schmellba99 said:
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.
Why do we keep having to imagine. There's plenty of places in the state already not to mention other states that don't have this issue any different than the land is now.CanyonAg77 said:
As the owner of private land, in a relatively unpopulated area, I'll second this.
People dump trash, hunt, and trespass on private land all the damn time.
Imagine how bad it would get on state land that was unprotected
Little public land sucks and the state is clueless.BoerneGator said:
Less Federal involvement in Texas; not more! THIS is the way!
What do you expect/want "the state" to do about it? Is "the state" obligated somehow to provide you with recreation opportunities? If so, why, where, and how (at what expense)?AgLA06 said:Little public land sucks and the state is clueless.BoerneGator said:
Less Federal involvement in Texas; not more! THIS is the way!
BoerneGator said:
Less Federal involvement in Texas; not more! THIS is the way!
BoerneGator said:
Some folks hear/see what they wanna hear/see. I couldn't give you even one example of something the Feds do better than private sector. Can you?
You are wholly incorrectAgLA06 said:Why do we keep having to imagine. There's plenty of places in the state already not to mention other states that don't have this issue any different than the land is now.CanyonAg77 said:
As the owner of private land, in a relatively unpopulated area, I'll second this.
People dump trash, hunt, and trespass on private land all the damn time.
Imagine how bad it would get on state land that was unprotected
You're just creating fictitious "what if" problems you want to exist, but don't.
Just about all of the BLM land out west is mismanaged and has significant restrictions on use, even though it is owned by the taxpayers.aggiedent said:BoerneGator said:
Less Federal involvement in Texas; not more! THIS is the way!
Sounds like a tired old meme that gets trotted out when someone has no real argument for why they support a given position. Fed bad…….private good.
Why not give us solid, specific reasons instead of right wing sound bites. Show us some good examples of where Wildlife Refuges have screwed the public over and cost tax payers big bucks.
Quote:
There's plenty of places in the state already not to mention other states that don't have this issue any different than the land is now.
Except I never said what you "asininely" said . Now, wanna go back and respond to my challenge that you did actually quote right?TH36 said:BoerneGator said:
Some folks hear/see what they wanna hear/see. I couldn't give you even one example of something the Feds do better than private sector. Can you?
You must not get around much. I hunted next to a NWR last year that was some of the greatest duck hunting I have ever experienced. The NWR was set up well to let waterfowl thrive and the state had a small WMA next to it. Now, this wasn't Texas so I'll give you a leg to stand on there but to say that they don't have successful projects is asinine.
I just looked and it appears they only give 4 permits out a year for quail hunting at Muleshoe NWR which is just stupid but I stand by my comment of if the landowner(s) sell at a price in their asking range who gives a **** who owns it? If they lock it down at only 20-100 permits a year then at least we have a chance. We may get lucky and have a WMA mixed in there and get to hunt it more than that if we wanted to.
I would like to see some 25,000 acre WMA's within the 700,000 in different "compartments" set aside for public land use. Will we get that? Probably not but if the landowners want to sell then so be it.
BoerneGator said:
Some folks hear/see what they wanna hear/see. I couldn't give you even one example of something the Feds do better than private sector. Can you?
Both. You are applying your private land situation and a potential problem not realized elsewhere as if it's the norm. There could be people using public land differently from me isn't a problem.CanyonAg77 said:Quote:
There's plenty of places in the state already not to mention other states that don't have this issue any different than the land is now.
Wut?
Are you claiming that state land doesn't have problems? Or that it's no different than the problems with private land?
If the latter, totally disagree.
If nothing else, trash on my land gets picked up. They don't have the resources to do that on a NWR
Probably because many of us who grew up hunting, fishing, hiking, and camping around the state never thought we'd see the day where things like the ability to enjoy the outdoors would be closer to the control of the monarch in Britain and require us to drive out to state to federal land.Snow Monkey Ambassador said:
Man, I never thought I'd see the day that federal land acquisition within the borders of Texas - "voluntary" or not - and a general sense of socialism would prevail in an Outdoors thread.
Do tell us just how "nature intended the public to enjoy the property"? Please define "the property".aggiedent said:BoerneGator said:
Some folks hear/see what they wanna hear/see. I couldn't give you even one example of something the Feds do better than private sector. Can you?
Let's approach this from a common sense and factual approach. The private sector is never going to purchase and then set aside, the vast amounts of land such as National Parks and Wildlife Refuges and then simply allow the public to enjoy the property as nature intended. The type of private entities that have that type of money are too driven by return on investments. The private sector doesn't care enough about nature to ever put it on a pedestal, unless it's secondary to making money. The small private organizations that do (CCA, Audubon, etc), don't have the funding.
The US government gave us National Parks………the private sector gave us Disney World and Safari Parks.
While I'm fully cognizant there are folks who prefer the latter, I much prefer the former. So I guess my answer is National Parks and Wildlife refuges.
I answered your question as fact based as I can, without using any sound bites.
So now answer my question. Explain to me how a private group is EVER going to swing something like a NWR or NP?
If a landowner wants to sell their land to the state or the feds, that's their perogative. Free market and all that.Snow Monkey Ambassador said:
Man, I never thought I'd see the day that federal land acquisition within the borders of Texas - "voluntary" or not - and a general sense of socialism would prevail in an Outdoors thread.
BoerneGator said:Do tell us just how "nature intended the public to enjoy the property"? Please define "the property".aggiedent said:BoerneGator said:
Some folks hear/see what they wanna hear/see. I couldn't give you even one example of something the Feds do better than private sector. Can you?
Let's approach this from a common sense and factual approach. The private sector is never going to purchase and then set aside, the vast amounts of land such as National Parks and Wildlife Refuges and then simply allow the public to enjoy the property as nature intended. The type of private entities that have that type of money are too driven by return on investments. The private sector doesn't care enough about nature to ever put it on a pedestal, unless it's secondary to making money. The small private organizations that do (CCA, Audubon, etc), don't have the funding.
The US government gave us National Parks………the private sector gave us Disney World and Safari Parks.
While I'm fully cognizant there are folks who prefer the latter, I much prefer the former. So I guess my answer is National Parks and Wildlife refuges.
I answered your question as fact based as I can, without using any sound bites.
So now answer my question. Explain to me how a private group is EVER going to swing something like a NWR or NP?
Next, the second bolded statement betrays an arrogance and an attitude that pervades that of today's public "servants", and Federal employees that populate ALL federal agencies, and are slowly becoming pervasive as a result of the indoctrination of our public school system. To ignore the FACT that farmers and ranchers were the original conservationists and environmentalists is to reveal a fundamental ignorance and bigotry.
That said, the National Park System is a great and wonderful asset that I have enjoyed and celebrate. But I do not for a minute think the federal government is doing a "bang-up" job husbanding our vast federal lands, or that it could/would not be better done by "private vendors/contractors". But I'll never see a change in my lifetime.
If the Feds want to use eminent domain to buy the land for parkland or a refuge, that's definitely a public use that would pass constitutional muster. I'm not saying they should though.TH36 said:schmellba99 said:
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.
True, I was using it as an example of the State acquiring that land by buying it. I would assume the Feds would do the same as I don't see how they could get away with imminent domain in this case. So if the landowner sells it at a desired price really no one has been wronged in this.
Now, like you say…the rest is a big "what if" on their part and they definitely don't exude trust to us plebs.
schmellba99 said:Just about all of the BLM land out west is mismanaged and has significant restrictions on use, even though it is owned by the taxpayers.aggiedent said:BoerneGator said:
Less Federal involvement in Texas; not more! THIS is the way!
Sounds like a tired old meme that gets trotted out when someone has no real argument for why they support a given position. Fed bad…….private good.
Why not give us solid, specific reasons instead of right wing sound bites. Show us some good examples of where Wildlife Refuges have screwed the public over and cost tax payers big bucks.
Remember when the feds shut down all national parks, including taking the time to put up temporary fencing around monuments, during covid. Because they couldn't allow the public to access public areas?
I 'member. Pepperidge Farms 'members.
Whether you want to admit it or not, the feds screw up everything they touch. The track record is nearly perfect on that record.
Very well saidaggiedent said:BoerneGator said:
Some folks hear/see what they wanna hear/see. I couldn't give you even one example of something the Feds do better than private sector. Can you?
Let's approach this from a common sense and factual approach. The private sector is never going to purchase and then set aside, the vast amounts of land such as National Parks and Wildlife Refuges and then simply allow the public to enjoy the property as nature intended. The type of private entities that have that type of money are too driven by return on investments. The private sector doesn't care enough about nature to ever put it on a pedestal, unless it's secondary to making money. The small private organizations that do (CCA, Audubon, etc), don't have the funding.
The US government gave us National Parks………the private sector gave us Disney World and Safari Parks.
While I'm fully cognizant there are folks who prefer the latter, I much prefer the former. So I guess my answer is National Parks and Wildlife refuges.
I answered your question as fact based as I can, without using any sound bites.
So now answer my question. Explain to me how a private group is EVER going to swing something like a NWR or NP?
I'm sure there are plenty that don't care about the facts or what it accomplishes for conservation or hunting or public access and only care about (insert political party proposed it here).txags92 said:
I wonder what the Venn diagram looks like between people who have 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.
Not really.TH36 said:
The same people that complain about a 3 trout limit are the ones who complain about public land…that's the funny part.
They'd love to have a wide open way to rape the resource in their $120K Simmons but are afraid another resource is going to get raped.
