Pay attention to what Flintlocke says, he lives in the epicenter of litigationist stupidity. The Greens have destroyed the ability of the Forest Service to do anything cost-effective and habitat-positive. Ambulance chasers (and stupid Bubbas) soured private landowners on public use, what it all boils down to is the decline of common sense and respect.
I;m amazed that Valsdad will bring up the Green lawsuits and still want the Feds in control of what are, in the end, local landscapes. Sure, back when the mission was multiple use, heck yes, it was wonderful. But now, fire and disease is running rampant, something which to me is just criminal.
I fully support turning over management of the "suitable" non-preserved federal estate to state interests. Not the ownership, just the management. Trust me, state trusts know how to make a profit while managing good habitat conditions and good public access -- for a price, but it's a REASONABLE price that covers the cost of the use.
It blows my mind that hunters will spend thousands upon thousands to equip and transport themselves to someplace and then howl like a scalded cat at the idea that they might have to pay a day fee. When it was "free," that's because timber sales and grazing income and mining permits and all the other productive uses in the multiple-use categories PAID for recreation infrastructure/access.
