They are trying to sell off our public lands again

[Billy]

This is why I say we need to know what land where.
 If, some conservation minded folks could get some of the parcels, and show that our values work for the good of the land and the creatures
that use it through active usage. Maybe there's a chance that we can prove, albeit in a small measure; that hunters are true caretakers of the gift that all people can share in.
 But, then again, I think Teddy Roosevelt laid this plan out once. I believe it may have even covered some of the land that we are discussing here.
 Those too lazy to study history would miss the lesson the second time around, as well. Therefore, I think that we are preaching to the choir .
 A good discussion, it is. But, action is what it's going to take to beat back the ignorance of politics.

[Reg Darling]

Matt, most national forests in the east are fragmented. To say that they aren't contiguous and aren't being put to a specific, definable use is reason to sell them off would virtually eliminate forests like the Allegheny National Forest where I live. Once public land is gone I don't see much likelihood we'll get it back. Selling our national forests to temporarily fund the schools is tantamount to burning the furniture to stay warm for one more night.

[matt schuster]

Reg, I can only speak about here in Georgia where they are talking about tracts in the 3-10 acre range - very, very small.  I certainly agree that those that are fragmented (and we have lots of those here too) but in much bigger parcels - parcels big enough to sustain recreational use - should be protected.  That is not what they are talking about selling down my way.

[Reg Darling]

While tracts that small make a little more sense of the plan, we're still talking about selling a long term asset to pay a short term expense and the end result will be a net loss of protected public land. Seems foolish to me. If they wanted to initiate a program of consoldation like say selling off several parcels totaling 200 acres to buy a single parcel equalling 200 acres, I'd support that. But I don't think we hunters should support any net loss of public land.

[vermonster13]

if we can get them to pass the no net loss hunting law, these sales would be a good thing for us. These lands go up for sale partially because there is no access except for the surrounding land owners. So we are publicly subsidizing private land for others use.

[matt schuster]

The problem with small tracts, and I mean ones too small to hold value to the hunter, is that they may count as an asset on a balance sheet, but they generate no tax revenue and provide no recreational value - that is not really much of an asset in any real sense.   Once sold, at least the property will generate tax revenue.

[JStark]

What should be happening to those fractured parcels, at least here in California, is the BLM/FS/NPS should be buying land in between, to eliminate the push to develop, and instead pay the older, retiring farmers and ranchers a healthy, one-time 'retirement' package.  Then, consider the land and the circumstances and develop easements, either for agriculture or wildlands.  There are some good organizations out there looking to preserve our land for proper wildlands use, and there are good groups out there looking to preserve farming (like the American Farmland Trust) as an American heritage.  Out here we are getting sprawled to death...
It seems the current sell-off approach is backwards.

That said, how many of you have gone/will go to the BLM website right after this to see if you can't find 10 or 20 acres for a 3D set-up or busting bunnies...  maybe we can create a trad. archery conservancy?