Main Menu
Advertisement
Affiliates
Advertisement
Newest Members
Cement pro taco, TxReezen7.0, Nutz, Jdmcneely26, DC1986
63582 Registered Users
Top Posters
dogcatcher 86876
stxranchman 52536
bill oxner 46030
RWH24 44568
rifleman 44356
BOBO the Clown 43445
BMD 40829
Big Orn 37484
txshntr 35147
SnakeWrangler 34875
facebook
Forum Stats
63582 Members
45 Forums
450710 Topics
6228095 Posts

Max Online: 16728 @ 03/25/12 08:51 AM
Page 1 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >
Topic Options
#7094850 - 02/27/18 12:56 PM Tuesday discussion topic- the selling of public and state lands to private landowners
txtrophy85 Online   content
THF Celebrity

Registered: 08/12/05
Posts: 23459
This is a topic that has recently become interesting to me as I venture outside of Texas to do a lot of my hunting.

Recently large tracts of land in Montana, Idaho and Utah (Utah has reported to have sold off 55% of public lands since the 90’s) to ultra wealthy private landowners who restrict public access

Growing up in Texas and having access to hunt prime private property, I have always valued the concept of private ground. However since I started hunting public ground in the West I have also seen the benefit of public ground.

It’s beem a big topic as of late to sell off public ground to help balance state and federal budgets ( Paul Ryan and Ted Cruz are big supporters of this ) which ultimately will restrict access to the public. M


I’m the short time I’ve been hunting Colorado I’ve seen our areas get more crowded. Last year our pretty private spot had 20 guys within a 1/4 mile of us and we were way up the trailhead. If public lands are further reduced this is only going to exaggerate this problem.


Something about being able to buy OTC tags or draw a tag and go hunt tens of thousands of acres of pretty much unsoiled ground is pretty amazing

Let’s discuss
_________________________
Originally Posted By: Nogalus Prairie
I think the deer hunting shows and "Bro' Country" are going to be the downfall of this once-great nation.

Top
#7094853 - 02/27/18 01:00 PM Re: Tuesday discussion topic- the selling of public and state lands to private landowners [Re: txtrophy85]
Nogalus Prairie Online   content
THF Celebrity

Registered: 11/22/10
Posts: 24368
Loc: Corsicana
The West cannot be compared to Texas or eastern states.

I’m pretty much with Randy Newberg on it. Keep public lands publicly owned. Can’t imagine why anyone wouldn’t be. Anyone ever seen a check for their share of the sale of our public lands?
_________________________
Originally Posted By: Russ79
I learned long ago you can't reason someone out of something they don't reason themselves into.



Top
#7094856 - 02/27/18 01:03 PM Re: Tuesday discussion topic- the selling of public and state lands to private landowners [Re: Nogalus Prairie]
Herbie Hancock Offline
Pro Tracker

Registered: 08/23/16
Posts: 1916
Loc: Cypress, Texas
Originally Posted By: Nogalus Prairie
The West cannot be compared to Texas or eastern states.

I’m pretty much with Randy Newberg on it. Keep public lands publicly owned. Can’t imagine why anyone wouldn’t be. Anyone ever seen a check for their share of the sale of our public lands?


Yeah they are all in their glass houses in DC.

Top
#7094861 - 02/27/18 01:06 PM Re: Tuesday discussion topic- the selling of public and state lands to private landowners [Re: Nogalus Prairie]
txtrophy85 Online   content
THF Celebrity

Registered: 08/12/05
Posts: 23459
Originally Posted By: Nogalus Prairie
The West cannot be compared to Texas or eastern states.

I’m pretty much with Randy Newberg on it. Keep public lands publicly owned. Can’t imagine why anyone wouldn’t be. Anyone ever seen a check for their share of the sale of our public lands?


Nope and that’s what rubs me wrong.

Btw I watch Randy and think guys like him and Steve Rinella are who we should have fighting for us on that front.
_________________________
Originally Posted By: Nogalus Prairie
I think the deer hunting shows and "Bro' Country" are going to be the downfall of this once-great nation.

Top
#7094906 - 02/27/18 01:42 PM Re: Tuesday discussion topic- the selling of public and state lands to private landowners [Re: txtrophy85]
colt.45 Offline
THF Celebrity

Registered: 03/16/12
Posts: 10274
Loc: wondering about the woods
It's happening here too.

Ya, what once was poormans foodstamps is becoming a Rich mans Sport.
flag
_________________________

i'm postaddic

Top
#7094913 - 02/27/18 01:49 PM Re: Tuesday discussion topic- the selling of public and state lands to private landowners [Re: txtrophy85]
ducknbass Online   content
THF Trophy Hunter

Registered: 10/18/06
Posts: 9218
It's a complicated subject.
1st and foremost I'm against transfer of federal lands to the states.
2nd I do not believe it is a black and white issue. The Clinton admin made a list of small useless pieces of federally owned land.

I follow rinella, newburg, bha etc on social media. Some of their headlines are misleading if not flat lies and it bothers me. If your cause is righteous you do not have to lead off with a lie. Period. Again the truth is somewhere in the middle.
I'm not against mining, drillling, etc on all public lands. Nor has anyone in the past. That is what the monument designation is for.
I'm also for Americas energy independence.

I'd say a lot of th3 western public land groups are public land advocates before they are Americans. Single Issue groups do strange things. Just like du. They are good but sometimes you have to remember their tunnel vision. When the rest of the world cannot live with tunnel vision.

Top
#7094916 - 02/27/18 01:54 PM Re: Tuesday discussion topic- the selling of public and state lands to private landowners [Re: txtrophy85]
bp3 Offline
Pro Tracker

Registered: 08/06/11
Posts: 1204
The Wilke's brothers will own the rocky mountains.

Top
#7095028 - 02/27/18 03:36 PM Re: Tuesday discussion topic- the selling of public and state lands to private landowners [Re: txtrophy85]
dogcatcher Online   content
THF Celebrity

Registered: 07/17/06
Posts: 86876
Loc: Abilene or on the road...
The talk used to that the deal was the Feds would give total control back to the states, but if you compare the roads and other amenities that these states offer, it will make you wonder of these states have the ca[ability to manage anything. The other issue is, what is to keep the states from selling the lands to the highest bidders? Most likely there will be nothing that will keep the states from selling.

How much or many of these lands are national treasures? You wonder if they will be piecemealed a little here, a little there, and one day the Grand Canyon might be partly owned by individuals. There are some ranchers that have leases that have already made it hell to get to some of the public lands that they control access to, that will increase if they had actual ownership. But then public hunts in Colorado, Wyoming etc., will become a thing of the past.

Mineral and timber leases? These need to be controlled and monitored or some of these natural beauties will be raped and pillaged for profits, and the TAXPAYER will land up paying to clean up their messes. If you have any doubts, look at the trillions of dollars spend on the Superfund clean ups.

I am too old to enjoy it again, but I would hope everyone had the ability to at least enjoy a few public land hunts in the western states. It will be an experience that you will never forget.
_________________________
Combat Infantryman, the ultimate hunter where the prey shoots back.
_____________"Illegitimus non carborundum est"_______________




Top
#7095107 - 02/27/18 04:51 PM Re: Tuesday discussion topic- the selling of public and state lands to private landowners [Re: txtrophy85]
rifleman Offline
Sparkly Pants

Registered: 11/19/08
Posts: 44356
Loc: Kingwood
Something needs to happen so the those states aren’t completely fed welfare dependent. Not really a fan of Newberg though and the RMEF conservation easement tactics.

Top
#7095909 - 02/28/18 08:44 AM Re: Tuesday discussion topic- the selling of public and state lands to private landowners [Re: rifleman]
therancher Offline
THF Trophy Hunter

Registered: 07/09/13
Posts: 6431
Loc: Mountain Home, Uvalde, and Big...
The fed has absolutely no business in the land business. They are the worst at managing anything and the constitution only grants them power to own land for bases, fed structures, and infrastructure.

The fed owns 1/3 of the US land mass. If half of that land was in private hands and produced as well as private Texas land there would be no “waiting to get drawn “ bs because there would be more game than you could imagine. Prices would drop through the floor for hunting except for the biggest trophies.

If you are for the fed owning as much land as it does and think you are anything but socialist, you are simply living in a fantasy.


Edited by therancher (02/28/18 08:51 AM)
_________________________
"I cant wait to see if he plays this week, and if he does if he can actually break 50 percent completion ratio. Haha or maybe even throw for 200 yards. Possibly break a QB rating of 75." - Texas Tatonka
www.bigironranchadventures.com

Top
#7095971 - 02/28/18 09:19 AM Re: Tuesday discussion topic- the selling of public and state lands to private landowners [Re: therancher]
SherpaPhil Online   content
Woodsman

Registered: 04/09/12
Posts: 161
Loc: Dallas
Originally Posted By: therancher
the constitution only grants them power to own land for bases, fed structures, and infrastructure.


I hear this repeated a lot, but with nothing to back it up. Exactly which part of the constitution states that?

Top
#7096019 - 02/28/18 09:49 AM Re: Tuesday discussion topic- the selling of public and state lands to private landowners [Re: SherpaPhil]
Mr. T. Offline
Veteran Tracker

Registered: 11/05/14
Posts: 2516
Loc: Hunt in Cass County, live in T...
Originally Posted By: SherpaPhil
Originally Posted By: therancher
the constitution only grants them power to own land for bases, fed structures, and infrastructure.


I hear this repeated a lot, but with nothing to back it up. Exactly which part of the constitution states that?


The constitution does not state that. I'm a librarian and have researched this topic for my students. Especially during "Bundy stand-off".

The “Bundy stand-off” in Oregon at a federal wildlife refuge has triggered (or, rather, re-triggered) questions about the constitutionality of federal land ownership. Westerners in particular question why the federal government should own nearly 30% of the country. In the West, the issue is particularly important. The federal government has title to about half the territory of the eight Rocky Mountain states, the west coast states, and Alaska. The share of ownership in each of those states ranges from about 30% to about 88%.

* Under the Property Clause (Art. IV, Sec. 3, Cl. 2), land titled to the federal government and held outside state boundaries is “Territory.” Federal land held within state boundaries is “other Property.”

* If the host state agrees, the federal government can acquire an “enclave” within the state under the Enclave Clause (I-8-17). This grants governmental jurisdiction to the federal government, but the federal government has to acquire title separately. Washington, D.C. (the most important enclave), for example, is under federal jurisdiction, but much of the land is held by other parties, including individuals.

* The Property Clause gives Congress unconditional power to dispose of property and authority to regulate what is already held. It does not mention a power to acquire.

* Under the Treaty Clause (II-2-2; see also Article VI), the federal government may acquire land outside state boundaries. As long as the area is governed as a territory, the federal government may retain any land it deems best.

* As for acreage (“other Property”) within state boundaries: Under the Necessary and Proper Clause, the federal government may acquire and retain land necessary for carrying out its enumerated powers. This includes parcels for military bases, post offices, buildings to house federal employees undertaking enumerated functions, and the like. It is not necessary to form federal enclaves for these purposes.

* But within state boundaries the Constitution grants no authority to retain acreage for unenumerated purposes, such as land for grazing, mineral development, agriculture, forests, or parks.

* Once a state is created and is thereby no longer a territory, the federal government has a duty to dispose of tracts not used for enumerated purposes.

* In the process of disposal, the federal government must follow the rules of public trust. It would be a breach of fiduciary duty for the feds to simply grant all of its surplus property to state governments. Each tract must be disposed of in accordance with the best interest of the American people. For example, natural wonders and environmentally sensitive areas (such as those now encompassed by the national parks) might be conveyed under strict conditions to state park authorities or (as in Britain) to perpetual environmental trusts. Land useful only for grazing, mining, or agriculture should be sold or homesteaded, with or without restrictions. The restrictions might include environmental protections, public easements, and protection for hunters and anglers.

Most states were admitted to the union pursuant to treaties, agreements of cession, and/or laws passed by Congress. These are called organic laws. They include, but are not limited to, enabling acts and acts of admission. These laws cannot change the Constitution, but they have some interesting ramifications for federal land ownership. That is a topic for another posting.
_________________________
Ski cabin rental in Pagosa Springs.
www.pagosaspringscabin.com

Top
#7096067 - 02/28/18 10:30 AM Re: Tuesday discussion topic- the selling of public and state lands to private landowners [Re: therancher]
txtrophy85 Online   content
THF Celebrity

Registered: 08/12/05
Posts: 23459
Originally Posted By: therancher
The fed has absolutely no business in the land business. They are the worst at managing anything and the constitution only grants them power to own land for bases, fed structures, and infrastructure.

The fed owns 1/3 of the US land mass. If half of that land was in private hands and produced as well as private Texas land there would be no “waiting to get drawn “ bs because there would be more game than you could imagine. Prices would drop through the floor for hunting except for the biggest trophies.

If you are for the fed owning as much land as it does and think you are anything but socialist, you are simply living in a fantasy.



I'm curious....how cheap are the prices are on the Wilkes Ranches or Ted Turners properties?


I can go shoot a antelope for $300 on BLM in Wyoming or a Bull Elk in Colorado for under $700.

you think hunts would be that cheap if everything would be turned over into private hands?


Not a snowballs chance in hell.




Edited by txtrophy85 (02/28/18 10:33 AM)
_________________________
Originally Posted By: Nogalus Prairie
I think the deer hunting shows and "Bro' Country" are going to be the downfall of this once-great nation.

Top
#7096089 - 02/28/18 10:47 AM Re: Tuesday discussion topic- the selling of public and state lands to private landowners [Re: Mr. T.]
therancher Offline
THF Trophy Hunter

Registered: 07/09/13
Posts: 6431
Loc: Mountain Home, Uvalde, and Big...
Originally Posted By: Mr. T.
Originally Posted By: SherpaPhil
Originally Posted By: therancher
the constitution only grants them power to own land for bases, fed structures, and infrastructure.


I hear this repeated a lot, but with nothing to back it up. Exactly which part of the constitution states that?


The constitution does not state that. I'm a librarian and have researched this topic for my students. Especially during "Bundy stand-off".

The “Bundy stand-off” in Oregon at a federal wildlife refuge has triggered (or, rather, re-triggered) questions about the constitutionality of federal land ownership. Westerners in particular question why the federal government should own nearly 30% of the country. In the West, the issue is particularly important. The federal government has title to about half the territory of the eight Rocky Mountain states, the west coast states, and Alaska. The share of ownership in each of those states ranges from about 30% to about 88%.

* Under the Property Clause (Art. IV, Sec. 3, Cl. 2), land titled to the federal government and held outside state boundaries is “Territory.” Federal land held within state boundaries is “other Property.”

* If the host state agrees, the federal government can acquire an “enclave” within the state under the Enclave Clause (I-8-17). This grants governmental jurisdiction to the federal government, but the federal government has to acquire title separately. Washington, D.C. (the most important enclave), for example, is under federal jurisdiction, but much of the land is held by other parties, including individuals.

* The Property Clause gives Congress unconditional power to dispose of property and authority to regulate what is already held. It does not mention a power to acquire.

* Under the Treaty Clause (II-2-2; see also Article VI), the federal government may acquire land outside state boundaries. As long as the area is governed as a territory, the federal government may retain any land it deems best.

* As for acreage (“other Property”) within state boundaries: Under the Necessary and Proper Clause, the federal government may acquire and retain land necessary for carrying out its enumerated powers. This includes parcels for military bases, post offices, buildings to house federal employees undertaking enumerated functions, and the like. It is not necessary to form federal enclaves for these purposes.

* But within state boundaries the Constitution grants no authority to retain acreage for unenumerated purposes, such as land for grazing, mineral development, agriculture, forests, or parks.


* Once a state is created and is thereby no longer a territory, the federal government has a duty to dispose of tracts not used for enumerated purposes.

* In the process of disposal, the federal government must follow the rules of public trust. It would be a breach of fiduciary duty for the feds to simply grant all of its surplus property to state governments. Each tract must be disposed of in accordance with the best interest of the American people. For example, natural wonders and environmentally sensitive areas (such as those now encompassed by the national parks) might be conveyed under strict conditions to state park authorities or (as in Britain) to perpetual environmental trusts. Land useful only for grazing, mining, or agriculture should be sold or homesteaded, with or without restrictions. The restrictions might include environmental protections, public easements, and protection for hunters and anglers.

Most states were admitted to the union pursuant to treaties, agreements of cession, and/or laws passed by Congress. These are called organic laws. They include, but are not limited to, enabling acts and acts of admission. These laws cannot change the Constitution, but they have some interesting ramifications for federal land ownership. That is a topic for another posting.


Thanks for posting. Exactly what I said in a lot fewer words.


Edited by therancher (02/28/18 10:50 AM)
_________________________
"I cant wait to see if he plays this week, and if he does if he can actually break 50 percent completion ratio. Haha or maybe even throw for 200 yards. Possibly break a QB rating of 75." - Texas Tatonka
www.bigironranchadventures.com

Top
#7096090 - 02/28/18 10:48 AM Re: Tuesday discussion topic- the selling of public and state lands to private landowners [Re: txtrophy85]
therancher Offline
THF Trophy Hunter

Registered: 07/09/13
Posts: 6431
Loc: Mountain Home, Uvalde, and Big...
Originally Posted By: txtrophy85
Originally Posted By: therancher
The fed has absolutely no business in the land business. They are the worst at managing anything and the constitution only grants them power to own land for bases, fed structures, and infrastructure.

The fed owns 1/3 of the US land mass. If half of that land was in private hands and produced as well as private Texas land there would be no “waiting to get drawn “ bs because there would be more game than you could imagine. Prices would drop through the floor for hunting except for the biggest trophies.

If you are for the fed owning as much land as it does and think you are anything but socialist, you are simply living in a fantasy.



I'm curious....how cheap are the prices are on the Wilkes Ranches or Ted Turners properties?


I can go shoot a antelope for $300 on BLM in Wyoming or a Bull Elk in Colorado for under $700.

you think hunts would be that cheap if everything would be turned over into private hands?


Not a snowballs chance in hell.




What kind of a comparison is that? It has nothing whatsoever to do with anything I said.
_________________________
"I cant wait to see if he plays this week, and if he does if he can actually break 50 percent completion ratio. Haha or maybe even throw for 200 yards. Possibly break a QB rating of 75." - Texas Tatonka
www.bigironranchadventures.com

Top
Page 1 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >



© 2004-2018 OUTDOOR SITES NETWORK all rights reserved USA and Worldwide