>jm
>
>Did you get the feeling that
>the no vote was primarily
>because of sportsmans concerns of
>access or that the SLIB
>just didn't think it was
>a good trade? I
>find Balow's comments interesting in
>that it sounds like she
>may want the pot sweetened.
> Not sure having not
>heard them directly
>
>Good work Jeff, BHA and all
>those that testified against.
In the end I believe it was the overwhelming opposition, cohesivness of sportsman's groups and state and county officials against this that made the difference. The Board of Land Commissioners has a statutory duty to manage the Trust and they take that seriously. Ultimately they have the final say and each one of them explained for the record their concerns with the transaction. Community need won the day.
My hope is that the land office takes heed to what happened and the next time they see one of their transactions isolates accessible public land, they will put on the brakes. Consulting sportsman's groups for opinions wouldn't hurt either. Director Hill seemed awful upset after the vote and like the public meeting, seemed to take it personally. My hope is that we can work with her in the future to prevent transactions like this from getting this far.
