Transfer of Federal Lands to the States

LenSatic wrote:

monkey44 wrote:
When you add management of the national forests into the equation, then you have land management that produces NO revenue. Where will the states get the money to manage that produces NO revenue (beyond hunting and fishing license) -- the states will soon find a way, whether selling it, or leasing mining or drilling, or harvesting rights ... and there goes the quality of our forests.

The lack of harvesting has been responsible for the numerous large forest fires here in the West. BTW, you left out grazing permits on the flatlands.

...and waterways.

Like the Animas River in CO? :?

BLM used to manage the local shooting range just up the road from us. The two mile road from the highway to the range was only usable by high-clearance vehicles. Several months ago, BLM transferred control to AZ Game and Fish. AZGFD quickly repaired the road so that it is now easily accessed by all vehicles. The net result is more revenue for the range. They just added a Skeet and Trap shooting range and it already brings in more than the other ranges put together. All of this without raising range fees.

LS

monkey44 is correct. Most federal land has minimal revenue producing capability (without being sold). Yes some has oil or coal, and some has the potential for timber harvest. But most has only recreational value and perhaps some grazing. Recreational value is not a big money producer. The states would soon discover that most of the federal land they acquired is not pulling its own weight in terms of producing revenue.

Instead of producing revenue, that same land has high costs associated with it relating to fire suppression, road building/maintenance, law enforcement, paying staff to manage it, etc.

At some point very soon, fiscally prudent elected officials would say let's sell some of the stuff that is a drain on the budget. That is as clear to me as the bright blue sky!