# Public lands and YOU! Why you should give a shit.



## Coywolf

Hey all, just wanted to put my 2 cents in about the current public land debate in the country, and how it relates to us.

As some may know, I work for a land management agency, and it pains me greatly to see what the bastards in Washington are doing to one of the greatest legacies this country has ever created: PUBLIC (meaning owned by the taxpyers) land.

Just as a background for some folks who dont know much about the issue, ill start with the history of land in America and how the public land idea came about.

History:

As the US was in the throws of westward expansion, the government sent out groups of army officers to explore and map the huge blank spot on the map that was the western United States. What these men found astonished them: vast expanses of old growth forest, fertile plains, endless mountain ranges, powerful rivers, pristine lakes.....

The officers reported back to Washington, and the word was soon spread throughout the East coast of the endless possibility for anyone to "make it" in the West.

The US government enacted the "Homstead Act" in 1862 which was created to expand our country and economy, by creating an infrastructure in the west. This act essentially would give 160 acres of federally owned land west of the Mississippi to any man who could build a structure and create "improvents" (farm land, mining, livestock grazing, ect.).

As one could imagine, this sent thousands of families packing across plains in search of their own little slice of American Apple pie.


The idea worked and many families settled. Too many families settled. This brought about the first land conservation movement in the US. Names like John Wesley Powell, Gifford Pinchot, and John Muir started to dot the newspapers. These men were in love with the environment, and wanted to protect some of the land before every last foot was under private ownership.

In 1872 Yellowstone national park was created by President Ulysses Grant. This was the first of its kind in the entire world. An area, protected under federal law, for the sole purpose of the enjoyment of the people.

Can you fucking imagine how much of an incredibly amazing idea that was in that time period?

The national park service was created, and to be run under the US Army. Actual soldiers patrolled Yellowstone and Yosemite until 1906 when the NPS was made into a separate government agency. Thats how important these areas were at the time. The millitary patrolled it.

Soon the Forest service was created in 1905 and protected millions of acres forest. This agency was originally created to oversee logging operations, and ensure the companies were paying taxes back to the government. However, they have turned into a for front in the land conservation movement.

In 1946 the Bureau of Land Management was created, to oversee all other federal land not controlled by the FS or NPS, and also to oversee mineral extraction from those lands.

The Opposition:

The whole "conservation" idea did not sit well with everyone. Some have even called it communism over the decades.

There have been many conservative politicians that have tried to get the Fed to turn the land back over to the states, citing executive overreach.

They essentially argue that the land owned by the Fed's should be turned over to the states because it should have become state land after the creation of state boundaries.

Figures like Rob Bishop (R-UT), Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), and Ted Cruz (R-TX) have been prominent figures in the anit-public lands movement.

Notice all that Utah in there? There is allot of public land in Utah, and back in the day when Joseph Smith and Brigham Young though they could turn Utah into their own personal Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints "country", they were not happy to hear the federal government stand their ground in land ownership. The Army was eventually sent into Utah and forced Brigham out of state government, but that is a history lesson for another day. Point being, the Morman Church is not a friend of public lands.

The Sagebrush Rebellion:

Anyone remember the Malhuer Wildlife refuge incident in Oregon last year? The one where an armed group of protestors occupied a wildlife refuge for a month? Those were members of the sagebrush rebellion.

Although the moment had the most steam in the 70s-80s, it has been making a comeback. This is a group that does not recognize the power of the us government to own ANY land, and have used violent protest actions to prove their point many times. They are a borderline domestic terrorism group, and have been involved in murders, arson, destruction of property, and public official kidnapping. Think of them as the polar opposite of the ELF.

Ok, that was great and all, but why the fuck do I care?

Public lands and traveling, why you should give a shit:

When was the last time you made camp in a forest? Hit up the slabs? Thought about how beautiful that scenery was, while speeding through it at 60 mph on an IM?

All of this is made (partially) possible by public land. These are areas open to you, whether you like the government or not. Pay taxes or not. Follow politics or not.

Privatization of land will affect the way you travel, whether it be camping, accessing a yard, hitchhiking, getting to a creek for water, or finding a place to exist while houseless.

Trump, Zinke, and their cronies are going to fuck up everything our country has worked towards regarding public lands for the last century and a half.

I am calling on all of you to get involved with helping, in any way you can, even If it is just educating others, In protecting our public lands. They are in danger of mineral extraction, oil and gas exploration, over logging, and real estate.

If we do not resist, even places like the Grand Canyon and Yellowstone will have "NO TRESSPASSING" signs hanging from the front doors.

If you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer them.

Let's get this debate started.


----------



## duderino

Fuck that orange asshole and his clown buddies. I'm finally going to check out some national parks this summer. What are the ways people can help?


----------



## Coywolf

Many different ways. I am trying to get the hearts and minds here. Talking to your representative and letting them know how important public lands are to you. 

-Volunteering in a park or forest
-volunteering for agencies such as The Sierra Club, Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, Old Broads for Wilderness, ect
-attending protests related to public land issues

There are even less obvious things that help in a big way:

-don't litter
-reduce your carbon footprint
-reduce oil and gas consumption
-Practice Leave No trace while you are camping or hiking

And most importantly, get out there and enjoy the millions of acres of awesomeness we have in this country, and encourage others to do the same!


----------



## Grubblin

Great post and the history was sound. The only thing I disagree with is that Yellowstone and the Grand Canyon won't have no trespassing signs instead they'll have signs saying something like $250 per day, per vehicle unless you're staying at one of our $1500 a night resorts. Same effect for everyone but the ultra rich.


----------



## sd40chef

Nature is king. All we need to survive is food,shelter,water...love,trust,friendship helps a lot as well. most of this cost nothing. The idea of generating stronger economies by manipulating/displacing/destroying all other life in the world to be able to purchase materialistic goods and chase more, more, more until we die is a sad illusion controlled by our ego and will lead to anger/confusion/depression. The spirit of this planet is being lost, we need POSITIVE change. We MUST protect what is left and work on HEALING what has been polluted. Intention is very important. Eternal gratitude for posting this thread, and to pachamama for giving us food, and all the resources we use to live. You speak the truth. Lets show our love for this planet we share that supports all of us and keeps giving us what we need despite how we treat it!!


----------



## somn

your history ignores that there were people living in the west before manifest destiny. indigenous groups were displaced or worse because of the homestead act and creation of national parks. your notion that national parks were created to counter the privatization of land under the homestead act was not really the case. as you said national parks were controlled/patrolled by the military, basically furthering the occupation of indigenous lands by the united states. not only could indigenous groups not exist freely on land that was being homesteaded, they couldn't exist freely on land that was intentionally not homesteaded, because it was supposed to be a pristine recreational park. fs and blm displaced natives further and did more damage to their homelands by logging and mining on a large scale. it was basically cultural genocide to benefit the united states expansion.

it seems to me the fear you have about destructive privatization of public land is actually what public land in the united states was founded on. if there are resources that the government or a powerful corporation wants, they take them. they don't yeild to protesters or conservation organizations. look at keystone, dakota access or sabal trail pipelines. the government treats public land as a liquid asset. 

fortunately public lands are rather large and for now, regardless of policy or development, its not that difficult to walk into the woods or desert somewhere without the authorities noticing, if thats what you want to do.


----------



## Coywolf

I was not around for manifest Destiny, or the destruction of Native American homelands. I could do nothing about that.

I am around now. And I will continue to fight for equal public access to land in this country.

National parks were created to save some of the amazing places in this country before they were privatized/commercialized. I'm not sure why you think other wise.

Unless we can start to get private companies to start buying land, and not charge us to use it (which is never going to happen), government owned public land is the only option for now. And I urge people to rally and protest the abuse and sale of such land, as in what is happening right now with the Trump administration.

Sorry @somn But I believe you have missed my point entirely, and would like to start a separate discussion on the Displacement of Native Americans, and how government control of land was used to do so. Although I agree with You, that is not even close to why I posted this. And I'm not going to go down that road unless another person would like to post a separate thread.

Furthermore, the fact that public land is being abused, and treated as a liquid assets is the reason for my post in the first place. These are lands we must protect. Because like it or not, these are our sacred homelands as well.


----------



## Coywolf

Another thing to mention, is that Native Americans had a truly amazing way of looking at land and the earth. 

They did not have any idea that man could "own" land, they were one with it, aside from tribal territory, that is.

Every person was a steward, and all were connected to the earth. The White man changed that.

The mere idea of land ownership sickens me, I dispise it. However, nothing short of a nuclear war/environment disaster and reset of the human population is going to change the fact that some people think they must "own" land.

So, the public land idea is still the best option in my book. We do have control over what happens to it. We just have to make the government listen to us. One way or another.


----------



## dumpster harpy

Your willingness to label political dissidents as terrorists makes me not trust you or anything you said.

Edit: I do agree with you on some things, like protesting against misuse of the land. Like those protestors in Oregon.


----------



## Beegod Santana

BLM and FS are in no way the good guys, but just selling off all the public land to politically connected cronies so they can rape it further is also not a solution. The thing I find interesting about the sage brush rebellion is that all my life I've heard BLM referred to as the "Bureau of Logging and Mining" because they tend to issue permits to anyone in those industries who asks for em and have been repeatedly accused of violating their own policies when issuing said permits. The idea that they are oppressing people by refusing to allow them to operate is ridiculous. Cattle ranching without government subsidies is a guaranteed loss financially. These "political dissidents" want you to pay them to play cowboy on land they got for free that was stolen from natives in the first place. There's nothing noble about destroying the environment while you raise one of the most inefficient food sources on the tax payers dime. You wanna raise cattle, great, do it own your own land and on your own dime.


----------



## Coywolf

That is your choice. Believe what you want.

Sagebrush rebels can go and suck a literal and metaphorical dick.

They support privatization of all land in america.


----------



## dumpster harpy

So do you think it's acceptable to charge them with terrorism and/or kill them? Is that the dick you'd like them to suck?

That's what the government did. And will continue to do more and more people. And as long as people are fed a reason to hate the victims (because they're terrorists/communists/criminals/conservatives/whoever) the government will get away with it.


----------



## duderino

Beegod Santana said:


> all my life I've heard BLM referred to as the "Bureau of Logging and Mining"


Oh, so that's what that stands for. I was wondering what the hell Black Lives Matter had to do with forests.


----------



## EphemeralStick

duderino said:


> Oh, so that's what that stands for. I was wondering what the hell Black Lives Matter had to do with forests.


It actually stands for Bureau of Land Management. Bureau of Logging and Mining is a tongue in cheek way of saying that they're more interested in aiding those industries than conserving the land.


----------



## somn

@Coywolf My post wasn't exactly on topic for sure. It was mainly a response to the History section of your post. Not mentioning indigenous groups when discussing westward expansion perpetuates manifest destiny propaganda. 

I agree with alot of what you are saying, but am not really that informed on what the trump regime is specifically trying to do to public lands. The risks you identify "mineral extraction, oil exploration, over logging and real estate" have already been happening for a while on public lands with support of the federal government, right?


----------



## Caro

Wow yes. This is super important. Another thing to note, is to examine where you buy your food and who you're supporting in the process. It's not unlikely that some brand you've been purchasing has been taking advantage of the resources in the States without your knowledge.


----------



## Coywolf

@somn yes it has been going on for ever. The thing Allot of people do not realize is that is just one part of those agencies. There is allot of people fighting for the protection of these lands that also work for the government. I work with some incredible individuals who care alot about our environment, its too bad trump I stifling their voices.

Let me just clear some things up about my prior comment. I DO NOT think all political dissidents are terrorists. 

I don't like the word terrorist. My point was that the Sagebrush Rebels are labeled as such because of their actions, by the government. 

I could respect their point of view alot more if they could come up with a legitiment explanation, without greed as backing. 

I agreee with you @malaclypse the government has for too long labeled people with a different idea of hows things should happen, as "terrorists". I just dislike the Sagebrush rebels, and therefore, they can eat a certain phalice of mine. 

And no. Government agencies are not perfect. But as I have said above, there are many people who work for them who are trying to change things from the inside out.


----------



## Deleted member 24782

This is a fantastic and educational topic. Theres no arguing with the folks who believe in de-colonization, which will never happen, human progress will prevail and we will be hopping freight trains in space with 0 gravity like it's fuckin' star wars. You were obviously just trying to share some info on how to respect and appreciate the land that has been made available to us, which I appreciate. I live next to 1000's of acres of BLM land in Pershing county Nevada, part of the Sonoma range. Regularly, I walk out into the wilderness, without a single soul around, and for that I'm grateful. 

THEN RIGHT OFF THE TRAIL I SEE A BIG FLAT SCREEN TV SOMEONE BROUGHT OUT AND SHOT WITH A SHOTGUN, THEN I TELL MYSELF, WERE FUCKED!!!!


----------



## Coywolf

I would like to refresh this thread NOW, and see what members have to say about this. There are multiple Bill's in the Senate, currently challenging the legitimacy of Public Land. 

One of them is a bill that Allows ATVs in National Parks in Utah, found Here.


----------



## Deleted member 24782

I'm all for motorized shit being on BLM land, whatever, but NOT National Parks, how stupid.


----------



## coyote mogollon

Coywolf said:


> Hey all, just wanted to put my 2 cents in about the current public land debate in the country, and how it relates to us.
> 
> As some may know, I work for a land management agency, and it pains me greatly to see what the bastards in Washington are doing to one of the greatest legacies this country has ever created: PUBLIC (meaning owned by the taxpyers) land.
> 
> Just as a background for some folks who dont know much about the issue, ill start with the history of land in America and how the public land idea came about.
> 
> History:
> 
> As the US was in the throws of westward expansion, the government sent out groups of army officers to explore and map the huge blank spot on the map that was the western United States. What these men found astonished them: vast expanses of old growth forest, fertile plains, endless mountain ranges, powerful rivers, pristine lakes.....
> 
> The officers reported back to Washington, and the word was soon spread throughout the East coast of the endless possibility for anyone to "make it" in the West.
> 
> The US government enacted the "Homstead Act" in 1862 which was created to expand our country and economy, by creating an infrastructure in the west. This act essentially would give 160 acres of federally owned land west of the Mississippi to any man who could build a structure and create "improvents" (farm land, mining, livestock grazing, ect.).
> 
> As one could imagine, this sent thousands of families packing across plains in search of their own little slice of American Apple pie.
> 
> 
> The idea worked and many families settled. Too many families settled. This brought about the first land conservation movement in the US. Names like John Wesley Powell, Gifford Pinchot, and John Muir started to dot the newspapers. These men were in love with the environment, and wanted to protect some of the land before every last foot was under private ownership.
> 
> In 1872 Yellowstone national park was created by President Ulysses Grant. This was the first of its kind in the entire world. An area, protected under federal law, for the sole purpose of the enjoyment of the people.
> 
> Can you fucking imagine how much of an incredibly amazing idea that was in that time period?
> 
> The national park service was created, and to be run under the US Army. Actual soldiers patrolled Yellowstone and Yosemite until 1906 when the NPS was made into a separate government agency. Thats how important these areas were at the time. The millitary patrolled it.
> 
> Soon the Forest service was created in 1905 and protected millions of acres forest. This agency was originally created to oversee logging operations, and ensure the companies were paying taxes back to the government. However, they have turned into a for front in the land conservation movement.
> 
> In 1946 the Bureau of Land Management was created, to oversee all other federal land not controlled by the FS or NPS, and also to oversee mineral extraction from those lands.
> 
> The Opposition:
> 
> The whole "conservation" idea did not sit well with everyone. Some have even called it communism over the decades.
> 
> There have been many conservative politicians that have tried to get the Fed to turn the land back over to the states, citing executive overreach.
> 
> They essentially argue that the land owned by the Fed's should be turned over to the states because it should have become state land after the creation of state boundaries.
> 
> Figures like Rob Bishop (R-UT), Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), and Ted Cruz (R-TX) have been prominent figures in the anit-public lands movement.
> 
> Notice all that Utah in there? There is allot of public land in Utah, and back in the day when Joseph Smith and Brigham Young though they could turn Utah into their own personal Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints "country", they were not happy to hear the federal government stand their ground in land ownership. The Army was eventually sent into Utah and forced Brigham out of state government, but that is a history lesson for another day. Point being, the Morman Church is not a friend of public lands.
> 
> The Sagebrush Rebellion:
> 
> Anyone remember the Malhuer Wildlife refuge incident in Oregon last year? The one where an armed group of protestors occupied a wildlife refuge for a month? Those were members of the sagebrush rebellion.
> 
> Although the moment had the most steam in the 70s-80s, it has been making a comeback. This is a group that does not recognize the power of the us government to own ANY land, and have used violent protest actions to prove their point many times. They are a borderline domestic terrorism group, and have been involved in murders, arson, destruction of property, and public official kidnapping. Think of them as the polar opposite of the ELF.
> 
> Ok, that was great and all, but why the fuck do I care?
> 
> Public lands and traveling, why you should give a shit:
> 
> When was the last time you made camp in a forest? Hit up the slabs? Thought about how beautiful that scenery was, while speeding through it at 60 mph on an IM?
> 
> All of this is made (partially) possible by public land. These are areas open to you, whether you like the government or not. Pay taxes or not. Follow politics or not.
> 
> Privatization of land will affect the way you travel, whether it be camping, accessing a yard, hitchhiking, getting to a creek for water, or finding a place to exist while houseless.
> 
> Trump, Zinke, and their cronies are going to fuck up everything our country has worked towards regarding public lands for the last century and a half.
> 
> I am calling on all of you to get involved with helping, in any way you can, even If it is just educating others, In protecting our public lands. They are in danger of mineral extraction, oil and gas exploration, over logging, and real estate.
> 
> If we do not resist, even places like the Grand Canyon and Yellowstone will have "NO TRESSPASSING" signs hanging from the front doors.
> 
> If you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer them.
> 
> Let's get this debate started.


This is an older thread so hopefully some of the issues of privatization are being re examined? As a person who is now literally squatting BLM lands, I’m conflicted. Yes we should not only stop the mining and grazing (or cut it down) on national forest and blm, but many folks are being forced out of their homes, and even squatting in most urban areas has become difficult if not impossible in some cities. I write this after over a decade of urban squatting. But if BLM allows off road vehicles, copper, uranium mining, over grazing etc, then I see NO REASON why a certain small segment shouldn’t be used for tiny housing communities near towns. I was trained and believe deeply in leave no trace, and practice it as much as possible, but have reached a pt there I feel like we, many of us have been so Marginalized, where THE FUCK are we supposed to go? A Salvation Army shelter? No thanks you. BTW I’ve volunteered and worked in national lands in the past for several years


----------



## MFB

In regards to national parks; 

Why really bother? We've managed to turn the most majestic and wild places into parking lots and strip malls where unhealthy people can still buy a burger and shake. Going to a NP is like going to Cracker Barrel on a Sunday morning. Fucking zoo. I'm all for being able to access these places but at this point I wouldn't be surprised to see a 40 dollar escalator ride up and down the grand canyon. NPs are not in the spirit of public lands imo. Most seem like a cash grab. (Side note, regardless of the state, you can still get arrested for a lil bit of weed in NPs last I heard, imagine that!) 

I think Denali is done right. One road through the park, no cars allowed. You can access most of the park with minimal intrusion on what makes the park so attractive.


----------



## TheDesertMouse

FUCK right off with that shit. Vehicles are probably the single most damaging thing to the desert ecosystem in utah(except maybe cows) Un-fucking-balievable that they’re even concidering this. Utah already has enough problem with the OHV cunts wrecking the soils and driving off wildlife. 
Typical of the modern mindset that nature exists soley to serve us and our exploitative desires. Not suprised at all to see the various off roading vehicle and business lobbies are pushing this horseshit.

The proliferation of off road vehicles in wild spaces has really started to piss me off. In addition to all the damage they cause snd they plain fucking obnoxiousness of a caravan of those loud engines leaving a column of dust in their wake. They have an alarming tendancy to encourage superficial interactions with nature. Drive around, dont get out of your car, dont listen to the silences of vast spaces, dont really feel the sublime beauty of these areas. 
Superficial interactions also breed apathy, someone who barley remembers driving thru an area isnt likely to give a fuck if they hear its about to be destroyed for someones profit.

Get off your lazy miopic asses and fucking WALK. Sometimes I want to grab these people and yell-explain to them how much their missing, how much deeper your experiences in nature are when you put in just a little physical effort. Be a shred more observant, shit your fucking devices off, be ok with without your modern comforts lulling you into a false sense of security.


----------



## TheDesertMouse

God, rant over.

Hayduke lives mother fuckers.

I also, really like the denali model. I’m a firm advocate of soft banning personal vehicles in most national parks. Especially yosmeite, Jesus-ass-ramming-moses especially yosemite. Force people to walk. Or bike. Or ride a horse. Have regular ranger stations along the way to help and guide the noobs. free Classes on basic outdoor skills. Gear rentals. Shuttle services for the physically disabled or very long routes(like the denali road.) Destroy the roads or turn them to dirt.


----------



## ali

Banning internal combustion vehicles in parks would be fucking awesome. There was nothing worse when i was cycling in Canada and the US down mixed use trails and an ATV would blast past, belching out toxic smoke and scaring off animals for miles around. They tear up the surface of the trail too, much worse than bikes do (and i admit bikes do more damage than walking). Full cosign with the idea of putting in more ranger stations and water/rest stops to cater for people using horses or self-powered transport. It'd be a much more environmentally friendly way of experiencing the great outdoors. I am so fucking sick of so-called "eco tourism" destinations that require you to fly, drive or motorboat in, it's just a wank.


----------



## Big George W

Coywolf, this is a super important topic of discussion which you have raised here.

One question though, here 


Coywolf said:


> Unless we can start to get private companies to start buying land, and not charge us to use it (which is never going to happen), government owned public land is the only option for now. And I urge people to rally and protest the abuse and sale of such land, as in what is happening right now with the Trump administration.


 ...shouldn't we be against private companies from buying this land - because of their history of development, and existing only to make money and exploit the lands resources ??

I'm in complete agreement with everything else which you have brought up here.


----------



## TheDesertMouse

I think thats kinda the point. Having lands that are owned by and for the public is the only viable option. other then perhaps, sort of private ownership by returning them to the tribes/nations they were originally jacked from.


----------



## Big George W

Ok, that I could completely be down with - as stated, we did rip the land of the native people, so why not return it to them - but that's different than private ownership to me [I know, I'm splitting hairs here..] but yes, that would be way way cool and the right thing to do.

I worked with someone who was from Palestine.

I never really knew much about their plight until one day he told me with tears in his eyes and a trembling voice "what are we supposed to do - they came and took our land, our farm, which was in our family for 100s of years, and bulldozed everything" and I completely saw his point, along with the plight of the people of Palestine.

Same goes for what happened to the people who here here first.

Every now and then, the Indian tribes who owned land here in Connecticut try to work though the courts to get what is righfully theirs back.

If they want my place, they can have it as my hatred of all things Connecticut is really starting to peak.

I know when folks go rafting in the south west, they need permits, and I believe they also need permits from the Indians too.

It makes my blood boil when I think of this country's past, and how it came to be.

But the words Private Ownership scare me.

In the town of Shelton, their was an Indian Burial Ground which was eventually desecrated in the name of private ownership/development of town houses.

I watched some of this myself via a pair of binoculars and a kayak.

This was not that long ago either.

I've always wondered if the people who bought up those places sleep good at night......

Public Lands need to be protected, and a good way to do it would be to give it back to the people who were here first.


----------



## Toekeyohdrift

Definitely a complicated issue, for sure; trying to balance the well being of the land and wildlife without compromising people's degree of access to it too much. Too far in the land protection side and you get no trespassing signs or ableism. Too far in the human access side, you get lands and wildlife permanently altered from human impact. I'm going to be working my first federal land management job this summer so I'll try to learn a lot more. Anyways, the concessionaires (Xanterra, Aramark, Delaware North) gotta fucking go, but shit, people might call me ableist for proposing taking away lodging or a grocery store within a national park. Some public lands set aside that's more palatable for less "outdoorsy" types is still pretty cool, since I like the idea of my 60+ yr old parents and others like them getting to experience a relatively safe natural wonder. After all, if the people don't get access to nature, how are they supposed to give a shit about it? Greenifying urban areas? Who knows. Thoughts?


----------



## Coywolf

TheDesertMouse said:


> Get off your lazy miopic asses and fucking WALK. Sometimes I want to grab these people and yell-explain to them how much their missing, how much deeper your experiences in nature are when you put in just a little physical effort. Be a shred more observant, shit your fucking devices off, be ok with without your modern comforts lulling you into a false sense of security.



I'm sure Ed would love this. Thanks for the great post.

"....walk. better yet crawl. And when trails of blood begin to mark your trail, then, maybe then, will you being to seen something."


Big George W said:


> Coywolf, this is a super important topic of discussion which you have raised here.
> 
> One question though, here
> 
> ...shouldn't we be against private companies from buying this land - because of their history of development, and existing only to make money and exploit the lands resources ??
> 
> I'm in complete agreement with everything else which you have brought up here.



Look. I would love for anarchist type public trusts of land to be a thing, and that's what we all should strive for, but it just isint going to happen in the time we need it to.

The public needs to recognize that this is a SERIOUS issue. And take action to make sure there voices are heard regarding it.

Remember. Once public land is made private, we NEVER GET IT BACK....short of a revolution or some kind of eminent domain. Remember that. Every time we lose an acre, we lose it forever.

As far as giving land back to the tribes, yes, that would be the best option...but it'll be a cold day in hell this government starts doing that. I agree with it completely.....but you have to look at who we are dealing with here.

This government doesn't do the best job at protecting public land for public access, but it does a fucking much better job than corporate America would do. Thats not apologist for the government, thats realism.

If that orange asshole won another term, the overturning the Antiquities Act would have been first, The Organic Act second and the Wilderness Act third, in the new conservative Supreme Court. Look those up if you aren't familiar with them. That would mean 'No Trespassing' signs coast to coast.


----------

