You're not in Minnesota? Access issues could happen where you live and very likely already are.

This is about access in/to national forests.

If you're an inholder, you're already aware of the intent regarding you and your private property (you're viewed as a "threat to the ecosystem"), even though you only became an inholder because of the ever-expanding federal boundaries of forests, parks, reserves, monuments and "protected" and/or "managed" (controlled) lands and waters.

Multiply the following quote by 155 other national forests; then consider that federal land/resource holdings never retract. Then consider all the state-owned lands and resources, and how private property shrinks daily truly, private property (that not held by such nongovernmental organizations as The Nature Conservancy, Trust For Public Land, and others) and is, like freedom and responsible resource providing, becoming really endangered.

"One of 155 national forests, the Chippewa was the first national forest established east of the Mississippi. The forest boundary encompasses 1.6 million acres, of which over 666,325 acres are managed by the USDA Forest Service over 1,300 lakes, 923 miles of rivers and streams, and 400,000 acres of wetlands."

The document is lengthy, but an excellent example of language deception and how it is used to create a "risk" that is not there but is created in the mind of the public. Words like "could," "may," "might," etc., are triggers to make the reader think that the areas need government "protection" and/or "management."