Hudge is on to something, in a way.
A lot of this controversy did start WAY back, as in the Sagebrush Rebellion and Wise Use Movements. Both of which promote/d privatization of Federal/State public lands.
A pretty good case can be made that Montana Democratic Senator Jon Tester owes his narrow reelection win to BHA activism and the red herring public land selloff issue.
In my mind, it's not a "red herring" at all. Many of us recreational users are concerned about repeated calls for privatization of public lands by "conservative" candidates and already elected officials. Most of the ones I know, in this CA ranching community and in other places I've lived (AZ and WA for instance), have no problem with some lands being used for cattle/sheep grazing, as long as it doesn't impact our ability to access "our" public lands. And yes, they are "ours". Yours too, Texans
.
Living where I do, I was amazed to find out it takes years, if ever, to draw an elk tag near my home and I live smack dab in the middle of millions and millions of acres of prime elk habitat. Where I lived in the White Mountains of AZ there were thousands more elk in a very similar habitat (juniper grasslands surrounded by Ponderosa/fir forests). Not here, as the elk were killed off years ago and the ranchers now prefer the few here stay up in the mountains. Some of you have likely seen pics of posted of my "backyard", the BLM land right out back. It looks as similar as any I've seen to Unit 10 in AZ and many of us know what kind of elk numbers and quality that Unit has. I've heard the elk were slowly expanding their range, but not fast enough I'll see much benefit in my lifetime and therefor will likely never get a chance to hunt elk where I live. (There's this other issue with wild (non-native) horses, but that's for another thread someday)
Many on here profess to be big supporters of the North American system of game management. I'm one of them. That system will disappear rapidly with any privatization of public lands. Game will revert to the ownership of the property holder, not the public as it is now. Either directly, or by limiting access as has happened already in many areas of the west (Our MT, WY and other members already know about that due to rich folks buying up the large ranches they used to hunt on). That is what got organizations like BHA and some others started.
Am I happy with the way things seem to be going with BHA and Rinella's company? Not particularly. As a matter of fact not at all. Was the takeover of Meateater a hostile one? Did Rinella have and say-so? Was it publicly traded stock the new guy just purchased on the Market? Whatever it turns out to be, it would be nice for Rinella to disavow himself of the whole deal and tell his supporters he disagrees with the way things might go.
It's unfortunate, but the "antis" have worked for many years to get between different "factions" of hunters, fishers, ranchers/grazers, miners,hikers, horsemen, cyclists,rock climbers etc. The real deal, as I see it , would be to unify those diverse interest in order to keep public land PUBLIC. But as in so many aspects of life, there is the 'I want my share first" attitude that works in the interest of those who want to destroy our heritage. Either for private use, no use, or just the uses a particular group may espouse.
Sad that Meateater has been taken over.
Geno
