Last week's Question of the Week asked whether parcels of federal land should be sold. More than four out of five readers said no.

Among 608 responses to this unscientific poll, 498 opposed the idea, while 110 favored it.

Some readers' comments:

- Pit school funding vs. OUR lands? The administration needs to study ethics and morals 101. Guess the outrageous proposals will continue until we are too worn out to even read the newspaper.

- If we need more funds for rural schools because timber sales cannot support them, then we should let the oil, gas and mining companies who also exploit and profit at the expense of our public lands foot the bill.

- I was definitely of a Republican persuasion until some of the recent shenanigans. Deregulation was a good thing? (Marc, are you aware that a number of people lost their pensions over this?) We maintain a full military commitment in Iraq until democracy is established -- took 40 years in South Korea. And now, let's sell off why a lot of people choose to live in Montana in the first place. Republican oars are out of the water, the dingy is turned sideways, and it's headed for the rocks.

- The Chicken Littles are alive and well, screaming the sky is falling regarding the sale of a few pieces of public land. The real issue is one of management and the parcels that would be sold cannot be managed because they are isolated or too small. For anyone to suggest these are so valuable to fishermen, hunters or hikers is just plain nuts. Most of them are surrounded by other ownership, so no one in the public can access them without trespassing ... and that includes the Forest Service. Tone down the hype, please.

- Selling off our public lands establishes a bad precedent, especially by an administration like this one that has proved time and again they cannot be trusted.

- I used to vote Republican because they were generally good stewards of public assets. This current bunch, however, (including Rehberg and Burns) seem more interested in promoting ideas that enrich the wealthy at public expense. Nutty ideas such as proposed sales of public land are but one example. Schweitzer's "skunk in the shower" comment was refreshingly accurate.

- Yes, federal agencies should be allowed to sell certain lands, but only in unique circumstances, such as those that are inaccessible, landlocked, or unusable to the agency. But they should first be offered to other federal and state agencies and then, if sold privately, the proceeds should be put into a trust to be used to acquire other land of more value to their programs, such as wildlife habitat or to provide access to other government lands.

- Absolutely not. It's just another component of this administration's privatization scheme.