Baited is the understatement of the century. I had to trim my comment down twice. I don't think they really expect or want any sentiment that disagrees with what they are saying.
The 16% figure in the question, while probably true, is being used in a dishonest fashion. Any public access preserved or maintained by this fund is a de facto benefit to the communities near said access. This is in addition to any money given directly to the Stateside program.
It is also clarified in the wording of the actual question that this is absolutely about Representative Bishop not wanting the Federal Government to own an acre more land than it does now.
This is not about the true merit of the LWCF and how it stands to benefit the sportsmen, school children, bird-watchers, and bunny-huggers alike.
It is a tantrum full of partisan anti-federal government rhetoric that really does pose a danger to the continuation of recreation on public land. Most of us, by the nature of our hobbies and passions, should be much more than casual observers of this debate.
