I hope they all take a stance. The people that will benefit from public access will far outnumber the group of large landowners….
But I agree, it makes the most sense to remain neutral when you have constituents on both sides of the fence…
The link autofills your opposition, if you are like me and have trouble coming up with your own scholarly letter.
It could not be easier to voice your opposition on this link. Please use it. Thanks…
Well, tell me Mr Nick, what kind of problem is it? I’d never shot a grouse with a shotgun before and ran into em in close timber… I even tried to aim high! 😅
It was jumpin’ in there! Very cool event. I’m glad I was able to stop in and become a NAPF member, buy some merch and meet Brock in person. Thanks for everything you guys do. 🤘🏽
Lmao it worked! Just do one more
Your reply to the first response made good sense. You only had to reply to the second one because you shared the same thing to two threads. The second one had some ALL CAPS… 🤣 I got your point. Send Elky a PM.
He needs 6 more messages. Could just go post the same thing in a few more threads 🤣
The land is BMA on both sides not private. You just need to sign into the surrounding BMAs and corner crossing is not an issue there
The piece I see there is surrounded on both sides by the Griffith ranch (ones called mud creek still owned by Griffith) which is still BMA. Just have to be signed into them too, i would suppose…
This is the section you’re referring too right ?