Texas Billionaires Taking Idaho Private

http://www.chron.com/hunting-fishing/art...aho-9513821.php

Ooh evil oil-and-gas industry Republicans! Odd that nobody complains about Ted Turner owning hundreds of thousands of acres of prime hunting land.

Nor a guy from New Jersey owning more than 300,000 acres of prime south Texas brush country. Free enterprise.

..."the father and son were gonna go as far as to pay $500 for a license and book a hotel room". That might get you an exotic doe or two in Texas.

Oh well.

Be disappointed, that is fair, being upset because someone bought, paid for and will continue to pay taxes on? That is just BS.

If they wanted it, they could have bought it!

as pappy once said: the more money ya have the more Freedom ya have ... my first taste of as far as hunting twas a shocker... Every thing leased, as many have said on here: gotta pay ta play ... As a lowfer low income worker, got on lease's, twas how it was done here in so could have place ta hunt for en & chillen... stood up ta credit advisers that said: leasing tis a bad investment ... Over the years started seeing prices of leases going up... Twas a Blessing when the WMA opened up down the road...
Some one once said: ya cant fix stupid ... Sit & watch the news about up coming ellection, how bad the middle class has it ... our kids didnt know how poor we was... damn Gov. still spying on me ever since reports about me alien body parts tis why i'm broke... Hunting gotten ta be about the big Bucks tis my it dont do no good ta complain, they just laugh & make fun of ya... ( - ed ) in thar, & enjoy the season... Best wishes...

This ^^^^

I don't like it either.

But it's America. And it's their money. My only proper response is to have made more money than him and buy it myself. I haven't and, thus, I can't. So that's on me I guess.

The True facts... been deeded private for decades as in almost 100 years

What people don't realize is the ranch was paying for the road maintenance for everyone to "use".

Wilks canceled road maintenance contract, and closed their roads. No different then some one rutting up your private driveway

His Money, His Rules

Sounds like dem evil Texans bee screwin ups every thang in Idaho. Geeez!

This did not make sense to me at first unless they were talking about blocking access to public land. In Idaho the public can hunt on private land if it is not cultivated or posted. And by tradition most private hunting lands have not been posted or most landowners give permission. Other articles and movements online show there is a push for private property rights going on in Idaho, so it is not really fair for them to throw these Texans under the bus. All the two brothers did is put up no trespassing signs on the private land they now own. I would consider it a risk any hunter in Idaho takes if obtaining tags to hunt private land they are legally hunting without permission or without checking in every year with the landowner that gave them permission to make sure nothing has changed. No different than getting permission to hunt private land in Texas. At any time it could be sold or change hands without your knowledge.

The Wilks bros also own most of cisco and eastland texas as well. Like Sniper said their money their rules

I wasn't planning on hunting there anyway!

Great points. Sounds like they (hunters), are having more trouble with "change", kinda like I did when I tried WIN7

I agree with everyone else, the brothers pay the bills so.....

I've got no problem with posting private land. There is a separate problem that is going on in many Western states though. There are a few instances where all of the land surrounding a public piece of land gets bought up. The access to the public land gets cut off. The private land owners then use the public land as their own private hunting park.

I don't think that is the case here however.

The Idahoans or whatever they are called will get over it sooner or later, or they will trespass. lol

Oh you know the trespassing will happen heavily.

I don't see a problem.

Rich Texans have been buying up land in central and western states since back in the 60's when oil guys were especially buying up Colorado. There is supposed to be a sort of consortium of big dogs led by T Boone Pickens buying up vast tracks of land in Texas and the western states.
http://www.dallasnews.com/business/energ...o-scoop-up-land

Rich people from all over the world have been buying up land in America for a while! Like they say; they ain't making anymore of it

The proverbial Golden Rule: He who has the gold Rules

I wonder if Idaho will come to THF and cry like Utah did last week.

Reminds me:::

2 potatoes standing on a corner in Boise, how do you tell which one is a hooker? The one that say's "Idaho"

now that thar b funny..

Well we know that these two brothers are evil, it was pointed out that they donated to Ted Cruz's presidential bid......

That's genius!! Wish I could do that.

Kudos to them. Heck I wish I could afford a tenth of that amount of land. Idaho ought to be thankful, that's 172,000 acers they no longer have to worry about.

Hey if i win lottery, i buying the property next to ours. 1,000 acres. Sorry hunters its mine now. That's the way its works.

I can only speak about the Steamboat Springs area of Idaho where I hunted once. Opening day was one of the worse experiences of my life. The locals race around the roads, and then cut off into the bush of four wheelers all weekend long. It wasn't hunting, it became an offroad nightmare of four wheelers everywhere. I made the mistake of getting up several hours before daylight, climbing up to a good vantage point where I had seen elk the day before while out scouting, only to be over run by four wheelers. In my opinion, closing off their private land is going to be the only thing that keeps the four wheelers out, and the road hunters from killing everything that moves.

I have hunted Wilderness areas twice in Idaho and found it to be great. You need to get at least ten miles away from the trail head to find animals, but once you are far enough away from the ATV hunters, there are a lot of animals.

as pappy once said: thar be three types of hunters, upper, middle, & lower ... tis proud ta say Ii'm a lowfer... as said in earlier post, twas Blessed when OSBWMA opened up just down the road, were even lower income could aford ta hunt... twas archery only for deer, except draw hunts, & could do my part in helping with the control of wildhogs... twas in it more for the en & chillen though...
This thread tis bout billionairs, so figured would give my the news tis always talken bout how bad middle class have it... dang Gov.. still spying on me cause of rumors of me alien bady parts... Started at the bottom at the foundry, making that thar easy money as they say here in shoveling down in the hole making $7.22 an hour... Being told how bad things are & we dont make money off clean up... while gots D- in grammer, do know enough bout busness ya figure clean up in price of sales... put many days pudding in 20 hours straight for clean up 24 hours one day... finaly made iron pour $11.43 an hour... Years of shoveling & picking stuff out of boxes waist high & falling off steps messing up shoulder, & working threw it cause hearing bout cost of insurance, more ta point, had wife & kids ta suport, took its toll.. by 40 had a doctor say i had back of 80 year ol man...
ya could tottal up me lifes earnings & still wouldnt make what some middle class make in a year... ya a low income worker here, always hearing how bad times are... when filed on workmans comp, laughed at made fun of, denied disability... still ing it out with them... trouble with Gov. The Rich own it, middle class complaining bout how bad they got it, no one hears the suffering of the low income..
Yagh, ya cant fix stupid, tis why i'm broke... just my ...
O they opened up atv trail at sabine several years on east trails figured would see more hunters back 2-3 miles off main road... most complained bout safty rules, i didnt own atv or would have taken advantage beats back packimg... that wear orange rule during rifle hunts makes it tough easing threw woods on hunts, deer & hogs can see the movement , but felt safer when hunting the thick stuff... that thar orange doesnt help though when thar be, as pappy says: a jerk behind the trigger at the sound or sight of movement ... Stay safe, tis a jungle out thar...

Haha!

it just go ta de bunker... after all this is HF... Like they said at the foundry, if ya dont like it leave...
As pappy once said: tis about as bright as a burnt out light bulb when ya flip the switchbthe ellamint dont conect ... See if been smart, would have asked for $10, 000, 000 or more plus bonus for de first 4 years using an idiot stick... had years of experience up north shoveling snow for elders ya back in the day them winters ya had ta work just ta get ta work... now ya all can call me stupid, just dont call me lazy, $7.22 an hour was big bucks...
Seen lots of people complaining bout TP compairing wages ta other places of work... every one will agree, tis nice ta have more money... more money ya have more freedom... It got bought out by people up North... lots of changes made, at one time, close ta 2000 workers, lots of changes, & with that layoffs... Union tis only as good as people running it... At time wasba relief person for a roving crew... were ever they needed workers we went... Union said 15 minute breaks, my job was ta give breaks, an give em 30 minnutes, as with some of the other relief workers... Got called inta office for punching out late... No over time... Boss new what was going on & at meeting told watch the time... My job consisted more than just giving breaks...
Would have still been out thar, left over hammer issues... Formans said not getting new hammers, my handle on my hammer broke that night... Next day walked inta office, several gold hats, told em needed a hammer, they said, not getting none... Put me hard hat on table, along with safty glasses & ear plugs... See, they talk safty, & could have gotten union rep, gone threw the red tape... had that thar song: take this job & shove it going threw my mind... Be damned if they didnt find hammers after i left... Cut threw the red tape... cost me a paycheck...
ing with android, it skips all over... my posts aint worth it proble gone missing...

That's simply the American way...as for those who are affected...I understand them being upset because most of us would be but it is what it is and they need to get over it. Similar thing happened in ETX years ago when the state got with the paper companies and leased their land for public hunting. Before they allowed hunters to hunt their land for free...you just had to do the research and find where it was. Then they leased it to the state for a pittance and Type II was introduced. And that was a nightmare.....people swarming all over the place at all hours because what was little known in the past became well known and every Tom Dick and Harry came out of the wood work screwing up the hunting and shooting anything that walked. So I can understand their frustration.

It essentially blocks "easy" access. The former owners allowed access through their land and maintained the roads out of their own pockets. Wilks canceled the road maintenance contract and locked the gate when they bought it. The public had a chance to buy it, work out an easement and or road maintenance for almost a hundred years and failed to do so.

I bet with a few phone calls people could probably get permission to cross.

Sorry, I meant to say Soda Springs Idaho. But Steamboat Springs was also crazy crowded in Colorado too. Neither are placed I would go back to hunt unless I was on private land, or miles and miles into a Wilderness area.

I wish virtually all federal land would become private. I realize that's not technically what happened here, but it is the same entitlement sentimentt that leads to the angst.

If one really gives a rats azz about wildlife, conservation, and range health you don't want the ineffective fed owning anything but a few national monuments. As it is they own a third of the land mass.

Private citizens are the best land stewards period.

This would be a great idea - if you want to destroy the hunting heritage of this country. While there are certainly issues with federal management of public land, I believe that is a direct result of special interest groups besieging the process. I, for one, wish we had more public land and those that feel similarly should look into joining the Backcountry Hunters and Anglers.

Really? So, because Texas's land is virtually all private, I guess that's why our hunting is the worst in the nation? You know why you have to get as far back in the wilderness as you can to get a decent public land elk? Because there is no stewardship on public land. There is no negative consequence for taking pot shots with arrows and bullets. Countless thousands of animals are wasted on public land annually for that reason alone. Then you have the re-introduction of wolves, virtually no management of land for wildlife enhancement and even if there is some it can never compete with private land funding.

But, the REAL reason your argument is total BS is that our nation is getting more and more urban. It's already happening and in the not so distant future virtually all public land will be controlled by the will of people who don't think you or I should be killing bambi and his friends.

The ONLY way to protect our hunting heritage past the end of your nose is to put most land in private hands. Where it belongs anyway.

The only problem with that arguement of culture change is the will of the people would apply no different for public or private. This is why free or affordable public hunting access and youth hunting programs on public lands are so important.

Maybe they are only going to allow Texans to hunt! Bahaha

National public lands are the Crown Jewels of this nation. Roosevelt and many others should be regarded as heroes for their foresight.

Selling them to the highest bidder would be a travesty. I can't believe folks would even consider it. So stupid and shortsighted.

Disagree, infact it will destroy it. Lose of the people's land will simply destroy hunting as we know it. Pittman Roberson act would be no more. With out it and NR tags most state would fail to have money to even manage a wildlife department. Not only that it would destroy non hunting public perception. General publication sees western style hunting as a true food to plate. What has a better public perception bubba in a stand or guy's that work out and walk 5plus miles a day hunting

Nothing wrong with being Texas proud, we are unique in the fact all Federal land was bought, not giving/take. Texas was deeded out decades before state hood. But let's not be Texas arrogant. Hunting in Texas(there are exceptions) isn't truly a cheaper beef alternative but in may states it is.

We had no wildlife departments and licenses/tax before and we killed out many species to the point of no return.

My take on the situation, is I never want to see public land disappear. We have 13000 acres of gov. Land in the county I reside, I have hunted turkey on it in the past. I am fortunate enough to have the means to have a lease, but when my dad was a boy they did not. He started his hunting on that very public land and his love for the sport grew and gave me my love of hunting. I would hope that any young person would have the opportunity to hunt for as little as a type 2 cost. That being said, The Wilks brothers did not buy what we Texans call public land, it was not owned by the government or the people. It has always been private land, the timber companies just did not care if people used it for recreation. My great uncle lived at Rising Star just outside of Cisco for 50+ years and I was always allowed to hunt his ranch. The Wilks Brothers bought his ranch. Now it would be the same if I went there and said I always hunted this ranch so I feel entitled to keep hunting it, even though it has new owners. JMO it means very little.

The largest landowner at one time bought my friends ranch. Guess what, the leasors stayed paying the same amount. Some of them realize the greatest stewards of land are the hunters. If their kids don't hunt which many of then don't, the lands remain open to lease. It is cash money from great people who take care of the place.

It will be interesting to see who takes over some of these large places when the generation passes on. I see and ebb and flow possibly depending who is in office and taxes on estates.

Not so at all. Private property rights are very different from publicly owned land. If you don't understand that, there's nothing I can say that would educate you.

Oh you're certainly welcome to disagree, but you are completely wrong. Do you seriously think Pittman Robertson is responsible for me protecting the wildlife on my land? The value of wildlife is what protects wildlife today. That's why the very best wildlife producing areas on the planet are in private hands. Here in Texas and Africa and New Zealand etc.

In fact, as you know, the best hunting in the western states are on private land tags. Quit buying into the lie that public land is the only way the average joe is going to be able to hunt. A rising tide floats all boats. Many people hunt my private land for free. And it produces more wildlife than any public land.

The fear that private lands means no public access to hunting is baseless. Everybody in Texas that wants to hunt can find a cheap place to hunt if they want to.

What a crock of steaming BS. Selling the majority of public land and retaining a few national parks would go a long way toward eliminating the national debt, and allow private funds to improve wildlife production so that millions more hunters would be able to enjoy much better hunting opportunities.

I love it that you and bobo agree on this though. That raises a pretty big red flag.

Do y'all really believe the draw for tags system in states like NM etc is better than what private land in Texas provides??

That's just plain nuts. I know several residents of western states that haven't drawn a deer or elk tag in years. Because their state and the fed are worthless stewards.

There isn't ONE good thing the govt does.......PERIOD. That private people cant do better PERIOD.

I assure you, you and I's ideology overall is more similar then the later.
Tag draws is irrelevant in the conversation. Tags go up or down to manage populations just like every state. NM and AZ landscape isn't near has harsh as OTC areas of CO and Idaho. Success rates pretty much prove that, thus the cap.

A lot of things I'd like to see Feds do differently, fire suppression being a big one. Comparing Texas to west is dumb. What's home area of an elk compared to one of your whitetails? When Texas Whitetails have to migrate hundreds of miles like some of the western areas come back and join the conversation. Grand scheme the people's land is what makes Americans American. Our hunting heritage is stronger then anywhere in the world because of our mix of private and public. It's funny you mention New Zealand since they have a large amount of public hunting also.

P&R act doesn't solely pay for hunting but it's a large amount of money that reciprocates back to hunting and gives hunters a larger voice.

You're ignorance cannot be masked by bombast rancher. They haven't drawn a tag because there's too much demand for the areas they are applying for. There are hundreds of options out west. Animal populations are by and large healthy and have been on the upswing for years. The states manage the wildlife and by and large they do a good job. There are many areas out west where tags are OTC for many species.

Private land hunts are many thousands of dollars. I have killed several animals that I would never have a shot at without public draw tags and OTC public land hunts. The draw system can't satisfy everyone, but if you think going private would be better for the average Joe out west, you are delusional.

And Texas ain't the model anymore. It used to be one of them, but most outside of Texas don't see it as anything but a "pay to play" playground where much of the hunting has turned into something most hunters don't recognize anymore. Pretty much the poster child for keeping opportunities open for everyone to the extent it can be accomplished.

Yep. It doesn't surprise me at all that NP doesn't get that. But I had bobo ranked a little to high I guess...

So many places, where to start. You think elk migrate because they want to? Keep an elk fat and happy and he won't move an inch. Look at west Texas free range elk herd. They don't migrate anywhere if the landowner keeps them happy.

No, tag draws aren't irrelevant. They prevent many average joes from having an opportunity to hunt every year unless they PAY for an OTC or private tag. It's that way because the govt controls most of the land and consequently the state can't produce a FRACTION of what private land owners can. That's the Texas comparison you're ignoring. Our production floats all boats, pretty amazed you don't see that simple fact.

If you're saying "the people's land is what makes America America" in reference to public owned land like I think you are, then I think you skipped or slept through American history.

What started this country and built it's strength was the desire to be free of a tyrannical crown, and a huge piece of that freedom is the ownership of property. SMDH

I would rather see U.S, citizens buying than Fournier's.

I personally have no problems paying to play. I've made no secrets on some of my hunts(guided, private, Public, land owner and auction tags), also made no secret that I'm modest size land owner. With that said those that have issue with pay to play that have said they are completely priced out of hunting in Texas is BS, they are lazy(but that's a very small percentage). Texas has over a million acres of Public hunting, how many APH and COE permits where handed out last year? 10's of thousands. Take that away and their are many that will truly be priced out, even more so up north. Especially since a large part of their economy would die with out public lands.

Call me what you want or place me where you may but I highly disagree with the privatizing the Public lands. And I will stand by it destroying hunting if it so happens. Hunting doesn't always have to be about mature high quality animals, forest to plate is truly the survival of our heritage.

I'm not a fan of a license/tag(truly a tax) but I'm also not as simple minded to believe that we don't need oversight to maintain sustainable populations.

MY ignorance? Coming from a guy who professes to want average Joe Q. Public to have a decent opportunity to hunt each year.

Are you trying to sell me a line of BS that average joe in western states can hunt on restricted tags and more successfully than Texas average joe??

If you are counselor your ignorance far exceeds mine.

Texas' ability/production through private ownership provides every individual in the state an opportunity to hunt successfully each and every year. On both high and low fenced properties our production isn't matched in ANY state that has a majority of fed land.

That's a pretty good model unless you're view is clouded by liberal ideology.

Elk in Texas compared the elk in the Rockies as far as staying put if they are fed Even after migrating in some areas of the Western states, elk have to be fed to survive, called "winter yards".. Get 9' of snow in West Texas and see what those "home place" elk do

Simply wrong. I'm just a little landowner out of tens of thousands in Texas that produce WAY more deer than I can or care to sell. In fact, I like many thousands of landowners in Texas have a newly fenced pasture that I'm going to give most of the deer away because it's not worth my effort to clean a doe at $100 a head (which is pretty much the going rate). I've already given away 12 this year with about 80 or 90 to go.

I guess I now know that you and NP think everyone should have a chance at my improved genetic bucks but that ain't happening, so you think the fed or state should become the "benevolent landlord" to "equalize" that discrepancy. Cold day in hell.

So, I guess you support the blm against your neighbors on the red river? You know they'll use PR money to "fairly" compensate them after they steal their land.

Is this really you behind the keyboard ? Or did some liberal relative guess your password??

Lol, now that's funny. Truly funny. Draw tags keeping average joes from hunting....lmao
In some of the worst units(highest and easiest draw percentages ) in NM private, Ranch only LO vouchers started at $3500. Toss in $500 license fee your at $4k, unit wide jumps to 4k plus tag, so now your at $4500... quality dictates price no difference the golden triangle vs hill country.

I've already hunted two western states this year including 5 OTC tagsand expensive was still less then my lease.

Good news is majority of hunters don't share your Texas arrogant views. So public lands will remain. I did study history. Like Nevada being gifted +-4 million acreas of state land at statehood...only to have 3500 acres left.

Not many people are as staunch on private land owner rights as me. I'm the same way in designated public land also. I don't think we need more wilderness, but we sure don't need more private

Thanks for making my point. I know exactly what those "winter yards" are. Not a lot different from a west Texas desert with hay in one spot. Their desire to migrate is gone at those hay holes. Private landowners can and do hold elk with food in the western states and in Texas.

And elk survival is MUCH higher when supplementally fed. Something the private landowner is MUCH better at than any govt agency.

Kind gesture trying to help me. But it's not needed. I'm kicking their collective butts with only half my brain.

Bobo stated:

"Lol, now that's funny. Truly funny. Draw tags keeping average joes from hunting....lmao "

Bobo. The draw system certainly keeps average joes from hunting when there are many more hunters than tags to be drawn.

Private land production in Texas allows the state to give EACH resident or out of state hunter FIVE tags not to mention MLD tags.

Incredible that you can't see the value in private land production. Again, tell me someone's hijacked your puter.

That is why they also sell/handout LO damage crop tags (forgot the actual term), they also allow LO's to file for damages iirc through Dept of interior. I have never met a LO/rancher out West, that intentionally feed Elk for their survival, though almost all sell trespass rights to individuals and outfitters for hunting. The yards I have been to where elk where being supplemented was in Colrado and the DOW and BLM where feeding the elk AFTER the elk had migrated to their winter range, bad years, but you already know all this.....

Incredible that some one with your wildlife knowledge can't understand carring capacity and calf recruitment, and tag allocation based off that.

Not a place in the west that could handle 5 tag OTC any weapon allocation. Like I said it's ok to be Texas proud just not Texas arrogant. Your agruement is actually a huge disappointment, I really thought you would of had a better one.

Saying tag draws stop hunting is same naive agruement. Like Texans making the reverse agruement about private land prices pricing them out when they have a public option. Now with no public option I could understand the agruement.

If you want "A" tag in NM you can absolutely draw one on your fourth option. Much like me driving to public hunting in Texas.. ideal no, but it's still hunting

But they need the public land to build condos and the west Texas elk don't know what snow is.

07/08 was 25' of snow and folks killing them by supplementing them.

rancher you obviously have zero concept of what going totally private would do to the Average Joe.

Elk hunts on private are $5000-20,000+ (depending on quality).
Shiras moose hunts would start at around $25,000.
Rocky bighorn hunts would start at around $50,000.
Desert bighorn hunts would start at around $100,000.

Just a sampling. Probably conservative.

We ain't talking about Texas does and exotics.

Let's no complicate things now!!! Let's no talk about frindge habitat and lose of migration habitat... apparently that problem is fixed with private ownership, and not the cause....

Again, how is it arrogant to point out that carrying capacity is a function of feed. The biggest bucks on the planet are at what carrying capacity? You're killin me with your new found socialist mantra.

They could EASILY handle it if allowed private ownership. We've already proven it here. We have more deer in Texas than in history.

And you have absolutely no concept of what supply and demand do to pricing. You and BOBO should read before you respond. I just pointed out that because of my production I've allowed people to hunt free on my places.

And production is a function of land stewardship so YES, with proper stewardship and a stable market ALL of the animals you mentioned could improve in population enough to drive pricing down. We've proven it.

Of course trophys of any species carry a premium. But of course you believe everyone should be allowed to have the same level of experience regardless of effort. And that's just pure socialism.

I'm saying the doled out tag system coupled with poor management (that private management can completely fix) limit joe q publics hunting opportunities.

Again western animals are not lifetime core area whitetails. They are migratory animals living in fringe habitat. They are living in fringe due to intolerance by private land ownership.

Supplement feeding in western states is a death wise. Best way to destroy a herd supplement feed them in fringe habitat and let Mother Nature kill them out.

All we have proved in Texas is that you can manage non migratory animals. But even that's is a failed experiment in parts of Texas because of smaller non hunted places. Browse lines in the hill country aren't exactly a proving point on private ownership

http://www.backcountryhunters.org/tell_y..._transfer_bills

Again tag allocation is based of hunter success rate and winter kills to insure a substantial resource.

Managing a migratory animal living in fringe habitat is not the same as core area whitetails.

Your not talking about Joe Q your talking about guys like me and you that can pay a premium to hunt premium no fringe private land. The same land that's already private.

In actuallity JQ is screwed under your system, you will destroy premium areas that are OTC and lower success rates not because of game animal numbers but access. Better the access the higher success rate thus lowering the opportunity for tag allocation

Not to Hijack the thread, but i just joined.

Thanks MobettaHuntR

I'm a Big supporter. I've met Land, he is a good guy. Something's I don't agree with but I agree with overall goal. I'm pretty conservation org critical, infact a bunch I can't stand.

when Ii first moved ta twas a one deer country... when asked if could get 1 doe tag, general gun season, responce twas not enough deer Being a North American Hunter , being an on-ta-pa-nur ing with android... dang spell check... Twasnt a Billionaire, hunting was a meens of pudding on the table, for en & chillen...
as pappy once said: when hunting becomes more about the Big Bucks, i'll take my doe some were else ...

Spot on BoBo, that is how it is. I don't know of anyplace the Texas "scheme", would work as it does here.. Like comparing apples and saddles...

I'm leaving this one in BOBO's capable hands.

rancher you simply do not have the knowledge nor perspective to discuss this issue intelligently.

Thank goodness for a system that allows Americans who own public lands and pay for the wildlife management on them to be able to hunt them. And (with a little knowledge and planning) hunt animals that most would not be able to in their lifetimes.

Is it perfect? No.

But selling public lands, pissing off the money as government does, and being left with nothing is the most absurd "conservation" idea I have heard in my lifetime. This world is losing it's mind.

This post has gotten way off track from the original, i have been keeping up with this story since before it landed on here. I had assumed that this particular piece of land was part of Idaho's access "YES" program, and the past owners (Timber Company) failed to extend that to the Wilks brothers, and or the Wilks did not want to participate, none the less, a lot of folks lost access to a piece of land that they had been utilizing for various reasons, as well as drawing limited quota Elk tags, at the end of the day, that is the chance you take for hunting land that is not "Public", no fault of the Wilks brothers. With that being said, if that piece of land was access "YES" and the Timber company sold it in the middle of hunting season, that's a pretty crappy deal! You had an agreement with the state to allow hunters on your property, but then sold it after tags had been passed out. Who knows the whole story!?!

Great Post Sir!

Sold before hunting season. Infact well before draw deadlines. I don't think it was in the YES program, they just didn't restrict access through the property. Pretty sure you couldn't hunt the property . Wilks posted and terminated their road maintenance contract they had also

leading the way !!!

What we have proven in Texas is that elk and mule deer are not by nature migratory. When any animal is forced by nature or food source to migrate they will (including white tails).

You should educate yourself about mule deer and elk (free range) in west Texas where the habitat is hostile (heat wise) but when private landowners make the animals happy they stay put.

There is no reason that's not possible in the west, period. IF private individuals own the habitat.

Again, they are not and never have been migratory by nature. They do what they have to do to survive, which private landowners can and do make easy, alleviating the need to migrate.

And YES, I'm talking about Joe q. It is logical and reasonable to believe that when private landowners produce more than they can use in the west, as we have here, that the surplus will be cheap enough to be cheaper than the doled out tags in a much lower and less productive fed run system.

Neighbor of mine had the "Texas scheme" going great in Montana back in the early 2000's. 1000 acres with 220 elk. Fat happy trophy elk. Ted Turner got the laws changed to outlaw high fences (like them or not) and he had to move down here with his elk. That's the high fenced side.

It would work with free range as well. Survival rates would skyrocket and the surplus would allow everyone the opportunity to hunt and be successful.

I've done pretty good by most measures managing and producing animals at a much more productive rate than any government agency has. The public benefits from my success.

I'd put my ability to discuss anything concerning animal production and range management against your "knowledge/intellectual ability" any time.

Let's take it in another direction:

What if the people who buy the lands don't 1)have your brilliance as a wildlife manager (firmly tongue in cheek there) or 2)don't give a tinker's damn about wildlife conservation?

You just assume every Tom, Dick, and Harry is born knowing and caring about wildlife. That's an assumption wholly without basis.

Its a bit of a quagmire so do your due diligence.

Actually, I think that is way more likely. Condos and ranchettes are much more profitable than game ranches. That would kill off migratory game herds as sure as any bullet.

Again, attempt to read and understand. These animals aren't naturally migratory. They only migrate when forced to. If they become a private landowners cash crop they won't have to migrate. And the largesse will benefit the public.

I'm not assuming anything. The market drives the value, and value drives investment in the animals. The fed doesn't give a tinkers damn about the market, and that is illustrated in their poor management.

What you folks are ignoring is the fact that public land is always going to be subject to public opinion. At some point public opinion will determine that "their" land shouldn't be used to allow killing Bambi and his friends.

Private property rights trump public opinion. And hopefully will for generations to come.

It's actually funny you posted that, one of the reason I looked into them. Video actually peaked my interest, did a lot of research and settled on legit. BHA is obviously treating to someone that has special interest the the people's land become private.

Did you caught the last part on the federal land grab? Think about that for a second, especially on the republican in Montana... now what is BHA mission statement? Now I wonder who made that professional video...probably the same people that want control of federal lands and minerals... just something to think about

Oh I think he's done his "due diligence". Based on his comments he's all in on the socialist idea of the govt providing things the private sector should be and could provide.

Ida never thunk it before yesterday.

That's a great point unfortunately for you wildlife is funded by sportsman. The self imposed Pittman Roberson tax is actually very eye opening to people when they find out how much sportsmen foot the bill on federal lands but also the amount of conservation efforts and money we spend. When it's compared to what hikers, and all the non hunting use...people get more respect for the hunters.

Thankful we have more hunters then just arrogant Texans that think only those with deep tap rooted mail box money should be able to hunt. Fact is hunting is actually turning more positive as more people show the forest to plate part of it. Ironically uncle ted's big deal, unfortunately he wasn't perceived like Jim Shockey, Steven Rinlea, Cameron Hanes, Randy newberg, etc. those people general public respond very positive too

You keep being an arrogant Texan, and I'll keep preaching how we hunters fund wildlife, and public lands. I'll also show people that I do more then just stick a head on the wall, I eat awesome venison that's organic and hormone free. I'll keep showing the other side how we lead the way in conservation and how our dollars provide them with free use of public lands.

The irony is public land hunting is what's saving hunting not dumbeldor/gandoluf gaurding a corn feeder.

There is more private money spent in Texas each year on habitat and wildlife conservation than PR provides. And it gives conservation and public hunting ops much more bang for the buck.

All you got is to call me arrogant, I'm ok with that. Just noting that you have nothing to counter my post. The public will control "their" land someday, and private land will be all that's left. My grandkids will get rich.

I was being polite until the solicaist comment. It's apparent you can't have a civil and intelligent conversation any more.

You're right Texas does spend over a billion a year unfortunately the general public doesn't care because it does them no good nor can they actually use it. Public land is different its public Just like Texas state parks being managed by sportsmen licenses......

Not intelligent, yet as per you, I'm right. And what you continue to ignore is the fact that the public uses my property for hunting every week of the year.

If wanting the govt to violate the constitution to provide public hunting land in a futile attempt to supply "equal opportunity for unequal effort" isn't socialist at it's core, then websters got it wrong.

FWIW, I don't use the term "socialism" lightly. I do however use it when warranted. I'm not sure where folks get that I'm wrong about it. It's plain in the definition.

so·cial·ism
[ˈsōSHəˌlizəm]

NOUN
a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

If it feels nasty don't blame me. And for your own personal benefit, it would be wise to embrace it.

I am just simplied amazed yall are still arguing with our own Rosa Parks like she has a clue...


Rancher and BoBo finish this out before Velcro Slippers jumps back in

Careful goat dog man. I won't be responsible for collateral damage...

So, is it just me, or does anyone else see the camo guy as the melding of scooter and trex??

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=VEKMu7ooJFs

You are the most transparent, relentless, straight-up troll on this forum. By a long shot. Not even a pretense of being anything else anymore.

This sounds like normal conversation over a campfire in S. Texas where we argue over what a cull should be... The landowner always wins in the end but we always try to change his mind in the throws of whiskey.

Ive read the whole thread, I maybe be really slow or sumthin.

So, I buy a piece of property that of course is for sale, doesn't matter who the previous owner is or who is selling it.
After I take possession I don't want folks on or using my property for any reason,,, trespassing on property I bought.

I'm the bad guy?

Sounds Lake Diversion ish or a typical sale in east Tx.

Well, to people who believe in entitlement mentality and believe that you as the new landowner should also realize that gubmint cheese is what makes America great... Yes, you should still allow John Q. Public to traverse your property to have the easiest access to his gubmint cheese.

In effect, because you want to exercise your personal property rights you are the bad guy to the entitled and their supporters.

You would be the good guy to me. Pretty certain that's not much consolation tho.

I don't see anyone saying otherwise on this thread. The back and forth was on another topic.

I had a revelation from reading this thread. That revelation is that my hardheadedness and ability to self implode proving I am right must be a genetic disorder passed on from one generation to the next. They say recognizing is the first step to change, haha this is me recognizing.

I wouldn't waste a lot of time on changing. Being right ain't all that bad.

I will go back to my original statement...

His Money His Land His Rules

Two of the best lines I've ever read on this forum.

Here's another one then.

Let me know how changing your genetics works out for ya.

I never believed you were big on entitlements. Always knew Mrs Parks was.

He is not, irony of the situation is you and NP are more alike then not. Both so set in your ideology you have no issue screwing the other 97% of hunters that don't hunt same way or have same resources. Luckily you're not the next generation that will be fighting for our rights and the continuous delivery and intergration of our culture into main stream populations that don't hunt.

And here I was trying to get along.....

You are 100% wrong on each point you just made.

I have always been inclusive and still support every possible method of legal hunting. You know that. I support free hunting for those who can't afford it, I just think it's better coming from the private sector, not the govt.

Can you explain how the above is "screwing 97% of hunters"?

I may not make it to the next generation, but if you think handing out "free" hunting (that costs our nation 12 billion each year) will influence the urban culture to support killing bambi on their landat that expense, then you have failed to learn how little our welfare system has done towards leading our poor to self reliance.

Private property rights are the only way hunting will survive into future generations.

I will give one thing to NP, his signature line is one of the best out there.

5 million hunters utilize public land for hunting. Displacing and cutting their access is not screwing them? Numbers even biggger for anglers... what about just overall public land usage?

Like I said screwing fellow hunters that don't agree with your ideology. You're not about saving hunting you're about enriching yourself,

How many members on this forum have ever utilized a state park for fishing, camping etc? You hate it because you ain't getting paid, pay the man!!! Sign this lease document right here.....

Public land is many people's first introduction to the outdoors... but screw that it's not lease opportunity for you

5 million?? That all? for a full 1/3 of the land mass of the entire country? How many utilize hunting in Texas. A single state? Case made. Private provides many many more opportunities than public in a ratio based comparison.

And not one single soul in Texas can't afford to hunt on private land. EVERYONE can afford a $100 doe hunt.

Privatizing fed land would allow many more than 5 million access to even better hunting than the fed can provide.

How again is that "screwing my fellow hunters who don't share my ideology"?

Since you made the bogus personal attack that I'm against public land because I don't get paid. Listen close, if public land became private the value of my hunting goes through the floor.

Think about the cheap to no cost meat hunts that would be possible on private land if close to 1/3 of the land mass were utilized by private hands for hunting. How is that not good for all hunters? How again is that selfish of me?

It's not, you know it's not.

So by your argument people who provide goods and services in the private sector that are also provided by the govt. are screwing their fellow Americans. The grocery owner wants welfare shutdown so everyone would have to buy only food from him...

That argument is BS. I'd like to think you know that, but it seems you don't. I don't think it's wrong to want the private sector to provide much more opportunity to hunters than the fed could ever supply.

You think hunters CAN'T be resourceful and provide for themselves. I know they can.

I haven't seen any free hunting on private land listed on leases.

No but you've seen plenty of $100 doe hunts on outfitters. And EVERYONE can afford a 100 doe.

This is a preference debate, not a factual debate from either side. I was introduced to hunting and fishing both on private land (none of which we owned). I now live in new Mexico where people would go nuts if it was all private land. I like options, we have options now. I disagree that private land is the only way to preserve hunting. Let's say the government shut down hunting at some point on public land.....they could just as easilly do that to private land too if it got to that extreme scenario. Plus my dad already admitted I was always right on the last page. It's genetic.

You are assuing everybody who bought the government land when it went for sale went to people who would allow hunting on it. If it went to a bunch of libs who hated hunting, there would be less opportunity.

5 million HUNTERs is 5 million HUNTERS aka 34% over a 1/3 of hunters....

Not only that no more state parks, no more public freshwater fishing etc.

Real question what are you going to buy and where are you going to put your first oil/gas well or strip mine?
Yellowstone? Or tone it down some and say Giles wilderness area...I'd say national Forrest but I'm sure you would rather be the first guy to drive a D7 through raw all natural, non- motorized vehicle allowed protected land. Would you turn it into atv park with oil pads every 1/4 section? Or just oil/gas pads? What if there is lithium there....oohhhhh burn it out and strip mine it?

Or would you stick to Texas by out a historic State park or WMA?

I'm not assuming anything. If 25% the privatized fed land was open to hunting it would be around 165 million acres of land that would be producing under private control which is tons more production than fed land.

Mines not a preference debate at all. Mines about what's better for hunting. You have a lot to learn. Private property rights are much more secure than public property rights.

You simply don't read do you. I stated specifically that a few national parks/monuments are fine. And nowhere have you seen me say that state parks aren't ok. My beef is with the fed owning and potentially taking hunting away from 1/3 of the land mass.

Is public land not public land? .aw now we are picking and choosing...

No, we're not picking and choosing anything. This has always been about fed land. In fact the way to do it is to get the fed to give the land back to the states. Let the states auction most of it off and keep a few special places. The fed has no business in real estate.

I have noticed you don't like to answer my questions though.

Sounds familiar... kind of like how do you manage and increase CC of a mule deer herd that migrates hundreds of miles? Or how do you increase carrying capacity of an elk that spends half his life above or at tree line, keep them there 12 months a year with supplement feed? Or why are tag allotments based off winter kill and hunter success rates? How are you going to increase population numbers when OTC tag areas are because access isn't easy thus success rates are lower. Make access easier? Why are limited draw units limited draw? Isn't it high success rates due to easier access?

You're not increasing hunter numbers with your plan...your taking fringe habitat and opening it up to higher harvest rates thus destroying sustainablity. Privatization would actually lower wildlife numbers thus tags thus hunters. You can't feed your way to carry capacity like you can on non migratory animals that don't live in fringe habitat and that don't have to deal and migrate away from mother natures most extreme

Fed isn't the best solution to migratory wildlife, but it's better then privatization.

Mule deer in Texas don't migrate. Neither do wild elk. They don't need to. And they don't have to in the western states that feed them. Went to BC bear hunting and they don't migrate there either.

Migration is a function of feed and shelter. Give them that within a reasonable distance of their small home range and they don't migrate.

Again. You're wrong.

Okkkkkk. If you say so.

PS. Bear hibernate, also aren't hooved, they aren't effected by snow levels. They have an ability to den up and slow their metabolism for months at a time. But hopefully you already knew that. Omnivore

That's $100 per visit, not for the season. I lived and hunted in Texas until I moved to Alabama two years ago. For $57, I can hunt (and fish) any public land. There is 30,000 acres just 50 miles from my front door. I can shoot one doe per day, every day of the season and one buck per day, limit three. If that land were to become private, I would have to pay $1500 minimum for a hunting club membership.

I hate to be throwing gas on the bonfire here. I usually just I can see a lot of your argument as much as I favor the parks and what they represent but this is just not true. I especially agree with your sentiments about poverty, welfare, and self reliance. However outside of the socioeconomic level you may be accustomed to, not everybody can drop a hundred bucks to go hunting.

Plus that is does not include a lot of other costs such as fuel, time, processing, ammo, opportunity cost etc. I would agree that most who are interested in hunting have some spare change. Otherwise they wouldn't do it. But to just blindly say that its something everyone can afford is not really an argument. There are a lot welfare enabled lazy bones out there feeding off the system but I have seen quite few awfully poor folks who work hard everyday and are not this way. To compare public lands to our Most people who are interested in hunting are not lazy. Also to use a hundred dollar doe hunt as a benchmark because that is what you offer is ridiculous.

My 2 cents on the argument:
The national parks were created to prevent exactly this kind of thought and privatized monetization in those specific parts of the country. The rest of our country had already been monetized a hundred different ways and continues to do so but that specific acreage was set aside. Specifically "to protect and preserve the remaining lands from devastation and destruction which have been the same fate as other parts of the country". The parks are huge part of our national identity and pride. It sets apart from any other country on earth. It was not set aside as part of the welfare system as you seem to be implying but in the eye of conservation and future generations. Common land does however equate to common wealth. With the land kept common we are all contributing to its preservation for future generations which as people, hunters,and land owners there is nothing more precious.

Private ownership may be better suited for land management, wildlife management, improvements etc but overtime no matter how much money private ownership has, the land will be divided and partitioned. Look at the average farm/ranch size in Texas. Look at the Waggoner and other major land holdings that have been divided in the last century. Private Land can only last generational for so long in our modern world. Impending exponential population growth and lack of space is a huge concern for most of the world yet as Americans and Texans specifically, we do not even have a clue. Natural resources are the only truly valuable commodity they all come back to basic resources. Our country and forefathers have protected and conserved the limited and least "valuable" land they could at the time for it to be agreeable even then from greedy individuals. It is not enough but it is far better than most places on earth. They should be cherished and protected at all cost.

To compare public lands to our welfare systems as you seem to be implying is ridiculous. **

I was speaking of the elk and deer in bc I was there bear hunting and asking questions while I was there. Their elk and deer in the Hudson hope area don't migrate.

There are many options. In the west many people don't draw deer tags so they have to pay even more than 100 bucks per animal to get OTC or private land tags. The issue isn't 30,000 acres in Alabama. It's 650,000,000 in the nation.

The mule deer herds in the white river national forest migrate a hundred miles through the Piance creek area between Rifle and Meeker. If they didn't they would die in the high country, same for elk. Look at the elk in the fields north of Durango, they can't survive in the high country. Can't be fed at 8-10,000 ft. in 6-10 ft. of snow.

It's my favorite by a long shot.

The Wilks brothers bought 300,000 +/- acres in Montana and tired to swap more acres to the state to allow access for hunters to go around their property. Never heard how it turned out

I'm comparing the entitlement mentality, the fact that it is owned by the fed, funded by tax dollars we DONT have, the fact that people become dependent on it just like welfare, the fact that if you tell people they need to provide for themselves they believe that without it they won't be able to eat/hunt.

The fact that when you get people dependent on free they almost NEVER develops the resourcefulness, drive, or personal responsibility to improve their situation to leave the welfare/free hunt system.

The fact that it is a typical govt agency that is run so poorly it costs 12 billion a year to keep it running.

And they both fit perfectly in this definition:

a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
synonyms: leftism, welfarism; More


I don't make up the definitions or create the similarities. I just note them.

I can assure you they can be fed in 6-10 feet of snow. They do it every year. It takes some equipment and feed. That's all. Don't tell the outfitters in Canada they can't hold elk with feed. It's how most of their tags are filled in bc.

Actually that's one of my best arguments for production at levels that should guarantee populations large enought to let everyone hunt. The fed can't feed them all. Private landowners can and would.

Disagree wholeheartedly. Anyone who WANTS to hunt can find a way to scrounge and save $10/month and what it takes to get there and back if they decide it's something they want.

I'm the "yes I/they can" guy. I know how resourceful people can be when they want to and try and would never assign them to the desperation of "I/they can't".

I totally disagree that the fractionation of large parcels of land decrease it's production. In Texas our deer populations are at all time highs. We have more huntable populations of endangered animals from other nations (that let the public land MO destroy their populations), than any place on earth.

But the best reason to privatize most public land is what it does for the individual owning the property. It gives you personal freedom, a sense of accomplishment, the ability to produce for yourself and others, and a great measure of personal satisfaction.

I would like everyone to experience that. But telling them they can't just helps people believe they can't. And fractionalization actually puts those things in reach of most average joes. Look how many people on here are small landowners! Without fractionalization and the private land in Texas they'd never experience those things.

"But the best reason to privatize most public land is what it does for the individual owning the property. It gives you personal freedom, a sense of accomplishment, the ability to produce for yourself and others, and a great measure of personal satisfaction."

You would have loved feudalism.

Fancy word for lease agreement

A minor in history comes in very handy. Well, not really.

In Minnesota, land owners, whether hunters or non- hunters work together ta help wildlife survive harsh winters.. like the WMA in its illegal ta hunt over baited areas...
thats a different debate & topic... as pappy once said: the more money ya have the more Freedom ya have , my guess tis they seen posts in the discussion form here on HF bout hunters pudding up thar feeders & stands next ta fences & got fed-up with lowfers like me pudding up posts not worth & as the song say's: take the money & run , they moved ta Idaho...

Nah. I love private property rights for everyone who wants to take the responsibility and put forth the effort to own property.

Big difference but I'm sure you are blind to it.

It was a joke. Try to keep up. I'm also a property owner and definitely understand about private property rights.

Ha! I thought I remembered that. Not a good thread to joke on though... I thought BoBo was conservative before this thread.

No, this thread needed levity. I think I need new material.

I'll say what everyone is thinking.....this is hands down the dumbest thread I have seen on this forum.

Not even close.
Anyone that thinks public lands will remain open to hunting for generations to come hasn't been paying attention to what already has been going on for decades.

He's got a lot to learn. I hope he has a lot of time.

rancher you are making three foundational assumptions on this thread:

1)That every buyer of what are now public lands open/accessible for hunting today would care about continuing to have those lands managed and utilized for hunting/outdoor recreational use. Many wouldn't.;

2)That the private property ownership/management model that you know/subscribe to here in TX has the same application across every ecosystem. "Management" of western game populations ain't just pouring feed out for them. Your pontificating about elk and mule deer, etc., etc., being susceptible to the same management practices you employ that allows "$100 doe hunts" is as silly as it is misinformed. ; and

3)Your equating the opportunity to just knock over an animal as "access" to hunting. Hunting is as much an experience as it is killing an animal. Killing supplemental feed-dependent animals (akin to livestock in your make-believe world) and going 15 miles deep on a wilderness hunt in the Bob Marshall is not an equal experience providing the same "access" to hunting.

All 3 assumptions are demonstrably and obviously wrong.

Your firebombs about being "conservative" and other character insults are just the usual red-herring BS. They could be cut and pasted on every thread your participate in.

Simply put, you are out of your league in even attempting to discuss the issue.

You clearly misinterpreted just about everything I wrote. Like I said I agree with you on your sentiments on poverty welfare and self reliance. Your just throwing garbage back at me. The people who are feeding off welfare are not taking advantage of our public land or the cost entailed its pretty much the opposite and has no real relevance. I understand the concern about the costs of operation. I agree whole heartedly the management and cost needs to be curtailed but so does everything else our country does.

I wasn't arguing that its decreases in production. In fact I said that private land owners are the better more efficient stewards. All I pointed out is private land like Texas for example continues to be divided into smaller and smaller parcels under private ownership. Owners have children, children have children, families grow, money splits, land gets sold or divided. You know what I am talking about. I agree that privatization is good in Texas and around the country where it has gone on and will continue to go on feeding our capitalist economy and support the growing dreams of hard working individuals. But it cannot preserve or conserve the resources in the raw like keeping it whole does and that is why they were created.

What the short sightedness in your argument is what is good for me is good for everyone and that like money resources are infinite. The differences is you can have infinite dollars but once the land is gone we are not getting more. The parks are some of the last valuable open space in the world. I consider my self moderately well off finically. I own land, my family owns land, I make a living from it but I don't have to own land to feel self fulfillment or consider myself successful or hardworking. Those may be your definitions of success.

I still relish the freedom and ability to go chase elk on public land in the great American West. Sure I could pay you to or another hunting ranch operator to go chase whatever in creation you can think of on a few thousand acres In Texas maybe. And thats great but it is not the same. To see it as untouched as possible, with no fences. To watch native species in their native habitat. To have little to no interference from mankind. To preserve that freedom and space for the next generation like it was for us is paramount to what this country was founded on Freedom. There is so much more land that is available for you and other folks to buy and feel good about it is irrelevant. The national parks is based on conservation not welfare. If you are ranching and have cattle you should understand that nearby communities/economies are entirely dependent on government grazing leases within some of these natural resources. Take that away and what about their rights, some of the leases are century old? What about their personal satisfaction? These peoples lives actually are relevant to the story. National land ownership is not welfare. The land is about preservation, heritage, freedom, and most of all Americans. It is conservation of a natural resource in its closest to pure form.

NP- your response to my first posts on page 2.

Before I ever said anything specifically to you..

"So stupid and shortsighted"

And you continued to malign my intelligence in later posts. Just posted it because I know in your mind I'm the one that started personal attacks. That is simply not true.

I guess, fortunately for us, both the Hildabeast and Trump have publicly stated that they are NOT interested in giving federal lands to the states or selling it outright. At least that's what they said in interviews with Field and Stream. I personally hope they keep that promise.

I hate to be throwing gas on the bonfire here. I usually just I can see a lot of your argument as much as I favor the parks and what they represent but this is just not true. I especially agree with your sentiments about poverty, welfare, and self reliance. However outside of the socioeconomic level you may be accustomed to, not everybody can drop a hundred bucks to go hunting.

Plus that is does not include a lot of other costs such as fuel, time, processing, ammo, opportunity cost etc. I would agree that most who are interested in hunting have some spare change. Otherwise they wouldn't do it. But to just blindly say that its something everyone can afford is not really an argument. There are a lot welfare enabled lazy bones out there feeding off the system but I have seen quite few awfully poor folks who work hard everyday and are not this way. To compare public lands to our Most people who are interested in hunting are not lazy. Also to use a hundred dollar doe hunt as a benchmark because that is what you offer is ridiculous.

My 2 cents on the argument:
The national parks were created to prevent exactly this kind of thought and privatized monetization in those specific parts of the country. The rest of our country had already been monetized a hundred different ways and continues to do so but that specific acreage was set aside. Specifically "to protect and preserve the remaining lands from devastation and destruction which have been the same fate as other parts of the country". The parks are huge part of our national identity and pride. It sets apart from any other country on earth. It was not set aside as part of the welfare system as you seem to be implying but in the eye of conservation and future generations. Common land does however equate to common wealth. With the land kept common we are all contributing to its preservation for future generations which as people, hunters,and land owners there is nothing more precious.

Private ownership may be better suited for land management, wildlife management, improvements etc but overtime no matter how much money private ownership has, the land will be divided and partitioned. Look at the average farm/ranch size in Texas. Look at the Waggoner and other major land holdings that have been divided in the last century. Private Land can only last generational for so long in our modern world. Impending exponential population growth and lack of space is a huge concern for most of the world yet as Americans and Texans specifically, we do not even have a clue. Natural resources are the only truly valuable commodity they all come back to basic resources. Our country and forefathers have protected and conserved the limited and least "valuable" land they could at the time for it to be agreeable even then from greedy individuals. It is not enough but it is far better than most places on earth. They should be cherished and protected at all cost. [/quote]

Disagree wholeheartedly. Anyone who WANTS to hunt can find a way to scrounge and save $10/month and what it takes to get there and back if they decide it's something they want.

I'm the "yes I/they can" guy. I know how resourceful people can be when they want to and try and would never assign them to the desperation of "I/they can't".

I totally disagree that the fractionation of large parcels of land decrease it's production. In Texas our deer populations are at all time highs. We have more huntable populations of endangered animals from other nations (that let the public land MO destroy their populations), than any place on earth.

But the best reason to privatize most public land is what it does for the individual owning the property. It gives you personal freedom, a sense of accomplishment, the ability to produce for yourself and others, and a great measure of personal satisfaction.

I would like everyone to experience that. But telling them they can't just helps people believe they can't. And fractionalization actually puts those things in reach of most average joes. Look how many people on here are small landowners! Without fractionalization and the private land in Texas they'd never experience those things.


[/quote]

You clearly misinterpreted just about everything I wrote. Like I said I agree with you on your sentiments on poverty welfare and self reliance. Your just throwing garbage back at me. The people who are feeding off welfare are not taking advantage of our public land or the cost entailed its pretty much the opposite and has no real relevance. I understand the concern about the costs of operation. I agree whole heartedly the management and cost needs to be curtailed but so does everything else our country does. I don't think I misunderstood. We may not be communicating well. I wasn't saying that people on welfare were "taking advantage of public land", I was pointing out the fed providing hunting land is the same principle as them offering welfare. And it creates laziness and entitlement just like welfare. Welfare in some cases keeps people alive. There is more justification for welfare than there is for the fed owning 650,000,000 acres so you and I can hunt.

I wasn't arguing that its decreases in production. In fact I said that private land owners are the better more efficient stewards. All I pointed out is private land like Texas for example continues to be divided into smaller and smaller parcels under private ownership. Owners have children, children have children, families grow, money splits, land gets sold or divided. You know what I am talking about. I agree that privatization is good in Texas and around the country where it has gone on and will continue to go on feeding our capitalist economy and support the growing dreams of hard working individuals. But it cannot preserve or conserve the resources in the raw like keeping it whole does and that is why they were created.OK, it is my firm belief that if the market wants huge parcels the people supplying the market will continue do so. I can point you to successful consolidation efforts in Texas. You do know the Waggoner sold virtually whole don't you?

What the short sightedness in your argument is what is good for me is good for everyone and that like money resources are infinite. The differences is you can have infinite dollars but once the land is gone we are not getting more. The land doesn't go anywhere. Control going to private hands doesn't destroy it.The parks are some of the last valuable open space in the world. Europe had our system of govt controlled land. How is the hunting there now? Govt controlled land in the U.S. will repeat that result in the hands of the govt. We just had more land and started later than Europe. I consider my self moderately well off finically. I own land, my family owns land, I make a living from it but I don't have to own land to feel self fulfillment or consider myself successful or hardworking. Those may be your definitions of success.Not implying that everyone must share my version of success. It is my opinion that the best way to preserve the land for future generations is to let private hands control it. I don't think I'll ever convince you of that.

I still relish the freedom and ability to go chase elk on public land in the great American West. Sure I could pay you to or another hunting ranch operator to go chase whatever in creation you can think of on a few thousand acres In Texas maybe. Try the 200,000 acre Longfellow ranch. Easily as large as most contiguous blm tractsAnd thats great but it is not the same. To see it as untouched as possible, with no fences. To watch native species in their native habitat.elk are native to texas. To have little to no interference from mankind. To preserve that freedom and space for the next generation like it was for us is paramount to what this country was founded on Freedom. There is so much more land that is available for you and other folks to buy and feel good about it is irrelevant. The national parks is based on conservation not welfare. If you are ranching and have cattle you should understand that nearby communities/economies are entirely dependent on government grazing leases within some of these natural resources.Private hands would still be ranching those lands Take that away and what about their rights, some of the leases are century old? What about their personal satisfaction? These peoples lives actually are relevant to the story. National land ownership is not welfare. The land is about preservation, heritage, freedom, and most of all Americans. It is conservation of a natural resource in its closest to pure form.
[/quote]

You trust either of them? However, getting the fed out of the real estate business is much too conservative for either of them so I think you can actually count on them keeping the fed fat and bankrupt.

Your response to #1 would assumes a loss of 75% of what now comprises most of the (relatively) untouched open space wilderness in the United States. That loss alone is unthinkably devastating to anyone whose sole mindset is not monetizing everything that exists on this earth. (I don't give a tinker's damn if large parts of the Gila Wilderness or Monument Valley are "fallow" - God made them that way and true stewards of the land understand that and are fine with it. In fact, keeping some of what God made as close to possible to how he made it is the point of real conservation.)
Turning the other 25% into private game ranches is not a model for conservation, it's just another model for someone to make a buck.

Your response to #2 is simply one in a long line of wrongheaded, ignorant, and unrealistic versions of "Shut up because I know what I am talking about" - when your responses prove nothing could be further from the truth.

Your response to #3 is just "My definition of hunting (killing something) is best - so everybody else can just like it or lump it". First, that's just a sad definition for those who know what broad hunting experiences can encompass. Second, it's just you imposing your values on everyone else in the name of "privatization". Which is contrary to the "freedom" you say you stand for over and over again.

Public lands create opportunities, access and (as a result) more freedom for everyday Americans to enjoy wonderful experiences they never could without it. You are willing to chuck all that in the trash just so everyone can be like you and make a buck off wildlife.

That's as selfish as it is arrogant. And about as far from "conservative" as one can get.

Of course not thats 2200' above sea level in a valley...go few hours north west or south west And they do, they have to.

Kind of like your buddy HF'ing elk in Montana, he obviously isn't at high altitude or in fringe habitat . I can show the lack of feasibility of HF on 9000' place in NM that had to take the fence down due to feed cost and winter kills.

It's obvious it's not going to sink in that west has migratory herds. There is a reason every alfalfa farmer in Idaho to Montana has their hay highfenced... its for when the deer and elk migrate out of the high country to premium private owned wintering grounds....the low land.

And if you can't understand that if you walk that alfalfa up hill they won't necessarily come all the way down hill.

I've seen what I've seen. Places with many feet of snow each winter that hold their elk by feeding in brutal weather. I know it can be and is being done, while even though you admit in NM feed wasn't maintained, you don't want to admit that herd migration isn't optional.

I have no clue how you can ignore the fact that elk and mule deer avoid the need to migrate when food is abundant (you know, the plains MD and elk that are genetic identicals to the others) but I accept the fact that you do.

And the Hudson's hope elk aren't a function of elevation since at whatever elevation they're at, they are snow bound for 8 solid months.

Hike it up hill and you will kill out the vast majority by spring. It's that simple hooved animals don't function well in deep snow.

You snow ski much?

He just hunts HF ranches where they feed them. How much does a hunt cost.

Better than he "hoverboards" I hope

Haha nope.....broke his arm last time he went if I recall....

I'm not sure how many times you guys can repeat your arguments with different words but I quit on about the fifth page.
I think a general summation by an unbiased third party would be a great end to this thread.

Why do they do so well in canada where the snow cover is deeper and stays longer with lower temps?

Ha! Keep it up knucklehead, you'll end up a "public land owner"...

I'm gonna donate your land to Peta if you leave it in the will.

Better than he "hoverboards" I hope [/quote]


Haha nope.....broke his arm last time he went if I recall.... [/quote]

Ha! Keep it up knucklehead, you'll end up a "public land owner"...
[/quote]

I'm gonna donate your land to Peta if you leave it in the will. [/quote]

Awesome! Now I don't feel bad about naming your sister as executor of the trust.

Why do they migrate out of Banff NP in Canada where it's further south? Because they get higher snow fall at elevation

Again you talking about low land elk. I'm pretty sure you can comprehend. That most of the premium low land in the US is private, the high country is fringe habitat also deeper snow fall. Again you snow sky because if you do show me how you supplement elk through 50" plus of snow accumulation you can't.

Bobo they do it through an average of 8' where I'm talking about. Snow is pretty easy to move. And they raise a lot of hay. I can't help you understand, but that's the facts.

Or he can do what I did and just buy it all after you pass. First Generation buys it second pays for third sells it....but there is always one that ventures out on his own comes back and buys out the family milk gland...

Ya I'm a public land owner but also private.

Ya I'm calling BS on 8' that's tip of the antlers. Snow pack doesn't happen to the level of concrete might want to check your facts.... on a mountain that's dead

Regardless that's farming no way you are clearing mountains at treeline of snow..

NP said he'd help me out pro Bono since its a good cause

Yeah, it really doesn't matter what you call BS on, you don't get to invent facts. They average over 10' of snow in town. Higher outside of town. And yet their elk don't migrate. They move the snow and feed them hay. Amazing how they do that.

http://www.farmzone.com/statistics/CL1181508/nb022

Wow, make sure you don't ever get drunk at a horse track. You'll lose your azz!

Bad Choice Rancher...



I will send you Cig Money... Aim Higher


Don't secure the guy from My Cousin Vinney


I can get Greg McCarthy, he's already on retainer

I already have lawyer dagget on retainer. NP don't want none of J.E.W.

That ole real law gets so complicated vs title searches

Aw they snow plow fields, they makes perfect since to do on a mountain.

There's a valley near every mountain. Amazing how that happens.

So now we need to plow every valley that make perfect sense

Sheesh...so what I have learned is that if you plow the mountain, feed an enormous amount of hay and HF a place...the Elk won't need to migrate

I have also learned that every land owner is a great steward of the land and resources, only cares about wildlife, only makes their money on wildlife and will give away free hunts.

I have learned that because a small isolated herd in the low lands doesn't migrate the same as an animal with the same genetic make up that lives in the mountains, that animals should never migrate and if the land was private the owner would make that happen.

I have learned that public land should all go to private owners and that if that is the case, the cost of hunting will go down. Everyone that has ever wanted to hunt will have that chance because it will increase the land that is available and many of these hunts will be free.

What did I miss?

No you weren't. Unless we all change to liberals.

You also learned that the safest place to protect hunting is in private hands. And that the fed has no business owning 1/3 of the land mass.

Glad I could be of assistance.

You also learned Bobo and my dad and np are hard headed.....but mainly my dad

I learned that many moons ago about all of them, especially your dad...about the time your dad told me that it is acceptable for someone to make an underhanded deal based on information they researched on the internet

Not going to enter into the public/private debate but the link you provided for climate data on Hudson's Hope indicates they receive 169cm of snow in an average winter. This is just over 5 feet 6 inches, not 10 feet. More importantly if you move over from the summary tab to the precipitation tab there is a table that shows the average daily depth of snow on the ground. This accounts for thaws, compaction and sublimation. It shows that in an average winter the depth of snow on the ground peaks in February and is on average 19cm deep or just shy of 8 inches. There is also another row in the table that shows the extreme (record) daily depth of snow on the ground. This indicates a maximum single day depth of 67cm or just over 2 feet and occurred in February 1994.

That's funny...

Yep. I just know the outfitter told me they get snow of about 8' where we hunted. We hunted bear in may and there was still snow in drifts about 3' deep and it snowed 18" the week before I got there. I read the chart wrong. Doesn't change anything about the fact that they move the snow to feed the elk and that the temps are brutally low.

And the elk don't go anywhere.

Ok but..you don't get to invent the facts though

I almost did!!!

Say it with confidence and someone will believe you

It was an "honest" lie... I believed I read the chart right.

Hell I believed me!

That's why you were so confident

I plead guilty to being hard-headed. I was also amazed at the time spent discussing the feasibility of converting every wild elk and mule deer out west into feed-dependent livestock. Might as well have been discussing the best way to trap a Bigfoot.

I've already admitted to being arrogant. I think hardheaded is assumed with that.

As for the time spent discussing... I'm pretty certain if (in the '30's when there were virtually no deer in most of texas) you discussed the potential for huntable deer populations in virtually every county with the largest populations ever and the guaranteed protection of those deer as a commodity, there would be more naysayers than believers.

And then the can do folks just went and did what couldn't be done. Hard headed arrogant schmucks.

"I'm gonna donate your land to Peta if you leave it in the will."

Yep...The "Feathers" in NM have corrupted him...

Feed buckets didn't bring the Texas deer herds back. Closed hunting seasons, bag limits, transplanting, and screwworm elimination did. In other words, management from the state - oftentimes over the howls and protests of guys like you (whose livestock of choice was just cows, not deer).

Only after they came back did many guys clue in to the fact of how to monetize the resource provided, and then start taking (unfounded) credit for what was done years earlier when money wasn't the goal.

Just like you are doing now.

Texas Tatonkas, I'll give you $20 if you wait until your dad is asleep, then cut off his beard and post the video of his reaction $40 if he also has a queue and you cut that too

I'll say this - their relationship shows they are both pretty good guys.

He is his son, yet "migrated" to NM, and shaves his head!! Rusty may have went light on the feed! J/K though, don't want to ruin my chance for one of them free hunts

Proven fact you can't feed mule deer like elk, a mule deer will starve to death with a belly full of hay. They are browsers not grazers.

Ha! If you only knew.

Never said or implied that. They do very very well on protein and alfalfa though.

You assumed that I said the private sector was responsible for the initial successes. Of course, I didn't. Just like the national forest system actually had value early in it's history, so did our state programs. The successes of the past few decades are in fact attributable to the private sector in Texas.

You directly implied it by starting with/referencing the 1930's. Just dodging and ducking.

You remind me of a story from my past:
Back in the early '70s, TPWD wanted to do deer transplant/releases in east Texas. My Daddy allowed our place to be a release point. I can still remember the cattle guys at the coffee shop being pissed and giving him hell because "All them dang deer are going to eat my coastal!" Now that the herds are established, the kids and grandkids of those cattlemen are fencing their places in, making bucks off the bucks, and in the coffee shop telling about how Daddy and Granddaddy brought the deer back to east TX.

I didn't think one man could play the roles of both grandaddy and grandson in that story, but you have accomplished the feat.

I would but then I wouldn't get all the sympathy smiles at thanksgiving when I take him to Walmart and people are thinking I am taking the homeless to get some food.

I can see living with him gave you a great sense of humor, we understand

That's it? Just ten pages?

i gots 16 pages yours musta cut threw de red tape...

24 pages for me,,, guess you don't have the proper clearance to view all the responses.

Maybe in this situation it would be beneficial to befriend the Wilks brothers. Maybe get in on some good hunting? Learn a thing or to about managing money and tax deductions on land. I'm just a good ole boy not but a step away from the poor house myself, so that was just for the sake of saying. I gotta have hope otherwise there's no hunting/fishing/or living.

You can't beat a dead horse too much!

Yup....10 pages to argue if private property rights still exist in the good ol' USofA......

Few years back signing inta HF started getting pop-ups saying: this wasnt the official web site ...