Yes, Shill dear, I DO have opinions. Most of them are opinions based on fact. One of those opinions is, a "hunter and angler" group that the facts show is paid for by the usual-suspect Green foundations and staffed by refugees from other Green groups, as the facts show, is probably Green first, last and always. The fact that some of them can touch a rifle without hurting themselves is secondary to the Green part. And as we all know, Greens are Marxist Red on the inside -- again, that's based on fact and is therefore a pretty solid opinion.

As for your opinion that my interest in "land transfer" is "vested" -- you're dang right, but it's not for "logging." Sure, forestry (actually vegetation management), or the LACK THEREOF, is a huge factor driving the terrible conditions on federal public land. I don't like the idea of having all that habitat, and all that valuable wood, and all those pretty trees, mindlessly burnt because litigous morons abuse the federal court system and federal management laws in order to burn the village to save it. The mentality, and this is based on a paper trail, is that the zero-cut morons would rather burn the greatest habitat utterly black and flat rather that let it be "exploited" for gain. Think about it.....burn an entire basin, leave it to rot, and you won't have to worry about "logging" or anything else positive for a LOOOOOONG effing time.

That "gain" actually generates the taxable profits upon which "the government" depends to give free stuff away never enters their dim little minds. That maybe good, targeted management that pays for itself works pretty well over the long run -- is a concept far beyond the ability of the eco-mind to understand.

The "vested" part for me comes from the fact that I've lived in sight of federal forests all my adult life, minus maybe four years. I've seen the good, and a hell of a lot of awful that wasn't from "logging" but from its absence. Even the "worst" clearcuts don't come close to what happens when an entire mountainside is burnt and then runs off into the watershed.

The vested interest is like what I think Washington said -- that government closest to the people is best. I'd expand on that and say that citizens should have the most say based on how much they will be affected by the policy chosen. Those with the most to gain, or to lose, should count more than someone who has never, and never will.

Up hills slow,
Down hills fast
Tonnage first and
Safety last.