texashuntingforum.com logo
Main Menu
Advertisement
Affiliates
Advertisement
Newest Members
Canoetx.45, lonesomeoaktx, Potter14, MMcAloon, Genhunter
64373 Registered Users
Top Posters(All Time)
dogcatcher 90,185
stxranchman 53,762
bill oxner 49,835
RKHarm24 44,577
rifleman 44,414
BMD 41,009
SnakeWrangler 39,640
Big Orn 37,484
txshntr 35,378
Facebook
Forum Statistics
Forums45
Topics418,070
Posts6,077,486
Members64,373
Most Online16,728
Mar 25th, 2012
Print Thread
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4
Tuesday discussion topic- the selling of public and state lands to private landowners #7094850
02/27/18 06:56 PM
02/27/18 06:56 PM
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 23,978
Boerne TX
T
txtrophy85 Online content OP
THF Celebrity
txtrophy85  Online Content OP
THF Celebrity
T

Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 23,978
Boerne TX
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


Brandon Scott- Broker Associate - The Texas Ranch Company LLC.

Brokering Premium Farms and Ranches Across Texas. Specializing in Live Water/Investment Grade properties.
Re: Tuesday discussion topic- the selling of public and state lands to private landowners [Re: txtrophy85] #7094853
02/27/18 07:00 PM
02/27/18 07:00 PM
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 25,246
Corsicana
N
Nogalus Prairie Offline
THF Celebrity
Nogalus Prairie  Offline
THF Celebrity
N

Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 25,246
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.


Re: Tuesday discussion topic- the selling of public and state lands to private landowners [Re: Nogalus Prairie] #7094856
02/27/18 07:03 PM
02/27/18 07:03 PM
Joined: Aug 2016
Posts: 2,553
Cypress, Texas
H
Herbie Hancock Online content
Veteran Tracker
Herbie Hancock  Online Content
Veteran Tracker
H

Joined: Aug 2016
Posts: 2,553
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.

Re: Tuesday discussion topic- the selling of public and state lands to private landowners [Re: Nogalus Prairie] #7094861
02/27/18 07:06 PM
02/27/18 07:06 PM
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 23,978
Boerne TX
T
txtrophy85 Online content OP
THF Celebrity
txtrophy85  Online Content OP
THF Celebrity
T

Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 23,978
Boerne TX
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.


Brandon Scott- Broker Associate - The Texas Ranch Company LLC.

Brokering Premium Farms and Ranches Across Texas. Specializing in Live Water/Investment Grade properties.
Re: Tuesday discussion topic- the selling of public and state lands to private landowners [Re: txtrophy85] #7094906
02/27/18 07:42 PM
02/27/18 07:42 PM
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 10,604
wondering about the woods
C
colt.45 Online content
THF Celebrity
colt.45  Online Content
THF Celebrity
C

Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 10,604
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
Re: Tuesday discussion topic- the selling of public and state lands to private landowners [Re: txtrophy85] #7094913
02/27/18 07:49 PM
02/27/18 07:49 PM
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 10,189
D
ducknbass Online content
THF Celebrity
ducknbass  Online Content
THF Celebrity
D

Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 10,189
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.

Re: Tuesday discussion topic- the selling of public and state lands to private landowners [Re: txtrophy85] #7094916
02/27/18 07:54 PM
02/27/18 07:54 PM
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,247
B
bp3 Offline
Pro Tracker
bp3  Offline
Pro Tracker
B

Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,247
The Wilke's brothers will own the rocky mountains.

Re: Tuesday discussion topic- the selling of public and state lands to private landowners [Re: txtrophy85] #7095028
02/27/18 09:36 PM
02/27/18 09:36 PM
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 90,185
Abilene or on the road...
dogcatcher Online content
THF Celebrity
dogcatcher  Online Content
THF Celebrity

Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 90,185
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"_______________



Re: Tuesday discussion topic- the selling of public and state lands to private landowners [Re: txtrophy85] #7095107
02/27/18 10:51 PM
02/27/18 10:51 PM
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 44,414
Kingwood
rifleman Offline
Sparkly Pants
rifleman  Offline
Sparkly Pants

Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 44,414
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.

Re: Tuesday discussion topic- the selling of public and state lands to private landowners [Re: rifleman] #7095909
02/28/18 02:44 PM
02/28/18 02:44 PM
Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 6,677
Mountain Home, Uvalde, and Big...
T
therancher Offline
THF Trophy Hunter
therancher  Offline
THF Trophy Hunter
T

Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 6,677
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.

Last edited by therancher; 02/28/18 02:51 PM.

Crotchety old bastidge
Re: Tuesday discussion topic- the selling of public and state lands to private landowners [Re: therancher] #7095971
02/28/18 03:19 PM
02/28/18 03:19 PM
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 235
Dallas
S
SherpaPhil Online content
Woodsman
SherpaPhil  Online Content
Woodsman
S

Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 235
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?

Re: Tuesday discussion topic- the selling of public and state lands to private landowners [Re: SherpaPhil] #7096019
02/28/18 03:49 PM
02/28/18 03:49 PM
Joined: Nov 2014
Posts: 3,081
Hunt in Cass County, live in T...
M
Mr. T. Online content
Veteran Tracker
Mr. T.  Online Content
Veteran Tracker
M

Joined: Nov 2014
Posts: 3,081
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
Re: Tuesday discussion topic- the selling of public and state lands to private landowners [Re: therancher] #7096067
02/28/18 04:30 PM
02/28/18 04:30 PM
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 23,978
Boerne TX
T
txtrophy85 Online content OP
THF Celebrity
txtrophy85  Online Content OP
THF Celebrity
T

Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 23,978
Boerne TX
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.



Last edited by txtrophy85; 02/28/18 04:33 PM.

Brandon Scott- Broker Associate - The Texas Ranch Company LLC.

Brokering Premium Farms and Ranches Across Texas. Specializing in Live Water/Investment Grade properties.
Re: Tuesday discussion topic- the selling of public and state lands to private landowners [Re: Mr. T.] #7096089
02/28/18 04:47 PM
02/28/18 04:47 PM
Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 6,677
Mountain Home, Uvalde, and Big...
T
therancher Offline
THF Trophy Hunter
therancher  Offline
THF Trophy Hunter
T

Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 6,677
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.

Last edited by therancher; 02/28/18 04:50 PM.

Crotchety old bastidge
Re: Tuesday discussion topic- the selling of public and state lands to private landowners [Re: txtrophy85] #7096090
02/28/18 04:48 PM
02/28/18 04:48 PM
Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 6,677
Mountain Home, Uvalde, and Big...
T
therancher Offline
THF Trophy Hunter
therancher  Offline
THF Trophy Hunter
T

Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 6,677
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.


Crotchety old bastidge
Re: Tuesday discussion topic- the selling of public and state lands to private landowners [Re: therancher] #7096110
02/28/18 04:56 PM
02/28/18 04:56 PM
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 23,978
Boerne TX
T
txtrophy85 Online content OP
THF Celebrity
txtrophy85  Online Content OP
THF Celebrity
T

Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 23,978
Boerne TX
Originally Posted By: therancher
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.


Brandon Scott- Broker Associate - The Texas Ranch Company LLC.

Brokering Premium Farms and Ranches Across Texas. Specializing in Live Water/Investment Grade properties.
Re: Tuesday discussion topic- the selling of public and state lands to private landowners [Re: Nogalus Prairie] #7096121
02/28/18 05:03 PM
02/28/18 05:03 PM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 28,713
Texas
R
redchevy Offline
THF Celebrity
redchevy  Offline
THF Celebrity
R

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 28,713
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?


Never hunted out west but plan to. I agree.


It's hell eatin em live
Re: Tuesday discussion topic- the selling of public and state lands to private landowners [Re: therancher] #7096123
02/28/18 05:04 PM
02/28/18 05:04 PM
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 25,246
Corsicana
N
Nogalus Prairie Offline
THF Celebrity
Nogalus Prairie  Offline
THF Celebrity
N

Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 25,246
Corsicana
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.


If you want them to give it away, then you are the socialist.
If you want them to sell it, then you are right back to square one - only the land is now gone and the $$ soon will be.

Thinking having national lands owned and available for use by the people as a whole equates to socialism is just silly.


Originally Posted By: Russ79
I learned long ago you can't reason someone out of something they don't reason themselves into.


Re: Tuesday discussion topic- the selling of public and state lands to private landowners [Re: redchevy] #7096136
02/28/18 05:09 PM
02/28/18 05:09 PM
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 25,246
Corsicana
N
Nogalus Prairie Offline
THF Celebrity
Nogalus Prairie  Offline
THF Celebrity
N

Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 25,246
Corsicana
Originally Posted By: redchevy
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?


Never hunted out west but plan to. I agree.


Amazes me that (given enough time) some people who think they are conservatives can be talked into reaching into their wallets, handing already-rich people the money inside, and then somehow thinking it's good for them.
(Liberals do the opposite - just with poor people.)


Originally Posted By: Russ79
I learned long ago you can't reason someone out of something they don't reason themselves into.


Re: Tuesday discussion topic- the selling of public and state lands to private landowners [Re: ducknbass] #7096149
02/28/18 05:17 PM
02/28/18 05:17 PM
Joined: Dec 2016
Posts: 647
Wyoming
W
Wytex Offline
Tracker
Wytex  Offline
Tracker
W

Joined: Dec 2016
Posts: 647
Wyoming
Originally Posted By: ducknbass
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.


Please expound on these "flat out lies".

Re: Tuesday discussion topic- the selling of public and state lands to private landowners [Re: txtrophy85] #7096171
02/28/18 05:26 PM
02/28/18 05:26 PM
Joined: Dec 2016
Posts: 647
Wyoming
W
Wytex Offline
Tracker
Wytex  Offline
Tracker
W

Joined: Dec 2016
Posts: 647
Wyoming
We already have had state sections and landlocked public lands sold to private landowners, access is lost not gained.
The state manages our wildlife so how would populations expand if land are sold to private? The reason our federal grazing leases are so cheap is that is that productive private lands in Wyoming are hard to come by.
And we are Americans and public land advocates.
So you're calling me un -American because I support public land issues ?

Re: Tuesday discussion topic- the selling of public and state lands to private landowners [Re: txtrophy85] #7096331
02/28/18 07:12 PM
02/28/18 07:12 PM
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 44,012
Metroplex
BOBO the Clown Offline
decoy
BOBO the Clown  Offline
decoy

Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 44,012
Metroplex
Originally Posted By: Wytex
Originally Posted By: ducknbass
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.


Please expound on these "flat out lies".


I’m not for public land sale in any form or fashion but I go believe in smart sensible use and mineral and timber extraction.

First - BHA-Trump stole no ones public land. To be a monument it had to be Federal Land before hand, there for restoring back to original designation of BLM or National Forest, is not reducing public land acreage. Not to mention there is not 1,351,849 acres of “antiquities” there.

Second-BHA- shrinking monument size doesn’t reduce access, it open access back up. The controlling authority of the Mounment especially under NP service, can cut and restrict access in any way the Manager feels. No protections for access or use where written in by Obama only that of monument designation.

Third- Newberg- Wilks Brothers didn’t take public land way from the public. No public land was bought therefor they didn’t take any public land from anyone. Closing thier gates and canceling road maintance contracts for thier private ranch has nothing to do with public land. Closing private land to public access isn’t a public land issue. That ranch has been sold numerous times over last 80plus years. State of Idaho or Federal Government has had the ability to buy it. It’s surrounded by public land.

Fourth-BHA didn’t do squat for Sabinoso.

Fifth-BHA is not for ALL public use as they have stated in the past. They recently changed their stance to not for all public use aka no timber harvest or other natural resource. They subscribe to a more wildness type protections

I was a big fan of BHA, but thier kool-aide is very one sided, glad I opened my eyes.

If you want restricted use of public land that fine, but don’t purposely mis-inform the public to pad your coffers like BHA did. Their email tactics below the NRA out of the water. Atleast NRA doesn’t make lies up. They are one on the same with Patagonia in my eyes, except Patagonia doesn’t hide behind a .ORG

As far as Bp3 - the Wilks Brothers aren’t even in the top 10 landowners in the US. There 600k isn’t close to 2.2 Million Malone owns, or 2 Million turner owns. They better build and sell another Frac tech quick to caught those guys. Food for thought, there is over a million huntable acres in Texas of public land that CAN NOT be hunted due to National Park rules/authority. Instead of agruing over something that isn’t happening why not work with what we currently can to increase hunter access. Why can’t National Park Service allow draw hunts? Twice the amount of acreage that wilks own total and we the public can’t publicly hunt on it... what’s the real problem here? In part I celebrate them buying large chucks of PRIVATE LAND, it’s protected from development while under thier umbrella

Riellia actually does the best stating real facts and not exgerations for political/financial purposes
Think Newberg is becoming senile and is bad about fact checking, but means well.


Dog catcher when was the last public land total clear cut timber harvest in the lower 48?

Re: Tuesday discussion topic- the selling of public and state lands to private landowners [Re: txtrophy85] #7096433
02/28/18 08:17 PM
02/28/18 08:17 PM
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 10,189
D
ducknbass Online content
THF Celebrity
ducknbass  Online Content
THF Celebrity
D

Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 10,189
Wytex look at the 1st and 2nd response from bobo. Yes the headline that Trump stole federal lands was a flat out lie.

Re: Tuesday discussion topic- the selling of public and state lands to private landowners [Re: ducknbass] #7096442
02/28/18 08:21 PM
02/28/18 08:21 PM
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 235
Dallas
S
SherpaPhil Online content
Woodsman
SherpaPhil  Online Content
Woodsman
S

Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 235
Dallas
Originally Posted By: ducknbass
Wytex look at the 1st and 2nd response from bobo. Yes the headline that Trump stole federal lands was a flat out lie.


Wasn't it Patagonia that said that, not BHA?

Re: Tuesday discussion topic- the selling of public and state lands to private landowners [Re: SherpaPhil] #7096457
02/28/18 08:26 PM
02/28/18 08:26 PM
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 10,189
D
ducknbass Online content
THF Celebrity
ducknbass  Online Content
THF Celebrity
D

Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 10,189
Originally Posted By: SherpaPhil
Originally Posted By: ducknbass
Wytex look at the 1st and 2nd response from bobo. Yes the headline that Trump stole federal lands was a flat out lie.


Wasn't it Patagonia that said that, not BHA?


BHA ran with it.

Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4
Previous Thread
Index
Next Thread


© 2004-2019 OUTDOOR SITES NETWORK all rights reserved USA and Worldwide
UBB.threads™ 7.6.2