Absolutely not

[JABIII]

Guest Column: South Carolina’s Lands Are Too Valuable To Lose
“Public lands aren’t excess property…”

by FITSForumJune 9, 20250

by WILL GALLOWAY

***
In South Carolina, our public lands are more than just scenic places — they’re part of our heritage. They support local economies, power outdoor traditions, and shape the character of communities from the mountains to the marshes.

As someone working to connect the next generation of conservatives to real conservation solutions, I see every day how much these lands matter. They’re where families hunt and fish, where kids learn the value of nature, and where small businesses thrive. Public lands aren’t a luxury — they’re the foundation of rural economies and a core part of life in the Palmetto State.

The numbers back it up. Outdoor recreation in South Carolina generates billions each year and supports thousands of jobs in tourism, outfitting, and land stewardship. These lands aren’t just nice to have — they drive opportunity and keep local communities strong.

Governor Henry McMaster’s goal to conserve 10 million acres in the coming years reflects just how essential these spaces are. But recent proposals in Washington could threaten that vision. Ideas to sell off public lands or expand industrial logging across national forests with little local input put access, sustainability, and long-term value at risk.

Smart forest management matters. But turning over our public lands to the highest bidder doesn’t. Once we lose them, we don’t get them back — and with them go the freedom, jobs, and traditions they support.

Public lands aren’t excess property. They’re shared resources that belong to all South Carolinians — not just the few who can afford to buy them. Privatization would cut people off from hunting, fishing, camping, and the outdoor traditions that define this state.

As I know first hand, thousands of young conservatives across South Carolina believe protecting these lands is a matter of responsibility and common sense. Conservation isn’t about locking things away — it’s about managing resources wisely and keeping them accessible for generations to come.

Let’s keep South Carolina’s public lands public. Open, protected, and working for the people who call this place home.

https://www.fitsnews.com/2025/06/09/...uable-to-lose/

[DRDUCK]

Better hurry up because it is getting bought up everywhere and quick

[Glenn]

USFS is adding acres at a rapid rate across the state.

DNR could give two rips about public lands or the people who hunt them.

[JABIII]

On the one hand. Then on the other hand. You will never convince me to believe that .gov should control a single acre outside of DC. Meanwhile, we citizens are paving every inch of ground as fast as possible...

[Glenn]

On the one hand. Then on the other hand. You will never convince me to believe that .gov should control a single acre outside of DC. Meanwhile, we citizens are paving every inch of ground as fast as possible...

It should be controlled by the states. However, the states have proven themselves to be money hungry and won't stop until there's a tacky little house on 24" centers stacked 6 feet apart on every square inch of dirt in the state. Thankfully the feds, for now, are adding more public land acres because God knows the generational residents of this state are selling mommer'n nems land as fast as they can inherit it. SC pride must equal a quick payday and lots of dirt moving around and acres lost.

[Tater]

There’s a fancy term floating around called Wildland Urban Interface, WUI if you will….lemme show you what it looks like.







There’s 5 patches of green left in SC.

[Glenn]

And the state and DNR don't even want you to have that.

[JABIII]

A herd of termites is all we are...

[winyah]

I've heard it theorized, and I tend to agree, that the long play is to monetize federal holdings into tangible digitial currency. There are trillions of dollars/currency value locked up in "our" federal holdings which are unrealized in real terms. I suppose the same applies on a State level. Imagine what the Federal coffers would look like if the value of those holdings were "spendable". What could go wrong?

Gird up your loins.

[MolliesMaster]

I saw an article recently, Bill Gates is now the largest holder of farmland. Add in the investment corporations buying up huge tracts, real estate typhoons building acres and acres of cookie-cutter houses, and then there's the Dollar Generals on every corner and crossroad. There won't be many places left for me soon.

The state may do a terrible job of managing those public grounds, but I can still go out and do the things I enjoy. I guess that makes me less of a conservative. But I'm not itching for more concrete and neighborhoods come fall.