Just logged back on to Whiteblaze to catch up on news and was happy to see so many good responses from those of you interested in the LSHT and book.
I've hiked the Ouachita Trail in Arkansas, which has the same hunter issues as any other trail routed in a national forest. Most, but not all, national forests have restrictions on hikers during hunting season height. I also hunt deer, but I would not hesitate to hike or camp in the national forests of Texas, or any state, despite the restrictions. I have done so many times. I wear a lot of blaze orange (as does my dog), and I always camp well away from the trail out of sight, earshot and human detection. That does not mean that I walk 50 yards from the trail. It means I walk through thick woods for two football field lengths. Bullets do not travel far in forests, because there are too many trees in the way. Having said all of that, the rules still exist. And the rules in the SHNF are that you cannot camp outside of designated campgrounds during deer rifle season, roughly all of November and December.
I have heard a little bit about the proposed dam, and I believe everyone who cares should be at the meeting in January to voice their opinion. Someone on the LSHT list brought up the fact that, sadly, the mighty Hetch Hetchy Reservoir was built in some of the most beautiful land in the country, and despite one of the greatest advocates on the planet working against the dam and for wilderness, John Muir. I don't trust the dam builders, and I don't trust the officials in the area. The red-cockaded woodpecker is the only thing that might have a chance against the dam, I believe. But it does exist in other areas, and they might be able to "draw lines" around and say that the dam won't affect the birds. The public really needs to oversee these discussions.
The issue with water in the region is not due to the area being dry (i.e. not enough rainfall). This area of the country receives more rain every year than Seattle. The issue is that the water table has been over-tapped and the draining of the groundwater causes major subsidence (sinking). There are a lot of other issues involved with draining the aquifers aside from subsidence, including increased salinity and pollution.....but the bottom line is that the growing suburbs north of Houston (of which I now include Montgomery) need to secure a surface water supply. The richest forest regions, the bottomlands, are lost.
Also a note to the discussions about long distance trails in Texas. One of the reasons that Texas suffers from too few parks and, hence, trail systems, is that the state went a different route than most. I don't understand all of the legalities, but when Texas joined the Union, they did so as a country, not a territory. In addition, Texas had been settled for a long time, divided up into land grants and privately owned long before it was even its own country. Therefore, Texas was not "set up" for US government ownership and also was able to negotiate special rights and privileges that other US states never got because they weren't entering into the Union as independent countries. What resulted is a state that has very little land available for parks and a state with a mindset and tradition of private land. A fenced country. The national forests in the state are actually fairly extensive, ironically because they were abandoned after the loggers moved on in the early part of the 20th century, leaving a veritable unwanted dustbowl wasteland. The government got "stuck with the bill" so to speak.
It's easy to get lost in present day conceptions and facts, and farily easy to forget that things are the way they are today not always because of those alive now. There's a long history behind things, a line of causes and influences that has been shaping the way things are today.