BLM access about to be lost

highplainsdrifter wrote:
On another forum that I visit, the question of who can better manage public land has been discussed extensively. The answer seems to boil down to the definition of "better". The states typically use a for profit management model. On the other hand the feds tend to use a conservation management model where profit is not the primary goal.

The conservation management model bugs the heck out of people who are focused on profit. On the other hand, the conservation management model is good for recreationists. Recreationists can't compete with mineral extraction, timber harvest, etc. in a for profit management model.

Some politicians want our public lands to be managed for profit, so they want them turned them over to the states who will certainly do that. I think that would be a terrible mistake. Numerous public opinion polls agree with me. Take a look at this poll from Colorado College:

https://www.coloradocollege.edu/other/stateoftherockies/conservationinthewest/

You made a great point about the different entities having different interests.

I completely agree with you on keeping Federal lands for ALL Americans not for the profit or individual states.

Earlier in this thread someone mentioned they were from the East and maybe did not understand all the issues- upon reflection I think that poster identified a key difference in our outlooks.

Those of us who live in the west, especially if we are older, remember when we could stop almost anywhere off a highway and toss out a tent. We consider open lands our birthright and we have felt remorse for every acre lost.

I suppose if camping in Missouri means paying someone to keep enough open area to park your RV - that would be your norm.