Re: [Texascavers] Land ownership in Texas
That's just the biggest "school district" of them all DirtDoc - Original Message - From: "pstrickland1--- via Texascavers" To: texascavers@texascavers.com Cc: pstrickla...@austin.rr.com Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2017 3:32:04 PM Subject: Re: [Texascavers] Land ownership in Texas The university of Texas System has substantial land holdings in west Texas, including Amazing Maze Cave and 09 Water Well. ___ Texascavers mailing list | http://texascavers.com Texascavers@texascavers.com | Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/texascavers@texascavers.com/ http://lists.texascavers.com/listinfo/texascavers
Re: [Texascavers] Land ownership in Texas
The university of Texas System has substantial land holdings in west Texas, including Amazing Maze Cave and 09 Water Well. Dwight via Texascavers wrote: > Thanks Mike. You are correct in that the private ownership of caves presents > it's own set of potential problems. > > But you are not correct about land ownership in Texas. There is a LOT of > "public" ownership, especially in West Texas. Much is held by the State of > Texas, not the federal gvt. (except for the National Parks and a small > national forest). The General Land Office, Texas Parks and Wildlife, and > school disricts are the largest public land owning bureaucracies but the land > is often leased to individuals who treat it as their own private fiefdom. > That may not help much if you want access. > > DirtDoc > > - Original Message - > > From: "Michael Queen" > To: "Dwight" > Cc: "TAG Net" , idigca...@yahoo.com, "Cave NM" > , "Cave Texas" > Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2017 10:19:30 AM > Subject: Re: [SWR CAVERS] Future of NSS membership > > I think it is a drastic oversimplification to suggest that private ownership > of caves necessarily makes things easier for us or safer for the caves than > agency ownership. We are still excluded from Skull Cave (Albany County, NY), > because the owners were spooked by an accident (in a separate cave owned by > different folk) back in about 1971. When a land management agency works well > things are great, as they are with private owners. However, if things go > south with private owners there is absolutely no recourse but to buy the > caves, and often the owners don't want to sell. Look at what caving in Texas > is like, with almost no public land ownership. Anyone who thinks you can just > go caving wherever and whenever one wants should think twice. So if we are > lucky enough to know the land owners we can decry ownership by public > agencies. But if we are not so lucky we should not too quickly criticize > public ownership, and we should speak out against efforts to transfer federal > lands to state o r private ownership. > > MQ ___ Texascavers mailing list | http://texascavers.com Texascavers@texascavers.com | Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/texascavers@texascavers.com/ http://lists.texascavers.com/listinfo/texascavers
Re: [Texascavers] Land ownership in Texas
Re new membership, sometimes outing clubs evolve in ways that reflect the interests of their advisers. Perhaps we could proactively approach outing clubs and offer to lead trips or give some slide (or other) shows, demonstrations of rope work, etc.?? On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 12:35 PM, Dwight wrote: > Thanks Mike. You are correct in that the private ownership of caves > presents it's own set of potential problems. > > But you are not correct about land ownership in Texas. There is a LOT of > "public" ownership, especially in West Texas. Much is held by the State of > Texas, not the federal gvt. (except for the National Parks and a small > national forest). The General Land Office, Texas Parks and Wildlife, and > school disricts are the largest public land owning bureaucracies but the > land is often leased to individuals who treat it as their own private > fiefdom. That may not help much if you want access. > > DirtDoc > > -- > *From: *"Michael Queen" > *To: *"Dwight" > *Cc: *"TAG Net" , idigca...@yahoo.com, "Cave NM" > , "Cave Texas" > *Sent: *Tuesday, July 11, 2017 10:19:30 AM > *Subject: *Re: [SWR CAVERS] Future of NSS membership > > I think it is a drastic oversimplification to suggest that private > ownership of caves necessarily makes things easier for us or safer for the > caves than agency ownership. We are still excluded from Skull Cave (Albany > County, NY), because the owners were spooked by an accident (in a separate > cave owned by different folk) back in about 1971. When a land management > agency works well things are great, as they are with private owners. > However, if things go south with private owners there is absolutely no > recourse but to buy the caves, and often the owners don't want to sell. > Look at what caving in Texas is like, with almost no public land ownership. > Anyone who thinks you can just go caving wherever and whenever one wants > should think twice. So if we are lucky enough to know the land owners we > can decry ownership by public agencies. But if we are not so lucky we > should not too quickly criticize public ownership, and we should speak out > against efforts to transfer federal lands to state or private ownership. > > MQ > ___ Texascavers mailing list | http://texascavers.com Texascavers@texascavers.com | Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/texascavers@texascavers.com/ http://lists.texascavers.com/listinfo/texascavers
[Texascavers] Land ownership in Texas
Thanks Mike. You are correct in that the private ownership of caves presents it's own set of potential problems. But you are not correct about land ownership in Texas. There is a LOT of "public" ownership, especially in West Texas. Much is held by the State of Texas, not the federal gvt. (except for the National Parks and a small national forest). The General Land Office, Texas Parks and Wildlife, and school disricts are the largest public land owning bureaucracies but the land is often leased to individuals who treat it as their own private fiefdom. That may not help much if you want access. DirtDoc - Original Message - From: "Michael Queen" To: "Dwight" Cc: "TAG Net" , idigca...@yahoo.com, "Cave NM" , "Cave Texas" Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2017 10:19:30 AM Subject: Re: [SWR CAVERS] Future of NSS membership I think it is a drastic oversimplification to suggest that private ownership of caves necessarily makes things easier for us or safer for the caves than agency ownership. We are still excluded from Skull Cave (Albany County, NY), because the owners were spooked by an accident (in a separate cave owned by different folk) back in about 1971. When a land management agency works well things are great, as they are with private owners. However, if things go south with private owners there is absolutely no recourse but to buy the caves, and often the owners don't want to sell. Look at what caving in Texas is like, with almost no public land ownership. Anyone who thinks you can just go caving wherever and whenever one wants should think twice. So if we are lucky enough to know the land owners we can decry ownership by public agencies. But if we are not so lucky we should not too quickly criticize public ownership, and we should speak out against efforts to transfer federal lands to state or private ownership. MQ ___ Texascavers mailing list | http://texascavers.com Texascavers@texascavers.com | Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/texascavers@texascavers.com/ http://lists.texascavers.com/listinfo/texascavers