Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Federal Lands in the West

I'm not sure what you mean by that. I've been there.

I've been watching natural resources and land ownership issues for a long time, partly professionally. I've picked academic brains extensively, read lots of studies, seen a lot of ground truth.
The Feds pretty much rank last when it comes to effective management. Law is a huge part of it, because the law gives the radical Greens so much power, so many chances to throw a monkeywrench in the gears, and no punishment for being wrong and stupid, which is most of the time.
State, tribal and private ownerships are all fairly close together in cost-effectiveness, to the point where all of them make a profit. Because the tribes are no-frill, they come in at lowest cost, and have incredibly high effectiveness IF they have competent land managers.
State and private land are about the same in terms of cost inputs.
The bottom line of all this is, the state land agencies probably are the best option for long-term use and public access at a reasonable or no charge. Montana's DNRC has a multiple-use, long-term mandate that even the Land Board can't ignore, and when you compare the overall condition of state versus private and federal, the state wins -- they are a little less aggressive than the tribes, but the state and the tribes both have a holistic approach that is very productive both economically and environmentally.
While some "sportsmen" groups have been showered with million in Green money, spent specifically to co-opt a bloc of gullible Fudds into being "green" -- the sick fact is, these same green funders are paralyzed with fear at the idea of having states able to ignore Beltway edicts or "national interests" based on what is urban/suburban ignorance of rural, flyover America.

Oregon is about 50% public land, and I love it. Step back about 50 years if one wants to see poor management of those federal lands.

I have no problem with the state of Az taking ownership of land management of the public trust... but management only within the boundaries of multiuse trust and not deeded with the ability to sell off.

Kent

I guess I just don't understand the glamour of State controlled community property, but I also understand the fear of those who have never known anything else.

Fear? you're projecting your bias.

Kent

No, that's not what I mean. Fear of change. Everybody is afraid of the unknown. I keep hearing that anything other than the Federal Government controlling the land would be worse than anything else. That has NEVER been shown to be the case.

100% truth.

State guys are a lot easier to deal with plus they are easier to find at payoff time. Cheaper, too.




What happened to your old avatar? It's much better than the new one. Bring her back.

Yes, far more than these 2-bit crooked politicians. They would have it all in the hands of big money and closed off to the public completely.

We in essence would have a small Texas, where $6,000.00 hunting leases are where one can hunt.

No Thanks.

Let .gov pay equivalent property taxes to the state as I do, and my issues would be much less.
Then tell the easterners how much, and let's see the howl - as most easterners don't use our resources, personally.

The change happened in 1976 with the Federal land management act. That it needs to change again is obvious but will take a congressional act.

Which is what is being discussed here.

The land had to be acquired first before we can even have a discussion of who should controls it. The feds did it through purchase so the process goes through them.

If you read my link above you will see the history of the land and state acquisition. That the government screws up a necessary process is just business as usual.

Better decision makers will make us a better country... even in public trust lands... but that's obvious too.

Kent

I live in east Texas, There is approximately 1 million acres of public land (mostly National Forest) within two hours of me. Nobody goes there. It's far more enjoyable to control your own property. $6000 per year is what you would pay for a top end, south Texas, high fence operation with selective breeding and all amenities. Don't believe everything you read on the internet. I can lease 90% of the properties in Texas for a year, with total control, for less that it cost for me to buy non-resident licenses in most western states.

Texas even charges you to hunt on public land.

High fence, selective breeding and amenities?

Sounds awesome.

Sounds like a brothel in Nevada!

Sycamore

I'm willing to accept my share of 54,000,000 acres of Az federal land reallocation based on years lived squared by 4 generations on each side of the family...

That'd be 3364 acres of prime elk country... ya'll are invited.

Kent

The (4) WMA's located on each of the (4) national forest in TX are administered by the state.

Considerig they were purchased in the great depression from failed cotton fields for $1/acre and replanted in pine, I don't see the big deal.

Also considering you run into old sawmill towns in the at least two of the wilderness areas that were designated in the Carter administration. Some wilderness area.

Pat is right, participation for most activities on the national forest in TX including hunting are almost non existent.

I did a 3 way trade between myself and the US Forest Servie and a private timber company so the USFS could get land in a more contiguous area. Some "sarcre" federal land.

Actually, that's pretty much the blueprint laid out by the U.S. Constitution for Federal Govt. land ownership for all of America.

It just isn't followed.

Why do you constantly make things up? There is a $40 permit (Type II) required to hunt Type II land, which is private land, leased to the State and a few highly managed "units", the rest has no charge. That's beside the point though, because most people won't go there.