Transfer of Federal Lands to the States

dave54 wrote:

highplainsdrifter wrote:
I have presented some factual information on this thread debunking the myth that it is illegal for the feds to own/manage federal land. I have also posted some convincing evidence (and stated my opinion based on experience) that if the states get control, they will have to overdevelop and/or sell much of the land because they will be "compelled" to use a for-profit management model...

No, you did not. You offered a link to an opinion piece that does not address the underlying issue -- the original constitutionality of the laws cited in the article. You get partial credit in your argument because federal courts have already ruled the feds can own land; the article did not cite the court rulings.

In the second part you offered only anecdotal accounts of how some states manage land. I offered other examples where states have managed the land very well and in the public interest. The blanket statement all states will sell them off is not supported.

In the interest of full disclosure, I am retired from the Forest Service and do not support giving all federal lands back to the states. I do support giving local government (counties, local communities) a greater voice in the management. The 'federal ownership, local control' model has been advocated back to the 19th century, and was the premise upon which the Forest Service was created, and later the BLM. It is not a liberal/conservative division, as democratic presdential candidates Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004 had federal ownership local control as part of their platforms. Now the republican candidates are adopting the issue ( or a variation of it).

We saw in the recent Forest Service MVUM process how the environmental industry tried to hijack the OHV issue and ban boondocking. Fortunately, their attemps failed. FS managers are not all indifferent bureaucrats or wacko tree huggers. Most support boondocking and multiple use, improving the resources while supporting local communities. Unfortunately, their hands often get tied by well intentioned but badly written laws, and contradictory ever-changing court decision. Narrow twisted legal logic usually trumps good sound science based resource management.

I have provided two sources debunking the claim that the feds can't legally own land. One of those I posted awhile back so I will post it again. It is a report written by the Congressional Research Service. Pretty definitive if you ask me.

https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL34273.pdf

I also provided a link to show what states have done with their state school land grants. Some of those states such as Nevada have sold most of their school lands. Utah has sold half.

http://www.statetrustlands.org/

Glad to hear you do not support giving federal lands back to the states! I also would not object to giving the states more say about management as long as the land stays in federal ownership and is managed for multiple use. Therefore, we seem to be mostly on the same side of the issue. So, why are you arguing with me?