Representative Pat Curry's Bold Plan to 'Streamline' Texas Parks and Wildlife: Because Who Needs Nature Anyway?
In a move that is absolutely not being driven by special interests, State Representative Pat Curry has introduced House Bill 4938, a game-changing piece of legislation that proposes abolishing the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD). Why should a specialized, experienced agency be managing our wildlife, parks, and public lands when we can just hand over those responsibilities to other agencies who are basically experts in absolutely everything else? Curry’s bill suggests that managing state parks should be delegated to the General Land Office (GLO), Department of Agriculture, and the Department of Public Safety (DPS). Genius, right? Because nothing says “wildlife conservation” like land sales, crops, and speeding tickets.
The 'Expertise' of the New Custodians:
GLO: It’s about time that public parks are managed for profit, and who better to lead the charge than the General Land Office? Known for their unparalleled expertise in selling land to the highest bidder, GLO has proven time and time again that they can really transform natural spaces into whatever makes the most money. Parks? Luxury resorts? Why not both! (Environmental Defense Fund, 2020). You know what they say—the more land you sell, the more trees you can chop down.
Department of Agriculture: Why worry about things like biodiversity or endangered species when you can just plant crops? This is agriculture, right? The Department of Agriculture is clearly the logical choice to oversee wildlife management and hunting regulations. What’s the difference between a wildlife sanctuary and a cornfield anyway? (Henderson & Moretti, 2018). It’s all just land, and it needs to be used. No time for trees when there are crops to grow, right?
DPS: Sure, game wardens have spent years learning how to protect wildlife, enforce regulations, and ensure healthy ecosystems. But why not just pass all of this over to the Department of Public Safety? After all, if they can stop speeding drivers, surely they can keep track of endangered species, manage wildlife reserves, and regulate boating accidents. Game wardens are so last season. Who needs specialized wildlife enforcement when you can have speeding tickets for illegal fishing? (National Wildlife Federation, 2020). Perfect fit, right?
Pat Curry’s Legislative Tenure:
Pat Curry, the freshman legislator who, having just won a special election in 2024, clearly has all the qualifications needed to completely overhaul Texas’ wildlife management system. Why not let a politician with zero experience in conservation, wildlife protection, or land management take the reins? (Ballotpedia, 2024). Fresh out of the gate, he’s clearly ready to reshape an entire state’s approach to sustainable land use and wildlife protection. After all, someone who just got elected must know exactly what the people need—what could possibly go wrong?
Term Limits: A Modest Proposal
Let’s be honest: the real solution to this kind of flawless logic is term limits. Because clearly, the longer someone’s been in office, the better their judgment gets, right? Let’s just keep electing folks who have no history in environmental policy and give them as many terms as they want. What could be more accountable than that? Term limits could help prevent young, enthusiastic legislators like Curry from pushing for major changes without understanding the long-term effects of their actions (National Academy of Sciences, 2017). After all, we wouldn’t want fresh, new ideas that might actually protect public land. Let’s stick with the tried and true method of keeping things in the hands of those who’ve been around long enough to really know how to sell off a public resource for a quick buck.
The 'Streamlined' Conservation Approach:
Why not just get rid of the middleman—the professionals who actually manage our parks and wildlife—and let agencies that have never seen a wild animal run the show? They don’t need to understand ecosystems or conservation laws; they just need to know how to manage a budget. The bill’s genius idea is to take everything that has to do with nature, public access, and conservation, and let agencies focused on land sales and road enforcement take over. Brilliant, right? We’ll just call it streamlining. Who cares about things like public parks when we can have golf courses and luxury condos instead? (Environmental Defense Fund, 2020).
The Dangers of Privatizing Public Lands
Now, let's get to the real fun part: the privatization of public lands. If we privatize parks, we can make sure that only those who can afford it have access to our natural resources. What could be more democratic than charging people for the privilege of visiting the places they’ve been enjoying for free for generations? The Colorado River is a perfect example. By privatizing water rights, they’ve successfully made sure that only a select few have access to a resource that everyone should be able to use (Henderson & Moretti, 2018). If Texas follows this model, why not just sell off our most precious parks to developers? We can turn them into exclusively profit-driven spaces where nature is just a background feature for the 1%. Who needs public parks when we can have a private, fee-based nature experience?
Impact on Law Enforcement and Public Safety
Let’s talk about the real priorities here. Shifting wildlife law enforcement to DPS is a stroke of genius. We need more law enforcement on the highways—not on the front lines of wildlife protection. Game wardens, who are trained experts in wildlife law enforcement, don’t need to be involved in this whole thing. Let’s just hand these responsibilities to DPS, who are already overwhelmed with more important tasks, like stopping speeders. How could that possibly lead to increased violations, poaching, or a decline in wildlife? What’s a little endangered species loss when DPS is busy patrolling the highways, right? (National Wildlife Federation, 2020).
Public Health Implications: Water and Wildfires
But let’s not stop there! Let’s completely ignore public health, too. Texas is drowning in water issues, but who cares about watershed management when you can let agencies with zero water management experience oversee it? Instead of managing ecosystems to protect water sources, let’s just sell the water to the highest bidder. It’s only fair, right? Public access to clean water is a thing of the past, and we can just hope that the agriculture folks know how to handle it (Henderson & Moretti, 2018). Wildfires? Let’s leave that to DPS, too. After all, they’ve got plenty of practice putting out dangerous situations, like speeding drivers. Fire management is just like highway patrol, right?
The Dangers of Privatization: A Case Study of the Colorado River
Let’s revisit that famous example of privatized water rights, which has worked out so well in the Colorado River. Since the river’s upstream water rights were handed over to private entities, local ecosystems, wildlife, and human communities have thrived... or not. This disastrous shift in control led to ecological collapse and human suffering. But, of course, making a quick buck off water resources is more important than sustaining a river for future generations (Henderson & Moretti, 2018).
The beauty of privatization is that public access is removed, and instead, we get to enjoy exclusive, high-cost, membership-only experiences—because the wealthy deserve access to nature, right?
Conclusion: The Need to Protect Texas Lands
In conclusion, HB 4938 is not just a misstep—it’s a dangerous proposal. The restructuring could lead to privatized lands, weakened conservation efforts, overburdened law enforcement, and greater public safety risks. It’s clear that a dedicated agency like TPWD is essential for managing Texas’ wildlife, parks, and natural resources. Allowing this bill to pass would risk the long-term health of Texas’ ecosystems and public access to the parks and wildlife that make the state unique. We need experts, not bureaucrats with no interest in conservation, to ensure that Texas' parks are managed with the care they deserve.
Call to Action:
Worried about this legislative overreach? Contact Representative Pat Curry to express your thoughts.
Representative Pat Curry
Capitol Address: P.O. Box 2910, Austin, TX 78768 (Texas Legislature, 2021)
Phone: 512-463-0135
Disclaimer: This article is a satirical piece intended for humor and does not reflect actual legislative proposals or the views of Representative Pat Curry.
References:
Ballotpedia. (2024). Pat Curry. https://ballotpedia.org/Pat_Curry
Environmental Defense Fund. (2020). The environmental and economic benefits of conservation on public lands. Environmental Defense Fund. https://www.edf.org
Henderson, J., & Moretti, T. (2018). The consequences of privatizing public land in the United States. Journal of Environmental Policy and Law, 35(4), 451-467. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2018.07.023
National Academy of Sciences. (2017). Comparative analysis of wildlife management: State vs. merged agencies. National Academy of Sciences. https://www.nationalacademies.org
National Wildlife Federation. (2020). Conservation challenges: The diminishing focus on wildlife protection. National Wildlife Federation. https://www.nwf.org
Texas Legislature. (2021). HB 4938: A bill to restructure the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. Texas Legislature. https://capitol.texas.gov