Paul, Romney, Santorum - don't see need for federal public lands. Spin off to states/private owners. See http://ow.ly/9hVSS. Since neither of these gentlemen define public lands, I'll define them as Yellowstone NP, Tonto NF, etc.

Given this scenario, whether the Forest Service cares about recreation or not, becomes moot.

I'm a little surprised, Fred, that you would post this. Political statements are always taken out of context and used for party gain. I am not worried about losing public lands, but I am worried about the economy.

It just disappoints me to see memebers of any group feel that we should allow spectacular views etc to fall in private or commercial hands. Then only a select few would be able to enjoy them. We see enough of that already. How many times have you been on a beach or lake and see that access is not allowed in an area - a private beach for example.

Sorry, I dont agree with what these gentlemen are selling on this particular topic.

OK, Korbe, like a certain public figure, I backed off just a weeeee bit by revising my lead into this topic.

But I have to tell you, should such an event happen in part or toto, the impact to the economy could have a serious negative impact. For example, consider this excerpt from the above article:

"Outdoor recreation – a $5 billion economy in Arizona– often takes place on public lands. Tourists travel to Arizona from around the country and world to experience a wide range of outdoor recreation opportunities. The Outdoor Industry Association found that the active outdoor recreation economy contributes over $5 billion annually to Arizona’s economy and supports 82,000 jobs across the state. Hiking, climbing, camping, hunting, fishing, and mountain biking are just a few of the outdoor activities enjoyed on public lands. [Outdoor Industry Association, 2006]"

Certain states, e.g. Colorado, are considering legislation to force the feds to cede NF land to it. Although I don't see how this could happen, my point is if this idea keeps growing, psychologically people will begin to accept the premise. Opposition must be heard so that we don't accept it as a done deal. I can't believe that I am in the minority on this!

Here is another, well written article by the National Parks Traveler that is well worth reading - http://tinyurl.com/7zxad4e.

Sadly, there has been a bill submitted in the Iowa Legislature to sell public land

as a way to balance the State's budget. This is being suggested in a state in which there is more land taken up by highways than set aside for recreation!

Fred, you are not alone in this one. I agree that we've got to fight back and let our voices be heard to change this mindset. Once the idea is introduced and bounced around for a few years with justification by both sides, you are right, the premise begins to sound acceptable and then it takes off. Before long the question becomes why anyone ever objected. Any time there is profit to be made, those few who would benefit will push it as hard as they can to the detriment of everyone else whether in the majority or not. Privatization of CGs, selling of public lands - all symptoms of the same disease.