Tuesday discussion topic- the selling of public and state lands to private landowners

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

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.

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.

It's happening here too.

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

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.

The Wilke's brothers will own the rocky mountains.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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

What kind of a comparison is that? It has nothing whatsoever to do with anything I said.

Never hunted out west but plan to. I agree.

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.

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.)

Please expound on these "flat out lies".

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 ?

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?

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.

I never said anything similar to that wytex. I believe that single issue groups put issues in front of others that may be better for the country as a whole. Like I said I'm for smart safe mining on some federal lands because energy independence is important to me. BHA is single issue group. No matter how good it is for the country they look at public land issue first. Like I said life is not black and white.
Me I'm a Christian before I'm an American. Does that make me un American? I'd sure hope not. I wouldn't call anyone of the bha guys un American. I'm just stating where I believe their priorities are.

Both are guilty. I’m an ex BHA member, I was real close to becoming life member, and choose to wait. Thier email campaign is pretty bad, damn near malicious. So far I think TRCP is a much better organization, but I’m still watching, their partner ship with Patagonia is disturbing

With that said there probably will never be an organization that appeases me 100%, in general I’m very anti Conservation Groups because they loose thier way and put $$$ in front of thier core supporters’ beliefs. You can’t put recreational at the forefront all the time especially with malicious intent toward commercial food supplies.

I support public land 100% I think it’s a fundamental that makes Americans America. IMO -Transfer would destroy hunting, Think it would eliminate a sector that is view very favorably with the non hunting public.

I also seen what the best stewards in World have done for wildlife and that’s our private landowners. Undeniable that with out Private Landownership many species like Tule elk, Pronghorns, wild turkeys etc wouldn’t be here.

The constitution also establishes that congress can make laws, such as the antiquities act. Pretty much shoots down your constitution argument right there.

^^^^^^ He’s right, you know.^^^^^^^

I am too old to enjoy it much longer, but for those that want to dispose of it. Your children and grandchildren and their children will be the losers when it is gone. I made my first trip to Colorado for hunting when I was a young child, 60 something years ago, I still remember it.

I don't see any benefit to selling off federal lands. I don't want the West to turn into Texas. Texas bores the heck out of me. It's a pretty and ecologically diverse state, but you have to enjoy it all from the highway.

Agreed, gusick.

To know there are millions of acres I can use free of charge, without having to ask or pay some landowner, is priceless to me.

It is a great experience

Why anyone would countenance for a second the idea of selling America’s Crown Jewels is absolutely beyond me. I’m amazed we even have to discuss it, much less fight to keep it from happening.

X2

You all need to take a drive up north and see what you're talking about.
Mineral extraction in Wyoming is going gangbusters, mining, oil and gas and trona.
Yes , they still clearcut in the lower 48, we have thousands of acres scheduled for it in the next few years in the MBNF and in Colorado.
Thankfully our state legislature has laws on the books just in case the feds "give" it back to the states, no selling of public lands that results in net loss of public lands.
Let us manage it yes, but sell it, no way.

I guess we are socialists Nog

The $48.00 hunting&fishing combo with the $48.00 public hunting permit, "Poormans food stamps" is cheap compared ta hunting leases.
Wish they'd had a Life time WMA Permit.
Just for thought.

I hunted public land for dove and small game back in college and had some good hunts. Wasn’t bad when that was the only option

Da, comrade.

Seen any checks for the almost 18,000 total grazing leases or from those 63,000 O&G wells or other types of leases on our Public Lands from the beginning till today?

Tips his hat.

Nope.

Oddly enough, the state of Alaska used to mail out checks to all of their residents for their share of state land oil leases (maybe federal land too IDK). A guy I knew in college used to get one every year. IDK if they still do that or not.

When I was in Alberta I was told by the landowners that they(landowners) do not own any of the minerals there. They only get a small check ($3000/well IIRC) per well for damages to their land. The landowners really got the shaft there and then had to pay a premium at the pumps like everyone else. Once they drilled a well and put in a road that road also was open to public traffic. You could road hunt those road allowances to any well. I guess there must have been a poacher on that board when that was put into law. I was told a landowner cannot lease his land for hunting either, he can only allow or deny you the right to hunt it.

Wow. Canada has some strange laws that's for sure.

Only person that advocated selling of public lands was rancher. I think it's common knowledge that he won't be happy till all game is high fenced branded and titled.

Lot of things they do and say up there are strange. When hunting in Alberta I asked for ice tea with a meal and they looked at me like I was an alien. I got a glass of room temperature tea and when they got the ice bucket out of the freezer, it had a thick layer of frosty snow covering ice cubes (that had never seen the light of day ever). When I asked for the sugar to make it sweet tea they thought I had lost my mind. If you asked for ketchup you got the same look. On the first morning were hunting we came up on a county road sign that stated "Texas Gate Ahead". I looked at my guide and said "We have driven a bit farther south than I thought this morning." He laughed as we drove across a cattle guard across the country road. We call them stock tanks or ponds here and they call them "dugouts". Guide told me his Dad was "breaking ice in the dugouts today" and I had to asked what he was talking about? I was also told if a local is caught poaching a deer, they are only find about $150 AND get to keep the deer. There are some really good people up there and the hunting can be really good. I enjoyed it a lot and had fun taking the ribbing from the locals. Just a bit cold for this Texan.

I’ve been and fully support a regulated all 4.

Those cuts are not true clear cuts as was 30plus years ago. Selective cutting and thinning. Anyone that’s against sensible timber harvest needs to hunt units with more burns and recent timber harvest then old growth dead forest like northern Idaho. Best thing for a big chunk of our public lands is selective timber harvest, not even debatable.

Yes it’s pretty much the height of silliness when they let marketable trees just die and then have to either clean them up when they block roads and the rest become wildfire fuel.

They do still clear cut lodge pole pine but they clear cut an individual stand at a time, not the entire forest.

Our state does, severance taxes and it pays for our schools and roadways. How the heck would I get a check if they were sold to a private individual ?

Texas counties(ad valorem) and the state(severance tax is 7.5% on produced gas and 4.6% on produced oil at market value) has done that to private landowners/royalty owners with taxes on produced oil and gas of the private landowners who own their mineral/royalties. Do you get a check from Wyoming for your personal share of those taxes?

There is merit in private landownership increasing game numbers which increases ability for time in the field via longer season lengths. The flawed logic comes in the form that it’s the best solution for “hunters”. It’s no secret that as private property rights increase game numbers go up in this country as a whole, exception is high ag crop areas.

I don’t think he wants it all HF’d. He just sees the historical context in which private landowners and thier “private” stock have saved our arses. I personally think we have the right mix of private vs public, if you go to the extreme end on either spectrum bad things happen.

I understand his thoughts I just respectfully disagree with it being the right solution

FYI if he calls you a socialist, it’s actually a term of endearment for him, he will mostly likely send you a Christmas card.

That’s my point. It’s not an ecological disaster as its been proposed, it very controlled, patched/ limited in scope, to the point it becomes a highly mutually beneficial relationship

Yelp..... trail head maintenance, parking, roads, avalanche fixes, trails, etc

Although a sheep hunter may argue the grazing leases are a net loss vs cost of restocking

Until I moved to Texas, pretty much all of my hunting was on public land, so I'm not happy with the prospect of BLM and National Forest land being turned over to the states. Those states don't have the money or resources to manage them, which means they will be sold to ranchers, developers, etc. This means that hunting will basically be off limits to anyone who isn't willing to pay thousands of dollars for a trespass fee.

Another trend I noticed when in New Mexico (and a friend of mine mentioned was even more rampant in Wyoming) is the tendency for rings of private land to be purchased along the perimeters of what public land remains, making access next to impossible. This allows landowners to charge a trespass fee not to hunt their property, but to access adjacent public land.

The net result of this is going to be many fewer hunters in America, since anyone without thousands of dollars to spend is going to be priced out of our sport. This means fewer people who vote to protect the interests of hunters. Why should we expect voters to fight for the right to hunt if it's a hunt that they themselves can't practically exercise?

I would be ok with giving the land back to the states as long as it was conditional on the above. Of course if this was the case, most states probably wouldn't want it unless it has valuable minerals.

Private land didn’t just appear in the last 20 years, other way around from 1891-1900 50 million acres became withdrawn from private entities and pushed into the public domain..

Stepping on private property rights for NEW access rights is dangerous

Texas it’s a no brainer, state is a better manager(excluding COE- I think they do a great job), Nevada, Cali, etc not so much....

Texas is a wealthy state that can afford to manage what little public land there is. In contrast, if BLM or Natl' Forest land in New Mexico was transferred to the state, they would have no choice but to sell it off because NM like many other states simply doesn't have the resources to manage large tracts of public land.

I had never hunted public land until I moved to Alabama. Now my lease payment is $45 a year. I have 65,000 acres just 1 hour east of me. I can even buy a out of state TN license and hunt public land there, for less than what it costs me to be on a lease in Texas. As far as game management, I can shoot a doe a day, every day of the season and two bucks every year. I have the whole TN River system to hunt ducks. So telling me that private ownership is better, I call BS.

Don’t disagree, kind of what I was trying to say,

Ironically Texas has almost 3x federal land then Tenn, Tenn has more state... Most Texans are just to “ _host of reason__” to explore it.

I haven't heard of a law that prohibits selling state land in Wyomimg. Is that new?

Things change. I am getting up in age and I see it.You will also see it as you get up in age. The same as generations before saw it. People like to see things remain the same as while they are here. It does not happen. The world is growing in population and unless something changes that what you want to remain the same as you knew it will not happen. One of these days the Earth will shake off the vermin that are here now and start anew. It has happened many times before and will happen many times more in the future. Enjoy what you have now. Pissing and moaning doesn't change a thing.

Well said


“To everything turn, turn turn”

You are the second person this year who has said they can’t charge a fee for hunting rights.

Quail hunted with a guy who said that he hunted Alberta for years and they can can kind of loophole it and charge a “gate opening fee”

As pappy says: " Mother-natures way of shaking off the vermin called the kidney-stone ".
if didn't know better post almost sounds like a global warming post.

Pretty sure they were yanking your chain. My father (retired now) had 3 wells on the the dairy farm in Alberta and made 90K/year (30K each) for the lease in the 80s. You can get whatever you are able to negotiate or always have the option of saying no where access is concerned. Not owning the mineral under property is the default but if you want you can purchase the rights separately when you purchase a property - otherwise the minerals go to the feds. The roads put in for access are locked and gated and not public. Once the wells are finished the roads (if on private) get removed and restored to their original state unless the landowner choses otherwise. Even if they became public you still couldn't hunt them as it is illegal to discharge a firearm for hunting purposes on a maintained public right of way. Back-blade it once/year and plow it once in the winter and it is maintained.

As far as charging for hunting - the legality varies from area to area. Some places it's legal and others not. Not really relevant anyways as 89% of Canada by area is public. 2.65 million square miles or 1.7 billion acres of free public - no fees/permits whatsoever - even for camping (as long as you are a resident). With so much public, in my entire hunting life (I am 51), I have never met anybody that bothers to lease.

Actually looked it up and things have changed since the old man had the leases in the 80s. You certainly get more than 3K and there is an annual amount but the feds declared it some type of BS necessary for national economic security. There is basically a formula that takes the current market forces/values into account and sets the rate based on that. The amount gets recalculated every 5 years. The pubilc stuff though is unchanged. Land goes back to the owner.

I love hunting public land out west but the issue is the federal government does not assist the state or local government with the cost of infrastructure surrounding federal land. How do you manage a local government if 90% of your county is federally owned? Do states get severance taxes on federal mineral leases? What do you do locally when the feds in Washington decide to shut down logging in your area? Locals, and us for that matter, are subject to the whims of a grossly ignorant and sometimes hostile public. I'm not in favor of transferring federal lands but those of us who hunt out west aren't hunting for free, it's just other people paying our bill for us. And one if these days some majority is going to kick us to the curb on public lands. This is what the last administration tried to do with its monument designation.

Y’all just simply don’t understand the basic unfailing principle of supply and demand. Prices for hunting would plummet if the land the fed illegally owns were placed in private hands. And the quality of animals would improve exponentially.

But, as we all know, mediocrity for all is an unfailing basic principle of socialism. And that’s what you get when the fed controls anything.

If all of the private land was put in federal hands, hunting prices would be disappear completely.

Ha.

And you don’t understand the fact that the fed has no money other than ours.

Which state has lower hunting prices, Texas or Utah?

How would you quantify that?

Lease prices? Average price for a canned hunt? I don't think it would make a difference.

Please elaborate on the “canned hunt”?

By "canned hunt", I'm talking about the places where you pay $2700 for a 3 day/2 night deer hunt on a private ranch. Lodging and meals are usually included.

Public land hunts cost are about the same in Texas or Utah. Private land hunts costs vary but both states are high for guided Mule Deer on private land.

Are you talking about HF or is any hunt that involves lodging a canned hunt?

So how is thst a canned hunt?


That’s called a package hunt and they are offered in most states for all types of game

I know that type of hunt is offered in a lot of states, what we call that type of hunt isn't important. Maybe "canned hunt" isn't as common of a term as I thought.

The reason I wanted to compare Texas to Utah is because therancher said that hunting prices would plummet if federal land was put into private hands. There is already very little federal land in Texas. I am curious if Texas prices are cheaper than someplace like Utah, that is 90%+ federal land. I honestly don't know, but I doubt it because the lack of public land in Texas creates more of a market for it.

I can hunt cheaper in Texas than I can in Utah, but if we narrow it down to a species, or the type of hunt, or whatever, then it might not be so. I’ll ask again, how do we quantify something like that?

How about a 3 day/2 night private land mule deer hunt? Or antelope?

I have no idea what that cost but I'm sure it's high in either state. I would expect it to be higher in Texas just because of the limited opportunity for any other option. In Utah (or other Western states) you have the option of just buying a tag and hunting public land for free.

BTW, I've never hunted in Utah, the only reason I named that state is because I know it is mostly all federal land, pretty much the opposite of Texas.

It is a 1000 miles one way to Utah, a round trip will cost you a $1000 in gas and wear and tear. If you camp on the way up and back, add campground fees, motels, even the cheap dumps will set you back $30 a night.

For me the out of state hunts were not about costs, it was the experience that we wanted. But in my day, gas was 25 cents a gallon and campgrounds were less than $10 for a tent. The state licenses were nothing like today. I also bummed place from people that I knew in the Army, so I had nice accommodations and usually a guide or 2.

I can get a lease in Texas for what a diy hunt in Utah costs. One elk or mule deer vs. 5 whitetails of average or lower quality. One week vs. a full year. One long round trip vs. several shorter trips. It comes down to preference at that point, except you can hunt your lease every year. To hunt Utah every year, your costs go way up, but then, you can have a quality lease in Texas for that. I would say the costs are similar, depending on what you want out of it.

It may be cheaper for a resident....not for non residents.

The cheapest big game hunt I can think of for Non-res is antelope but you still have to get there.

To hunt elk out west every year, by the time you factor in fuel, food,tag, etc . Prolly is a wash if your on a cheaper lease in Texas. Short lessons and low success rates also factor in. Western states don’t have long seasons like we do.

However, To me it’s a better value to hunt out west (Texas included) than to be on a high dollar lease in south Texas though were prices are upwards of $10k/gun+feed

I enjoy both types of hunting - Texas and out west/up north.

There’s really no comparing them, because they are entirely different experiences.

I don’t lease anymore. I would rather pay 10K for a great hunt out west/up north than for a good Texas whitetail lease. Just for the variety of different experiences if nothing else. But everyone is different.

It is cheaper to hunt public land as a non resident in TX then non res in Utah. Licenses is the culprit.

Texas actually has a relative large chuck of Federal Land you just can’t hunt all of it, that non huntable chuck is well over a million acres, yet we still have over a million to hunt

Canned is a terrible anology to discribe animals in areas that aren’t migratory locations. Non migratory animals are not exclusive to private property, tons of public land with non migratory populations.

Essentially you just called AZ and NM elk, mule deer, and pronghorn canned because large percentage arent in migratory habitat.

What rancher is not disclosing in his agruement is for all Land to be private, the cost would only drop IF you dissolved the state wildlife agencies and licensing, thus giving landowners complete responsibility for the husbandry of those animals. We had that once. We lost 90% of our wildlife to a non sustainable market of game craving pallets.

I hunt a lot of public land, I’m also a Land owner, that’s had federal/state management run ins on BLM and state leases. I see both sides of the coin. I see pluses on both ends of the scale, but I whole heartily believe the loss of public land would result in the loss of hunting.

Texas is very unique, it’s interesting when we get dogged on pod casts, forums Etc. We average one of the highest license sales and days in the field per hunter in the country. The days in the field is the most relevant in my opinion, our hunters spend more days hunting then vast majority of states. So Ranchers agruement has validity, if that’s all the argument entailed

The acres schedules to cut are the millions of acres of dead pines that the pine beatle has destroyed in the last ten years. And they are years late doing it.
If the feds would have allowed more logging the pine beatle would not have been able to spread like wildfire.
Anyone that has been west in the last few years has seen this problem. Most of Colorado is a matchbox waiting for a spark.

Newberg is a thorn in the bad guys side. They hate him..................I love him. He keeps kicking them in the nutt sacc every chance he gets. I really watch and listen his podcasts etc. The man knows public land and the threats against it. The WOLF walks on 2 legs and takes money by the millions for votes etc.

Lot's of BS we don't know about that happens while we sleep and our rights keep diminishing. This isn't a Republic vs. Democrat issue. The Donkey and the Elephant are taking jabs at all hunters. Sad.

It’s Not the Fed that restricted logging, it’s the frivolous lawsuits brought on by professional shakedown artists. Also there is logging thats not dead forest thinning in Southern Colorado.

You don’t think the Forrest system would like to have more funds?

Interesting tidbit Wild Turkey Federation is 4th largest timber harvester... kind of a cool, win win

Where we hunt a lot of areas are inaccessible due to deadfalls

Pine beetle has put a hurting on the trees bad

It’s a caught 22, more they die more it opens up the canopy, equals more food.

It’s freaky and high unnerving walking through much less finding a camping spot.