Transfer of Federal Lands to the States

highplainsdrifter wrote:

I am not saying Teddy Roosevelt was perfect. What I like about him is that he set aside millions of acres of federal land for permanent protection. This started a trend that added millions more acres. How that land was/is managed was and continues to be debated.

The good news is we are having a debate. If the lands had all been privatized, we would have no say in management...and no access.

You are making the unfounded assumption that all states would sell or mismanage the land. There is zero evidence or history all fifty states would do that. State forests in California, for example, are better managed and in better health than the federal counterparts by every metric. Even the Forest Service concedes this is true. Even private corporate forestlands in California are considered by some to be better managed.

The Oregon state parks are very well managed, and people on this forum rave about them (I concur).

The Nature Conservancy, considered to be the 'good guys', sell land to developers occasionally and restrict public access. Senior officers of the Sierra Club in California have been cited by the state for gross mismanagement of their own land and violations of the state forest practices act.

Do not make generalized blanket statements the feds are the only ones that can properly manage land. Some states have a better track record than the feds or environmental groups.