....unlike you guys who think more govt control is good.
Good diversionary tactic (don't answer the question, cast aspersions in a different direction), but the generalized statement above is nonsense. As I already said, the government gets a few things right, like interstates, our armed forces, and keeping public lands open. That does not equate to thinking "more govt control is good."
You ASSUME that if it wasnt for the current bureaucratic management of our federal/public lands, that we would not have access. That is a huge ASSUMPTION, as we have not tried it another way on a large scale, no?
No, your assumption that you'd have access to private lands is the bigger leap. Because we have access to public lands and it's been that way since the NFs were established, continued access is a reasonable assumption.
The most reasonable assumption.
And I guarantee you that if you or I decided to drive across any western state with good elk hunting--Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, New Mexico, Arizona, or Colorado, and stopped at choice private land to ask permission to hunt elk, more often than not permission would be denied or charged a pretty penny for. So assuming the same thing would happen with public land that went private is a reasonable assumption;
the most reasonable assumption.
