What I see missing in the statement is any reference to keeping federal lands open to hunting. The Clinton administration closed off lands, and, if the Obama campaign wants to attract sportsmen and women then I would think there would be a pledge to keep public lands open to hunting and fishing.
I will illustrate with a situation here in Virginia. I am awaiting word whether I was drawn for a hog/deer hunt at Back Bay National Wildlife Refuge near Virginia Beach. It is reclaimed farmland that was abandoned during the Depression. Farmers opened their pens and let hogs and horses fend for themselves. Both have prospered. The horses are only a problem to traffic, but the hogs will eat any bird eggs or nestlings they can find. Since the Refuge is an important nesting area for shorebirds, it is necessary to control them. If it weren't for the hunt, the Refuge would have to budget for hiring employees to control the hogs. They are on a shoestring budget as it is. Having a hunt brings in revenue and keeps the herd in check. It also provides about 9,000 acres of public access to hunting, and is one of the few areas available in eastern Virginia.
In addition, there is a state park south of the Refuge, False Cape State Park. Going through the Refuge is the only land access, as False Cape is bounded on the east by the Atlantic, on the west by Back Bay, and on the south by a naval firing range with unexploded ordnance.
Occasionally the park and the Refuge get into a micturation contest, and access to False Cape is closed off. There goes another 4,500 acres of public hunting, unless you put a boat in on the far side of Back Bay, and make sure you do not stray into Refuge waters.
This is why a pledge of continued access is important. Was the exclusion of such a pledge an oversight or was it a way to keep the environmental fringe on board, while seeming to reach out to sportsmen? Inquiring minds want to know.
