I think this is better than just jumping in like Montana seems to be doing.
I've been on the fence about this because I can see good and bad in both. I think if the states own the land, you could see more healthy forest's because they could log them, manage them better, and use the timber to help pay for the land itself.
I understand that each state will vary on how they will pay for the land, but as voter's couldn't we propose a bill that would not allow the sale of lands unless it was voted on by the people of the state?
newguy220
Seems like each state's situation is different. Some states with limited federal land could easily swallow up the management of that land and likely do a better job. I am of the opinion that the federal government is not good at doing much of anything. They are inefficient and a waste of our tax dollars not to mention being subject to all sorts of lawsuits that states seem to somehow avoid. They rarely manage to get fair market value for anything such as grazing rights or timber resources. Instead they give away grazing rights, waste the timer resources, and use money to put out forest the fires. Every year we watch the same thing happen. Airplanes and helicopters putting out fires, people risking their lives. All because they don't manage the timber in a way to reduce fires and increase income. The feds can't can't sell the timber because of all the lawsuits they are subject to if they try.
To give you an example I don't think a state would ever allow something like the Bundy situation to occur. That is an example of the mismanagement of federal land IMO. States would never let someone use that much land free of charge for that many years and then have a disaster PR stunt all over the news when they tried to fix the situation after years of mismanagement.
Wyoming for example does quite well with it's management of school trust land making an impressive income every year. Also seem to be some great hunting on that land from my experience. That is what land management should look like. Instead it costs us millions to manage the land that the federal government owns.
I can also give examples of countless examples of states doing a great job of managing for public recreation and wildlife. States like South Dakota do a fantastic job giving hunters opportunity in their state. Nebraska for example is getting ready to drop several million $ for a project on a federal NWR. They also work with organizations like ducks unlimited to complete conservation projects on state land. Kansas does a great job of managing its' land for wildlife as well.
One of the things I find humerous about the people who claim the world will end and all public lands will be sold off is how that makes no sense when you look at how hard states work to open up private land for public hunting. States like MT, WY, SD,NE, and KS spend millions opening up private land for public hunting. They want people to come hunt. Why they suddenly think the land will be sold is ridiculous.
I'll give you an example. Remember when the federal government shutdown? States like South Dakota asked if they could operate federal attractions because it meant that much to them. They were willing to have state employees operate Mt Rushmore because they knew how important it was to their state. Made me see why in some cases having states control the land inside their borders just makes sense. Should the federal government be operating a tourist attraction in South Dakota? Not really, it's just another example of the federal government trying to do something it has no business doing. I'll give you another example of that. Anybody familiar with Job Corps? Many people don't' know that the USDA and ultimately the USFS operate a nationwide network of trade schools. So the USFS is teaching people how to weld, do concrete work, paint, etc... I am of the opinion that the federal government and the USFS have no business operating a trade school.
Another reason that gets thrown around is "the states can't afford to do this". There is some truth to this but in reality it is very likely that the states would be more efficient at operating the land and at the very least would require less federal money to operate which saves taxpayers $. Lots of upside and no downside from a budget standpoint. Another way of saying I don't think States could do a worse job even if if they tried.
So to be clear.
1. States want you to come hunt, they spend millions just to give you a place to come hunt. So it makes no sense to say they would sell all the land and nobody would have a place to hunt.
2.If states manage the land it is likely they will do a better job and cost taxpayers less $. Not to mention avoid ridiculous lawsuits that states seem to be able to avoid.
3. Maybe it is best to let states manage the land within it's borders. Surely there is a way to allow states more control without all the land being sold as some seem to fear will happen.
