National parks for sale?

[bpa556]

I'm absolutely opposed to the transfer of federal lands to the states. Having said that, anyone who forms an opinion on the matter, solely based on that "article", should stay home every election day until they develop the ability to differentiate propaganda from reality. That thing is a load of patchouli and granola smelling hogwash.

[Bisch]

not buying it. This whole article is based on the fear that States will sell the land. Not drinking that cool-aid. I'm a fan of states having more control and federal government less control. While some states may outsource management of lands, I doubt any will actually sell the land. That's not why they are fighting for control of it. That's just silly.

What he said^^^^^^^^

That article has a very biased slant to it!!!!

Bisch

[backwoods]

So Uncle Sam has successfully held these lands for the last 160+ years, lands that Americans fought and died for, and now it's time to just turn loose of them? Like someone said, these lands are a national treasure. America isn't growing in size. We lose land to development at astonishing rates and these lands are held for all Americans to access and enjoy.

For those that say the states won't sell...they most certainly will. It happens all the time. It's understandable that people distrust our country but there are some things this nation gets right.

[Outback]

I find it funny that we are concerned whether states can afford to manage the land. Can our federal government afford to manage them without going into debt? I'm for keeping the parks as parks and don't have a dog in this fight, but neither the state nor federal governments have much money to spend on things such as this.

[Froggy]

I find it funny that we are concerned whether states can afford to manage the land. Can our federal government afford to manage them without going into debt? I'm for keeping the parks as parks and don't have a dog in this fight, but neither the state nor federal governments have much money to spend on things such as this.

They could if the budget process allowed revenues from timber, oil and gas, coal, uranium and other mineral royalties to go directly into budgets for public land management agencies. Instead it goes directly into the treasury for politicians to waste as they see fit.

I'll repeat this. In 2015 Onshore Oil and Gas revenues were 28.9 billion dollars. That doesn't include revenues from all our other natural resources.

[BoneDigger]

Regardless of the great benefits of the federal government owning land, where does it say they have the right to own property other than for situations such as military bases, post offices, and other governmental buildings?

Where does it say they don't?

[BoneDigger]

Texas state parks are not self sufficient. They require a large budget from the legislature.

I have no doubt that the feds can manage land better than the states. The Texas legislature is well known for stealing money that has been set aside for parks and wildlife and using it for the general fund.

[niceg3s]

Bulk of the federal land is operated by the BLM, then forestry service. National Parks are a small portion of federal land.

[BoneDigger]

Subsidize. These lands can still be federally subsidized. Again, not simple, but not overly complicated. Plenty of stipulations can be attached. That's what our government does best

I thought you wanted the feds to stop spending money on land? Why should they be forced to subsidize state management of state land?

[crawdaddct]

The state of Texas cant manage what they have. Years ago the state sold off a lot of land they could not afford to manage. An example was Lake Houston State Park. When the state owned it, it was run down and always had sketchy looking characters camping out there. Houston took it over and implemented a good long term management plan. The park has been greatly improved. I wouldn't trust the state with federal land either.

[rladner]

I thought you wanted the feds to stop spending money on land? Why should they be forced to subsidize state management of state land?

where did I say that?

[BoneDigger]

where did I say that?

You're right, you never said that. My apologies for misrepresenting your stance. Most posters for the sale of federal lands to states feel the government should have NO stake in public lands. That would be financial or otherwise. My assumption was that you felt the same. So, you think the states should own the land but the feds should contribute money to it with no financial return?

[B Littleton]

This is an issue where you are really gonna see towing the party line hurting people, and they won;t realize it until it's too late. This idea that's been propagated that Federal=Bad and State=Good, is non-sense. Is there a tremendous amount of waste in the federal government? unquestionably. Do they manage all our resources perfectly? Nope. However, does that mean that we should throw out the baby with the bathwater? Heck no. Public trust land held/ managed by the federal government (USFWS, USFS, BLM) with wildlife resources managed by state fish and game agencies is one of the most unique and fantastic management systems established for conserving natural resources while providing equal access to all citizens. If you think for one second that the states will provide the same level of access, and the same level of management, then you're kidding yourself and ignoring history.

Furthermore, from a scientific perspective, these lands are composed of ecosystems that do not recognize man-created boundaries. For example, the greater yellowstone ecosystem extends into 3 different states (Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho), if all that land was handed over to the states, even if they did keep it public there would be significant ecological consequences due to variability in state management plans. Public land and public trust wildlife resources are some of the truly great American ideals and it shocks me that we've come to a point where people that love this country can't see that. If you want private control of wildlife and wildland, move to Europe.

also, if the argument is that too much money is spent on managing these lands, I'm gonna just leave this right here (remember that most of the money spent on federal lands is filtered through the USDA)...

[rladner]

You're right, you never said that. My apologies for misrepresenting your stance. Most posters for the sale of federal lands to states feel the government should have NO stake in public lands. That would be financial or otherwise. My assumption was that you felt the same. So, you think the states should own the land but the feds should contribute money to it with no financial return?

I feel, from a money standpoint, that its all the same. The money comes from the same source. The Fed does not make money, they get it via taxes, therefore it is the people's money. The Fed does not make money today on national parks. Its simply a shift in the flow on money, but not a net change. Today for example (just an example) The fed takes in $1 M in fees from these parks, but pays $5M to maintain. Net cost of $4M to operate. If the states took in the $1M in fees and spent the entire $1M to operate then the fed would subsidize the $4M. No financial change for anyone. All money still comes from user fees and taxes from the people. There is no financial return today and there wouldn't be in the future. Why would the feds do this? Why are they doing it today? This is the part I mentioned about stipulations. Obviously the Fed money would come with stipulations. I'm not going to get into a debate about all this stuff and what is best, simply that the financial impact can be addressed. Who's better at it? Who knows. Again, this is just to address the money issue. I'm not voting for it, just stating it is possible. Thinking outside the box so to speak.

[Razrbk89]

This is an issue where you are really gonna see towing the party line hurting people, and they won;t realize it until it's too late. This idea that's been propagated that Federal=Bad and State=Good, is non-sense. Is there a tremendous amount of waste in the federal government? unquestionably. Do they manage all our resources perfectly? Nope. However, does that mean that we should throw out the baby with the bathwater? Heck no. Public trust land held/ managed by the federal government (USFWS, USFS, BLM) with wildlife resources managed by state fish and game agencies is one of the most unique and fantastic management systems established for conserving natural resources while providing equal access to all citizens. If you think for one second that the states will provide the same level of access, and the same level of management, then you're kidding yourself and ignoring history.

Furthermore, from a scientific perspective, these lands are composed of ecosystems that do not recognize man-created boundaries. For example, the greater yellowstone ecosystem extends into 3 different states (Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho), if all that land was handed over to the states, even if they did keep it public there would be significant ecological consequences due to variability in state management plans. Public land and public trust wildlife resources are some of the truly great American ideals and it shocks me that we've come to a point where people that love this country can't see that. If you want private control of wildlife and wildland, move to Europe.

also, if the argument is that too much money is spent on managing these lands, I'm gonna just leave this right here (remember that most of the money spent on federal lands is filtered through the USDA)...

Spot on! Towing party lines can get us in trouble quick on issues like this. I also think that everyone owes it to themselves to take a good, long, HARD look at that pie chart.... Most people don't have a clue about spending priorities.

I want to see our wild lands remain wild.