[Overtaxed]

As a taxpayer, I am perfectly willing to have my tax dollars go to lands that will be forever kept from development.

Mind if I yank your chain again? :)

As a taxpayer, I do mind if my money goes to lands that will be forever kept from development. If green groups want that land undeveloped, they should spend their own money and buy it instead of forcing everyone else to buy it for them.

[HairOfTheDog]

I fully support the private land trusts. They are one terrific way of preserving plots of land, particularly small plots of land, that one group or another thinks is worth preserving. Fine, if you want to save it, buy it. Good plan. As private owners, they can preserve it in any way they wish, including keeping people out of it.

But also I think there is a public interest in lands held for the benefit of the public. There is a public interest, for the good of us all, in preservation of open habitat and green spaces, and not alot of individual private interest. And if the public wants it, they should also buy it. I think freedom has no value if we can't guarantee access to some lands to hunt, fish and wander in.

Its a balance. The argument will always be how much. Not all lands should be public of course, just pieces here and there that we can all get to.

[ksen]

Wow, I thought I had dropped into the "News" side by accident. ;^)

Do you think Gondor or Rohan have Public Land Acquisition programs?

[HairOfTheDog]

I might add that as a taxpayer expense, the DNR land pays for itself to a large degree. I am sure it could be managed to be almost profitable.

The timber is sold private loggers who buy the trees and log it. They turn a profit for themselves and income to the gubmit. And they are not in harmful competition with the private foresters, who are huge conglomerates. The public forest timber sales are accessible to small time operators and loggers. So as a use of public funds, it does provide a better return on the dollar than some other uses I would attack first.