Is there any sane small business owner and/or hunter among us who doesn’t think that roadblocks created by obscure and unknown bureaucrats continue to adversely affect our lives? These roadblocks cover a broad range of issues, from onerous paperwork requirements for gun dealers that are selectively enforced (can you say Hunter Biden?) to game laws created by politically appointed state fish and wildlife commissioners driven by their anti-hunting biases to blanket bans on the use of lead ammunition enacted under the guise of “science,” and more.

Here’s one you perhaps haven’t given much thought to, especially if you do not live in the West: road closures due to wildfires. Fire season in the West is a long one, extending from summer way down into fall hunting seasons. When the mountains erupt, trying to contain these infernos is a tough and dangerous job. I know this firsthand, being the son of a career firefighter in southern California; my dad helped develop some of the firefighting strategies and techniques still employed today to fight wildland fires.

So, when roads are closed so that firefighters can do their jobs without having to worry about gaggles of onlookers, I get it. It’s when those road closures extend well beyond the scope of the fire, or when roads remain closed even after firefighters are long gone as a matter of “public safety,” that I get angry. 

Here are two examples from 2024. In Southern California, a large fire caused the closure of huge swaths of the San Bernardino National Forest, a very popular area for upland bird, small game, and deer hunters. The road closures were scaled back in time for opening day, but only because a small group of sportsmen decided to rattle the cages of their local congressmen, the county board of supervisors, and the officials who run the national forest itself. At the same time, a relatively small 3,000-acre fire in the headwaters of the North Fork of Lytle Creek resulted in the closure of not just the North Fork, but the Middle and South Forks of the creek as well — areas that were not affected by this fire at all.

A couple of years ago, I had a very pricey nonresident Montana elk tag and an archery permit for a public land unit south of Missoula. Big fires broke out, and the roads into the areas I like to hunt were closed for most of September. When they eventually reopened and I accessed the area, I had to wonder, why were they kept closed for so long? The roadways were clear, and while there were still small areas smoldering in areas completely burned out, it was obvious that both the danger and firefighters had long since passed. Those road closures effectively killed the archery hunt. It was only after making phone calls and rattling cages that the areas were reopened, the reason given for the ongoing closures was “for your safety.”

That rattles my chains. I understand completely when there are legitimate safety concerns, but when those have passed, it should be the goal of the public land manager to get public lands reopened to the public PDQ. Part of their concern, sadly, is that, in our increasingly litigious society where if something happens to a person it is always someone else’s fault and they have a lawyer on speed dial, they don’t want to risk litigation. But I also believe that, in many cases, it is just easier to invoke the hard-to-define “safety” reason instead of exercising actual management during and after a major fire incident. Without defined agency guidelines to follow on how big a closure should be or how long it should last, bureaucrats thinking of their careers are discouraged from using common sense lest some aforementioned litigious individual decides to sue. I challenge any land manager to show me actual scientific or historical evidence that opening up a previously burned area creates great risk to the public, or that such use will adversely affect wildlife populations. Don’t allow vehicles off of roads? You bet. But open the primary access roads so folks can access the area.

Here’s another one. Decades ago when I lived in southern California, groups of us began hiking into the desert and building guzzlers to provide consistent water sources for wildlife. That they have been a huge success for all critters is undeniable. And yet, in some instances these days, National Park Service and Bureau of Land Management personnel are adopting an “anti-guzzler” stance. Their take is often, “Well, you hunters just put water there to concentrate game and make it easier to shoot it.” What is never discussed is the fact that natural water sources in these areas has been shrinking for generations due to a number of reasons, including protracted droughts, but also increased pumping of groundwater for continued human development and agriculture. 

The bottom line is simply this. There are increasingly shrill and influential environmental protectionists and anti-hunting kooks with the time, money, and access to government officials and politicians whose soul purpose in life is to stop us from hunting. Sportsmen may have science and common sense on our side, but these days that isn’t enough. Public land users, including but not limited to hunters, often are being overwhelmed by the other side. State game biologists increasingly have little or no actual hunting experience, nor the desire to participate. Public land managers seem to do more to try and keep the John Q off public lands that make it easier for him to enjoy them.

When such actions negatively affect your ability to hunt public lands, it’s time to become the squeaky wheel. Challenging bureaucratic overreach is never a bad thing. Drop me a note at editor@grandviewoutdoors.com. I’d love to hear your thoughts.