Problem is they aren't stopping anyone from "giving away" public lands.
Not sure how you can come to that conclusion. There are still lots of people who think divesting public lands is a good idea and we haven't heard the last from them. BHA has come out against it pretty vigorously and is at least as influential as any other group. Lots of hunters including me are in alignment with their position.
Originally Posted by Tarkio
......limit more everyday people by promoting more wilderness crap.
"Everyday people" are not limited in using wilderness, that's a non-starter. The vast majority of public lands have roads and 4-wheeler access that "everyday people" who don't want to walk a mile or two can access. Screw BHA? I say screw people who think every square mile of public land needs motorized access. It doesn't.
My favorite places to hunt and fish are roadless "wilderness crap" because that's where the best hunting and fishing is. There are lots of others who think the same way and we're not going anywhere. Except hunting and fishing in the "wilderness crap."
So you are telling me you think it is a good idea for the federal government to increase its land holdings, exert more control over those holdings and limit people more in their use of those holdings?
I am not saying there is anything wrong with wilderness areas. What I am saying is that we don't need the government to control any more land than they already have and don't need any more wilderness acres than they already have.
The wsa issue is a hot topic for me. Many of these areas were created in 93. If they passed muster, they were to become a wilderness area. If not, they were to revert to standard public land which they were before. These areas didn't pass muster. Now they should revert as the original (not sure if it was legislation or rule making)legislation was written.
Enviro groups like bha have stymied the reversion of these lands as they were to their original management and use.
Reality is, this group promotes control over lands and management over public lands far away from the lands and the end user. I do not think this is a model I support because it does give far more credence and import to the deep-pocket guys. Just as TOM tried to scare everyone that corporations are closing off access to our public lands, the reality is deep pocket corporate types like Chouinard are doing just that. Limiting the multiple use of OUR (they are mine too) public lands.
Wilderness areas are an anathema to most local communities they are in proximity to. You guys only see 1 aspect, "I hate hearing or seeing 4-wheelers" but the reality is, these areas create a lot of problems not the least of which are weeds and fire danger.
