And here I was trying to get along.....

You are 100% wrong on each point you just made.

I have always been inclusive and still support every possible method of legal hunting. You know that. I support free hunting for those who can't afford it, I just think it's better coming from the private sector, not the govt.

Can you explain how the above is "screwing 97% of hunters"?

I may not make it to the next generation, but if you think handing out "free" hunting (that costs our nation 12 billion each year) will influence the urban culture to support killing bambi on their landat that expense, then you have failed to learn how little our welfare system has done towards leading our poor to self reliance.

Private property rights are the only way hunting will survive into future generations.

I will give one thing to NP, his signature line is one of the best out there.

5 million hunters utilize public land for hunting. Displacing and cutting their access is not screwing them? Numbers even biggger for anglers... what about just overall public land usage?

Like I said screwing fellow hunters that don't agree with your ideology. You're not about saving hunting you're about enriching yourself,

How many members on this forum have ever utilized a state park for fishing, camping etc? You hate it because you ain't getting paid, pay the man!!! Sign this lease document right here.....

Public land is many people's first introduction to the outdoors... but screw that it's not lease opportunity for you

5 million?? That all? for a full 1/3 of the land mass of the entire country? How many utilize hunting in Texas. A single state? Case made. Private provides many many more opportunities than public in a ratio based comparison.

And not one single soul in Texas can't afford to hunt on private land. EVERYONE can afford a $100 doe hunt.

Privatizing fed land would allow many more than 5 million access to even better hunting than the fed can provide.

How again is that "screwing my fellow hunters who don't share my ideology"?

Since you made the bogus personal attack that I'm against public land because I don't get paid. Listen close, if public land became private the value of my hunting goes through the floor.

Think about the cheap to no cost meat hunts that would be possible on private land if close to 1/3 of the land mass were utilized by private hands for hunting. How is that not good for all hunters? How again is that selfish of me?

It's not, you know it's not.

So by your argument people who provide goods and services in the private sector that are also provided by the govt. are screwing their fellow Americans. The grocery owner wants welfare shutdown so everyone would have to buy only food from him...

That argument is BS. I'd like to think you know that, but it seems you don't. I don't think it's wrong to want the private sector to provide much more opportunity to hunters than the fed could ever supply.

You think hunters CAN'T be resourceful and provide for themselves. I know they can.

I haven't seen any free hunting on private land listed on leases.

No but you've seen plenty of $100 doe hunts on outfitters. And EVERYONE can afford a 100 doe.

This is a preference debate, not a factual debate from either side. I was introduced to hunting and fishing both on private land (none of which we owned). I now live in new Mexico where people would go nuts if it was all private land. I like options, we have options now. I disagree that private land is the only way to preserve hunting. Let's say the government shut down hunting at some point on public land.....they could just as easilly do that to private land too if it got to that extreme scenario. Plus my dad already admitted I was always right on the last page. It's genetic.

You are assuing everybody who bought the government land when it went for sale went to people who would allow hunting on it. If it went to a bunch of libs who hated hunting, there would be less opportunity.

5 million HUNTERs is 5 million HUNTERS aka 34% over a 1/3 of hunters....

Not only that no more state parks, no more public freshwater fishing etc.

Real question what are you going to buy and where are you going to put your first oil/gas well or strip mine?
Yellowstone? Or tone it down some and say Giles wilderness area...I'd say national Forrest but I'm sure you would rather be the first guy to drive a D7 through raw all natural, non- motorized vehicle allowed protected land. Would you turn it into atv park with oil pads every 1/4 section? Or just oil/gas pads? What if there is lithium there....oohhhhh burn it out and strip mine it?

Or would you stick to Texas by out a historic State park or WMA?

I'm not assuming anything. If 25% the privatized fed land was open to hunting it would be around 165 million acres of land that would be producing under private control which is tons more production than fed land.

Mines not a preference debate at all. Mines about what's better for hunting. You have a lot to learn. Private property rights are much more secure than public property rights.

You simply don't read do you. I stated specifically that a few national parks/monuments are fine. And nowhere have you seen me say that state parks aren't ok. My beef is with the fed owning and potentially taking hunting away from 1/3 of the land mass.

Is public land not public land? .aw now we are picking and choosing...

No, we're not picking and choosing anything. This has always been about fed land. In fact the way to do it is to get the fed to give the land back to the states. Let the states auction most of it off and keep a few special places. The fed has no business in real estate.

I have noticed you don't like to answer my questions though.

Sounds familiar... kind of like how do you manage and increase CC of a mule deer herd that migrates hundreds of miles? Or how do you increase carrying capacity of an elk that spends half his life above or at tree line, keep them there 12 months a year with supplement feed? Or why are tag allotments based off winter kill and hunter success rates? How are you going to increase population numbers when OTC tag areas are because access isn't easy thus success rates are lower. Make access easier? Why are limited draw units limited draw? Isn't it high success rates due to easier access?

You're not increasing hunter numbers with your plan...your taking fringe habitat and opening it up to higher harvest rates thus destroying sustainablity. Privatization would actually lower wildlife numbers thus tags thus hunters. You can't feed your way to carry capacity like you can on non migratory animals that don't live in fringe habitat and that don't have to deal and migrate away from mother natures most extreme

Fed isn't the best solution to migratory wildlife, but it's better then privatization.

Mule deer in Texas don't migrate. Neither do wild elk. They don't need to. And they don't have to in the western states that feed them. Went to BC bear hunting and they don't migrate there either.

Migration is a function of feed and shelter. Give them that within a reasonable distance of their small home range and they don't migrate.

Again. You're wrong.

Okkkkkk. If you say so.

PS. Bear hibernate, also aren't hooved, they aren't effected by snow levels. They have an ability to den up and slow their metabolism for months at a time. But hopefully you already knew that. Omnivore

That's $100 per visit, not for the season. I lived and hunted in Texas until I moved to Alabama two years ago. For $57, I can hunt (and fish) any public land. There is 30,000 acres just 50 miles from my front door. I can shoot one doe per day, every day of the season and one buck per day, limit three. If that land were to become private, I would have to pay $1500 minimum for a hunting club membership.

I hate to be throwing gas on the bonfire here. I usually just I can see a lot of your argument as much as I favor the parks and what they represent but this is just not true. I especially agree with your sentiments about poverty, welfare, and self reliance. However outside of the socioeconomic level you may be accustomed to, not everybody can drop a hundred bucks to go hunting.

Plus that is does not include a lot of other costs such as fuel, time, processing, ammo, opportunity cost etc. I would agree that most who are interested in hunting have some spare change. Otherwise they wouldn't do it. But to just blindly say that its something everyone can afford is not really an argument. There are a lot welfare enabled lazy bones out there feeding off the system but I have seen quite few awfully poor folks who work hard everyday and are not this way. To compare public lands to our Most people who are interested in hunting are not lazy. Also to use a hundred dollar doe hunt as a benchmark because that is what you offer is ridiculous.

My 2 cents on the argument:
The national parks were created to prevent exactly this kind of thought and privatized monetization in those specific parts of the country. The rest of our country had already been monetized a hundred different ways and continues to do so but that specific acreage was set aside. Specifically "to protect and preserve the remaining lands from devastation and destruction which have been the same fate as other parts of the country". The parks are huge part of our national identity and pride. It sets apart from any other country on earth. It was not set aside as part of the welfare system as you seem to be implying but in the eye of conservation and future generations. Common land does however equate to common wealth. With the land kept common we are all contributing to its preservation for future generations which as people, hunters,and land owners there is nothing more precious.

Private ownership may be better suited for land management, wildlife management, improvements etc but overtime no matter how much money private ownership has, the land will be divided and partitioned. Look at the average farm/ranch size in Texas. Look at the Waggoner and other major land holdings that have been divided in the last century. Private Land can only last generational for so long in our modern world. Impending exponential population growth and lack of space is a huge concern for most of the world yet as Americans and Texans specifically, we do not even have a clue. Natural resources are the only truly valuable commodity they all come back to basic resources. Our country and forefathers have protected and conserved the limited and least "valuable" land they could at the time for it to be agreeable even then from greedy individuals. It is not enough but it is far better than most places on earth. They should be cherished and protected at all cost.

To compare public lands to our welfare systems as you seem to be implying is ridiculous. **

I was speaking of the elk and deer in bc I was there bear hunting and asking questions while I was there. Their elk and deer in the Hudson hope area don't migrate.

There are many options. In the west many people don't draw deer tags so they have to pay even more than 100 bucks per animal to get OTC or private land tags. The issue isn't 30,000 acres in Alabama. It's 650,000,000 in the nation.

The mule deer herds in the white river national forest migrate a hundred miles through the Piance creek area between Rifle and Meeker. If they didn't they would die in the high country, same for elk. Look at the elk in the fields north of Durango, they can't survive in the high country. Can't be fed at 8-10,000 ft. in 6-10 ft. of snow.