This is the first rational post I've seen from you on this subject. I also think I understand your perspective, may not agree with all of it but we can have a conversation vs innuendo and smoke screens.
First, about Colorado. Elk hunting in Colorado is about one of two things - hunt on private or get off the road. I don't have access on private and am not paying for a guided hunt so my only option is to get off the road. "Get off the road" means off any easy access. I know guys that hunt '3-4-5 miles' off the road and still come up empty. Walking 2.75-3.75-4.75 miles back a road/trail then a short walk off the access point doesn't count. Elk have figured that out. Off the road means bushwacking, hiking to yonder ridge, etc. To do that you need a dearth of roads. Roads mean access, access means hunters, hunters mean no elk. Its that simple to me.
"Integrated forestry" I'm not sure what that means. Forest management I could buy into in limited amounts. Forest fires are fueled by undergrowth. Forest fires also clear large openings in forest. Fire creates habitat. In the end, I'll default to Mother Nature to create habitat - unless I'm not understanding the concept of integrated forestry. As an aside, I'm not against forestry, just don't think we need as much as we have/do. I work in the coal mine industry so am no stranger to resource extraction. And for the record, I'm not fond of some of the issues mining and logging create. At least in the east, logging is likely the least regulated industry around and creates large scale sediment issues.
'Access for everyone' is a subjective thing. Wilderness/no roads is access for everyone - for everyone who cares to walk or take a horse. When I see 'access for everyone', that means to me, everyone with an ATV. I despise ATVs in hunting country - except to retrieve animals or for the handicapped. Outside of that, get your ass off the iron pony and walk. Probably for this reason alone, I'm against more roads/trails into forests. I've seen enough ATV abuse to last my lifetime. I could tell stories for the rest of the day but suffice to say I'm not an ATV fan. And I don't buy the whole "gated road" concept. Another series of stories. ATV guys have abused that privilege to the point where I won't even entertain the thought.
'Broader economy' sounds like business language. I'd dare say the economies of the west are fueled by recreation dollars, not resource extraction industries. I'm sympathetic to business cases but not in this context. Growing trees in the US is not rocket science and is not a scarce or limited resource.
If your last sentence is truly your motivation for wanting more access, I can live with that and agree with some of it in principle. If we were the decision makers, we could reach a compromise that meets in the middle. As to some of the supporters of BHA, they may have ulterior motives including some that are counter to your way of life (logging as I understand). I would stand with you against them if I thought you weren't simply being a lumber whore at all costs.
