Have you read TWA's position on the Public Value of Wildlife on Private Lands?

[Grayson]

My take, because I know that private land ownership and the right to do what one wants with one's private land (i.e. high fence it) is one of the TWA's reasons for existence....it's an attempt at addressing that elephant in the room.....the one that stands on the outside of the tall fence and claims ownership of ALL of God's creatures in this state.....but isn't allowed inside the tall fence to kill them.....and in fact is told that the ones inside the tall fence belong to the owner in that they can be bought for a price.

Without taking sides on the above argument, it appears to me that what you're trying to do is address the above issue and somehow convince the guy on the outside of the fence that he needs to support the guy on the inside's right to tell him he can't come shoot his deer, because that's what responsible stewards of wildlife do. There's no way you're ever going to convince him of that, just like the little guy on the outside of the fence is never going to convince the state that true public ownership of the wildlife requires that the tall fences come down. It's a never-ending cycle.

[cosmiccowboy]

They are part of the political side of hunting....lobbyist....like that lone star bowhunter group.


And they made a "Hear ye, Hear ye" (Proclamation).....to gain support since they are ONLY 6,000 members strong of the 1.3 million TX hunters.

....Ho hum.....

This is not entirely accurate...TWA is much more than a lobbying group and I am proud to be a member. They are big into education as well and I have posted info in here several times about free online seminars they are hosting.

[cosmiccowboy]

My take, because I know that private land ownership and the right to do what one wants with one's private land (i.e. high fence it) is one of the TWA's reasons for existence....it's an attempt at addressing that elephant in the room.....the one that stands on the outside of the tall fence and claims ownership of ALL of God's creatures in this state.....but isn't allowed inside the tall fence to kill them.....and in fact is told that the ones inside the tall fence belong to the owner in that they can be bought for a price.

Without taking sides on the above argument, it appears to me that what you're trying to do is address the above issue and somehow convince the guy on the outside of the fence that he needs to support the guy on the inside's right to tell him he can't come shoot his deer, because that's what responsible stewards of wildlife do. There's no way you're ever going to convince him of that, just like the little guy on the outside of the fence is never going to convince the state that true public ownership of the wildlife requires that the tall fences come down. It's a never-ending cycle.

Uhhhh...private property is private property whether it's under high fence or low fence.You can't hunt there without permission of the owner. And I certainly don't see a problem with an organization that defends lawful private property rights.

[Grayson]

Uhhhh...private property is private property whether it's under high fence or low fence.You can't hunt there without permission of the owner. And I certainly don't see a problem with an organization that defends lawful private property rights.

Abortion is "lawful" but that doesn't mean everyone agrees with it or should agree with the right being defended. The TWA's statement attempts to harmonize two diametrically opposed positions: public ownership of wildlife vs. private ownership of wildlife. It's an admirable attempt, but it's impossible to harmonize the two.

Anyway, I'm not going to argue about it all day. Marko wanted our take, and that's my take. It attempts to harmonize two opposing positions that can't be harmonized.

[Nova]

Don't forget the Texas Brigades as well. Teaching and inspiring the leaders of tomorrow. A great organization to support.

http://www.texasbrigades.org/

[cosmiccowboy]

here is a list of the 2012 TWA free webinars...

http://library.constantcontact.com/d...+page+2012.pdf

The next one Thursday is on rainwater harvesting for wildlife

Join TWA and Texas AgriLife Extension for the next
Wildlife for Lunch webinar!


When: Thursday, August 16th, 2012
From noon to 1:00 pm CST

Topic: "Rainwater Harvesting for Wildlife" - The webinar will cover watershed and land stewardship, requirements of wildlife habitats, water demand of wildlife and birds, rainwater harvesting for bird baths, and water guzzlers including sizing and region specific potential for rainwater harvesting. Examples will also be given of devices and simple construction techniques for building your own watering device.

Presented by: Billy Kniffen, Water Resource Specialist, Texas AgriLife Extension Service

Where: your home or office computer

Cost: FREE!

CEU Credit: 1 hour of TDA pesticide applicator's license general CEU credit will be awarded to participants of the live webinar.

How to sign on: Simply point your browser to https://texas-wildlife.webex.com on the day of the webinar and click to join the Wildlife for Lunch webinar. Each web based seminar is fully interactive and allows you to engage the experts, make comments, and ask questions during the course of the presentation.

If you cannot make the live webinar: Each webinar is archived and available for viewing following the initial air date at the TWA website:

https://www.texas-wildlife.org

[Encinal]

Don't forget the Texas Brigades as well. Teaching and inspiring the leaders of tomorrow. A great organization to support.

http://www.texasbrigades.org/

[Todd-ty729]

Follow the money.


Always follow the money.


This is especially true with anything political.

[easeup]

sounds like an attempt to get rid of the high fences....from the standpoint they could argue the game behind them is not wild.

[Encinal]

sounds like an attempt to get rid of the high fences....from the standpoint they could argue the game behind them is not wild.

That is definitely not the case.

Here is the FAQ from the website:

http://www.texas-wildlife.org/images/uploads/Public_Values_of_Wildlife_on_Private_Lands_Initiative_and_Resolution_FAQs.pdf

TWA Public Values of Wildlife on Private Lands Initiative FAQ Information Sheet

1. What prompted TWA to initiate its Public Values of Wildlife on Private Lands Initiative?
TWA has always been an advocacy group, and with the amount of uncertainty, confusion, and disparity that exists within the wildlife and hunting communities these days in Texas, as well as across the country, it is times like these that concerned citizens, constituency groups, and elected officials turn to advocacy groups for direction. Further, with a growing urban population that tends to be out of touch with things such as wildlife, hunting, land stewardship, and rural affairs, we feel like the timing is right for TWA to focus on efforts that help build relevancy for these things among our public masses.

2. What is the objective of this Initiative?
TWA believes the rights and privileges that we seek to have and maintain as landowners, land stewards, and wildlife managers should not be taken for granted, and we advocate on behalf of using these rights and privileges wisely, not only for our individual and personal benefit, but to also benefit our fellow Texans. Our Initiative is intended to create added visibility for the vast contributions that landowners, land stewards, and wildlife managers make to Texas and Texans, and we also intend to refocus on the core stewardship principles that have shaped the success for wildlife in our country.

3. How do these efforts benefit landowners and hunters?
With increased appreciation for the role that stewardship and hunting plays in sustainability of these private land produced products and values, we feel that it
provides us with a stronger platform to advocate on behalf of landowners’ rights and the integral role that hunting plays in the wildlife stewardship equation.

4. When you say “public values,” what values are you referring to?
TWA believes that one of the real beauties of wildlife is the diverse value-set that these resources represent to our Texas society and to the important cultures that have shaped and continue to shape our great state. These values may be grouped into a variety of classes, including financial, recreational, social, biologic, ecologic, emotional, and spiritual, to name a few. We believe that many of these values or products are quantifiable, some of which create financial opportunities for landowners, thus incentivizing stewardship of these resources. Further, we believe that there are some wildlife-related products produced on private lands that possess esoteric qualities with immeasurable values, thus reinforcing the idea that how one person is connected to wildlife may be much different than the next. TWA supports the idea that recognizing and promoting all wildlife-related values is important in optimally creating relevance for wildlife and wildlife stewardship among our society.

5. How does the Ensuring Sustainability of Public Values of Wildlife on Private Lands Resolution Statement fit into the Initiative work?
The Resolution is intended to clearly identify our position on these related matters for education, policy, and communication purposes.

6. How does the North American Wildlife Conservation Model fit in with this Initiative?
Part of our strategy for building appreciation for these wildlife-related values is to recognize and promote the core stewardship principles that shaped the success of wildlife in our country. Few people understand how the NAWCM originated, but
this Model is essentially an assembly of tenets that were formalized a few decades ago to help illustrate those principles that have allowed the North American continent to be the world’s most successful example for managing, conserving, and protecting its wildlife resources for the sustainable benefit of its citizens.

7. Does the NAWCM fit well into Texas’ unique needs, considering that approximately 96% of Texas is privately owned?
Yes, we feel our interpretation of the Model has certain timeless and general qualities that have good application anywhere in the U.S. Plus, it is our belief that the Model is not beyond reproach in terms of adapting aspects of the Model to certain circumstances, and we currently support the addition of an eighth tenet that clearly describes the important relationship between private lands and wildlife habitat.

8. How does Public Trust Doctrine fit into the NAWCM, and where is TWA on this?
The Public Trust Doctrine (PTD) is considered to be the foundation tenet of the Model. The spirit of the PTD has certain ties that go all the way back to the Magna Carta, and arguably, was first codified in the United States in 1791 when the 10th Amendment of the Bill of Rights was ratified. But most people point toward a U.S. Supreme Court Ruling in 1842 that essentially said that the wildlife of the states belong to the people of the states, and the state government shall serve as the trustee of those resources by administering regulatory oversight. TWA has a long history of supporting wildlife as a public trust resource, and this is reflected in our TWA Management and Hunting Heritage Statement that was adopted in 2006, as well in our recently-approved resolution statement.

9. What is the reason for the Resolution having language regarding human health concerns on consumption of meat from wildlife?
One of the traditional advocacy points that the hunting community has used in its support for hunting has been the wholesome benefits associated with hunters consuming nutritious, healthy meat from their harvest. With the increasing use of pharmaceuticals on captive wildlife that are later released for hunting purposes, as well as the use of these administered products on wild animals, TWA feels that it is imperative that reasonable and responsible use of pharmaceuticals be in place to minimize health issues associated with consumption of adulterated meat products, and we support reasonable regulations that ensure these safety standards.

10. Is there a particular reason why the Resolution mentions concerns regarding wildlife-related diseases?
Disease surveillance and associated protocols are prudent safeguards in protecting our state’s valuable and important wildlife resources, and TWA feels that it should be the responsibility of governing agencies to ensure that adequate standards are in place to minimize risks associated with disease spread from wildlife to wildlife, as well as from livestock to wildlife and vice versa.

11. The Resolution makes reference to “fair chase” hunting. Does TWA interpret fair chase the same as Boone & Crockett Club?
No, TWA has a different and less defined interpretation of fair chase, which is expressed in the Resolution, as well as in our TWA Management and Hunting Heritage Statement. And to make it clear, TWA does not oppose high fencing as a population management tool, but we do advocate reasonable and responsible use of such tools so as to preserve the integrity of hunting.

12. How does TWA plan on utilizing the Initiative and the Resolution as a tool in moving forward?
This largely remains to be seen, but we anticipate integrating some of this into our education programs, as well as into our legislative and policy efforts.

[Bonesplitter]

Uhhhh...private property is private property whether it's under high fence or low fence.You can't hunt there without permission of the owner. And I certainly don't see a problem with an organization that defends lawful private property rights.

What about one that allow's a free ranging natural resource that belong's to the people of the state to be trapped an hunted only by that landowner?

[cosmiccowboy]

What about one that allow's a free ranging natural resource that belong's to the people of the state to be trapped an hunted only by that landowner?

It's pretty simple. You can't hunt that resource anyway unless you make arrangements with the state on state land or with private landowners on private land.

[Bonesplitter]

It's pretty simple. You can't hunt that resource anyway unless you make arrangements with the state on state land or with private landowners on private land.

Negative, if there were no fence the deer would be free to cross onto the neighbors property where he could possibly shoot it.

[cosmiccowboy]

Negative, if there were no fence the deer would be free to cross onto the neighbors property where he could possibly shoot it.

OK, not gonna high fence debate. Some states have a lot of public hunting like Colorado. Some states like Texas don't. Bottom line, if you don't own property or have permission from a property owner/regulator in Texas then you can't hunt that "state resource".

[dragonsdaddy]

Negative, if there were no fence the deer would be free to cross onto the neighbors property where he could possibly shoot it.

of course without a high fence, the one landowner would be forced to feed all the neighbors stunted, runty, over-populated deer too. i'm just saying.