I do not support a transfer of Fed lands to the States. Now that that is out of the way, I am wondering aloud here. Is there a strategic advantage to having this Amendment in place now, rather than trying to get it in place after a transfer happened? I don't know for sure, I am simply asking the question. The Amendment doesn't provide for the Transfer, it simply states very broad management practices for that land and that no net lose can occur. The actual transfer is a much different thing. Looking at this issue from a different perspective, if a transfer where to happen getting something into the Constitution to protect access and sales of land would be darn near impossible after the fact. Is it a good idea to get it in before? Possibly with some stronger language and definitions of access and value.
My belief is that a transfer from Fed to State control is going to be won or lost on its legal merits rather than emotional merits like loss of access, loss of hunting and fishing opportunities, etc. I cant help but wonder if getting some protections in place now, should the unthinkable happen, wouldn't be a good strategic move. Your thoughts?
