Eastmans' Official Blog | Mule Deer, Antelope, Elk Hunting and Bowhunting Magazine | Eastmans' Hunting Journals
Much has been made of the “Public Land Transfer” debate this political season by both sides of the political spectrum in the last 12-18 months. There are so many reasons the transfer is a bad idea, I can’t list them all in the space I am allowed. It is curious to me why practically no one is addressing the real issues creating this debate. It is as if neither side wants to face the responsibility of addressing, let alone fixing the core issues for fear of the political fallout.
Specifically, public land and forest management are the core, root issues. Changing ownership, thus changing management authority over our public lands from federal to state governments doesn’t really address the problems or solutions. I know it sounds good to many of us to take an anti-federal government stance and there are certainly issues with how federal land agencies go about managing public lands. However, merely calling for another form of government to assume these duties because that government is “more local” in nature is not enough.
Multiple times we have asked for any kind of “business plan” framework from those who call for states to takeover public land management; to date none has been provided. How are states going to actually take on additional management of millions of acres of public lands? What new resources are states going to need and most of all at what additional costs? Who pays for these new costs (I bet I know, got a mirror?!!!). Do people actually think the federal government is giving us money back for this concept? When was the last time that happened?
The biggest concern of all in this regard is why have these questions not been addressed for the public in this debate? It is as if transfer of public lands will just be some kind of magical, smooth transition from federal to state and things will improve. This is not how one runs a business, especially a billion dollar business.
Let’s look at a couple of key public land management issues. There is an extreme element of environmentalists who want little to no use allowed of our public lands. They execute their agenda with exaggerated rhetoric, slanted science and heavy use of lawsuits to stall and delay any proactive management policies. No one from either side of the political aisle seems willing to address this factor or promote legislation to bring this into balance with common sense use of public land resources. It should be part of Congress’ job but neither party wants to tackle it.
There is an element of staff at some levels (not all but many) of our federal land agencies that do not subscribe to common sense; multiple use of public lands either. It seems they would prefer public lands were substantially restricted to limited use, more like a giant national park. As this philosophy grows within government agencies (federal and/or states) sportsmen will continue to lose access, recreation opportunities and eventually major pieces of our hunting/fishing culture. We need to reach a point where as a society we decide to allow a hunting and fishing culture to thrive (or not) and if so, what are the terms and conditions that we all will live by? This slow chipping away at the American wildlife system will reach critical mass from where it will crash. Is that what we want? And yes, this does involve our public lands. The sportsmen and women of America are being played.
How many of us stop to consider how a group like the HSUS (and others) will react if states like California, Oregon, Washington and Colorado (I could list others) take control of 100% of the public lands in those states? How long before ballot initiatives are calling for the abolishment of hunting and fishing? Sounds far-fetched to you? That threat is so real is turns my stomach. You cannot camp on state lands in NM and Wyoming now. You cannot hunt on most of Colorado’s state lands now; do you want to include all public lands in these states? I don’t.
Sportsmen and women must come together for the sake of this way of life or we are going to lose it. We have to stop buying into these political shell games (played by both parties) that divert our attention. Transferring ownership of public lands in and of itself solves little to nothing; actually it makes public lands one-step closer to becoming private lands. Additionally, allowing the environmental extremists to set the agenda is not working either.
Both political parties have much work to do on our behalf, so we call on both sides to get together and fix this problem. We will become like Europe in terms of wildlife and outdoor recreation if both parties don’t do their job. We need courage to call for real solutions from both Republicans and Democrats; stop letting them use us in their games. And ALL sportsmen’s groups should stop running interference for the political machines, it isn’t helping either. We as citizens need to get together and demand answers, demand results. Never forget, “a government by the people, for the people….”
-M. David Allen, President and CEO
We have a better chance of stopping HSUS (and others) on a local level than on a national level!
I think that M David Allen is just fear mongering. The STATE can and will do a better job of managing THERE PUBLIC land than the feds with there alphabet agencies.
Douglas you have no clue obviously. The land transfer is the single worst thing that could and will happen to hunting and public access period.
Jason you have no clue!!
What experience or information do you have to make that claim, that the rest of us who actually live in these rural areas can’t see and haven’t experienced?
I live in a rural area, less than 7,000 people in our county that is as big as some states. We have federal land everywhere and it is not the doom and gloom situation republican politicians make it out to be. If they actually wanted better managment they would vote for better budgets for the federal agencies to do ther job instead of cutting them every year. If they actually cared about managment they would vote to fix broken policies, but they don’t. The same republvian senators who complain about federal land managment are the very people creating the problems they complain about. It’s easy to make managment look bad when you are cutting their budgets. They want federal managment to fail, so people get frustrated, and they can get them transferred, then they can sale them.
So you expose yourself as just another leftist Dem partisan hack who worships at the alter of an all powerful central government & believes the letter behind the name determines if the person “really cares” or is trustworthy.
In your useful idiot mind, if a person has a (D) behind their name, then even when they FUBAR whatever they are doing, it is OK because at least they “cared” & they had “good intentions” which are always more important than results, as long as they know who to blame for their screw-ups.
Not at all chief, I’ve never once voted for a democrat, I have always voted republican. That will be changing this year specifically because of this issue. The GOP wants to steal and sale the lands we all enjoy? Sorry, I won’t be voting for that now. It saddens me they have taken this stance because I agree with them on many things. You don’t get to be good on guns and then want to sale my public lands and still get my vote.
You’ve got to be joking? I love to hunt more than most, but that’s ridiculous. There is much more at stake in this election than hunting land. The supreme court, our countries sovereignty, immigration, ISIS, the national deficit, that’s just to name a few. It won’t do any good to have public land if you lI’ve in a socialist country.
Blake, the things you’ve listed have existed and will exist forever. Politicians promise things all the time and all we have heard for as long as I’ve been alive is some radical group we can never seem to get rid of, then there’s the threat of there always gonna take our guns and never have done anything yet, the debt is never getting paid off and we will continue to spend no matter who gets in. This country will always be in debt, war, and have the threats to our second amendment that have never went anywhere. What you speak of is what politicians use as fear mongering, and the sad truth is, everything you’ve listed always has been a way of life and will continue to be a way of life. The problems you speak of will not be fixed by one person in office, and I’m gonna vote for the most realistic thing that is going to be changed, not the things they constantly rant about to scare people like yourself. Guess what I can tell you…. We will go to war again, our economy will crash again, there’s always gonna be people who hate us, and there always gonna use those talking points but none of them are ever going to change.
So what are you suggesting that we do nothing and just go with the flow? You’re dead wrong about these things always existing. The debt rose from 9 trillion to 20 trillion under this president. That’s one president accumulating more debt than all the others, that’s a new thing. Supreme Court justices serve for life and with 3 possibly 4 appointments coming soon, that’s new. The Supreme Court decisions are used to establish precedence (Roe v Wade for abortion). ISIS is new as well, brought to power by the void we left when we pulled out of the middle east too soon. Mass shootings have drastically increased as have police shootings, that’s new. You need to open your eyes. Just sitting there saying bad things will always happen is a good way to make sure nothing changes. “All that’s necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. ” Edmund Burke.
If you’re okay with unelected government officials (BLM, EPA) and bureaucrats deciding things for you and telling you where to go, then keep doing what you’re doing, which is stick your head in the sand.
Blake I’m okay with BLM, FS, and FWS biologists doing their job. I’m okay with them setting aside what is economically viable, and actually using science and what is good for the public and their health and safety. While I can agree there are bad employees in some of those agencies, there are also 10 amazing ones that work for them. I also never said I was voting for Hillary, but I will be voting democrat far more often at a local level than I ever have. The GOP is a mess, and it sickens me the party they have become. Guess what Blake, I’m the real world of science we also face challenges, and you can believe politicians or the everyday results of reality to show you the proof. Our debt is going to go up under Trump or Hillary, it just is that’s the sad truth. I’m not saying do nothing, I’m saying face reality. Trumps plan would also make the national debt clime another 20 trillion. He has huge ta cuts… Well with huge tax cuts where’s the government gonna get its money because they aren’t going to stop spending it, they’ll just dig deeper into debt. Supreme Court justices do serve for life and basically here’s your choice. You either elect a republican and have a court that may transfer and sale every acre of public land, or choose a Supreme Court that may take away an assault weapon. Personally I can hunt without an assault weapon, I can’t pay $10,000 to hunt some private ranch. You can believe that AR is for protection, but in reality you aren’t going to stop a government armed with drones, missles, and heavy artillery of all kinds. I own several .223 ARs but I’m much more willing to give them up than all the places that have made life worthwhile and hold all my memories. I support our second amendment in every way, but the GOP doesn’t get to hold that over my head forever. As for mass shootings and more police killings. You have more people, more rhetoric, and that in turn is going to lead to more violence. You have 320 million very divided people in this country and a few nut jobs and crazies are going to exist. It’s not going away with Hillary or Trump, and IMO will get worse under either of them because either choice will just divide us more. If you want to listen to the politicians I can’t stop you, but don’t too much faith in the fear they want to place in your head and heart, that’s how we got where we are as a divided, disgusting culture on both sides of the isle.
Totally agree Jason. What good are guns if you have no place to hunt? The states cannot afford to manage the lands and they will be sold off. The land transfer will be the end of hunting and fishing in the west. Public lands generate $640 Billion dollars of economic output per year. The BLM brings in revenues of $5 Billion per year, over fives times it’s budget. The National Forests have an economic value of $7 Trillion per year. The issue is that the GOP has one thing in mind: money and serving the interests of private extraction industry. Fake news, alt-right propaganda, and naive and ignorant followers of these movements are what is driving this. Intelligent and non politically correct views will see right through this. Thanks for not being politically correct.
Written like a true low information bigot.
Defend your own lazy thinking by project your own naivety & ignorance onto others by placing anyone who disagrees with you into a group label like “GOP.”
640,000,000 acres are under federal control & if that is such a great idea, then why is only 4% of that land mass in the 38 states east of the Rocky Mountains?
12 western states have 35-81% of their land mass, not managed for the good of the citizens living in the state, but for the good of those who live in the 38 other states.
Look at how good federal management of lands & game populations in Montana & Idaho have turned out after they released Canadian wolves in Yellowstone Park.
Was it private forests or federal forests that have been burning to ashes for the last 20 years because of BLM land managers’ pet theories about “natural” fires made into policy?
> 86,000,000 acres of federal lands have been closed to gun sports by acts of Congress or Presidential edicts. Any governor who tried to close hunting by executive bureaucrat edict would be immediately re-called.
So, who really are the naive & ignorant?
Is it those who vote to have an all powerful central governing class making all the laws & regulations based on “group politics” & promises of “free stuff” like free federal land to hunt on & promises not to outlaw hunting or restrict gun rights?
Or is it those who believe in local state control of the land by a governing class answering to the folks that actually live & depend on the land who can vote a miscreant out of office for mismanagement?
If you honestly believe what you’re saying you have no idea the amazing organization that RMEF is. The land transfer will end in the sale of your public lands. If David is fear mongering then I guess Ducks Unlimited, Pheasants and quail forever, Backcountry hunters and anglers, TRCP, Trout unlimited, Boone and Crocket club, SCI, and others are also fear mongering right? Maybe you should look into things before you get caught up in conservative punchlines that you’ve done no research on. All these amazing organizations have come out against it. Want to hear some companies that are against it? Vortex, Leupold, KUIU, Sitka, Remington, Berkley, Kimber, Unlimited Upland, Orvis, Powerhook, Onxmaps, and several more. But they just all must be fear mongering right? You’re a fool who buys into the republican viewpoint with no questions asked.
This is not just fear mongering, it is a very real threat to our public lands. Check your states (any western states) public lands website. The policies are already in place and they are not favorable to public use. As was mentioned in the article you can not camp on state lands in Wyoming and New Mexico and CAN NOT! hunt on state lands in Colorado. Nevada, my state, does not even have a state land use policy on their website because they have virtually no state land left! The state of Nevada has sold well over 90% of the lands that it was given at statehood. The state of Nevada has managed their state lands by putting up a for sale sign and privatizing everything they had. Nevada is the extreme example but over one third of all lands that were given to the western states at statehood have been sold. The federal government does not do everything right when it comes to land management but at least our public lands will remain public. Transfer of federal lands to the states is one step closer to privatization of these lands. Look it up. Those in favor of public land transfers are not denying that this will lead to privatization. The people pushing for land transfer overwhelmingly represent timber, mining, and ranching. They are seeing dollar signs and do not have the interests of the public in mind.
Additionally, and everyone seems to overlook this, the states gave up their rights to these lands at statehood. The enabling act for the state of Nevada says
“That the people inhabiting said territory do agree and declare that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory, and that the same shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition of the United States”
It is my understanding that each western state has the same language.
Please contact your elected officials and voice your opposition.
I stopped donating to RMEF when I learn that some members were a lot more equal than others.
It’s bad enough when a couple of “really smart” people in some state capital are put in charge & believe they know what is best for all for those people who actually live, work & play in those public lands, but at least they are responsive to their constituents, unlike the lying miscreants that inhabit the federal bureaucracies (EPA, USFWD, USDA, BLM, et al).
You’re right politicians are much more trustworthy than biologists.
Have you ever heard of a state Biologist……..Genius??
Have you ever heard of a state politician pushing a political parties ideology? The GOP wants public lands for industrial use and to sale them, they have a full track record of both. They have no interest in managing these lands they want to dispose of them, do some damn research before giving your uninformed opinion.
2001, Federal biologists in charge of federal lands management refused to allow a water drops to help firefighters putting out a small campfire started forest fire because water taken form a local river might hurt the fish. 4 young folks all burned to death when the fire exploded. The only person prosecuted was the fire-fighter supervisor who was accused of negligence. All charges against him were dropped when the defense attorney demanded BLM & NMFS documents regarding the events.
2003, Feds in BLM refuse controlled harvested of pine beetle infested forest. Largest fire in state history occurs in 2006, burns not only pine beetle infested forest 250,000 acres burned
2015, largest forest fire in state history > 275,000 acres destroys 250-300 local private homes, devastates ranchers who lost their winter food supply for their stock & caused ecologic havoc when the spring rains came washing tons of top soil into rivers vital for fish spawning.
Now these federal decision makers claim all these “largest fires in state history” were due to “global warming,” not the decisions of these “brilliant” fed biologist bureaucrats testing their pet theories on the stupid local folks.
Politician or biologist, there is no more dangerous form of decision making than to put the decisions in the hands of people who pay no consequence when they are wrong. That is the definition of federal governance where the acquisition of power comes from knowing who to blame for their screw-ups.
Huntersforlife, I can tell how much you rely on rhetoric as compared to science just by this post. It’s not my job to educate you, educate yourself. There’s plenty of conservative polcificans who have blood on their hands and are at fault for plenty of disasters who belong behind bars, but I’m sure you turn a blind eye to them.
Jason you mistakenly believe I only blame liberals for screw-ups & not conservatives. We both agree screws-ups are human. Conservative or liberal are just labels that help define the underlying beliefs.
The folks I blame for the consequences of bad governance are useful idiots like you who believe it is better if the miscreants (liberal or conservative) making the mistakes are ruling us from Washington DC where the mistakes affect all 50 states and the folks from any given state have no chance of holding miscreants like N Pelosi, H Reid, L Graham, J McCain, M Waters, et al for their bad governance. Hell, in my state we can’t even hold our federal senators accountable for what they do in WDC because only 2 out of 39 counties determine who win state wide office. We have to depend on our state representative to protect our rights.
I think the post that best describes you stance on whether public lands should be under the control of the state or federal government was your claim you don’t care if assault rifles are outlawed because you don’t thing they are needed to hunt or you don’t want to hunt with assault rifles.
Basically, you are more than happy to vote for a central governing class to deprive Americans of rights you don’t particularly want or “need.”
That belief is no different than those who vote for a federal governing class to transfer any other right from one American to another American based on wants or needs & group politics.
So, you voted for an all powerful central government to usurp states rights & you hoped it would be controlled by folks with a (D) behind their names.
Well, now we have D Trump in charge of the Fed government & the chickens have come home to roost!
After 8 years of governance by presidential (D) executive orders, what if Trump (D/R) by executive order decides to open all public land to unfettered exploitation?
What if the next election, an anti-hunting, anti-gun candidate (D) gets elected and by executive order
outlaws hunting on federal lands & restricts gun ownership to 22 cal single shot rifles, since that is all that is needed for target shooting?
After 8 years of Clinton and now Obama governance, do you really think folks with (D) behind their name would impeach?
The problem isn’t the liberal (D) or the conservative (R) behind the name. It is an all powerful federal government imposing its beliefs on all 50 states.
Thing what fighting forest fires will do to the states budgets. One bad forest fire will leave a state with few options, raise taxes, sell off land to private interest, log or mine it to pay off the fire fighting debt.
I do not think big government is the solution but in this case I think the land is better left in there hands.
No where in the Constitution does it mention the federal government having the responsibility of providing us hunting ground or the federal government owning land. The land should be in control of locals and we should pay for it on a local level.
Check the enabling act for your state. The states gave up the rights to those lands when they gained statehood.
Good luck paying for the first major wildfire that hits our area. Wait…. Let me guess…. Locals will want federal equipment to put it out, federal money to pay for it, and federal money to reseed it. There’s no way in hell your local government can afford what the federal government does, if you believe so, you live in a fairy tale world. Take a look at Antelope island state park in Utah that just caught on fire and burned 14,000+ acres. Hmmm, that must have been one badly managed state park because it burned half the entire island. Fires are going to happen no matter who is managing the land. I suggest you take a look at the pics and videos of the agencies fighting that fire on a Utah state park as well. There’s plenty of BLM trucks and employees there assisting them…. And do you think the state owns those helicopters or retardant bombers? Nope that’s all federal money right there. But sure the state can handle wild fires right?
Where does federal money come from? It doesn’t grow on trees. It’s paid in by all the taxes of the people. You’re an idiot and most likely just trolling. So why don’t you just put on a hillary pin and climb back under your bridge.
FYI, Trump is also agains the transfer of federal lands to the state, he has said so on multiple occasions and so have his sons.
Hillary is okay with 36 week abortions.
Yeah and Trumps okay with killing families of Muslims. At what point are you no better than your opponent? I’m not voting for Hillary, but I will vote for more dems on a local level. I agree Hillarys a POS, but so is Trump. Neither one of them are a good choice. I hated Sanders economical perspectives and much of what he believed, but at least he had a soul. The two choices we have now are the two worst choices that have ever ran for president, and I’m not going to vote for either of them.
You vote for Hilda-Beast and don’t piss & moan when she taxes the bejesus out of your ammunition and stacks the deck on the SCOTUS with 2 or 3 liberal/anti-gun justices.
And to be completely honest with you Blake. When I really think of either of them in office, they both scare the s*** out of me.
Over-the-Hillary is Satan in a pantsuit.
He is lifetime NRA and his sons are hunters.
Most states struggle to pay for schools and roads much less what is needed to properly manage public lands. Look at how much federally owned public land there is by state and you’ll quickly see a link between the states with almost no public land open to hunting (say Texas with ~2%) and the congressmen ultimately want to see most federally owned land to be off to private owners for resource extraction.
http://nationalmap.gov/small_scale/printable/printableViewer.htm?imgF=images/preview/fedlands/fedlands3.gif&imgW=588&imgH=450
Federally owned lands are owned by all of us, available for all of us to use, and the cost of managing those lands are shared by all of us. I for one would rather have the federal lands stay as they are so that they continue to be available.
You fellows better read some papers before you fall for this scam ! Utah and Idaho want this land trade so some of their crooked legislature members can work around and get their hands on the land to make deals and have the good ground sold to fill their friggin pockets..What if they take prime hunting ground and swap it for worthless desert while telling you what a good deal they got for the state..In Co. state land can be leased and leesee can keep public out now..Leave it as is !
Reps like Paul Ryan have already talked about selling off federal land to help pay down the deficit. The democrats will never allow this to happen. The good thing about the Feds managing it is the rhinos won’t be able to sell it off because the democrats won’t allow it. The states have already shown that they are willing and will sell it off. Also if you think liberal states like California and soon to be Colorado won’t at some point ban all hunting on this land then you live under a rock. The local Republican politicians will sell it off and the local Dems will ban or severely limit hunting. I side with the majority of the hunting conservation groups. Keep it under federal control.
Also states like Wyoming are in a budget crunch already due to low oil and mineral prices. How in the hell will they pay the massive bills to manage said land?
One Major wildfire that Wyoming doesn’t have the money to fight will open the door for land sales. That’s for sure and for certain.
I understand there’s a lot of problems with the federal and state government. Voting democratic is not necessarily the solution in my opinion. Bernie is a Democrat socialist, just like Hugo Chavez from Venezuela and you can see in the news most the hunting people are doing there is dogs and cats in the streets for food. I don’t believe everything politicians say and I never said anything about trump, I have my reservations with him as well. That being said I’m not going to abandon my principles and vote for a Democrat so I can huntil a couple more years. If you open your eyes and look at these liberals, most of them don’t believe in guns at all, including bolt action rifles. They don’t believe in killing animals and a lot of them are vegan. You fellas do what you want, but in my opinion you have a better chance of getting things done on a local level rather than a federal. Yes the money would be an issue, but if you haven’t noticed our federal government doesn’t have money either. We pay more on interest to our national deficit than on our military. I hippie the lands don’t get sold to private individuals, but I’m not willing to sacrifice the future of the country at the same time. Vote your conscience and get involved.
Blake I respect your thoughts, and I understand your choice of how you are voting. I simply feel any politician including republicans will throw any of us under the bus with whatever money is thrown at them. As I said I can’t vote for either of our current choices for president, but I have found several moderate democrats in my state, I would be happy to vote for. I’m not saying vote for hard core progressive politicians, just those that you can stomach.
I’m a lifelong Republican and was a local and county delegate this year. I am disgusted with both parties. I will vote for the R most of the time because I believe gun rights are the most important thing we as Americans have. This is a federal vs state issue and who will screw up our public lands the least. Unfortunately the Feds win out. I agree stay informed, contact your local and state reps, get out and vote.
You advocates for state takeover of federal land see a silver lining that is not there. The federal land belongs to all the people, and not just the state it resides in. When the land is in jeopardy ” we the people” can, and do speak out at a federal level. The entire state in which the federal land in jeopardy resides, can complain to the federal official in Congress, or Senate, and effectually threaten to vote out, while the rest of the “people” call there officials, and complain triggering a mind set among the federal officials, that “we the people” are not pleased.
Take that away, and give it to state officials, and “we the people” are sidelined. The state voices are heard, but what if the state voice changes?? Like California, or Colorado?? Then the state becomes it’s own Utopia among state residents, and denies “we the people” a say on federal land.
No supporters of state control are WRONG period. This is not an argument about state wildlife management. This is turning control of a US asset over to private ownership of a state collective. It borders unconstitutional, and this what I am telling my federal officials as well.
Why should you have any say in my state or the land I live & work, except by petitioning my state representatives? What gives you the right or I the right to micro manage how other live based on our ability to get people elected in other states who go to Washington DC & then take our money to do as they think best, instead of the people who live & work the land?
Why do the younger generations of Americans trust unaccountable bureaucrats in WDC who have time and again abused their authority & kill more Americans at a time than were killed by the Muslim terrorist in Florida, more than they do the bureaucrats within their own states?
After what we have seen our federal leaders & bureaucracies do to this country over the last 30 years & still have people who are against returning to Americans the local control of our lives, just goes to show hos bad our public education system has become in creating folks who are a lot easier to fool than to convince that they have been fooled.
Exactly my point. I am not commenting about your state, I am commenting about the federal lands in your state. Those lands belong to both of us, and we both have a say in that. To put it in state control silences my voice. Do you want that? Do you want your fellow Americans to lose there voice in your state, about what belongs to all of us?
That is exactly what the King of England claimed in 1776.
I want my fellow Americans to petition my state representatives when they want to see something changed in my state that benefits them at my expense. I don’t want a tyranny of the majority by states with massive population advantages dictating how the lands in my state are going to be managed. If you are so concerned about another state maybe interfering with you being able to do with that state land as you would like, then move to that state & become a citizen. If you don’t want to live here, then petition our state representatives and convince them that what you want to have done in my state is good for us, not just for you. This is why nations & states have boundaries – to benefit those who live within the boundaries, not just those who want to visit or use the land within the state.
Regardless, you are a fool if you believe a federal biologist will do a better job of managing state lands than state biologists. The feds are immune to the results of their decisions & that is what makes them so dangerous to the environment, state lands & individual rights.
.
You Cannot hunt on State land in Cali-Rodo, you cannot camp nor have a fire on State land in Wyoming. Most western states have similar restrictive conditions on their State controlled land. I like things the way they are now, controlled by the BLM & National Forest Service and the mostly unfettered access we have to hunt/fish/camp and recreate. The States get control and the only ones with access will be the Ranchers/Outfitters and the Energy Industry, you can bet on that.
SBE, exactly my friend. HFL is blinded to the American Heritage initiated by the wisdom of our forefathers, namely Teddy Roosevelt. He saw big money interests gobbling up state lands for profit, and he declared it belonged to the people, and should not be infringed. He set it aside to be governed by a wiser government in that day, but set aside it was, and remains to this day. One thing we all can agree is that it remains protected, and President Roosevelt was right, it would have never remained that way if he had not the wisdom to see so.
The opinion of the previous proves out that many are short sighted in the idea of “we know better than you”, and the promise of protecting these vital lands. This idea exists now in Washington the same way with erasure of constitutional rights because “we know better than you”.
If we cannot remain centered in the rights of America as a whole, we will inherit tyranny of the select few.
If you want to know what a State and private ran hunting situation will look like look at Texas.
Almost no public hunting areas, high cost hunting leases only good for the wealthy ($1500 and up). No thanks, I’ll stick to Federal lands hunting all for the cost of a license and tag.
+1 my friend