Geeze,won't anyone on here consider that much federal land is badly managed? Huge wildfires, which destroy habitat or at least the desirable attributes of an area?
And why is there bad management? Because of bad federal law that paralyzes the agencies. By the time the anti-capitalist greens get done attacking a grazing right or a timber sale, the proposal is too small or costs too much, much less making a return for the taxpayers.
It is a simple fact that you can get more good work done, if the work somehow pays for itself. This is possible. It happens ALL the time on state-run lands, usually by a constitutional mandate. Indian tribes accomplish the same, in a balanced manner of benefit and consequence.
More important, for tribes and states, the policies are mainly controlled and influenced by those most affected by the benefits and consequences of these policies. That is at the root of self-government.
On federal lands, the policies are set thousands of miles away by those with the best lobbyists.
I live in Montana, and I can show anyone here physical proof that state lands are better managed and more productive overall than the federal estate. In fact, in comparison, the condition of federal lands to state parcels is criminal. Just terrible, across vast reaches of ground.
I know it's nice to pretend we're in a pristine environment, but the historic reality, from even before the white eyes showed up, is that the American landscape evolved and appears as it does today because of human management aimed at increasing game productivity through the timed use of set fires. That's management.
Deliberately managed vegetation on both open and forested habitat almost always provides more forage and cover for game. America's environment actually EVOLVED that way, for Gosh sake, and federal management by neglect doesn't cut the mustard. States can, and often, do a better job of doing the things we want to see happen.
