[AndyJackson]

In fact they keep expanding their ownership of federal lands and those lands they hold, they continue to make more and more of them off limits to use by the public. ... There is nothing wrong with reserving some lands as parks and forests, but federal parks and federal forestland should be state parks and forests.

Further expansion of land ownership is an issue with which I have a lot of sympathy, and the distribution of a lot of BLM land is probably quite reasonable.

Disestablishing national parks in particular and national forrests, with I will grant arguable exceptions, is a losing issue. I am otherwise pretty conservative, but I think that there is nothing uncostitutional, or harmful, in holding public lands for public recreation. Indeed, this kind of conservation is something that a lot of even conservatives will support, and do support. There is a strong argument for the federal government holding the land. There is no pressure to sell it to a property developer. If Rock Creek Park were owned by the DC city it would be highrise condos right now, with Marion Barry the beneficiary of the deal. The residents of DC are pretty uniform in support of the existence of the park and its maintenance by the NPS.

[marron]

There is a strong argument for the federal government holding the land. There is no pressure to sell it to a property developer. If Rock Creek Park were owned by the DC city it would be highrise condos right now, with Marion Barry the beneficiary of the deal. The residents of DC are pretty uniform in support of the existence of the park and its maintenance by the NPS.

Good point. Taken under advisement. :)