Why does the guv own so much of the land in the western US...or feel that it needs to?

It's basically just a matter of historic context as to how we got to where we are or basically have always been.

For decades there has been some pretty solid arguments made for the feds to sell off some land to private ownership. Of course our government would probably sell it to China.

Teddy R. Watch the National Parks by Burns.

Most of it, nobody else wanted at the time. We need to sell about 3/4 of what land the government owns out there.

Re-reading Fehrenbach's "Lone Star".

One of the best things to happen to Texas was that the state, rather then the Feds, retained ownership of the open lands upon gaining statehood.

Squadron7 said:

---

Why does the guv own so much of the land in the western US...or feel that it needs to?

---

Because they've always owned it. It never belonged to the states.

As said above

Federal land, has (mostly) never belonged to states or individuals

Very few people live there

It's not good for much. Maybe some grazing and mining, but there is never going to be enough fertile ground or water for agriculture. And there will likely never be enough industry, climate, transportation, or water to support a population

Government land covers about 50% of Arizona and provides a lot of recreation opportunities. I don't think selling it would be popular here.

Teddy Roosevelt got it right creating public land for all Americans to enjoy.

jja79 said:

---

Government land covers about 50% of Arizona and provides a lot of recreation opportunities. I don't think selling it would be popular here.

---

I doubt all 50% of that is publicly accessible, and a bunch is landlocked like "National Grasslands" in Texas, and likely costs more in personnel costs to administer than it brings. So we just sell 1/2 in Arizona

A lot of it is accessible for fishing, hiking, off roading, etc. I was at the Salt River about 12 miles from my house this week fishing.

Not doubting that for a minute, but there's still a bunch that is not.

jja79 said:

---

A lot of it is accessible for fishing, hiking, off roading, etc. I was at the Salt River about 12 miles from my house this week fishing.

---

I've been rafting on the Salt River. Great fun.

CanyonAg77 said:

---

As said above

Federal land, has (mostly) never belonged to states or individuals

Very few people live there

It's not good for much. Maybe some grazing and mining, but there is never going to be enough fertile ground or water for agriculture. And there will likely never be enough industry, climate, transportation, or water to support a population

---

But there is a ton of amazing recreational use land. May as well sell a bunch off. Private land owners are much better stewards of the land anyway (as I know you are more than well aware of).

BurnetAggie99 said:

---

Teddy Roosevelt got it right creating public land for all Americans to enjoy.

---

Not trying to be a smart ass but what % or Americans do you think "enjoy" public lands in 2024?

My Cousin works for the National Forest Service. He's a Forester. Based on his conversations maybe about 25% of the population use public lands per a study.

Myself and my family going back to my Grandfather apricate the fact that we can hunt, fish, hike, camp and so forth on Federal & State Public land. When we go out of State to hunt we hunt on BLM & National Forest land.

Urban Ag said:

---

BurnetAggie99 said:

---

Teddy Roosevelt got it right creating public land for all Americans to enjoy.

---

Not trying to be a smart ass but what % or Americans do you think "enjoy" public lands in 2024?

---

Every national park that I've ever been to is packed to the gills.

Urban Ag said:

---

CanyonAg77 said:

---

As said above

Federal land, has (mostly) never belonged to states or individuals

Very few people live there

It's not good for much. Maybe some grazing and mining, but there is never going to be enough fertile ground or water for agriculture. And there will likely never be enough industry, climate, transportation, or water to support a population

---

But there is a ton of amazing recreational use land. May as well sell a bunch off. Private land owners are much better stewards of the land anyway (as I know you are more than well aware of).

---

That depends. The National Parks are managed in a way that isn't really conducive to private ownership.

Needs more Wal-Marts and nail salons.

The federal government tried to sell or give away land (with conditions, to homesteaders) throughout the 19th century. However, it seems that they didn't adjust the prices they were charging out West based upon the quality of the land. So, the arable land with access to water got sold, and the rest did not. The people who owned land adjacent to water and owned water rights were then able to lease adjoining land from the feds. That's how you end up with huge ranches on mostly federal land (the water rights holders lease it because no one else is in a position to use it).

By the time people started to realize that the mountainous areas had an intrinsic value beyond their capacity for developing natural resources, the government stopped selling the land.

The government doesn't own that land we do. Selling it to states would essentially mean selling it to private owners. Why would you sell off land you currently have access to?

harge57 said:

---

The government doesn't own that land we do. Selling it to states would essentially mean selling it to private owners. Why would you sell off land you currently have access to?

---

I wouldn't sell all federal land to the states, but there is a lot of it where this would be a good idea. The federal government manages way more than the people want or need for recreational enjoyment. The excess would be better managed locally, or privately.

If the government had taken your view, the entire West, outside of Texas, would be undeveloped land.

Understand that National Parks cover only a very small portion of the open west. Most of it is managed by the US Forest Service, BLM, etc.

The lower Salt River is near several subdivisions and it's typical to see SAHMs kayaking or floating while kids are in school.

Most of that is leased for grazing so I'm not sure what the benefit of selling would be. Guy on the OB posted a picture of a huge elk he shot up above the rim. Other than the Chinese and Bill Gates who is the market to buy it?

Ag06Law said:

---

Urban Ag said:

---

BurnetAggie99 said:

---

Teddy Roosevelt got it right creating public land for all Americans to enjoy.

---

Not trying to be a smart ass but what % or Americans do you think "enjoy" public lands in 2024?

---

Every national park that I've ever been to is packed to the gills.

---

And those numbers are what drive the "% of Americans that enjoy public lands". Nobody is even thinking about selling Yellowstone or Yosemite, but I have serious doubts as to how many American's camp in the open sagebrush country of Wyoming with no water other than cattle troughs.

When we go hunting out of State we camp on public land. My dad has a U.S. Military MGPTS Tent that's big enough set up our Cot bunks,setup a wood burning stove and so forth. Use propane to cook with but also have cast iron cookware to use hot coals. We pack enough water to cover everything from drinking, to cooking, to showering and so forth. Have a solar outdoor shower setup with shelter that heats up the water to take showers. Have diesel generator and solar power station to run any power needed.

B-1 83 said:

---

Ag06Law said:

---

Urban Ag said:

---

BurnetAggie99 said:

---

Teddy Roosevelt got it right creating public land for all Americans to enjoy.

---

Not trying to be a smart ass but what % or Americans do you think "enjoy" public lands in 2024?

---

Every national park that I've ever been to is packed to the gills.

---

And those numbers are what drive the "% of Americans that enjoy public lands". Nobody is even thinking about selling Yellowstone or Yosemite, but I have serious doubts as to how many American's camp in the open sagebrush country of Wyoming with no water other than cattle troughs.

---

1000s of people spend time out there chasing antelope, game birds, and even elk. Many others will hike and camp, it is also used for limited grazing.

The multi use model that the forest service and BLM use is extremely effective and does a great job keeping our wild places somewhat wild.

jja79 said:

---

Most of that is leased for grazing so I'm not sure what the benefit of selling would be. Guy on the OB posted a picture of a huge elk he shot up above the rim. Other than the Chinese and Bill Gates who is the market to buy it?

---

The guys who surround it and pay grazing fees. BLM manages 245 million acres and USFS manages another 193 million acres. Theres plenty to go around…….except for the Chinese. They should own zero.

There is no way I would ever support the selling of public land. Of all the wasteful spending that happens with the feds i would want all that addressed before we sell our assets to pay for mindless government spending.

At nearly 500 million acres of federal lands out there, I'm sure they'll find places if a chunk gets sold and still not see another person. Part of your "mindless government spending" involves management of lonesome sections of land with ZERO public access due to being landlocked.

B-1 83 said:

---

At nearly 500 million acres of federal lands out there, I'm sure they'll find places if a chunk gets sold and still not see another person.

---

And that's music to my ears. People are not the only users of land. I hope there are many as places like that as possible.

Selling the land is a terrible idea.

First, it doesn't actually make profit, it transfers one asset into another and then the government will spend the new found cash. You can only sell it once.

The other reason the west is largely public land is water. It takes a LOT of land in the west to generate enough water to cover the developed parts. Grazing, houses, and businesses take a ton of water. Forests generate water runoff. If we sell it and they build golf courses and houses then there won't be enough water to satisfy them and current uses.

Gubmint owns it bc they took it from the savages

harge57 said:

---

B-1 83 said:

---

At nearly 500 million acres of federal lands out there, I'm sure they'll find places if a chunk gets sold and still not see another person.

---

And that's music to my ears. People are not the only users of land. I hope there are many as places like that as possible.

---

Mine too. I love that there are barren places out west where you can go days without seeing anyone. Going back to TX gets more and more depressing each year as the land vanishes.