East of the Mississippi River....the federal government rarely controls more than two percent of a state’s land resources. West of Texas....it’s closer to sixty to seventy percent. All of this...because of Roosevelt’s attitude on the government holding the land as a natural resource.
Personally, I think it’s time to talk land resources. I can see some agree on forest areas to be saved....as we did east of the Mississippi. But the general limit ought to be less than ten percent of a state can be federally retained. Start dispensing of the properties....limiting sales of land to 400 acres per person....per decade. No foundation or company purchases. If you don’t live on the property, you lose the property within two years.
BLM and the forestry mafia can all downsize. If the fed guys want to hand some of the property over to states themselves....fine, limit them to ten percent as well. Once you put the live-on the property rule into effect...none of these environmental hoodlums will participate.
Yeah, I think the states can regulate their own parks. The feds can own real estate for government buildings and military facilities.
Why should the federal government be involved at all? What Constitutional authority do they have to own those lands? (i.e. Are the States sovereign, or not?) Moreover, what makes the federal government a better steward of these lands than the States themselves? — Locality itself should dictate that the States, being right there, would be better positioned and more interested in their well-being than "a master in a farr0off land", no?