|
|
Post by cyclist on May 16, 2024 9:36:33 GMT -5
Is the Hunting Forum the new FSF Conservation Front?
Ag Commissioner Wilton Simpson wants to sell off lots of Florida preserve land
Simpson seems unaware that Rick Scott tried a similar stunt a decade ago and it didn’t go well
Craig Pittman
May 16, 2024 7:00 am
Any thoughts? Other than what is this ass trying to do?
OK, I will admit it's pretty easy to see Craig leans left and has possibly an agenda and yes, surplussing land is a thing and in many instances it is a good thing, some land, usually bought associated with a really good ecologically sensitive parcel may have no conservation value and could be surplussed without concern. But it seems that the Ag commissioner is wanting to take it to another level.
I'll also admit I didn't read the entire article before I posted it. It doesn't really mention too many particulars of the proposed land sales and kinda plays as a real-time Carl Hiaasen like hit job.
|
|
|
|
Post by bswiv on May 16, 2024 11:33:57 GMT -5
Is the Hunting Forum the new FSF Conservation Front?
Ag Commissioner Wilton Simpson wants to sell off lots of Florida preserve land
Simpson seems unaware that Rick Scott tried a similar stunt a decade ago and it didn’t go well
Craig Pittman
May 16, 2024 7:00 am
Any thoughts? Other than what is this ass trying to do?
OK, I will admit it's pretty easy to see Craig leans left and has possibly an agenda and yes, surplussing land is a thing and in many instances it is a good thing, some land, usually bought associated with a really good ecologically sensitive parcel may have no conservation value and could be surplussed without concern. But it seems that the Ag commissioner is wanting to take it to another level.
I'll also admit I didn't read the entire article before I posted it. It doesn't really mention too many particulars of the proposed land sales and kinda plays as a real-time Carl Hiaasen like hit job.
I was at the meeting.... actually on two of the panels where other parts of the landscape scale conservation initiative were discussed. What is proposed is basically to LEVERAGE What we have into more conserved land with the additional benefits of having the land in some form of agriculture that is COMPATIBLE WITH the conservation easement which will remain on the property and to absolve the state of having to manage it. Yes....the state will have to monitor compliance with the easement but that is a far less expensive thing than direct management....AND...the land then goes on the tax rolls, something that is quite useful to poorer rural counties. Just because it's proposed by a member of Team R does not mean it's a bad thing anymore that the opposite. Yes.... Craig is incorrect on this one. Simpson is a proponent of conservation easements and of protecting the ability to manage those lands with fire. As my mother would tell us.... assume of the other man the same good intentions you hold until VERY GOOD evidence is at hand to the contrary. She was right.....it works better....and leaves us being nicer to each other. |
|
|
|
Post by cyclist on May 16, 2024 11:51:59 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by bswiv on May 16, 2024 12:07:31 GMT -5
And.....and this is important.....we need to give credit when someone on the other Team does something good, and give that credit without a ugly twist or complaint. The rational behind that correlates to the old more with sugar adage. And we surely want more. We forget that someone can disagree with us on one issue while lining up with them on another..........and if we want to move the things we agree on forward then we are better served by being slow to anger and quick to complement. |
|
|
|
Post by cyclist on May 16, 2024 13:08:08 GMT -5
And.....and this is important.....we need to give credit when someone on the other Team does something good, and give that credit without a ugly twist or complaint. The rational behind that correlates to the old more with sugar adage. And we surely want more. We forget that someone can disagree with us on one issue while lining up with them on another..........and if we want to move the things we agree on forward then we are better served by being slow to anger and quick to complement. Agreed, but I don't think he is the man we need for conservation. His quote below appears to go against the wildlife corridor.
He called for declaring surplus some of the acreage the state had bought just the year before for the popular Florida Wildlife Corridor. Why should we sell off property we just bought? He offered one simple (in both senses of the word) reason.
“I don’t think it’s appropriate for the state to own all these lands,” he told the senators.
|
|
|
|
Post by bswiv on May 16, 2024 19:44:53 GMT -5
And.....and this is important.....we need to give credit when someone on the other Team does something good, and give that credit without a ugly twist or complaint. The rational behind that correlates to the old more with sugar adage. And we surely want more. We forget that someone can disagree with us on one issue while lining up with them on another..........and if we want to move the things we agree on forward then we are better served by being slow to anger and quick to complement. Agreed, but I don't think he is the man we need for conservation. His quote below appears to go against the wildlife corridor.
He called for declaring surplus some of the acreage the state had bought just the year before for the popular Florida Wildlife Corridor. Why should we sell off property we just bought? He offered one simple (in both senses of the word) reason.
“I don’t think it’s appropriate for the state to own all these lands,” he told the senators.
I would agree that there are instances where it would make more sense, where we would actually protect MORE LAND if rather than the land be owned in fee by the state it was owned in fee by someone who would be paying property taxes and who would be bound by a conservation easement which absolves the state from the cost of managing.........AND......the difference in value be applied by the state towards further conservation.
That is exactly the point he was making and it is a valid and reasonable point, one that if applied will move the ball forward faster.
|
|
|
|
Post by TRTerror on May 16, 2024 20:04:28 GMT -5
I've been hearing about this wildlife Corridor for years.
Deer don't Migrate, hogs we don't care about , Box Turtles ain't getting smashed on the Freeway.
This entire deal is about the Panthers...again.
I really don't want them in my area , I had them for 30 years in the Glades.
Why are we spending Millions for just the Panther. Haven't we spent enough.
What else will this Magical Corridor help ?
|
|
|
|
Post by 4ward on May 16, 2024 20:23:32 GMT -5
Bears.
Panthers and Bears and they are HERE, it’s really great (until it’s not).
|
|
|
|
Post by bswiv on May 17, 2024 6:07:51 GMT -5
I've been hearing about this wildlife Corridor for years. Deer don't Migrate, hogs we don't care about , Box Turtles ain't getting smashed on the Freeway. This entire deal is about the Panthers...again. I really don't want them in my area , I had them for 30 years in the Glades. Why are we spending Millions for just the Panther. Haven't we spent enough. What else will this Magical Corridor help ? The large connected landscapes have much more to recommend them than generally understood. With larger connected areas managing the land is easier than with fragmented pieces and we have a greater ability to protect stretches of rivers and sections of coast, all of which leaves larger areas for hunters and fishermen. Saving a million acres one acre at a time, all of them surrounded by houses and parking lots leaves us no place to hunt and fish. Save a few much larger areas and then we have places to go. Same with agriculture. You'd think we could have farms just anywhere.....and to a extent that is true, but we forget the associated infrastructure necessary to agriculture, the small welding and specialty fabrication shops, the agricultural scales, the packing houses and shipping points and on and on. To have these things such that they can serve the needs of agriculture there has to be a sufficient volume of agriculture in a area. The corridors invariably and intentionally protect this sort of thing. And back to the management thing......I harp on fire........but it's a easy one to make the management case with. Same thought pattern as with the other items in that if there are large enough areas contiguous to one another then we have places we can throw smoke, being able to throw smoke being a HUGE limiting factor in managing land. We've even not got many smaller and even some mid-sized state & county conservation lands where they have become surrounded by development to the point where managing them is about impossible. So while the panthers and the bears may be the poster children......that is what they are.....the poster children to make the case to the public as it is hard to keep the publics attention long enough to explain the whole thing. And this too......if we go trying to explain the whole thing someone will complain that we should not be thinking about hunters, nor concerned about agriculture as it puts chemicals into the environment........ It's just easier to market to the masses with panthers and bears. |
|
|
|
Post by bullfrog on May 17, 2024 7:27:17 GMT -5
I’m all for the state or the Feds holding on to every piece of green Florida that they got.
I don’t agree with how they often ban or severely limit access to sportsmen. But that’s a different matter. Access can come and go over the years as policies and policymakers shift in and out. The main thing is that the wildlands need to be there to access.
Now I think there’s an argument to be made that the time to save wild Florida was 30 years ago and its too late now besides managing those large tracts of Federal forest and glades that we have. If we really can reverse some development by the state buying up land and letting it go wild, then let it be.
|
|
|
|
Post by swampdog on May 17, 2024 9:04:35 GMT -5
It has been proven that wildlife corridors do enable critters to disburse. I’ve seen whitetail deer use corridors (some relatively narrow) to move to a different range and become established. I believe wildlife will follow established game trails via scent and relocate as well.
Many years ago I reviewed Developments of Regional Impact with a strong push to encourage the developers to lay the project out with wildlife corridors stressing the importance of wild critter dispersal and to include hiking paths for the community. Some bought into this and some did not.
|
|
