One could be very pro-public lands and still sell off the city park for the right reasons. Are all the cities that removed Civil War monuments anti-monument, or anti-public monuments??? You really shouldn't label someone based on one action or decision. Many people hate it when people stereotype, but at least with stereotypes you have hundreds if not thousands or even more actions or decisions to go off of to develop that stereotype.
Personally, I need more information and/or decisions and actions to form a more solid opinion about Chaffetz. I certainly don't have enough evidence to sentence him to death just yet.
You based you statement of anti-public land on one action.......proposing HB 621. So if you're going to use one action to base a new sentiment on, then logically you could conclude that he is "pro-public lands" after withdrawing the bill. That's what happens when you only use one action for your labels.
Your being oddly emotional or oddly obtuse about this entire interaction and its strange coming from you.
Chaffetz has proposed an HB 621 bill no less than 8 times at this point, it may be called a different name and ride under a different bill number but the language in it is almost verbatim. so its not just a one off as you keep making it out to be.
Chaffetz has gone on the record numerous times saying he wants to sell public lands to private people, and he has not minced words about it.
He has stated and attempted in concert with Rob Bishop numerous times to force the federal government to either dispose of the land through sales, or give it back to the states so they can decide what to do with it.
This is not some weird political buzzword reaction, this is not some jump to conclusion based off a single bill. Chaffetz in one way or another has been advocating for the selling of public lands back to private citizens for almost a decade and has made it clear that bills like HB 621 are a "first step" or "moves the ball in the right direction" towards a continued effort to dispose of public lands.
Just because you haven't literally heard it with your own ears or taken the time to do your own research does not mean it has not occurred.
With that said, it is possible that you agree with Mr. Chaffetz that land that "serves no public purpose" should be disposed of immediately to pay down the deficit. Or you may believe that states should be given all the land within their state boundaries to manage as they see fit. But what you should understand is that if the land or its resources can not be a profitable endeavor the states will sell that land, as mentioned before most have legislative requirements to do so.
One of the biggest talking points for Bishop and Chaffetz is how these lands could help children. They fully intend to add any and all state land given to them by the Feds to the state trust lands.
It should be telling that he actually pulled HB 621. It shows that people that are passionate about public lands are finally paying attention and making their voices heard.
