Members of a six-member panel, including two Oregon Public Broadcasting reporters who covered that standoff, linked the Bundy militants’ frustration with federal management of public lands to a larger Western movement to transfer ownership of federal lands to the states.
It appears the sole purpose of this column is to tarnish the non-violent movement to transfer lands with the Bundys, the militia, militants and violence.
Notice how they frame the argument: If you are frustrated with federal management, then you are a Bundy supporter, and if you are part of the movement to transfer ownership, then you are a Bundy-type.
Rather than debate the pros and cons of a transfer, they resort to personal attacks and guilt by association. This has been going on for awhile, but the column linked to is the most flagrant example I've seen so far.
The only transfer issue brought up in this column is these lands might wind up in private hands. Personally, I would like to see a clean transfer to the states, where the local needs and concerns can influence the highest and best use of the resource. However, if there is a legitimate concern for maintaining public access to certain parcels or areas, you simply place a reverter clause in the transfer instrument. If the state or private owner doesn't, in this case, maintain public access, the land reverts back to the feds. Reverter clauses already exist in law, such as the Recreation & Public Purposes Act, so that language could be easily adapted for public access. In other words, the one issue they raise can be easily resolved.