor misgivings!!!!

My gut feeling on this is that this move is more about limiting oil and gas production in that area than actually helping to preserve wildlife. Last time I checked, sandhill cranes and quail were not considered endangered or threaten and there are already plans in place for the prairie chickens.

I am always leery of what the feds are up to when they propose to spend a ton of taxpayer dollars on something that does not meet their stated agendas.

I am all for more public hunting land but something about this one does not smell right.

" I am all for more public hunting land but something about this one does not smell right."

Why? Because it occurred during the Biden administration?

Would you be surprised to know that many state and local groups had been pushing for this for years? That it's been in the works prior to the Biden administration?

Seriously, not everything is a conspiracy to screw people out of x, y, and z. Some things are genuinely a good idea in the name of conservation of wildlife.

aggiedent said:

---

Seriously, not everything is a conspiracy to screw people out of x, y, and z. Some things are genuinely a good idea in the name of conservation of wildlife.

---

I'm so tired of everything made to be polarizing instead of taken at face value. Everything is assumed to be the worst from the extremes of both parties right now and it's beyond dumb. The OB used to be insulated from that insanity.

CS78 said:

---

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.

---

In a perfect world, sure.

But, unfortunately, we don't live in a perfect world and this world is populated by people. And it is redneck nature (not limited to just Texas, BTW) to absolutely F up anything they touch - ESPECIALLY easily accessible land.

Go to any public boat ramp, to any river access under a bridge on any road or just about any rural road or dead end road in the state and you'll see why instantly.

CS78 said:

---

SteveBott said:

---

Yea great idea. Just let every redneck with a gun or squatter with a tent just do as they please.

---

The rest of the country seems to manage just fine.

And so what if someone does shoot a gun or go camping on it.

---

The rest of the country faces the same problems - people are buttholes and they destroy and litter because they are buttholes.

When I lived in AZ, we had significant areas of state trust land access removed because of the fact that people littered, destroyed areas by riding motorcycles and buggies outside of designated areas or off trails, etc. It happens everywhere, all of the time, because people generally have little respect for things that aren't theirs to deal with.

AgLA06 said:

---

Now do the east or west coast. New York has 130k acres of public land 20 miles from the city. Las Angeles has 700k acres 26 miles from town.

I'm glad we have state pride, but when it comes to stuff like public lands and hunting this state has no clue.

---

The history of Texas is like no other state in the union. The lands in Texas were sold by the Republic to offset debt incurred during the war for independence and to finance the state during the republic years.

California, Utah, AZ, etc. were ceded to the US through peace negotiations - they were never private, and have completely different historical foundations. Those federal lands are also trust lands that wre supposed to be sold as a mechansim to raise money for the federal government. The feds just decided to never sell them.

Can't say for sure about the east coast lands you reference - but much of the public lands in the original New England states, IIRC, was formerly private lands that was confiscated after the revolutionary war from those that chose to back England over the Colonials, I believe some of it was also Crown land that became property of the state after we won independence.

Powder Horn is TPWD though, not Federal.

I think that is probably the biggest hangup of the deal - the fact that it is federal an not state that is aquiring the lands. There is little reason to trust the feds in anything; they are the same federal government that closed down national parks during covid because they need to make sure we serfs stayed in our places.