Of course you are not alone. I agree with what you said too. Where I "think" we differ is I won't associate with or donate money to a group that supports one issue I support if they support other groups or issues that are against another issue that means a lot to me. For instance say for sake of argument BHA supports anti hunting groups (I don't know if they do or don't) and public access. BHA and I would agree that having public land open for recreation is good. However, I would not associate with them or donate money to them because they support anti hunting groups. I would not like BHA, because they support anti hunting groups, if they really did. I "think" that's our divide. Also, I would support conservative politicians that were pro land transfer if they were pro hunting, pro 2nd Amendment, and fiscaly conservative. However, if there were 2 conservative politicians who's only dufference was that one was bought by oil companies or ranchers and voted for their interests at the cost of the many or the people, I would support the one who supports the people. For me the public land issue is probably the least of my concerns in politics. I'll admit, I'm biased, because I live in California and am yearning for conservativeness. If I lived in a conservative state like Idaho, I'd be furious with the politicians who voted in that stupid trespass law. I'm considering not moving to Idaho, because of that.