Would only take 26 million acres to pay off the national debt. Then they could start all over.

I know a few Europeons that hunt and fish in Europe. Most are probably middle class.

Good for those few people. I know 370 million people that have uninhibited access to hundreds of millions of acres of land. They’re from all classes and can hunt, fish, trap, hike, kayak, canoe, gain mineral and grazing rights, benefit from clean air and water, and the list goes on.

I’d absolutely hate to see the U.S. turn into Europe. What about you?

Sell off CA CO NM and AZ public land to pay off the national debt I would get behind it. They are effectively shut off to me anyway.

Eliminating that debt would do wonders for the value of the dollar.

I agree. I would hate to see people embrace socialism like they do in Europe. Seems the battle has been lost.

I guess we better sell our roads and all public school buildings then.

Exactly right Pete. Look at the refuge on the Kenai. I have a home right beside it and have to drive a very long way to get access, then fight the crowds.

39% is owned by State, County, fed and corporate that allows public use.

On top of that there is always getting permission from private owners.

I find that with the right approach its not hard to get use of private lands.

Most often if your denied its cause of previous other Hunters/trappers/fisherman that have abused the trust, hard to rebuild that trust.

Hunting/fishing/trapping is always better on private lands.

Until the last year or so I payed for access to private land for fishing. Access was sold to anyone who wanted to pay so I wasn't the only one.
Cost was Approx $200/yr.
It gave me access to several miles of river, below the private land there was public access.
The crowds were about the same.
Only difference was the type of people you'd run into and have to deal with.
Public land had all the slobs, snaggers, litterbugs and inconsiderate people.
Private land was not at all like the public.
People on the private were much more freindly, you'd get to know them and exchange fishing reports and info.
They had a higher ethic when it came to fishing.

Well worth the $200 to fish there.
The fishing wasn't any better but the people were.
I fished both places regularly, maybe 30-50 times/yr.

I'll bet that almost all of you that would complain about paying $200 to fish and unlimited amount have many places they could cut $200 from their yearly budget.

I don't have any issue with land owners charging for access.
I allow access to my land to one person for hunting, no charge.

Well thank the Good Lord for bad weather and the church.

$200 and up a day in Wy. and MT.

At one time didn't the government give land grants to settlers and allow claims to allow ownership? The Government tried to get people on land to establish populations correct? Why would we not want to take land out of government ownership and get it in the peoples hands thus creating more tax base, and private land ownership. Cannot make more land but we can get more people of which we have way more people today on land as owners. I understand the selfish perspective of wanting access but it would benefit our country with 333 million people to open more land up to settlers.

If the States win in SCOTUS on this issue, and the States are given title, I am pretty sure they will not sell the land to private interests. These States already have a lot of State land and aren't selling it, it is still staying in the public domain. I'm sure it would stay that way.

Alaska is hurting financially and I know of a couple instances just in the last few years where they’ve clearcut state land and sold it off to private ownership. So I’m pretty sure they could do whatever they want with it. In the case of Utah, I’d bet it will end up in Mormon hands faster than you can blink.

But beyond that, and the reason for my concern, this would set the precedent for all Federal lands being opened up to transferring to state ownership. Say what you want, but in the interest of wildlife populations, habitat connectivity, recreational access, ecosystem services, management funding, etc, I’m happy to see it stay under Federal management.

Water is the main factor in limiting the development of more land in the desert of the west.
Most of Wyoming has less than 10" of anual precipitation. Our major water sheds are shared with other states down stream. Development of public land would be somthing that would force some extremely restricted use of natural resources. Private land is almost always managed better than public. This would effect most of the larger ranches that have had grazing leases for generations. And I'm sure the price of beef and lamb would increase greatly. As far as more tax revenues. We would be better of cutting the fat in our Gubment. .
Get rid of the Government waist program.

https://www.land.com/property/40-acres-in-Sweetwater-County-Wyoming/20180004/

The reason almost all BLM is BLM is because there was no way to homestead it. Forest and BLM are pretty marginal.

If we’re talking sage flats and prairies, which is mostly what I’ve seen of BLM land, then you’re still talking about a very biodiverse ecosystem. It can make for excellent hunting and trapping, and I’d hate to see that taken away from my fellow outdoorsmen.

Thanks for the explanations of the type of land and water issues with it.