- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: The leasing of public lands?
Posted on 12/14/17 at 9:46 am to AlxTgr
Posted on 12/14/17 at 9:46 am to AlxTgr
So I was fed a bunch of bullshite about leasing land to individuals that the public owns?
I think they should lease land suitable for either farming or hunting which they have no intentions of using any time soon and put the money back into either agriculture or conservation accordingly.
Specifically lease land that isn’t WMA, except lease me the few pieces I want.
I think they should lease land suitable for either farming or hunting which they have no intentions of using any time soon and put the money back into either agriculture or conservation accordingly.
Specifically lease land that isn’t WMA, except lease me the few pieces I want.
This post was edited on 12/14/17 at 9:48 am
1
Posted on 12/14/17 at 9:50 am to AlxTgr
quote:
You're focusing on can.
Your question isn't as simple as can versus should. You have to look at what the expressed purpose of that land is, and what the agency mandate is.
State-owned lands are not all intended for public use. They never were.
For that matter, all state-owned lands are not public lands. School board land is trust land, not public land. There is a big difference.
All state-owned land in New Mexico is trust land, not public land. The state Game and Fish Department actually leases the land for public hunting from the state land board.
This post was edited on 12/14/17 at 9:52 am
Posted on 12/14/17 at 9:54 am to Cowboyfan89
quote:
State-owned lands are not all intended for public use. They never were.
This. It's not like hunting is the only time land is leased from the state. Farmers lease state land, O&G, etc.
Posted on 12/14/17 at 9:55 am to DownshiftAndFloorIt
quote:
except lease me the few pieces I want.
Posted on 12/14/17 at 10:02 am to DownshiftAndFloorIt
quote:
The explanation I got from a state employee was that the government is not a business, and getting in to land leasing is making money on assets bought with tax money rather than allowing the public to use it “for free.”
But, if the State is able to make money off of public lands, they will need less tax money to fund the other truly public lands. (This is assuming that the money being made by leasing some public land is being used appropriately which, I understand, is a longshot in Louisiana.)
Posted on 12/14/17 at 10:05 am to Cowboyfan89
quote:Yes, yes it is. Should the land have that express purpose?
Your question isn't as simple as can versus should. You have to look at what the expressed purpose of that land is, and what the agency mandate is.
quote:You're still hung up. Open your mind.
State-owned lands are not all intended for public use. They never were.
quote:You're doing it here too.
For that matter, all state-owned lands are not public lands. School board land is trust land, not public land. There is a big difference.
Posted on 12/14/17 at 10:05 am to choupiquesushi
quote:issuing refunds for burnt down blinds would be a pita
think if rapides or lasalle parish got 500 per blind from catahoula...
Posted on 12/14/17 at 10:10 am to AlxTgr
quote:
You're still hung up. Open your mind.
Why did you say that you go back and forth, it's pretty clear to me you think they shouldn't be leased and everyone should have equal access to all lands.
Posted on 12/14/17 at 10:10 am to AlxTgr
I only want what was already mine before they took it 
Posted on 12/14/17 at 10:13 am to baldona
quote:because I do.
Why did you say that you go back and forth
quote:You're making a massive assumption, and an incorrect one. I have actually attempted to lease some of this land before, and hope to actually find the right piece in the future.
it's pretty clear to me you think they shouldn't be leased and everyone should have equal access to all lands.
It's purely a philosophical discussion that i thought would elicit some interesting discussion. I am just trying to keep people on track.
Posted on 12/14/17 at 10:18 am to AlxTgr
As long as not designated as WMA I think it is fine to lease. Especially with lands that have infrastructure on them such as levee lands, you really need someone or group to be responsible. If not the land would be destroyed I don’t mind the state making some money on the property.
With that said we have some odd parcels set aside as WMAs, like Elbow Slough. Basically no value as hunting land.
With that said we have some odd parcels set aside as WMAs, like Elbow Slough. Basically no value as hunting land.
Posted on 12/14/17 at 10:20 am to AlxTgr
quote:
It's purely a philosophical discussion that i thought would elicit some interesting discussion. I am just trying to keep people on track.
It's not philosophical as there has been facts stated on why it's leased. And you have yet to list any reasons to have the land leased, yet stated multiple reasons to not lease it. Primarily the fact that you want to lease it but appear to continually be out bid.
So the real question that you are asking imo, is 'should state land be leased to the highest bidder if they need to make money or is should the state find a more fair way to lease lands to those with fewer resources?'
Posted on 12/14/17 at 10:22 am to tigerfoot
quote:Yeah, that one has such limited opportunities.
With that said we have some odd parcels set aside as WMAs, like Elbow Slough. Basically no value as hunting land.
Have you seen what that part of Shad Lake goes for?
Posted on 12/14/17 at 10:22 am to tigerfoot
quote:
With that said we have some odd parcels set aside as WMAs, like Elbow Slough. Basically no value as hunting land.
That's because they are wildlife management areas, not hunting management areas. Most WMAs are there as a place for wildlife to live as they have for 100s of years with little to no impact from humans. Hunting is simply allowed as a method to manage the wildlife.
But there are many state and public lands that do not allow hunting.
Posted on 12/14/17 at 10:24 am to AlxTgr
No. But the guys that used to lease it have deep pockets
This post was edited on 12/14/17 at 10:36 am
Posted on 12/14/17 at 10:34 am to AlxTgr
Does it matter how the state acquired the property? It seems like the state wouldn't be able to lease property it purchased with money generated from taxes.
Posted on 12/14/17 at 10:38 am to AlxTgr
What's the deal with the Acadiana Conservation Corridor?
Like a 100yd strip on side of the interstate?
Like a 100yd strip on side of the interstate?
Posted on 12/14/17 at 10:40 am to mylsuhat
quote:
What's the deal with the Acadiana Conservation Corridor?
Like a 100yd strip on side of the interstate?
Yep, with very limited access.
Posted on 12/14/17 at 10:40 am to baldona
Elbow slough is old crop land about 250 acres that the state mows w a bush hog. It is devoid of wildlife.
Posted on 12/14/17 at 10:41 am to HotKoolaid
I am always amazed at the amount of marshland terrebonne pariah school board controls. Those leases are for 5 year terms then go back out for bid. Some of those pieces are raking in some serious change
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News