DOI trying to expand hunting and fishing access across federal land ... 92 million acres

[repins05]

DOI proposal would open up 92 million acres of federal land available to hunting and fishing. This will include 107 national wildlife refuges. Hmmmmm

 

[Beendare]

If you are a sportsman, how can you not support an admin that has this ideology?

“For too long, access to hunting and fishing on federal lands has been limited by unnecessary restrictions and disconnected federal rules," Burgum said.

The proposal would open or expand more than 1,450 hunting and fishing opportunities across 111 stations in 32 states.

Lets hope sportsman wake up to who their allies are…..

 

[Bachto]

I don't know how to feel about this...But as a Eastern Washington resident if I can hunt the FWS portion of the Hanford reach for elk...that would be pretty cool. If you know, you know.

 

[Traveler]

As long as it’s not a precursor to selling 92 million acres…

 

[FritzHlzr]

Feeding the peasants crumbs while they steal the whole loaf of bread.

 

[Andrew12gauge]

I don't know how to feel about this...But as a Eastern Washington resident if I can hunt the FWS portion of the Hanford reach for elk...that would be pretty cool. If you know, you know.

Or maybe turnbull


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[KBaird]

The silence around this from the “conservation” groups is deafening. Took BHA three days to post a brief synopsis that included warnings about portions of the proposals and barely choked out any supportive language. Have seen other well known voices strike up conversations about how expanded access leads to overcrowding! Tough to make the “public land owners” happy these days.

 

[average]

The silence around this from the “conservation” groups is deafening. Took BHA three days to post a brief synopsis that included warnings about portions of the proposals and barely choked out any supportive language. Have seen other well known voices strike up conversations about how expanded access leads to overcrowding! Tough to make the “public land owners” happy these days.

Why would conservation groups have anything to say? They have been fighting the administration to stop the sale of public lands and other misuse. Are they to forget the last year when given some crumbs?

 

[Andrew12gauge]

Why would conservation groups have anything to say? They have been fighting the administration to stop the sale of public lands and other misuse. Are they to forget the last year when given some crumbs?

Because if they want to be honest and unbiased then besides vilifying the current administration for the ills, they should also honestly praise the administration for the positive actions they take. Don’t think for a second that DJT doesn’t read his own press and if he only sees negative press from certain groups it deincentivizes him from taking positive conservation actions in the future


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[average]

Because if they want to be honest and unbiased then besides vilifying the current administration for the ills, they should also honestly praise the administration for the positive actions they take. Don’t think for a second that DJT doesn’t read his own press and if he only sees negative press from certain groups it deincentivizes him from taking positive conservation actions in the future


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Completely disagree. If the current administration had a better track record maybe but this seems like the usual here's some crumbs while we rob you blind. Nothing dishonest or biased about some scepticism. I'm so glad our current president needs praise/worship in order to help American people

 

[Baddog]

People seem to forget two things can be true. This is great! Maybe some other things are not great. We should be for new access

 

[HairyScandinavian]

Some people always look for the negatives, and if that's all you want to see that's all you'll find. Some people's ego just won't let them admit there's positives.