Habeeb makes a good point. You first have to prove that the government is doing harm to the environment. And sometimes this can seem to be true.

In the case of the Forrest Service, the people most interested and have the means of winning the auctioning of the lands would be the timber companies. Timber companies are more concerned with exploiting resources than preserving them. Almost certainly, public interest for those lands in improving environmental quality would be degraded.

However, the real answer is, It depends in who’s hands will be managing it. However, sometimes the Tragedy of the Commons is prevalent when dealing with public goods. Because everyone wants to benefit from the land, they tend to maximize their own use over others. Timber companies are one in a long line of those that want to take advantage of a public land and usually they have a strong voice in that decision. The one advantage of the government owning the land is that they do have to answer to the public.

Ideally, the Invisible Hand of market forces and privatization should balance out the interest of environmentalist and industry. Most often than not, people simply aren’t aware of the damage to the environment and don’t take action

the only way the environment will improve is if we start reducing population.. its the numbers of people who are making most of the problems…. if there were fewer people the forest service wouldnt be destroying so much land.. we wouldnt need so many houses or so many phone books or so much toilet paper

It’s interesting that you think that, but maybe you could give us some figures to show what proof you have that the government is as environmentally harmful as you claim.

Also, to give us a better idea as to the nature of the change you are suggestion, could you also tell us what laws and regulations apply to both private and public land maintenance?

no, forests would be clearcut and animals would be slaughtered by the millions. The government may not be doing a very good job, but the logging and mining companies would **** the land for what they could get and walk away. Just like they tried here in Canada a few dozen years back before the Canadian government stepped in and kicked them back to the States

Absolutely not! Once it becomes private, most like the owners, if not all, will wants to make it into a more commercial valuable properties. They may landscape it. They may clean it up. They may plants different plants or vegetation to beautify it the way they wants.

That is a destruction of the habitat. The best way to maintain the evironmental quality is to leave it to nature and keep all man out of it.

Nature has a way to balance the ecosystems and nurture plants and lives within itself. Human is the worst thing that happen to it.