Article: Federal vs. State Controlled Public Lands - Thoughts?

[tipsntails7]

Why yes. Yes we do. Currently.

I guess the antagonism comes from everyone always comparing Texas as the worst example of hunting in the nation when in reality the opposite is true. This isn't the first time it's happened and won't be the last. As I have stated we are blessed to have such large tracks of land but the differences are minor compared to a hunting lease or public land both budget and otherwise. Not pointed at you specifically but folks should choose another state if they want to compare privately managed land vs publicly managed land.

I would agree 100 percent.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[cuerro viejo]

Do they currently have wild elk herds in Texas? I stand corrected, Texas has 1600 elk currently

I don't understand your pissing contest attitude whenever someone speaks the word Texas. I didn't say Texas, I didn't quote your post about Texas and I didn't compare Texas to any other state.

I mis-read your post. Took full credit for my oversight above

Those numbers are way off and mainly estimated on public. Grant most the states elk lie on 100k plus acre private west tx ranches, I have them on my ranch in the panhandle(although most ones that pass through on me came from NM and KS)

 

[tipsntails7]

I mis-read your post. Took full credit for my oversight above

Those numbers are way off and mainly estimated on public. Grant most the states elk lie on 100k plus acre private west tx ranches, I have them on my ranch in the panhandle(although most ones that pass through on me came from NM and KS)

Are they still considered exotics in Texas as well? Or did they finally change that?

And everyone from Texas, I'm not knocking it, I love going there shooting some hogs and the BBQ, to damn hot for me though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[cuerro viejo]

hunting aside, you can come up right now and camp and hike and backpack for free!
PLT will end this.
this is a hunting site, but this issue is way bigger than hunting, and certainly way bigger than out of state tag squabbles.

Not agruing that see my other post. Just simply stating you can't use Texas as worst example. You can't even compare Texas to western states history, geography or hunting. Virtually no similarities...not even the cost of our draw hunts. It's 3 dollars for Res or NR

I can hike and hunt 2million acres in TX for free also.

 

[gelton]

One of the coolest differences to the public land out west is use other than hunting. Hiking is one but the best thing for me that I think is awesome is out west on Public land you can shoot your rifle at long distances anywhere you want. Do that in Texas on private land and most public land and you will get hemmed up right quick. Other than that, not much difference.

I could care less about the bird watchers. Right here in Austin there is a pretty big tract of federal land that runs right through the city. Full of whitetail and turkey but the Feds only allow like 30 hunters in one weekend a year. The rest of the time its reserved for the f'ng bird wathchers. So no love there.

 

[cuerro viejo]

Are they still considered exotics in Texas as well? Or did they finally change that?

And everyone from Texas, I'm not knocking it, I love going there shooting some hogs and the BBQ, to damn hot for me though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They had a season for a long time, then it went to legislation and they decided to let Landowners manage them, so they moved them to exotics.
Texas is ran by landowners, thus our really strong private property rights. Some ranches in Texas under the managed land permit program get almost a 6 month deer season(and lots of extra tags, mainly doe tags)

Only thing I have ever been really mad at TPWD over was they personally did a massive shoot off of elk in a couple WMA's. Brought a lot of public heat and they stopped but their reasoning was protection and elimination of competition with Desert Big Horns. Sheep foundation is lot more powerful down here the RMEF.

 

[Bonedalien]

One of the coolest differences to the public land out west is use other than hunting. Hiking is one but the best thing for me that I think is awesome is out west on Public land you can shoot your rifle at long distances anywhere you want. Do that in Texas on private land and most public land and you will get hemmed up right quick. Other than that, not much difference.

I could care less about the bird watchers. Right here in Austin there is a pretty big tract of federal land that runs right through the city. Full of whitetail and turkey but the Feds only allow like 30 hunters in one weekend a year. The rest of the time its reserved for the f'ng bird wathchers. So no love there.

I whole heartedly agree with you. we have so few ranges, most of us shoot in the hills.
But we need to listen to the bird watchers ect. They are the ones who voted out Trapping,the spring bear hunt, and put the houndsmen using dogs for bear out of buisness here in CO.
So it CAN happen.
We cant just say f***k off, we are out numbered already.We need the birdwatchers on our team.and the mountain bikers, and the x~country skiers, and the flower sniffers,whatever!
Thats the point behind Public Land.
These (sometimes goofballs) need to be on our team as public land hunters.

 

[kicker338]

Everyone is arguing about fed. vs state land but you better start paying attention to whats happening on fed. make that national forest
land. Every yr. more and more regulations are being imposed on national forests. Road closures, designated routs, more paved roads
and after having a conversation with a retired forest service employee it.s only going to get worse

 

[Schaaf]

I have been a conservative all my life and I will not vote for someone if they endorse PLT.

I don't care if it makes me a 1 issue voter, I'll do whatever it takes to prevent me from telling my son that I was once able to walk up that ridge and hunt elk there before the state's sold it to the highest bidder.

 

[elkyinzer]

Ah, the monthly PLT thread. One that I don't mind, because it so important to me. Beyond being able to feed, shelter, and protect my family, hunting and fishing are the essence of my existence, and I do so on public land.

The Republican party is in dire straits. They justify "core values" to the extent that they agree with big oil, big ranching, big Jesus, etc. and the other lobbies that have a monetary leash around the politician's necks.

They won't even temper the platform for completely common sense governance, and that is why we are going to have four years of President Hillary followed by god-knows-what.

There is no way PLT is going to succeed at a material level, it's simply too idiotic of a plan, and the populists see right through the fact that it's all driven by greed. But the fight to preserve each and every acre is an important one on a local level. So there you go, Oregonians, the ball is in your court to throw these azzclowns to the street and demonstrate the importance of this issue to outdoorspeople.

 

[topher89]

I whole heartedly agree with you. we have so few ranges, most of us shoot in the hills.
But we need to listen to the bird watchers ect. They are the ones who voted out Trapping,the spring bear hunt, and put the houndsmen using dogs for bear out of buisness here in CO.
So it CAN happen.
We cant just say f***k off, we are out numbered already.We need the birdwatchers on our team.and the mountain bikers, and the x~country skiers, and the flower sniffers,whatever!
Thats the point behind Public Land.
These (sometimes goofballs) need to be on our team as public land hunters.

Great post. I think hunter feels more ownership because we PAY for our activity (habitat stamps, license, etc.). If you are a hiker, bird watcher, etc. you just drive up and do it. There is a subliminal expectation that it is free and will always be there... "someone else is paying for it". These other groups need to get more involved and feel more ownership of public land and we all need to ban together to keep stuff open

 

[cody6510]

Like most other roksliders, I think this is a terrible idea. I moved out west because of these amazing resources, and I would hate to see them go to the states. Living in the east prior to coming west makes me truly appreciate what I have access too. Backcountry hunting would be a very different animal with a PLT. Not only would access likely get tighter, but something as simple as setting up a camp 4 miles off the trailhead would disappear. I can't recall one eastern state park or wildlife unit that I've been in that allows for backcountry camping. I guess, to me, it comes down to freedom, freedom that only federally controlled lands can offer.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[TJ]

Randy Newberg has a whole series of videos on YouTube about PLT and why it's a bad idea. Great videos.

Public Land Issues - This Land is Your Land!
- YouTube

^^^^^^^^^THIS^^^

I sent an e-mail last week to Congressman Walden. Not that it will mean a tinkers damn.

This kind of crap really pisses me off

 

[Woodsboss]

Really great thread. The threats to public land transfer are real and actively moving forward. For example from a state such as Idaho with 60.5% of it's land being federally owned/public Rep. Raul Labrador (R-ID) has pushed for his Self Sufficient Community Lands Act. On another alarming front is Rep. Don Young (R-AK) and his State National Forest Management Act. Both acts would authorize states to seize millions of acres of national forest lands and prioritize them for commercialization.

I'm fortunate to live in Idaho. I don't give much thought to where I'm going to hunt because I have 60.5% of the state to choose from. With that being said Idaho has already sold 41% of state land they were granted at statehood. To say the state won't continue to sell off these lands is ridiculous.

In reality this is an attack on hunting. Currently each and every state manages wildlife under the Public Trust Doctrine. Now this is specific to fish and wildlife species; not just those hunted and angled for. Most if not all of this management is carried on the backs of hunters and anglers by the purchases of hunting/fishing licenses but largely by all your other expenses related to hunting, fishing, shooting and boating that are taxed using the Pittman-Robertson Act and Dingell-Johnson Act. If public lands did not exist what do you suppose would happen to those funding mechanisms?

We can all agree that National Forests and BLM lands aren't managed up to our liking, but why is that? Do you really think it is the staff of those organizations are saying screw the users? Highly unlikely! Most of it comes down to funding; who determines those budgets, Congress? Who is coming up with these crazy bills, Congress. Employees of the USFS and BLM that I have met over the years are hunters and anglers just like you and I and would love to manage those lands to the best of their abilities but with a lack of funding and a little thing called the Equal Access to Justice Act it makes management extremely difficult.

I always get a kick out of the argument that "they" are closing off or national forests. I'm never sure what this means, are there stricter regulations yeah. More users mean more restrictions. Just like hunting regulations; as technology advances so do restrictions. It wasn't that long ago that trail users consisted of horse and foot traffic. As time has passed those users have grown to include ATV's and mountain bikers all requiring concessions. Just like catch and release and barbed hook regulations it's all compromise. I once heard an older gentleman carry on about how the Forest Service locked him out of the forest. Further questioning got the whole story that a road was gated and he couldn't ride his motorcycle there. Truth be told he wasn't locked out, he didn't like the compromise. The sad fact, that road hadn't been there forever, he enjoyed that area as a young man when it was unaltered. Now he wasn't willing to give that same opportunity to others, he got what he wanted and wanted more.

So what is it that each of us can do, GET INVOLVED! Join an organization that supports your values of public lands. One of the few sportsman organizations that has taken a status on public lands; making it one of their focuses is Backcountry Hunters and Anglers. They produced the Sportsman Report, Our Public Lands are not for sale, link at bottom. I'd encourage you all to read it.


([url]https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/backcountryhunters/pages/2371/attachments/original/1463611646/Public_Lands_Report-Final-Web_processed.pdf?1463611646).[/URL]

 

[parshal]

Employees of the USFS and BLM that I have met over the years are hunters and anglers just like you and I and would love to manage those lands to the best of their abilities....

I wish this were true for Colorado Parks and Wildlife. One of the members of my hunting dog club is very high up in the CPW as a biologist. He expresses his frustration each and every time I see him about how most, by a huge majority, in the CPW are not hunters. They view hunters more as a nuisance (his words, not mine). I don't know much of those non-hunters are the officers on the ground, though. I do know some of the decisions made are not in the interest of hunters. Elk are the main and nearly all the focus as a huntable species in this state and everything else takes back seat. I can only imagine what would happen if the public lands here were in the state's hands. Although, I must say, having loggers thin the forests might not be a bad idea especially with all the beetle kill. A fire in the wrong place is going to be disastrous with all the available fuel.

 

[ChrisS]

If someone thinks USFS land has restrictions wait and see what kind of restrictions come with privately held land who don't have to compromise even after/if you're allowed to pay your trespass fee or lease. Sure some might be all about elk, others might be all about deer. Some might have no hunting whatsoever. Some might just come with posted signs and zero access. Like Woodsboss says, with public land it's all about compromise when dealing various interests. It sucks, but the other options are much much worse.

 

[kpk]

I'm against federal to state transfer as well. I understand the Texans point about having leases but here's my problem with that.....kids, high schoolers, college kids, young adults.....have a hard enough time acquiring gear to get outdoors.

The hunting out of state and paying non resident fees/gas/etc in comparison to getting a lease is only part of the picture. There are a hell of a lot more people that don't hunt out of state and simply can't afford a lease. The days of knocking on farmers doors are over around here and I only see that getting worse. I know numerous families that have reluctantly quit hunting because they can't find anywhere to go. There isn't much public land around here and the chunks are very small...typically 40-200 acres. A lot of parents won't take their kids there because there are too many people and they don't feel safe, its overcrowded, and opportunity sucks.

Hunter numbers are declining everywhere. Restricting public lands and leasing is not going to help out the next generation trying to get started.

 

[twall13]

I budget about $1800 per year to hunt Colorado for two weeks:

Gas $280
Tag $650
Hotel $140 x 2 = $280 (one on the way there one on the way back 18 hour drive solo)
Food = $150
Packout if needed = $350

$1710

Now for $800 more you can get on a pretty decent lease where you can hunt hogs year round - unlimited, doves twice a year, Javelinas-3 in possession, whitetail-4 per year in most counties and plenty of other critters too.

That is not to say that the Feds should transfer, only to state that you pay to play in both instances, and given the longer seasons and bigger bag limits the trade off is about the same. Dont misunderstand the comparison as pointing to my personal enjoyment of hunting out west...there is nothing like it and these large tracks of land are a true blessing, chasing elk is way more fun than sitting in a deer blind, but financially the commitment is about the same.

You have made some valid points throughout this thread but I want to also put another spin on the cost comparison above. You compare an out of state hunt to an in state lease (for you). For me, in the state of Utah I can hunt general season elk with a combination hunting fishing license and a general season elk tag totaling $87. Since you didn't add any costs for travel, lodging, food, etc. on your leased hunting property example I won't add that either. If things change and I now have to pay $3,000 for that same opportunity in Utah that's a big price difference. Not to mention with that same in state combination license I can hunt waterfowl, upland, predator, etc. throughout the year and fish year round. Obviously this is as a resident of the state of Utah where I do most of my hunting, but if I want to go to Texas for a hunt as a non resident right now I'm probably going to pay a lot to hunt private land just as you are going to pay more to hunt another state. I choose to live in Utah and a part of the reason why is the access to public lands. You choose to live in Texas and lease hunting ground at a cost I don't have to pay currently for similar opportunities. As others have stated, public lands are also a place I spend a lot of time camping, hiking, etc. I know you weren't coming out in favor of the transfer of public lands you were simply pointing out, based on your experience, it may not be as bad as we all think. In my opinion, it will be that bad for more reasons than hunting opportunities.

Regardless of hunting opportunities, the true motive behind the transfer is for someone to profit from it in the long run. If they are transferred to the states it won't be long before they are sold off. I may have most of my life left to use them before that happens but my kids certainly don't. I hate the idea that our public lands have to somehow make money for someone in order to be of value. Their true value far surpasses any economic value, although there is certainly some economic value there as well. I haven't decided who I'm going to vote for at this point as I don't care for any candidate, but regardless of how my vote is placed, I'll fight the public lands transfer harder than I've fought any other political battle.

 

[twall13]

PLT is a terrible idea but gaining traction here in UT. They have a hard enough time managing the game populations with ~31% influx of federal funds. It would be a disaster if that was removed. PTL would impact not only hunting but anything you want to do outdoors. I'm truly shocked that were wasting millions on a lawsuit that would only benefit the Good 'ol Mormon network.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The only people benefiting from that ridiculous lawsuit are the attorneys!

 

[Mtnboy]

I'm blown away that someone would compare having a Private Lease in TX to Public Land hunting...unreal