Transfer of Federal Lands to the States

Many of the western states want the land because of the value of the minerals. Plus there is a widespread anti-fed sentiment in the west.

I am convinced a transfer would be disaster for recreationists including RVers, snowmobilers, hunters, fishermen, hikers, etc.

These are National Forest and BLM lands the states want to possess (millions of acres). Many of us consider these lands to be a national treasure...a boondocking heaven.

Won't happen in Alabama. They are trying to shut down the state parks due to lack of funding.

Actually some (quite some now) years ago the Fed offered to transfer a bunch of (mostly) BLM land to the states.
The states largely turned them down. The cost to administer the land exceeded the income they might generate from that land.

The costs to administer has always been the sticking point to land transfers. States have not wanted the costs associated with having the land (road maintenance, etc) for the marginal income it produces (timber sales, grazing fees, etc)

There has also been a certainly amount of "trading" where the Fed traded land with various entities, that is both government and private, to allow both to have consolidated holdings, vrs the broken-up blocks that resulted from rail-road right-of-ways (back in the 1800's a rail-road got land on either side of a new track they laid)

For example, the State of Nevada has sold almost of of the state land it was granted at statehood. Most eastern states have sold most of their original federal land.

The land in Nevada is about 87 percent federally owned. The state owns very little. The legislature is looking at this issue now and it has proponents and detractors. Part of the bigger issue is how the federal government is treating users of the land especially ranchers.