It's my favorite by a long shot.

The Wilks brothers bought 300,000 +/- acres in Montana and tired to swap more acres to the state to allow access for hunters to go around their property. Never heard how it turned out

I'm comparing the entitlement mentality, the fact that it is owned by the fed, funded by tax dollars we DONT have, the fact that people become dependent on it just like welfare, the fact that if you tell people they need to provide for themselves they believe that without it they won't be able to eat/hunt.

The fact that when you get people dependent on free they almost NEVER develops the resourcefulness, drive, or personal responsibility to improve their situation to leave the welfare/free hunt system.

The fact that it is a typical govt agency that is run so poorly it costs 12 billion a year to keep it running.

And they both fit perfectly in this definition:

a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
synonyms: leftism, welfarism; More


I don't make up the definitions or create the similarities. I just note them.

I can assure you they can be fed in 6-10 feet of snow. They do it every year. It takes some equipment and feed. That's all. Don't tell the outfitters in Canada they can't hold elk with feed. It's how most of their tags are filled in bc.

Actually that's one of my best arguments for production at levels that should guarantee populations large enought to let everyone hunt. The fed can't feed them all. Private landowners can and would.

Disagree wholeheartedly. Anyone who WANTS to hunt can find a way to scrounge and save $10/month and what it takes to get there and back if they decide it's something they want.

I'm the "yes I/they can" guy. I know how resourceful people can be when they want to and try and would never assign them to the desperation of "I/they can't".

I totally disagree that the fractionation of large parcels of land decrease it's production. In Texas our deer populations are at all time highs. We have more huntable populations of endangered animals from other nations (that let the public land MO destroy their populations), than any place on earth.

But the best reason to privatize most public land is what it does for the individual owning the property. It gives you personal freedom, a sense of accomplishment, the ability to produce for yourself and others, and a great measure of personal satisfaction.

I would like everyone to experience that. But telling them they can't just helps people believe they can't. And fractionalization actually puts those things in reach of most average joes. Look how many people on here are small landowners! Without fractionalization and the private land in Texas they'd never experience those things.

"But the best reason to privatize most public land is what it does for the individual owning the property. It gives you personal freedom, a sense of accomplishment, the ability to produce for yourself and others, and a great measure of personal satisfaction."

You would have loved feudalism.

Fancy word for lease agreement

A minor in history comes in very handy. Well, not really.

In Minnesota, land owners, whether hunters or non- hunters work together ta help wildlife survive harsh winters.. like the WMA in its illegal ta hunt over baited areas...
thats a different debate & topic... as pappy once said: the more money ya have the more Freedom ya have , my guess tis they seen posts in the discussion form here on HF bout hunters pudding up thar feeders & stands next ta fences & got fed-up with lowfers like me pudding up posts not worth & as the song say's: take the money & run , they moved ta Idaho...

Nah. I love private property rights for everyone who wants to take the responsibility and put forth the effort to own property.

Big difference but I'm sure you are blind to it.

It was a joke. Try to keep up. I'm also a property owner and definitely understand about private property rights.

Ha! I thought I remembered that. Not a good thread to joke on though... I thought BoBo was conservative before this thread.

No, this thread needed levity. I think I need new material.

I'll say what everyone is thinking.....this is hands down the dumbest thread I have seen on this forum.

Not even close.
Anyone that thinks public lands will remain open to hunting for generations to come hasn't been paying attention to what already has been going on for decades.

He's got a lot to learn. I hope he has a lot of time.

rancher you are making three foundational assumptions on this thread:

1)That every buyer of what are now public lands open/accessible for hunting today would care about continuing to have those lands managed and utilized for hunting/outdoor recreational use. Many wouldn't.;

2)That the private property ownership/management model that you know/subscribe to here in TX has the same application across every ecosystem. "Management" of western game populations ain't just pouring feed out for them. Your pontificating about elk and mule deer, etc., etc., being susceptible to the same management practices you employ that allows "$100 doe hunts" is as silly as it is misinformed. ; and

3)Your equating the opportunity to just knock over an animal as "access" to hunting. Hunting is as much an experience as it is killing an animal. Killing supplemental feed-dependent animals (akin to livestock in your make-believe world) and going 15 miles deep on a wilderness hunt in the Bob Marshall is not an equal experience providing the same "access" to hunting.

All 3 assumptions are demonstrably and obviously wrong.

Your firebombs about being "conservative" and other character insults are just the usual red-herring BS. They could be cut and pasted on every thread your participate in.

Simply put, you are out of your league in even attempting to discuss the issue.

You clearly misinterpreted just about everything I wrote. Like I said I agree with you on your sentiments on poverty welfare and self reliance. Your just throwing garbage back at me. The people who are feeding off welfare are not taking advantage of our public land or the cost entailed its pretty much the opposite and has no real relevance. I understand the concern about the costs of operation. I agree whole heartedly the management and cost needs to be curtailed but so does everything else our country does.

I wasn't arguing that its decreases in production. In fact I said that private land owners are the better more efficient stewards. All I pointed out is private land like Texas for example continues to be divided into smaller and smaller parcels under private ownership. Owners have children, children have children, families grow, money splits, land gets sold or divided. You know what I am talking about. I agree that privatization is good in Texas and around the country where it has gone on and will continue to go on feeding our capitalist economy and support the growing dreams of hard working individuals. But it cannot preserve or conserve the resources in the raw like keeping it whole does and that is why they were created.

What the short sightedness in your argument is what is good for me is good for everyone and that like money resources are infinite. The differences is you can have infinite dollars but once the land is gone we are not getting more. The parks are some of the last valuable open space in the world. I consider my self moderately well off finically. I own land, my family owns land, I make a living from it but I don't have to own land to feel self fulfillment or consider myself successful or hardworking. Those may be your definitions of success.

I still relish the freedom and ability to go chase elk on public land in the great American West. Sure I could pay you to or another hunting ranch operator to go chase whatever in creation you can think of on a few thousand acres In Texas maybe. And thats great but it is not the same. To see it as untouched as possible, with no fences. To watch native species in their native habitat. To have little to no interference from mankind. To preserve that freedom and space for the next generation like it was for us is paramount to what this country was founded on Freedom. There is so much more land that is available for you and other folks to buy and feel good about it is irrelevant. The national parks is based on conservation not welfare. If you are ranching and have cattle you should understand that nearby communities/economies are entirely dependent on government grazing leases within some of these natural resources. Take that away and what about their rights, some of the leases are century old? What about their personal satisfaction? These peoples lives actually are relevant to the story. National land ownership is not welfare. The land is about preservation, heritage, freedom, and most of all Americans. It is conservation of a natural resource in its closest to pure form.

NP- your response to my first posts on page 2.

Before I ever said anything specifically to you..

"So stupid and shortsighted"

And you continued to malign my intelligence in later posts. Just posted it because I know in your mind I'm the one that started personal attacks. That is simply not true.

I guess, fortunately for us, both the Hildabeast and Trump have publicly stated that they are NOT interested in giving federal lands to the states or selling it outright. At least that's what they said in interviews with Field and Stream. I personally hope they keep that promise.

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. [/quote]

Disagree wholeheartedly. Anyone who WANTS to hunt can find a way to scrounge and save $10/month and what it takes to get there and back if they decide it's something they want.

I'm the "yes I/they can" guy. I know how resourceful people can be when they want to and try and would never assign them to the desperation of "I/they can't".

I totally disagree that the fractionation of large parcels of land decrease it's production. In Texas our deer populations are at all time highs. We have more huntable populations of endangered animals from other nations (that let the public land MO destroy their populations), than any place on earth.

But the best reason to privatize most public land is what it does for the individual owning the property. It gives you personal freedom, a sense of accomplishment, the ability to produce for yourself and others, and a great measure of personal satisfaction.

I would like everyone to experience that. But telling them they can't just helps people believe they can't. And fractionalization actually puts those things in reach of most average joes. Look how many people on here are small landowners! Without fractionalization and the private land in Texas they'd never experience those things.


[/quote]

You clearly misinterpreted just about everything I wrote. Like I said I agree with you on your sentiments on poverty welfare and self reliance. Your just throwing garbage back at me. The people who are feeding off welfare are not taking advantage of our public land or the cost entailed its pretty much the opposite and has no real relevance. I understand the concern about the costs of operation. I agree whole heartedly the management and cost needs to be curtailed but so does everything else our country does. I don't think I misunderstood. We may not be communicating well. I wasn't saying that people on welfare were "taking advantage of public land", I was pointing out the fed providing hunting land is the same principle as them offering welfare. And it creates laziness and entitlement just like welfare. Welfare in some cases keeps people alive. There is more justification for welfare than there is for the fed owning 650,000,000 acres so you and I can hunt.

I wasn't arguing that its decreases in production. In fact I said that private land owners are the better more efficient stewards. All I pointed out is private land like Texas for example continues to be divided into smaller and smaller parcels under private ownership. Owners have children, children have children, families grow, money splits, land gets sold or divided. You know what I am talking about. I agree that privatization is good in Texas and around the country where it has gone on and will continue to go on feeding our capitalist economy and support the growing dreams of hard working individuals. But it cannot preserve or conserve the resources in the raw like keeping it whole does and that is why they were created.OK, it is my firm belief that if the market wants huge parcels the people supplying the market will continue do so. I can point you to successful consolidation efforts in Texas. You do know the Waggoner sold virtually whole don't you?

What the short sightedness in your argument is what is good for me is good for everyone and that like money resources are infinite. The differences is you can have infinite dollars but once the land is gone we are not getting more. The land doesn't go anywhere. Control going to private hands doesn't destroy it.The parks are some of the last valuable open space in the world. Europe had our system of govt controlled land. How is the hunting there now? Govt controlled land in the U.S. will repeat that result in the hands of the govt. We just had more land and started later than Europe. I consider my self moderately well off finically. I own land, my family owns land, I make a living from it but I don't have to own land to feel self fulfillment or consider myself successful or hardworking. Those may be your definitions of success.Not implying that everyone must share my version of success. It is my opinion that the best way to preserve the land for future generations is to let private hands control it. I don't think I'll ever convince you of that.

I still relish the freedom and ability to go chase elk on public land in the great American West. Sure I could pay you to or another hunting ranch operator to go chase whatever in creation you can think of on a few thousand acres In Texas maybe. Try the 200,000 acre Longfellow ranch. Easily as large as most contiguous blm tractsAnd thats great but it is not the same. To see it as untouched as possible, with no fences. To watch native species in their native habitat.elk are native to texas. To have little to no interference from mankind. To preserve that freedom and space for the next generation like it was for us is paramount to what this country was founded on Freedom. There is so much more land that is available for you and other folks to buy and feel good about it is irrelevant. The national parks is based on conservation not welfare. If you are ranching and have cattle you should understand that nearby communities/economies are entirely dependent on government grazing leases within some of these natural resources.Private hands would still be ranching those lands Take that away and what about their rights, some of the leases are century old? What about their personal satisfaction? These peoples lives actually are relevant to the story. National land ownership is not welfare. The land is about preservation, heritage, freedom, and most of all Americans. It is conservation of a natural resource in its closest to pure form.
[/quote]

You trust either of them? However, getting the fed out of the real estate business is much too conservative for either of them so I think you can actually count on them keeping the fed fat and bankrupt.

Your response to #1 would assumes a loss of 75% of what now comprises most of the (relatively) untouched open space wilderness in the United States. That loss alone is unthinkably devastating to anyone whose sole mindset is not monetizing everything that exists on this earth. (I don't give a tinker's damn if large parts of the Gila Wilderness or Monument Valley are "fallow" - God made them that way and true stewards of the land understand that and are fine with it. In fact, keeping some of what God made as close to possible to how he made it is the point of real conservation.)
Turning the other 25% into private game ranches is not a model for conservation, it's just another model for someone to make a buck.

Your response to #2 is simply one in a long line of wrongheaded, ignorant, and unrealistic versions of "Shut up because I know what I am talking about" - when your responses prove nothing could be further from the truth.

Your response to #3 is just "My definition of hunting (killing something) is best - so everybody else can just like it or lump it". First, that's just a sad definition for those who know what broad hunting experiences can encompass. Second, it's just you imposing your values on everyone else in the name of "privatization". Which is contrary to the "freedom" you say you stand for over and over again.

Public lands create opportunities, access and (as a result) more freedom for everyday Americans to enjoy wonderful experiences they never could without it. You are willing to chuck all that in the trash just so everyone can be like you and make a buck off wildlife.

That's as selfish as it is arrogant. And about as far from "conservative" as one can get.