Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire How many here would eliminate the National Park Service? (Or USFS)

If you depend on public land for your hunting and fishing opportunities you absolutely do not want the Texas model.

I am not familiar enough with NPS or USFS to really comment on the deal other than to say if it all goes to private or state ownership you folks are shafted big time.

I got mine so I have no worries but sometimes I feel sorry for those who don't and ain't rich down here.

I didn't realize hunting access was so restricted on Fedreral or state lands. I guess we're lucky in NY. We have about 3.5 million acres of state forest lands. In order to hunt it, you buy a license, choose where you want to hunt and go. No special tags, drawings or permits neccesary.

Sounds beautiful. No restrictions or fee's at all?

Please listen to this man.


Travis

No restrictions or fee's beyond buying a license and hunting during open season. No motor vehicles allowed except on the roads though and you're not allowed to erect any permanent stands or blinds. Portable stands that don't require anything be nailed or screwed into the tree only..

Have any of you been following the court cases where people are forced to sue the NPS to be able to bring firearms onto parks and fed land? The federal government in control of anything is not good.

The feds are restricting the hunting use on Kisatchie NF in Louisiana. This year, you can't hunt with dogs anymore. Next year, maybe no hunting at all???

The US conservation model while it has it's problems is by far the best in the world. Why are there restrictions in the Kisatchie?

I might as well sell my guns if we go to a State model. Maybe everything will end up like WY Wilderness lands requiring you to have a guide or someone to hold your hand while you access lands that are maintained by your tax dollar.

I would eliminate all federal agencies. PERIOD.

Posts like this refresh my faith in this forum. That said, I almost exclusively hunt on public land and private invitation and get out quite a bit. I don't get to shoot giant bucks but I have had a lot great experiences despite the situation.

This is the kind of thread that absolutely shows the effects of devotion to an ideology. Gubmint bad, private enterprise good.

Fact is that one of the prime reasons to have public commons and a public sphere is to accomplish things that society wishes done when the impetus to do these things runs counter to those which drive a free market. This is one of those issues. The US has spoken fellows, the issue of whether the federal government can own land is a settled legal question.

The models they have operated under (NF for multi-use, parks for recreation and preservation, wilderness lands for preservation only) is probably the most widespread success story in conservation history. Worldwide. NEVER has a nation had such success in setting aside tracts of land for future generations to use and educate themselves on the state of the land in less crowded times. NEVER has a nation had such widespread support from such a variety of interest groups for such policies.

And now we have some anarchist wannabes telling us it is socialism? To set aside land for future generations? To preserve a slice of America from the plow or the graders or the asphalt spreaders? Bullshit.

This is the kind of thread that separates the political ideologues from the conservationist. To question how things are done and point out areas for improvement is one thing. To actively pursue policy which has been proven time and again to be a miserable failure is quite another.

Will

If it is so important (to some here) that the states take over USFS lands, they should tax their citizens to raise the purchase money and ten be obligated to continue a worthy stewardship of them.

Here in Alaska, the feds have refused to turn over land to the state per the statehood act; the the feds should owe us rent money.

Interesting question.

Obviously, SOME entity would need to administer the Parks and NF's. So if the question is whether we need different bureaucracies then I'd have to think about that. NF land in particular is no simple thing to deal with.

If this is really a question about privatizing public lands, I am 100%, emphatically, could not be MORE, against it.

I live fairly close to NF land and access it numerous times every year hunting, hiking, mushroom hunting, etc. There's chitloads of it in Oregon. I'm very close to BLM. Also have chitloads of that and I'm on BLM constantly. National Parks, we are not real well stocked with those and I generally avoid them anyway.

Same here, most of our hunting and fishing is on public land, no fee required as it should be.

Unless ATV abuses are curtailed, I fear changes in access will soon be damaged.

More less. Even broader I was trying to measure the opinion of folks here on the concept of public lands in general. I figured those two agencies steward the vast majority that most here would have at least some direct knowledge of and experience with.

Since others have commented on their local state of affairs... Georgia has about 1 million acres open to public hunting and fishing. Some of state owned, some leased, some federally owned. Access is pretty easy (a $19 WMA - aka Wildlife Mangement Area stamp) is all that is required annually. I've only hunted public lands 2 or 3 times. Very painless. The existence and accessibility of state lands is open to the whims of the legislatures annually and we've had some REALLY bad experience with blatant private profiteering by our local "leaders".

I certainly would not view public lands and their existence as a 'check and balance' against some perceived ills of the free market. Yes, there are things (like our National Parks) that likely would never come to exist without the pooled resources of federal dollars but I don't think they wouldn't exist for lack of desire or any ill intent by smaller governmental agencies or the free market. In general well over 70% of ballot measures dealing with the purchase of public lands pass. And they percentage has held true over the last couple of years even in this terrible economy. It is one of the few (only?) truly bipartisan issues.

YES!

Geaux,

I suspect it's actually BLM that is the main public land for most of us westerners. Hang on. Got a great map to show you.

Ok, ran into this map at a NF station and had to grab it. This shows all the public land in Oregon and Washington. BLM is in tan/orange. Wrap your brain around the enormity of this.

You'll note that in western Oregon the BLM is often "checkerboarded" with timber company land. That can be a pain when the timber company is persnickety (like Weyerhouser). However in most cases the timber company land is basically public.

That's all land I can hunt, fish, camp, hike, etc on with virtually no interface ever with any .gov person. I like that.

That doesn't look(and sound) bad at all, Jeff.
I think Idaho looks rather similar. Most seasons deer or elk hunting I never see any ".gov" person either-that don't break my heart.