Transfer of Federal Lands to the States

For example, the State of Nevada has sold almost of of the state land it was granted at statehood. Most eastern states have sold most of their original federal land.

The land in Nevada is about 87 percent federally owned. The state owns very little. The legislature is looking at this issue now and it has proponents and detractors. Part of the bigger issue is how the federal government is treating users of the land especially ranchers.

Actually some (quite some now) years ago the Fed offered to transfer a bunch of (mostly) BLM land to the states.
The states largely turned them down. The cost to administer the land exceeded the income they might generate from that land.

The costs to administer has always been the sticking point to land transfers. States have not wanted the costs associated with having the land (road maintenance, etc) for the marginal income it produces (timber sales, grazing fees, etc)

There has also been a certainly amount of "trading" where the Fed traded land with various entities, that is both government and private, to allow both to have consolidated holdings, vrs the broken-up blocks that resulted from rail-road right-of-ways (back in the 1800's a rail-road got land on either side of a new track they laid)

Won't happen in Alabama. They are trying to shut down the state parks due to lack of funding.

Many of the western states want the land because of the value of the minerals. Plus there is a widespread anti-fed sentiment in the west.

I am convinced a transfer would be disaster for recreationists including RVers, snowmobilers, hunters, fishermen, hikers, etc.

These are National Forest and BLM lands the states want to possess (millions of acres). Many of us consider these lands to be a national treasure...a boondocking heaven.

Halmfamily wrote:
Won't happen in Alabama. They are trying to shut down the state parks due to lack of funding.

That doesn't mean they won't accept the land, and not open the parks. Politicians are involved and they don't have a high level of trust.

jmtandem wrote:

For example, the State of Nevada has sold almost of of the state land it was granted at statehood. Most eastern states have sold most of their original federal land.

The land in Nevada is about 87 percent federally owned. The state owns very little. The legislature is looking at this issue now and it has proponents and detractors. Part of the bigger issue is how the federal government is treating users of the land especially ranchers.

Sorry, I didn't mean to pick on anyone particular state. Regarding Nevada I was referring to the state school lands they were granted at statehood. The state was originally granted 2.7 million acres and has sold all but 3,000 acres. Makes you kind of wonder if they wouldn't sell federal land if they had that option today.

http://www.statetrustlands.org/about-state-trust-lands/state-comparisons.html

Right now we all own it. If transferred the big ranchers will own it either in name or by proxy. The big ranchers think they own it now just think if state owned. Greed folks pure greed.

jmtandem wrote:

For example, the State of Nevada has sold almost of of the state land it was granted at statehood. Most eastern states have sold most of their original federal land.

The land in Nevada is about 87 percent federally owned. The state owns very little. The legislature is looking at this issue now and it has proponents and detractors. Part of the bigger issue is how the federal government is treating users of the land especially ranchers.

Making a bad comment here (me). Isn't Nevada Harry Reid's area/state? Just saying. And you can put the pieces together.

It's hard to call federal lands "boondocking heaven" when they are clamping down on dispersed camping, you have to carefully examine MVUMs to see where you can go, and all of that.

My dad used to talk (in the 60s and 70s) about how "federal" land meant "our" land, and how it was ours to use and enjoy. But nowadays on much of it, we are no longer permitted to use or enjoy it.

rexlion wrote:
It's hard to call federal lands "boondocking heaven" when they are clamping down on dispersed camping, you have to carefully examine MVUMs to see where you can go, and all of that.

My dad used to talk (in the 60s and 70s) about how "federal" land meant "our" land, and how it was ours to use and enjoy. But nowadays on much of it, we are no longer permitted to use or enjoy it.

Yes they have clamped down some. But here in Wyoming, we can RV camp pretty much anywhere on federal land (except wilderness areas) as long as we are close to a road...can't blaze a trail far into a new area.

This is much better than if it was privatized.