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?
The Fed's are allowed to run in a deficit, most all Western State's Constitutions do not allow it. Land held by most State trust boards are required to make a profit, if they don't they often get sold. In Colorado and New Mexico, if state trust land is not leased by the Department of Parks and Wildlife, you aren't hunting on it. In NM, CO and WY, you can't camp on State trust Land. In addition, most of our state land is leased for cattle or mining and is then treated as private property which we don't have access to it. I'll be looking for something else to do instead of Hunt if Mike Lee gets his way.
The feds aren't "allowed" to run a deficit, they just do. Ever heard Of Graham Ruddman? With regard to the other states, citizens at the state level are responsible for the gov. they put in power. If you don't like the way your state runs your trust lands, then make the change, just like we do at the national level. Fed lands are leased for cattle, mining etc as well, and the FS, BLM et al can and do put controls and closures on fed land just like states do on "their" land.
“Some ideas are so stupid that only intellectuals believe them.” ― G. Orwell
"Why can't men kill big game with the same cartridges women and kids use?" _Eileen Clarke
"Unjust authority confers no obligation of obedience." - Alexander Hamilton
