Transfer of Federal Lands to the States

monkey44 wrote:
One thing that popped into my mind reading all this ::

We have a lot of federal public lands, and we ALL have a say in how it's managed.
If it goes to state control, ONLY the residents of that state will have a say in that land.

Eventually, travelers to each state will pay a premium for 'using the land'. I suggest looking at South Dakota for one example. Every 'visitor' to S Dakota State campgrounds pays an additional "access fee" daily for camping ($6.00) that's daily, not one time per camping trip. And, it allows no discounts for veterans unless resident

I see that happening all over once we have no federal lands left. Not a pleasant thought.

I understand some states, like Oregon, offer discounts to veterans, resident or not - a good thing for us. However, once a state gets a huge amount of land over what it manages now, how will it pay for managing it? IT does not come with built in revenue. SO, raise revenue from land use permits or fees. AND, resident (more than likely) will pay less, and visitors will pay more. A 'wallet' tragedy for those of us who RV in many states, rather than stay close to home.

I have to defend South Dakotas fees you pointed out. We have very nice roomy state parks, and it costs money to use them. These fees are not for nonresidents only, they are for everyone visiting the parks. You do realize you could have gotten an annual pass for only $30 right? There is no difference for residents or nonresidents. SD state park fees
I am one of those that think they should be self sufficient. If they are, they can't be shut down for political reasons such as happened with the national parks. Also, local control would have enabled our state parks dept. to keep Mt Rushmore open for visitors, but that is another discussion. Because of the last shutdown, Wind Cave NP raised their camping fees to make that campground cover its costs, and now it will not have to close next time. That is a step in the right direction.