Timber sales on state forest lands provoke controversies over their effects on wildlife and recreation. State parks departments are sometimes considered too development-oriented. But the state subsidy per acre is ten times higher than for federal parks. Yet several state park systems cost their taxpayers virtually nothing at all. The states have tried almost every conceivable organizational structure for their natural resource agencies.
Some states have a land board consisting of elected officials such as the governor and treasurer.
Others have specially elected land commissioners. And others have boards appointed by the governor or other officials. Fifteen states, including most in the far west, place the three agencies in completely separate departments, while fifteen more, including most Great Lakes and Midwestern states, house them as divisions in a single natural resources department. Nine states, including many in the Great Plains, combine wildlife and parks but keep forestry distinct, while nine others, including most of the New England states, combine forestry and parks and keep wildlife distinct. All of these structures allow for good comparisons to see what works best.