Darth_Ra

What you're looking for then, is a ping test.

Which is totally how the American dream wants it.

They must have kept this very quiet, given that I work for one of the agencies in charge of these public lands and am completely unaware of these attempts at sell-offs.

With that in mind, can I ask you what you think of the State owned vs. Federally owned public lands argument?

For those of you that grew up (like I did) back east, you may not be aware of what a privilege it is to have Public Lands out here in the West. Cattle and people both roam freely out here, there is land aplenty for recreation of all kinds, it really is an entirely different feeling than the eastern half of the country where there is a constant questioning of whose land you're on and if you're allowed to be there doing what you're doing.

The forest was acquired by the state specifically to sell timber rights leases for school funding. When that forest became unprofitable and unmanageable, Oregon's constitution required it's sale. Now the state (with it's $1.8 billion dollar deficit) has to pull money out of somewhere so that this economic drain out in the middle of nowhere can stay relatively unused and unmanaged.

This is really the point, though. It's not that State's are doing wrong necessarily by selling the land, it's that it's been proven time and time again that they just don't have the resources to manage it.

How many dead goldfish before you stop visiting the pet store for your kid?

Sure! Just outbid the companies looking for the raw resources.

But seriously, the selloffs happen in huge parcels that are open to anyone. Most people just don't hear about it because they don't go looking.