"Maybe that's true but we have hippie lawyers so we are screwed."
Hippie lawyers are not bad. We NEED all opposing views to hash out what is best through the slowly grinding wheels of legislation and adjudication. I vehemently disagree with those pigeon-holed into the term "hippie lawyers", but they are of value. The real issue is that they are incentivized to artificially disrupt the process.
Consider if the tables were reversed - that environmental lawsuits had to be self-funded (with no remuneration for legal fees in any case, as is pretty standard fare), BUT, businesses knew that if they brought suit and won, their legal fees would be paid. You can bet that countless suits would be filed regarding logging contracts, coal leases, oil, hunting, etc, etc. What's the downside to throwing everything at the wall possible and see what sticks? At worst, you win only a fraction of your cases. You lost *nothing* in the attempt. The attorney's would be willing to work contingently, knowing the couple won cases would pay the bills, the business would loose nothing and actually stands to gain something.
It's the paradigm of encouraging lawsuits by the hippie attorneys that mucks things up artificially. Make them selectively choose what are real issues that need to be challenged, not incentivize them to file on any and every matter possible.
"Are you guys telling me that most states can fund a huge wildfire on their lands or several fires in a season. I doubt it."
I don't see anyone (aside from Tristate's comments in other threads) in this thread saying that. Perhaps it's a rhetorical question to the choir?
It's not just the costs the states would incur from a transfer of lands, although that is a HUGE issue. Does anyone honestly think that if the federal agencies are forced to turn over land, that they will begin doling out money to states for the purpose of managing those lands? I think not! And even if the budget of the Forest Service was drastically cut because of reduced lands to manage, does anyone honestly think our federal taxes will go down? Nope! It never happens that way.
Rather, our federal taxes will remain the same, and now, to maintain the lands in the same open-access manner, the state will have to come up with funds to manage those lands, patrol them, maintain roads, suppress fires, defend ESA lawsuits, defend lawsuits challenging resource extracting, etc, etc, etc. State taxes will HAVE to go up in order to do the same work now done by the feds. State lands still have the issues of lawsuits, albeit not to the same level as federal lands. Just look at the other state-trust lands thread with the environmental wackos that are constantly fighting against the exploratory tar sands extraction efforts. It's a constant fight out there for that project. And not to far from there, there was consideration of gas/oil extraction from the Bookcliffs roadless area. That met all sorts of resistance (which I happen to agree with - its one of few pristine areas, and a great hunting resource without all the wells).
Currently, the NF in western states where we like to hunt are maintained by ALL americans. NY, FL, and CA residents help pay for the NF in CO, ID, UT, etc. My share of costs to maintain NF in my and other states is minuscule because it is spread out over such a large base, including corporate profits from Wall Street and Silicon Valley. Move it to the state, and only the citizens of that state will be footing the bill for the particular lands transferred over. That could be significant.
One would hope that the revenues from such lands would make it profitable to hold them and manage them. That might be the case IF the hippie lawyers were not so intent on stopping every resource extraction they can. Like it or not, ESA, EPA, and many other federal issues won't go away simply because of ownership change. I'm not confident that enough of the land will be profitable, as much will remain cost centers.
Citizens of the state will be upset at increased taxes, pressuring the state to reduce costs of managing land. The state legislators will be looking at the $ that could be obtained from sales of land. And they will be salivating at the potential increased property taxes that could result from moving that land to private hands. Why wouldn't a state do so? Revenue stream from resource extraction with all the management issues and legal fights from holding it? Or steady known revenue stream from property taxes with the initial bump from the sale? Easy choice for any entity, esp one with budgetary constraints and angry citizens.
There is only ONE way I would agree to federal lands being transferred to the states, whether moved to school trust, or some other form . . . A permanent easement to maintain the same public access as currently exists at the time of transfer. If the state sells it to private, then the easement remains in place, and it stays open to public access for hunting and fishing and camping etc - permanently.
Still, I have my hesitations that such a plan would be efficacious to better management of the land. I do agree with the vanguard of the pro-transfer movement, that those closest to the resource make the best decisions. Unfortunately, there a whole lot more to the story than that facile argument. Costs, revenue pressures, and external interference that just may prevent the state (or private) from doing the very things that prevent the feds from allowing logging, mining, etc.
Honestly, I want the hippie lawyers to be watching over land management. I don't want the Feds, state, or private citizens/businesses damaging the land in ways that degrades it (pollution, no remediation of mining, denuding, etc). I want the land healthy for hunting and fishing after resource extraction. I just don't want them incentivized to make it ridiculously difficult to extract renewable, and non-renewable, resources in appropriate ways. I wonder when these environmental groups and law firms will wake up to the fact they are the reason that there is a movement to change ownership from Fed -> State -> Private. They will have a MUCH harder time stopping inappropriate actions on private land, and have countless little fires to fight rather than 1 centralized fire, or 50 manageable fires. Sadly, with the profit incentive built into the system, even if the ones that care did realize that, it might never be stopped until Congress removes the litigious profit incentive.
