The citizens of the county or state should decide how beat to utilize the land. If they want a state park, wildlife management area, sell/ lease to individuals, or an industrial park. It should be decided by the local and state govt's.
That could be a noble sentiment but the fact is it is much of the west is federal land and federal under law that is over a century old. The land was set aside by the US government as part of the admittance to the union as a state. Remember before the states were admitted to the union the west was federally owned and administered. In fact the basis for much private property in the west is the Homestead Act of 1865 (I think) and land grants that the US government provided. Oklahoma was Indian territory and the land rush that opened the state to settlement by whites was a federal act. The basic precept of settlement and development of much of the west was that it was done under the rule of the federal government as it held the rights. While there may be reason and sentiment to change things it must be done within the rule of law and with the consent of the present owner (the federal government). What mechanism do you propose to change the fact as they stand? Without a legal mechanism those demanding their "rights to the land" are little different in intent than the pro Russian groups acting in Ukraine. Again my argument isn't with your sentiment necessarily, but with the impression you seem to give that because it seems right, individuals can just declare it so. I have a large problem with that.
The article is about state lawmakers, 50 from 9 states, wanting to put the federal lands under state control. That is a legal way to go about it. They also give reason why the states should manage the land. The states can better manage those lands from home than a bunch of bureaucrats can from Washington. Some tracts would be suitable for WMA's and some for public use. Either way it goes the states can use the income and jobs that would be created by the transfers.
Why? The federal government is part of the big picture. What evidence do you offer for states and local government doing better? They will do what is best for them, not what is best for the nation.
If the states control land in their own states you won't see a "govt shutdown" and the Feds locking citizens out of the national parks. The states would probably do what's best to manage the lands so the tourists keep coming. The states could better manage timber and wildlife resources as well as instituting plans and management practices to minimize drought and wildfire conditions. The people that have those lands in their own backyards, so to speak, have a better idea of how these lands could be better utilized to maximize public benefit.
So, I am supposed to think like you? Not a chance. Many local governments are horrible, simply horrible. It won't take you long to think of some. State governments range from good to pathetic (Louisiana). Give me a reason why local and state governments are better. Evidence, you know. Give me some facts as to what makes the federal government "bad". Or is it just another anti-Obama sentiment? Is the federal government "good" when the GOP is in charge?
No I don't put all blame on Obama, Bush had his fair share of stupid. The Patriot Act for one was a huge deal as we lost a good bit of our Bill of Rights, but between the NSA, Holder and Co. giving guns to the MX cartels, that found their way back into TX... the IRS targeting non-profit groups regardless of political affiliation, the passing of bills before the people get to see whats in it even though we're forced to pay for it, our lax security policies as in the CIA and FBI can't seem to keep track of threats entering this country, foreigners getting student visas then disappearing when they run out and these people can't be found, security everywhere you go and in some cases getting molested by said security (TSA), endless Gov't spending waste, and our congress wanting pay raises even they haven't done shit for us...
I can agree that the federal government isn't perfect and makes some bonehead mistakes. But I think that the states have an even worse track record while managing far less critical programs. And local governments need to stick to police, fire departments and dog-catching. Damned if I want every local yokel handling airport security, national parks, public land, and such.
Here's a few federal accomplishments. Amtrak. USPS. IRS. EPA. AG. Every one is either broke or being used to target political opposition. $17,000,000,000,000. And don't forget the shutdown of the national parks for purely political reasons. The Feds suck ass and your boy Barry is leading the charge.
