Transfer of Federal Lands to the States

westernrvparkowner wrote:
One reason the states want to gain control is they feel they can manage that land much better than a bureaucrat in Washington. They want to be able to respond to things like beetles killing trees. Contacting Washington you are likely to get someone who would say "I really don't think the Beatles are killing that many trees. And besides, two of them are already dead and the other two are getting up their in age. Do you really think we should bother Paul and Ringo over a few dead trees?" Local control and management can be a good thing.

My wife and I are retired from working for/with the State of Wyoming for 25 years. Based on that experience, I am convinced the state: 1) can not afford to manage 25 million acres, 2) does not have a track record of listening closely to sportsmen and recreationists (oil and gas companies yes, but not recreationists), 3) would attempt to manage the land with a for-profit management model that would result in over developing some areas (especially those with minerals), and 4) would be under extreme pressure to sell some/most of the land. I am not alone in my opinion. Did you read the links I provided?

There is a lot at stake here, not just in Wyoming but throughout the west. While federal management is not always ideal, transferring federal lands to the states would be a huge risk. Why risk such a change when the current system has worked okay for decades.