Because I think we should look at different options, including states, for managing public lands you claim I'm in the vast minority of hunters? That's funny TG. Do you have a link to that information? Anything?
Yes states are spending lots of money to open up private land for public hunting. I've already given numerous examples so there is no need to dispute what is fact. Go back and read the examples I have provided. Here is another one if you missed all the others.
South Dakota
Private Land Hunting Access (Walk-in) Walk-In Areas (General Hunting Access) South Dakota has a rich hunting heritage; one that includes lots of game and lots of places to hunt. For the past 25 years, GFP has been working hard to maintain that rich heritage by providing hunting access on privately owned lands. The department does this by contracting with landowners who have CRP or other valuable wildlife habitat. The landowner opens the land to unlimited, free public hunting, which is open to foot-traffic only hunting, in exchange for a small payment and immunity from non-negligent liability. It has been a great program and currently has more than 1.25 million acres enrolled. See the South Dakota Hunting Atlas for a list of these and other hunting areas. - See more at: http://gfp.sd.gov/wildlife/private-land/walk-in.aspx#sthash.o2VZstfF.dpuf
So obviously South Dakota is spending big money to open up 1.25 million acres of land for public hunting but you want us to believe if they were given all the federal land in the state that they would sell it all off??? That does not make sense when obviously they are working hard to increase public hunting access. States what people to come hunt. It's a huge boost to the economy and they are not going to suddenly stop and kick all the NR hunters out of the state because there is no place to hunt. Just look at it logically.
All I am saying is that it is possible for land to be transferred and still maintain it public access. I have given numerous examples of this including pieces of property that are donated or purchased through conservation programs as well as federal land that has been transferred to a state all while keeping public recreational use. Obviously it is possible.
You guys keep trying to scare everyone into believing that if states get the land they will end up selling it off to private interests and all public land hunting will be lost forever. Except that what you claim has never happened and could easily be avoided by putting guidelines on the future use of the land if transferred. basically you are using a completely exaggerated and unrealistic outcome to scare people into believing that public land hunting is coming to an end. If it was coming to an end states would not be spending money to open up private land for hunting, but they do so obviously they are trying to increase public land access not decrease it like you would have us believe.
Heck you were just talking about how you kill most of your animals in Wyoming on a piece of state land and then you turn around and tell us that if states get the land they will sell it all off. Do you not see the irony in that? Are you heading back to that state land this year? Why didn't they already sell it off like you claim will happen? See how easy it is to look at what is actually going on and form an opinion off of that instead of a bunch of outrageous claims not based on reality. We have already gone over this, nobody could show examples of states selling off large pieces of recreational land.