No worries , evicting USHPA from public land is a relatively simple process:
1) Identify the controlling agency (National Park, State DNR, .... etc.)
2) Identify the contracting agent dealing with USHPA
3) Identify the *LAWS* that allow/enable USHPA control of the site (There usually aren't any)
4) Point out the *LAWS* that conflict with private control and profit from public land (Email me if you need help with this one)
5) Repeat as necessary, it is unfortunate that people tend to think that what has been happening is legal and proper. Be persistent, be polite, keep things relevant/legal. I think one of the main tripping points that HG pilots have is that they use Park Officers as a therapist to complain instead of sticking to the laws to try to find a reasonable solution.
It's clear that trying to explain reality to LoganR is a losing proposition. For the rest of the peanut gallery, I will comment on his utterly absurd statements.
USHPA makes no profit whatsoever from public or private lands. We provide insurance coverage to landowners (both private parties and public agencies) through local chapters, and those chapters pay the cost of the insurance premium. The fee that the chapters pay covers most of the cost of the premium, with USHPA picking up the rest from general funds. The notion that providing insurance coverage for a landowner somehow invalidates the recreational use laws is wrong. It is not true. It is a lie.
Recreational Use statutes, in all 50 states, provide a tool for defense of lawsuits related to use of private property when access is granted without compensation. They DO NOT prevent lawsuits. They DO provide a tool for defense. That tool must still be wielded by a competent lawyer or it is of no value. Hiring a lawyer and getting a simple dismissal on summary judgment is going to cost $20,000 to $30,000 these days, depending on venue. If a judge rules that there's enough of a case to go to trial, and does not immediately dismiss, multiply those numbers by 10. THAT is what USHPA's insurance coverage pays for...the cost of legal defense to get these lawsuits dismissed, or see them through trial if that's what it takes. And if it comes to it, to pay whatever damages a jury may award.
USHPA's waiver achieves the same effect as the general recreational use statutes, except that it's even more restrictive. It provides an even greater level of lawsuit defense tools than the state laws. This is another reason for landowners to impose a "members only" restriction on the use of their land. USHPA members have voluntarily joined our association, and have signed our liability waiver. Many prospective lawsuits vanish as soon as a plaintiff's counsel sees that waiver, because they know it's going to be very difficult to overcome. Typically these plaintiffs are asking for a lawyer to take their case on contingency, where the lawyer gets paid out of the winnings. Lawyers are reluctant to take cases where they're almost certain to lose, to spend a lot of time and energy for no reward.
Managers of public lands (landowners, or at least the decision-makers for those lands) have rules they must abide by. It is often the case that a flying site on public land requires some degree of modification, maintenance or infrastructure improvement to make it usable. Porta-potty, launch ramp, gravel on the slope, brush clearing...all of these are examples which usually require a special use permit issued by the controlling agency. We often see that a condition of issuance for those permits is proof of insurance coverage, naming the agency as additional insured. That's where the USHPA insurance policy comes into play, just as it does for private landowners.
Instructors teaching for pay on public land generally need to obtain a commercial use permit from the controlling agency. Again, that permit requires proof of insurance, naming the agency as additional insured for commercial operations on the managed property. Recreation RRG provides commercial school insurance that satisfies the requirement.
I don't recommend that chapters request insurance coverage for a landowner unless it's necessary to get access to a flying site. Once you do that, you're signing up for a long-term commitment to pay the annual premium. The site had better be worth the long-term cost. But if the site is a good one, convenient to a group of pilots willing to bear the expense, then paying for landowner insurance coverage makes sense. Gaining access to that land by agreeing to insure it, and making certain that every pilot flying there is covered by the insurance, seems to me a reasonable trade-off. Maybe it doesn't seem reasonable to freeloaders who want to enjoy the use of the land without paying for the cost of getting access. I don't have a lot of sympathy for them.