Lots of assuming going in that article. Can't speak for the other states, but here in Montana, if fed lands were transferred to the state, those lands would remain public land as part of the public land trust, as required by the state constitution.
It appears many think that if a transfer to states occurred, the lands would be sold off to the highest bidder per the article claiming many states aren't financially able to manage an increase in acreage if a transfer happened and would sell to cover expenses, yet our fed guv is running a $21 trillion+ red gash through the books. What would prevent the feds from doing the same thing, ie. selling off land to cover the debt?
Wrong, Montana has sold off some of its State Lands. It wasn't that long ago that you couldn't hunt State Land in Montana without permission of the leasee, and it was a hell of a fight from the hook and bullet crowd that changed the law.
As to what would stop the "feds" from selling public land to cover the debt?...How about 320 million pissed off public land owners, for a start.
