I hunt, almost exclusively, public land. I can't afford Texas, or, in
some cases, I don't want to be tied down to a lease I've paid a pile of
money for. I hunt many states every season, for numerous species of
birds, and, if I had a sweet Texas lease, I'd feel that pressure to "get
my money's worth".
So,given that I hunt public land a lot, I'm very attuned to any effort to
"sell, dispose, transfer" public lands to the states. Why? Because
states have done an abysmal job of managing their lands, including
excluding any hunting, fishing, recreational use. To be fair, the
primary use for the states' land is to raise revenue. The ways I've
seen them do that is to lease to farmers, ranchers, etc. Some states
only restrict access when there are standing crops in the field. Some
states restrict assess all the time. Federal lands, by law, are
required to manage for many uses, including hunting, fishing, camping,
off roading, mountain biking, etc.
Also, Federal lands (BLM, Nat. Forest, etc.) can be protected by the Feds-
for example forest fires. A huge western forest fire could bankrupt
some western states. They really can't afford it. So, the obvious
solution for them is to SELL it. And, you can rest assured there are
individuals out there who will buy millions of acres one day and post it
the next.
 |
| Rick and Gigi |
The states have a solid track record of selling their land. To my mind,
it's best to ensure the Federal Government keeps, manages and protects
our land. To those of you that have never hunted a state with BLM land,
it is an amazing experience. With very few restrictions, if you see it,
you can hunt it- not something most Easterners are used to. But, you
can also camp on it, hike on it, fish on it, get closer to your kids on
it, honeymoon on it. Don't let this incredible resource slip out of our
hands!
 |
| National Forest Minnesota |
