I don't see this as a hoof/hike vs the rest issue. It's not either/or.
A broad stroke by myself.
I believe we have (still broad):
1. Foot/hoof die hards.
2. Foot/hoof & other transport (Multi use).
3. Other transport die hards.
1&3 are fighting for 2. Typical setting. The problem with this, from my perspective, the qty of people using our Wilderness areas are very few in comparison - as I personally like it. The STUDY AREAS are a source of contention.
With that... Foot/hoof are found in the minority.
Very broad case in point... You and I both enjoy the wilderness hiking/riding horses, etc. You and I differ on the study areas for multi use - access opportunities. Even if we split 50/50 on multi use type personalities... Foot/hoof will be the minority.
We are fighting against our own allies for federally protected public lands.
Thanks for the update. I'll read the actual bill again. I used his public address to match the Wilderness Study Areas to those selected and not from the actual bill. If you are saying Daines bill states different facts than his public statement regarding the specifics of those five WSA's, then yes, I agree, this is horse shit and I'll send another message sharing my concerns upon further consideration as my first was a share of support to FINALLY act upon the GAO's recommendations.
*Caps not what the diehard keyboard chest thumping gurus consider yelling. Simply enhanced word(s).
