Agreed.
To add: it’s hard to imagine a scenario in which the local/state government would not have better line-of-sight to manage things like this in a much better and more efficient manner than the feds have.
The entire article is written to imply it: he is the protagonist of the story, used to garner sympathy of the viewer. That is a classical literary technique.
Nothing is factually incorrect- I was agreeing with you.
The article relies heavily upon the premise that is is a federal responsibility to financially support Mr. Zink’s hunting hobby. At present, that is indeed legally/factually correct so I’d have to concur.
Great post, Randy.
I mean this respectfully- this point above is exactly why I feel so strongly that wildlife and the land on which it lives cannot and should not be separated conceptually. I get and understand the legalistic argument, but one relies so much upon the other that it is...
As mentioned- I just put a 40 lb bag of water softener salt inside the big bag of my Metcalf.
If you lay it flat and then cinch your pack down as tight as possible, it keeps its shape very well. Thick plastic so it doesn’t puncture, I’ve had the same salt bag for like 10 years.
It took a while, but we got there: we have collectively dispelled the myth that western states would not be able to financially handle a transfer scenario.
I will bow out now before I cause poor @Jnasa any more heartache😜
What would happen in the event that this occurs then? States just financially implode? Let fires burn themselves out?
If it’s an actually possibility that a large-scale transfer could actually occur, what does this dystopian future look like?
How would the state pay for things like fire mitigation in this scenario though? As @Buzz pointed out, they wouldn’t even scratch the surface of being able to foot the bill.