"We call upon all national and state leaders and representatives to exert their utmost power and influence to urge the transfer of those lands, identified in the review process, to all willing states for the benefit of the states and the nation as a whole."
In Montana, that would mean the transfer of the surface estate, and possibly subsurface minerals where not severed, to the state school trust system.
I must also address Smoker's yap about "keeping public lands public." First, in a transfer, the lands would pretty much STAY public, and while current Montana state trust land use by public recreationists is somewhat restricted (ironically, pretty much like BHA would like it), I would suspect the trust laws would be changed either by initiative or legislation to encourage a wider range of recreational access, reasonably priced, on Montana trust lands. Second, what Smoler and the other BHA supporters here DON'T say is, BHA's version of "public" and of "access" is grossly limited compared to the kinds of public access that was encouraged, not just allowed, by the "multiple use" doctrine established in 1960 under the Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act. Multiple use covers all of it, the "work" side and "play" side on "Land of Many Uses." BHA seeks a very narrow "quiet use" model, focused on hunting and muscle power only, a model favored by probably 5 percent of the actual user public. The other 95 percent want modern, 21st century access, meaning motorized toys -- which are not a problem if managed well with SCIENTIFICALLY, not ideologically, based policies.
I personally have no problem with motorized closures during hunting season, or closures for resource damage, or permitting in popular areas to prevent overuse. What I do have a problem with is BHA's seeking of exclusive use of large chunks of the landscape where only their approved uses are allowed at the exclusion of pretty much everyone else.
Up hills slow, Down hills fast Tonnage first and Safety last.
