Which is why this idea of selling public land is ridiculous, but far too many voters listen only to headlines. We can all agree better management is needed, but that doesn't mean it should be disposed of. This threat, if it were to come to fruition, would yield a far more devastating blow to hunting than animal rights groups could every dream of.
Yep the "spotted owl" issue crushed our economy in our area. You would think a simple idea like 200 or even 300 year rotation on Federal land would preserve "old growth" while using the land as well.
The private owners would just take the F&G signs down an put up a posted sign.
Create and incentive for landowners to post the corners, such as landowner tags that can be sold for private land use only, kinda like what is used in New Mexico. The landowner wins (more cash), the public hunters win (access to more public land).
There are several others that are involved. Seek Outside is a sponsor of theirs and they are also a sponsor of this forum through the backpack giveaway they did.
I disagree, only 2.7% of the lower 48 is wilderness designation, and IMO the Wilderness Act was one of the greatest pieces of legislation to make it's way through DC. This doesn't mean that we have to increase that percentage to 10%, but wilderness is vital for great hunting (and general recreation opportunities).
My personal opinion I think there is a middle ground on this issue. find something between Wilderness and BLM such as how the National forest in G and H is managed in Wyoming.
Moot point as this is true for every administration since Carter (save Clinton).
