Editorial for Less Access

Nameless Range

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 6, 2013
Messages
4,622
Location
Western Montana
What's wrong with the current state of public land access?

Well clearly, we may have too much of it according to PERC in a recent editorial. You know, because they clearly have the best interests of sportsmen in mind based on their push for the transfer of public lands, their undying hate for stream access, and a host of other things.

http://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/opinions/guest_columnists/how-much-access-is-too-much/article_e6fffdff-8c6d-5524-b576-336cdc5dbfa8.html

They name dropped Mr. Newberg on this one as well.
 
Last edited:

Big Fin

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2000
Messages
15,677
Location
Bozeman, MT
They name dropped Mr. Newberg on this one as well.

Yeah, the same article appeared in the Billings paper over the weekend. I'm at a loss of how an editor at a newspaper would let someone write a guest editorial that quotes a speaker (me), then allow that speaker's quote to have words added by the guest writer that gives a completely different meeting than what was the substance of the testimony given.

The level of journalistic integrity is at an all-time low.
 

RobG

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 10, 2010
Messages
5,474
Location
Bozeman, MT
Some areas got overused in the past so let's give users even less places to go. Brilliant. Luckily for them their billionaire friends are closing access faster than we can obtain it.
 

Ben Lamb

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 6, 2010
Messages
17,730
Location
Cedar, MI
You're not famous until your enemies attack you in public, Randy. ;)

It's kind of funny - but PERC is basically arguing for good travel management, like less ORV trails in the Root, Divide, etc travel plans. Their take away, however, is wrong. We can manage public lands and the travel on them for increased opportunity, better chance of harvest, etc, or we can throw the gates wide open, spend millions on road management and enforcement and have less opportunity.

PERC has a longstanding position that the transfer & SALE of public lands is a good idea. Only recently did they drop sale, but now we see them go after access because, well, how dare the American public want to have access to their own land.

This follows the UPOM model of trying to eliminate our access funding the last few legislative sessions or eliminating our stream access law (both PERC and UPOM don't like the stream access law). It's pretty funny that the darling of the American Lands Council, PERC is now advocating for less access in order to protect the environment.
 

Cornell2012

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Jun 8, 2009
Messages
605
Location
Portland, OR
"We want to let more people enjoy the land by reducing the number of people we allow to enjoy the land." - paraphrasing
 

HSi-ESi

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 1, 2012
Messages
1,178
Location
Corvallis, MT
"We want to let more people enjoy the land by reducing the number of people we allow to enjoy the land." - paraphrasing

I felt like it was more "we want a select group of people to be able to enjoy the land in a manner we want them to".

Either way though - the opinion piece speaks volumes to their idea of entitlement.
 

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
102,503
Messages
1,652,934
Members
32,020
Latest member
stan5677
Top