
A couple weeks ago, I read an insightful and thought-stimulating Facebook post from Colorado outdoorsman, ranch and rural-life advocate Sean Pond, regarding NGOs who are wolves in sheeps’ clothing. How? They bear outdoorsy, hunter- or fisherman-appealing names like ‘Trout Unlimited” or “Backcountry Hunters and Anglers,” while working behind the scenes to restrict or even eliminate access to public land across the West. This includes supporting the “roadless” and road-elimination movements. [Yes, he used an AI image-generation tool. I thought he did a very good job.]
As a fisherman and outdoor photographer, this issue matters to me. I’m not asking for a paved superhighway or wheelchair ramp to every cabin. But let’s not shut things down to most of the population either.
Public lands should have public access, and not just for the 25-year-old decathlon contender or X Games snowboarding competitor. Effectively restricting that access to high-end athletes who can hike 40 miles in then out, is a form of discrimination that, in principle and reality, is prohibited by law in the workplace (against age and physical ability). This reveals the hypocrisy of many of the same “green” advocates who otherwise sling words like “ableist” or “ageist” around like zoo chimps throwing their crap at a wall.
And who would gleefully cover much of that same land with bird- and bat-slaughtering wind turbines and chemically toxic solar panels if they could? [If the limit for a hunter killing bald eagles is zero, the very same law and restriction should exist per raptor or migratory bird, for all wind farms. Either way, the bird is just as dead. If you can’t operate a wind farm without killing eagles, get out of the business and don’t bother. I’m not allowed to kill a golden eagle…neither should they be.]
Again, public lands should have public access. Why? Because it’s our land, and we pay for it. That’s the only justification needed. Otherwise, sell it off to private interests so it can be fenced off. The NGOs then can cut this passive-aggressive, hypocritical access-discrimination charade and call themselves something more truthful like, “Trout Limited to Elite Few” or “No New Backcountry Hunters and Anglers.”
“Abuse” is no excuse. Sure, poachers exist. Poachers also tend to get caught. Anecdotes do not disprove the rule. They just exemplify exceptions of questionable representativeness. So don’t use the bad behavior of the few to punish the majority of hunters, fishermen, hikers, photographers, campers, and off-road drivers who are ethical.
There already are thousands of assorted hunting and fishing limits at state levels that are enforceable on federal land, and laws against awful behavior such as chemical pollution, littering, poaching, arson, overfishing, killing rare animals, introducing foreign plants/animals, and building subdivisions or factories. Enforce them! We don’t need “roadless rules.” It’s discriminatory and needless overkill.
Excerpt from Sean’s post:
“Eventually, the only people who can reach much of this country are the young, healthy and physically capable. Elderly hunters, disabled veterans, families and people who cannot hike miles into the backcountry are told the land is still technically “open.” Open to whom?
…
Our public lands do not belong exclusively to environmental organizations, government agencies, wealthy foundations or physically elite backcountry recreationists. They belong to all of us.
Conservation should mean responsible use, active management and keeping these lands healthy and accessible for future generations. It should not mean locking the gate, abandoning the forest and congratulating ourselves because the land remains “public” on a map.”
