Impact of Congress voting to sell Federal lands?

[Kingsize24]

No it wouldn't. If the states get control of the land, they have no obligation to keep it public. The only reasons states want control is to make $$$ from it.

I get yall's point, I do, it's just a completely different viewpoint and opinion for me. But my main goal is for the lands to be in the hands of those that steward it best. And of all the places I've been too all across the US, the state parks seem better run and maintained, minus the big name high monetary intake areas.

 

[tacollie]

I get yall's point, I do, it's just a completely different viewpoint and opinion for me. But my main goal is for the lands to be in the hands of those that steward it best. And of all the places I've been too all across the US, the state parks seem better run and maintained, minus the big name high monetary intake areas.

I feel like you're equating national Forest/blm with national parks. They are very different.. I've been to state parks in Texas, Arizona, Utah, Wyoming, Colorado, Kansas, Missouri, and Arkansas. None of them even come close to offering any type of dispersed camping, mountain biking, and dirt biking that I can get from NF/BLM. I do agree state parks have cleaner bathrooms but the camping sucks. I also understand how spoiled I am living walking distance from a national forest. Despite being horribly managed it's still an amazing playground. Between NF/BLM Colorado has approximately 23 million acres of federal land. That number would be a lot smaller if it was run by the state.

 

[Sparse Gray Hackle]

Perhaps your disappointment with federal parks just might be an issue of congressional funding. Look beyond the parks, there’s a lot more out there, and it needs to be there for future generations.

My opinion is that states are often easily influenced by monied people and entities who have no regard for our descendants, or for the mess they leave behind. The legacy of clear cuts, strip mines, polluted streams, and over allocated ground water is not something of which we should be proud.

Years ago, there was a bumper sticker in Texas that read:

“Please God, I promise next time we won’t piss it all away”.

 

[Kingsize24]

I feel like you're equating national Forest/blm with national parks. They are very different.. I've been to state parks in Texas, Arizona, Utah, Wyoming, Colorado, Kansas, Missouri, and Arkansas. None of them even come close to offering any type of dispersed camping, mountain biking, and dirt biking that I can get from NF/BLM. I do agree state parks have cleaner bathrooms but the camping sucks. I also understand how spoiled I am living walking distance from a national forest. Despite being horribly managed it's still an amazing playground. Between NF/BLM Colorado has approximately 23 million acres of federal land. That number would be a lot smaller if it was run by the state.

No I do know the difference, and I believe we all want the same thing, for it to be in future generations hands. And yes, you are spoiled. 😆

 

[NevadaLover]

I feel like you're equating national Forest/blm with national parks. They are very different.. I've been to state parks in Texas, Arizona, Utah, Wyoming, Colorado, Kansas, Missouri, and Arkansas. None of them even come close to offering any type of dispersed camping, mountain biking, and dirt biking that I can get from NF/BLM. I do agree state parks have cleaner bathrooms but the camping sucks. I also understand how spoiled I am living walking distance from a national forest. Despite being horribly managed it's still an amazing playground. Between NF/BLM Colorado has approximately 23 million acres of federal land. That number would be a lot smaller if it was run by the state.

I agree, the BLM and FS grounds in my state offer everything I need for recreation, state lands are generally outskirts of cities and full of homeless/squatters.

I also enjoy the huge amounts of wilderness designated areas that the BLM and FS maintain with strict rules about no wheeled equipment, the state would not be so stringent.

My experiences with state run lands has not been very positive.

 

[Gravelette]

IIRC, I've read that none of the states agitating to take Federal land have the budget to administer them and most are constitutionally prevented from running a deficit. They would have to quickly and significantly increase the revenue from the land which means more mining, oil, logging or simply selling them off for short term gain. None of that would bode well for the access we currently enjoy.

 

[Sparse Gray Hackle]

IIRC, I've read that none of the states agitating to take Federal land have the budget to administer them and most are constitutionally prevented from running a deficit. They would have to quickly and significantly increase the revenue from the land which means more mining, oil, logging or simply selling them off for short term gain. None of that would bode well for the access we currently enjoy.

🏆