Isn't this a bit of a paradox, sort of like the NASA thread on the General Forum?


Public lands are seen as good for the public - hunters, birders, hikers, campers, whomever. People who just want to sit on a public spot in the woods and pray or do yoga or eat bacon-flavored Spam. A place to shoot photos of beavers or take a grandchild to catch his or her first bream and spark a lifetime of memories.

Yet a group of people clamor for small government and less agencies, bureaus and holdings including public lands. "Feds should transfer land to states!" and the states are poor they would end up selling it. And states shouldn't be holding any lands or state parks or hunting management areas so they should sell those or end the leases, too. And no national wildlife refuges that cost billions! Sell them to create jobs, asphalt, concrete, homes and industry! More ports! Barge canals on the river! Fill in those swamps to make way for a new strip mall!

Hurray! Smaller government!

Kinda sucks, picking and choosing which small government we want. Yet when some of us oppose the sale of public lands, for fear of loss of a lot of varied interests and protection/conservation of the resources, a certain segment screams that we're unpatriotic and terrible and the opposition.

"Hunting Politics are stupid!" - Farm Hunter

"Bible says you shouldn't put sugar in your cornbread." Dustin, 2013

"Best I can figure 97.365% of the general public is a paint chip eating, mouth breathing, certified dumbass." BCLC, 2020