schmellba99 said:

---

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.

---

Look at the oyster industry for a great example of what happens when the feds and state run things.

---

Raising the middle class so everyone can afford that expensive skinny running bay boat and plow through the flats and reefs?

If I had to guess as to what will eventually happen, the feds are going to acquire conservation easements on the properties in order to avoid having to acquire the property in fee simple title. It could save them boatloads of money, depending on the property.

BLM land or NWR land?

Makes a difference

CanyonAg77 said:

---

BLM land or NWR land?

Makes a difference

---

Both serve a purpose. NWR is just as important to keep habitat (especially waterfowl and reptiles) that don't get developed or high fences into ranchettes. BLM, NF, Wilderness, etc. is the yang to that balance of almost unlimited use.

Saying this one doesn't fit what I specifically want so non should happen is a bad take.

It makes a difference if you're hoping for hunting access

Hint: this isn't it

CanyonAg77 said:

---

It makes a difference if you're hoping for hunting access

Hint: this isn't it

---

Your right. We shouldn't create a sanctuary for habitat or species that can be hunted elsewhere in the flyway. Let's bury our heads in the sand and pout this one doesn't do exactly what I want so let's not do any at all.

Let's go ahead and turn it into the houses like the Katy Prairie. That did wonders for migratory waterfowl hunting in southeast Texas.

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Take that, straw man!

---

Would this or would this not create public land that will be protected from development, protect huntable species, and increase habitat for the good of everyone (including hunters)? Which in turn progresses conservation?

Yes or no?

I've advocated for development, yes or no?

answer the question.

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.

---

Both types of spending (if the feds or state take over the lightrail) are the purpose of having a centralized national government. Along with laws (rule and order), protection (military).

Then what was the point of your post?

I guess I'm not following your logic on the light rail that has nothing to do with this.

aggiedent said:

---

The Katy Prairie is a great example of coulda woulda shoulda.

Being such a HUGE and significant part of the central flyway……….and a god given blessing to waterfowl hunters………it's really past the point of return in saving enough of it to really make a difference to conservation.

So many folks have been sounding off over the dangers of development, for decades, so let's look at what happened.

Small groups like The Katy Prairie group and Audubon managed to preserve a little.

The governments at every level seemed to have little interest.

The private sector turned it into massive cracker box subdivisions like Bridgeland.

Really a total failure at every single level and we'll never get a chance to fix our mistake. It's gone forever.

---

Yep. It not being made a NWR 20 years ago may end up being the biggest killer to Texas waterfowl hunting in the end.

Everyone opposed here and more would have decried limiting the hunting on it, so now we get much worse and the domino effects regionally.

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?

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.

AgLA06 said:

---

Everyone opposed here and more would have decried limiting the hunting on it, so now we get much worse and the domino effects regionally.

---

You don't realize how ignorant and offensive it is to pretend you know the motives and opinions of anyone who fails to toe YOUR line.

Are you the only one allowed to have an opinion?

AgLA06 said:

---

Are you the only one allowed to have an opinion?

---

No, you can have your opinion

And I can have MY opinion. Not one you assign to me based on your bias

I didn't assign you anything. I responded to what you said.

You still haven't answered my question. At least do that if you are going to try and play victim.

I don't have to do anything. And you have assigned beliefs and opinions to most of the posters here, if they don't hold your exact views.

If you can't see that, I can't help you.

CanyonAg77 said:

---

I don't have to do anything. And you have assigned beliefs and opinions to most of the posters here, if they don't hold your exact views.

If you can't see that, I can't help you.

---

What a crock.

We've officially reached this point. You've both done an outstanding job of arguing your points. Pretty sure we can pack it up and head home now.

AgLA, there will always be those that don't get the importance of having land set aside.

Sure, there are outfitters on the prairie that have done an outstanding job of installing habitat that would otherwise not be there simply because Rice farming is just about dead here but they do it because they make a return on their investment. Which is fine but the day that investment goes away, that habitat may as well. My family had a 1100 acre place in Needville at one point, it's all gone now. 600 acres was in rice when I was kid. Rice left and the land became worth more to build houses on.

Same goes for this panhandle piece of land. The fact there will be 700,000 acres set aside wether we get to hunt it or not (even though I'm well within the group that thinks we should even if the state gets to make a portion of it a WMA) is a win for hunters and outdoorsman regardless. The fact that many on here have failed to use the "dumping" aspect both ways is always failing to look at both sides. Theres plenty of private land around that has been left to rot as well and has dumping. Most of the dumping around Austin and surrounding areas is on private land that's been bought by developers who don't care. It will get bulldozed along with everything else when the time comes.

Why do you think I don't understand the need for land for wildlife?

Frankly that's the kind of assumption agla06 made that ruins the discussion

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Why do you think I don't understand the need for land for wildlife?

Frankly that's the kind of assumption agla06 made that ruins the discussion

---

I see everyone's view point on the subject. As a poster said above when I said it was asinine he was right that it was asinine of me to not listen to his view.

I meant the old man yelling at clouds about this whole argument. It has reached that point where everyone can agree to disagree.

Agreed.

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.

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.