Most here probably hasn't bothered to talk to any "evil" person that is for letting public land pay for itself. They get their info fed to them by their "conservation" groups. Every single politician that has been charged for being against public land, is doing so to make the economy in their state better. These huge tracts of public lands are not only a dead weight to those economies but, are the problem affecting these areas since resource development is a big no no on these lands. Because the same people that want to twist things like that into these politicians being evil people, will be the first to sue or, cry foul during the management plan comment period of a plan revision that advises of the natural resources extraction. Forcing a stop to the development process. Ending up in a court room. Where a liberal judge puts a halt to the process by implying restrictions not feasible to continue.
Gentlemen, I do not support truly public land transfer to the states. But, I'm smart enough to realize that in order to keep all public and federal lands open to future Americans, we had better learn to compromise. They are a net loss to any government entity as is. If they were to be utilized to produce revenue, you'd see most all serious proponents of land transfer change their mind on the subject. I make a living in Natural Resource utilization. I've worked for government and private industry in the coal and timber sectors. Responsible management is not only possible but demanded when operating on public or federal lands. It can be done to benefit EVER entity involved. With improved wildlife habitat leading that pack. Regardless of who says so. That is the science behind it and no party punchline will change that.
Have a good evening and God Bless
