Rachael, again you're only looking at the cover pages. Dig a little deeper into the websites you cited. I agree that BLM and the Forest Service were not primarily created to protect wildlife habitat. And yet, without the large acreages set aside for national forests and grasslands and even larger areas managed by the BLM, there would be very little public land available for wildlife, hunting, and wildlife watching in the West. Here's a puzzle for you. Why does the Forest Service manage national grasslands when they have no forests to cut? Watershed and wildlife conservation would be my guess. All of the agencies included in the estimate of public expenses take wildlife management and habitat protection seriously, even if it isn't their main function. And even if you dropped ALL of the wildlife-related work done by the BLM and USFS, the amount of funding provided by nonhunters would still overshadow that by hunters. Stop defending Sen. Kelly. He's not listening to either of us.