Through authentic, unfiltered conversations with a diverse range of individuals, we’ll explore what Public Lands mean to them — how they use them, why they value them, and what it feels like to have free and open access to something so vast, so sacred, and so essential.

At the center of it all is a simple symbol: a stool. In each scene, someone takes a seat — just them, their voice, and the land they love. No fanfare. No distractions. Just a moment of honesty and reflection. Each story adds another layer to the greater narrative — one of identity, belonging, and responsibility.

By grounding this film in personal truth, we hope to foster understanding across boundaries, build empathy where there may be division, and remind every viewer that keeping Public Lands in public hands is not just a policy issue — it’s a deeply human one.

These lands tell an American story. And in listening to one another, we write the next chapter — together.

Storytelling Approach

• A tapestry of voices: From Indigenous elders and environmentalists to ranchers and activists, diverse Americans share what public lands mean to them.

• History, policy, and emotion: Contextualizing current threats with archival imagery and insightful commentary, balanced with personal, emotional storytelling.

• A hopeful arc: This is a story not just of peril, but of possibility: how unity and action can produce real progress.

Narrative Arc:

Setup: What’s at Stake

• Opening hook: Sweeping imagery of America’s public lands, mountains, deserts, forests, rivers, paired with voices describing what these places mean to them.

• Introduction of premise: These lands belong to all Americans. They are not just scenery, but living spaces of history, culture, sustenance, recreation, and identity.

• Personal entry points: Indigenous leaders, ranchers, outdoor enthusiasts, scientists, and rural families introduce their connections to the land.

• Establishing tension: The audience learns that these lands are under threat from privatization, deregulation, underfunding, lawsuits, shrinking protections. The frame is set: public lands are both deeply personal and politically contested.

Confrontation: The Battle Over Public Lands

• Escalation of conflict: The film explores competing pressures — recreation vs. extraction, conservation vs. access, federal vs. state control. Policy and corporate interests are contrasted with grassroots voices.

• Multiplicity of perspectives: Viewers see how different communities rely on these lands — for livelihood, for cultural survival, for leisure, for science. These values sometimes collide, creating division.

• Human stories drive stakes: Personal testimonies show the lived consequences of neglect, exploitation, or policy change. For some, land loss threatens heritage; for others, it threatens their way of life.

• Midpoint / turning point: A flashpoint moment — perhaps a specific case study or crisis — shows just how fragile these protections are. The audience realizes that the idea of “public” land is not guaranteed.

Resolution: A Shared Responsibility

• Emergence of unity: The film reveals unlikely alliances — hunters alongside environmentalists, ranchers alongside scientists, Indigenous voices alongside outdoor enthusiasts — finding common ground in the value of public lands.

• Shift from despair to possibility: Instead of ending on loss, the narrative pivots to agency. The focus is on solutions: sustainable stewardship, policy advocacy, grassroots mobilization, cultural recognition.

• Call to action: The final message is clear: these lands are our shared inheritance, but only if we defend and care for them. Protecting them is not just environmental or political — it’s about democracy, identity, and legacy.

• Closing imagery: The land itself — vast, beautiful, resilient — reminds the audience what is worth fighting for.