Tell me what you think about it.


And wether u think it should be allowed or not.... This is for a paper....



Just to clarify, hunting is allowed in some national forests, but it is not allowed in any nat'l park.

I think it can be some of the best hunting in the state if you know where to go and have good access.

No. It's a national forest which is supposed to be a shelter for nature and wildlife. It's already bad enough to have millions of tourists driving around in it on pavement and buildings everywhere. Hunting would just add to the chaos. There should be place that hunting just shouldn't be allowed.

remove sigpic immediately!


edit: you see how similar comments have affected ghey hobo.

I think too much property right now is in private hands in Texas. The national forest & parks give those of us who can't afford a lease a place to go to recreate.

I can't think of a single reason why hunting should not be allowed there. They already segment out the forest for specific uses for different interests, so why not have at least part (ALL!) of the forest available for hunting??

How would you propose the state acquire more land for hunters? Buy it out right or long term lease from current landowners? Does this also mean that property owners should not be allowed to hunt the national forests?



National parks have traditionally been non hunting areas. The only exceptions I know of are when the wildlife population exceeded it's carrying capacity. I cannot see opening up Big Bend National Park to any and every hunter that wants to hunt there. I think the park would be over hunted in less than a season, the few animals that are there would be left with a decimated wildlife population.

A lot of the national forests are already hunted. I believe in most situations state and federal agencies both have a say and control over the amount of hunting pressure.

National Park I say it depends on the animal population. Maybe allow some limited hunting like they do in some of the state parks.

National Forests are a different story though. This covers millions of acres and most are already hunted. Dustin I think you were referring to National Parks right b/c I don't see much pavement in the National Forests I frequent.

There are some National Parks that DO allow hunting and all National Forests in Texas allow hunting.

overall whats the acerage difference? Between the forests and parks?

Have any names?




Its not determined on acreage difference, its determined by congress

Lake Meredith, Big Thicket and Amistad

Brandon, in your paper be sure to make a footnote that this is the home of Bigfoot.

I am sure it is just wanted to know the size difference. All forests need some kind of population control to keep species in check and to keep the spread of disease.

I hear the wolves in Yellowstone are pretty productive.

lets get some more opinions on this

Dogcatcher-I mistyped when I said "too much land is in private hands right now" making it appear that I was against private land ownership-which I am certainly NOT. If I had enough money I'd certainly buy as much property as I could and post it immediately as private property.. What I was thinking, & SHOULD HAVE typed is that most land in Texas is privately held. I think the last figure I read on the internet was that something in the high 90% of land is privately owned-which I have no problem with at all, it just does not leave much FREE area to roam.

And "NO", I would not be opposed to private land owners utilizing any legal hunting areas regardless of whether they own it or not.

I also agree with you that management of available game species would have to be of utmost importance so that available resources are not squandered.

Let me add something else at this point--just because a park is a national park right now, does that mean that NOBODY is poaching on that land? If poaching is happening, then some form of "hunting" is already occurring.

I do see a downside, or a negative, to opening up national parks which have previously been set aside as non-hunting areas. My guess would be that poaching (which is probably already happening) would increase. I just think that with more hunters on the ground, the potential is there for people with lower moral character to bend the rules & break the law. I wonder if the game management divisions take poaching into consideration when they make their predictions in regards to what number of animals are available for taking.

I think it's a good mix right now, and we should leave it alone. National Parks are good for tourist type vacations where you drive and stay in lodges. Perfect for families. Then you have the National Forests which are a little more rugged and they allow hunting. The next step is Wilderness area which is really restrictive on anything that affects the land, but is wide open for hunting and camping.

I lived in Montana for a few years and I spent a lot of time in the Bob Marshall Wilderness (over 1,000,000 acres). I loved it. No roads, no motorized vehicles, no logging, etc. I've left notes at a couple of really remote campsites and they weren't touched for five years.

Yes and No.

National Forests are already hunted
National Parks would have to be case by case depending on the wildlife population and size of the park.

Where safe and where animal populations will support it, I say open all public lands to hunting. If the total area is too small to support open access, do it on a draw system.