I certainly don't want to see public lands sold, but according to that article linked, the sales would have been of parcels that aren't useful. Fact or fiction? Is the opposition to this sale rooted in a knee-jerk fear of slippery slope or were there parcels that see heavy public use for hunting, etc. involved. I'd like to see those who oppose this sale post up something specific. I agree that staying vigilant against the sale of public land is a good idea but if it isn't being used because it is landlocked, etc., why oppose it?
