I'll throw this out. Is private land ownership good for us or bad ?
the correct answer both. Clearly private land ownership is a cornerstone of our society, an absolute necessity. As well, the vast public lands we have to enjoy sets us apart from the most of the rest of the world. its funny, a lot of folks point to the maps being circulated that show huge public holdings west of the plains. the corollary is that I bet most of the citizens east of the plains wish they came into statehood later and had more public land to enjoy.
Secondly, it seems that a lot on the fringe right think that if the BLM and USFS lands wen private, they'd somehow be given a piece, like it was the homestead act all over again...
the fact is that public land and private landowners are continuously trading acreage in and out of ownership, trades that often optimize the use of the lands. I've been involved in a few of these, where occluded mature timber sections were traded for prime riverfront parcels (anyone fish the McLoud River?). Absent the USFS, BLM, and NPS, what would prevent the Tragedy of the Commons? Giving in to bundy and his clan sets a harmful precedent. I'm glad no one was hurt and no martyrs were created, but sick to my stomach this welfare leech got away with it.