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.
......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.
Tarkio,
I understand some of your concerns, loss of revenue from timber harvests to rural counties and such. However, I don't mind promoting control and management over public lands far away from the end user to paraphrase your point..
You see, I'm the end user of public lands, not only those outside my back fence, but also those in AZ, OR and WA and hopefully in the future other states (like MT) too. And I'd like to know that areas such as those BHA wants to "preserve/ conserve/ protect" or whatever descriptive term you'd like to use will still exist when I get there. In many of our minds, there are plenty of accessible places for the "everyday people" to use. I'm one of them, as I get older my trips farther afield from a road are becoming fewer and fewer. Like a few others have posted though, my odds of encountering game or a nice fishing spot go up tremendously when I can get away from the roads, even just a mile or two. But, I have millions of acres I CAN already access, and not so much that isn't already impacted.
The bigger issue, perhaps, with the lack of "multiple use" (economic benefit?) is the need for tort reform so the managing agencies can get on with the work of managing rather than responding to FOIA requests and lawsuits. Having retired from a career in natural resources and having a wife still employed I have some experience. More so my wife. She has just spent man hour after man hour (woman hours?
) putting together papers for the solicitors to respond to a suit that's holding up some projects (timber harvest, post fire response, that type stuff.) It had a big impact on the amount of work she was able to do on other necessary projects. Her agency would just love to get on with wild horse projects, forest rehab, timber harvests, recreations site work, fire/fuel management. and so on. However, every project they propose it seems as though one group or another is suing. If it's not the "enviros" it's the ranchers. A never ending merry go round.
You have a point about the wilderness study areas. Either designate or take them off the roster. Of course, should an agency decide to do just that, the lawsuits will start again. Sometimes upper level management might just decide to leave them in a state of limbo so their employees can get on with other work.
Geno
