Transfer of Federal Public Lands?

[OutHouse]

Read some stuff in the news about the federal legislature wanting to create law that provides for the transfer of federal public land to the states. The apparent aim of the change in law is open up public land for purchase or natural resource extraction. I personally have a bad feeling about this because access to decent hunting ground is becoming harder and harder as the decades go by. I certainly wouldn't want a bunch of rich yups buying up National Forest land to put their vacation houses on--and then being able to exclude hunters or any other group they find undesirable. On the other hand, I have heard some argue that the states would be better at managing the land, but there is still the possibility it gets privatized. What are your thoughts, guys and gals?

[swanny]

Totally against it. All it does is open up the ability for the states to then sell the land to private parties. Federal lands need to remain at the federal level

[bracer40]

One of the main problems with states being given control is that most states are required by law to maximize revenues from their land holdings. The  Feds have no such requirement.
I've listened to a lot of well informed, smart people who are fighting this push by the Republican Party. Even many ranchers whose cattle graze on public land are against this due to lower grazing rights for fed lands vs state lands (the BUNDY's don't count. They are thieves who refused to pay for the grazing rights they originally agreed to pay)

[Bean Counter]

I'm for it. Hunting will survive and there are plenty of ways to force access easements into the transfer of lands that don't remain in state control.

 You don't get to bitch about the onerous aspects of federal control and influence like wolf populations run amuck if you want the feds owning half your state. 

[JLS]

One of the main problems with states being given control is that most states are required by law to maximize revenues from their land holdings. The  Feds have no such requirement.
I've listened to a lot of well informed, smart people who are fighting this push by the Republican Party. Even many ranchers whose cattle graze on public land are against this due to lower grazing rights for fed lands vs state lands (the BUNDY's don't count. They are thieves who refused to pay for the grazing rights they originally agreed to pay)

Agreed.  In addition, many state DNR agencies have drastically different rules on land use than federal lands.  Just because the state owns it doesn't mean you get to use it.  Randy Newberg has put together a lot of information on this on YouTube.  I'd suggest anyone start there as he does a very comprehensive job of explaining the potential ramifications.

If you are opposed to this, I'd suggest you write your Congressional representatives and let them know. 

[kentrek]

IHunting will survive and there are plenty of ways to force access easements into the transfer of lands that don't remain in state control.

This is the fine print that would lead hunting towards a bad direction in America....

[OutHouse]

I'm for it. Hunting will survive and there are plenty of ways to force access easements into the transfer of lands that don't remain in state control.

 You don't get to bitch about the onerous aspects of federal control and influence like wolf populations run amuck if you want the feds owning half your state. 

I agree that hunting would survive but it might just be for the people who either buy the land themselves or who otherwise can gain special access. Your idea about easements is interesting but from the legal work I've done in real estate transactions I can say the buyers of that land will be the ones calling the shots when it comes to negotiating the sale etc...Hunters simply won't be at the table when the purchase and sale agreements are entered into. That will leave us without easements. However, maybe some states would make it a requirement.

[JasonG]

Keep public lands in public hands. Mismanagement of state owned property will end up sold to the private sector. There goes your access. Go to sportsmensaccess.org and sign the petition. This is important ladies and gentlemen!!

[elkinrutdrivemenuts]

Absolutely not.  Terrible idea, the only people it would benefit are the ones who will buy it from the state because they cant afford to handle the management of those lands.

[Special T]

In order to find a reasonable solution you really have to define the problem accurately. Federal ownership wouldn't be an issue if  Bunnie Huggers weren't pushing so much ESA nonsense.  If our now best practices of mining, drilling, grazing and logging were actually taking place this wouldn't be an issue.

[Bean Counter]

I'm for it. Hunting will survive and there are plenty of ways to force access easements into the transfer of lands that don't remain in state control.

 You don't get to bitch about the onerous aspects of federal control and influence like wolf populations run amuck if you want the feds owning half your state. 

I agree that hunting would survive but it might just be for the people who either buy the land themselves or who otherwise can gain special access. Your idea about easements is interesting but from the legal work I've done in real estate transactions I can say the buyers of that land will be the ones calling the shots when it comes to negotiating the sale etc...

Negotiations are a two way street. The buyer brings money that the seller wants, the seller holds an asset that the buyer wants.

Hunters simply won't be at the table when the purchase and sale agreements are entered into. That will leave us without easements. However, maybe some states would make it a requirement.

Why should the states that would do it right suffer because of those who would do it wrong? Do you you think its good that U.S. Senators and Representatives in Ill-Annoy and New Yawk are voting to legislate your gun rights? You only believe in states rights when its convenient to your wallet? 

[Stein]

I'm for it. Hunting will survive and there are plenty of ways to force access easements into the transfer of lands that don't remain in state control.

Do you have an example of that ever happening with state auctioned land? 

I think it would take a pretty big sucker to buy land that they would then need to pay to maintain but have no control over it.

[Bean Counter]

IHunting will survive and there are plenty of ways to force access easements into the transfer of lands that don't remain in state control.

This is the fine print that would lead hunting towards a bad direction in America....

How well is an ever expanding federal government working out for the direction of America? Its not enough to have a state department of education, we need to have the feds with their own department as well. Then we wonder why we can't escape Common Core and have boys showering with girls? Its not enough to have a state department of ecology but we need to have the feds with their own department as well.. Then we wonder why the last lead smelting plant in the U.S. is driven out of business 

[Bean Counter]

I'm for it. Hunting will survive and there are plenty of ways to force access easements into the transfer of lands that don't remain in state control.

Do you have an example of that ever happening with state auctioned land?

I think it would take a pretty big sucker to buy land that they would then need to pay to maintain but have no control over it.

I'm not a realtor, sorry. I'm just a guy who loves the Constitution, distrusts and dislikes the federal government, and happens to love the state he lives in (Arizona).

The biggest ranch in Arizona is the Boquillas Ranch ("the Big Bo"). Its $80 to hunt there and all you have to search is "Unit 10 Bulls" to see what you get for your $80.00. Have fun chasing hoof rotten spikes in a sea of orange, but hey, its free   

[OutHouse]

I'm for it. Hunting will survive and there are plenty of ways to force access easements into the transfer of lands that don't remain in state control.

 You don't get to bitch about the onerous aspects of federal control and influence like wolf populations run amuck if you want the feds owning half your state. 

I agree that hunting would survive but it might just be for the people who either buy the land themselves or who otherwise can gain special access. Your idea about easements is interesting but from the legal work I've done in real estate transactions I can say the buyers of that land will be the ones calling the shots when it comes to negotiating the sale etc...

Negotiations are a two way street. The buyer brings money that the seller wants, the seller holds an asset that the buyer wants.

Hunters simply won't be at the table when the purchase and sale agreements are entered into. That will leave us without easements. However, maybe some states would make it a requirement.

Why should the states that would do it right suffer because of those who would do it wrong? Do you you think its good that U.S. Senators and Representatives in Ill-Annoy and New Yawk are voting to legislate your gun rights? You only believe in states rights when its convenient to your wallet? 

Oh I believe in states rights (seriously do) but from a constitutional perspective it doesn't have a lot of teeth. In another comment you said you love the constitution. Well, learn something about it. Research the 10th amendment and then you'll know that the state's rights argument should be a fall back argument at best.