Randy: Try not to exaggerate so much. States like California probably aren't interested because Sacramento likes preservation status. And there are millions of acres that are already under Congressional restrictions of other types that guarantee they would be fiscal losers -- no state will want those under any circumstances anyway. So there will still be millions of acres open unless, of course, federal policy changes. As for "recreational and target shooting" -- you mean drive out in the woods and go bang? I'm sorry to say it, but some time ago I went up to the Rampart Range shooting area and came away pretty ashamed at the mess. I never fired a shot myself, I belonged to the range at Pueblo and wasn't up there for shooting. But I did stop and look out of curiosity. Nobody picks up after themselves. Or they'll try to shoot down a tree just because they can. Old monitors, propane bottles, junk of all kinds... Then there are "public ranges" and formal shooting positions, but those tend to get wrecked rather quickly too without some kind of adult supervision -- the kind of supervision that requires effort worthy of a paycheck. Or controlled access. Can you really argue with a straight face that a state might restrict random "target shooting" and that would be a truly bad thing, even if the state establishes formal ranges (well backstopped and safe) in convenient locations as compensation? In a state like Montana, that's a pretty likely outcome and one that I don't think would be a negative.
Up hills slow, Down hills fast Tonnage first and Safety last.
