Agreed, that was a legitimate question, although I could have phrased it better. To be quite honest unless you are a big landowner/have really deep pockets I don't see how land transfer is a benefit. I understand the idea that there could be unforeseen issues with federal ownership, although I respectfully reject your specific example as with the exception of AK the federal government doesn't get to dictate hunting regulations, states do and you can hunt on most federal lands including 60% of the land managed my the National Park Services. Plus I would argue that because of how slow the federal process is and because we don't have federal ballot initiative legislation, there isn't much chance of dramatic federal legislation one way or another.
We lost spring bear hunting in CO, as well as all trapping due to ballot initiatives and there never coming back, you also can't hunt on State land in Colorado, so forgive me but that's what makes me skeptical of transfer. I don't think either the state or the feds should hold all the cards.
I do respect the point that you are trying to make though.
