GAC06 said:

---

Didn't Texas do that?

---

Texas wasn't a territory. It was a sovereign nation. And the land we ceded was to forgive debts owed to the US.

When you talk about "rights" in public land, only a tiny amount of public land was set aside for recreation or preservation. The vast majority of it just wasn't sold because it wasn't worth the price the feds were asking, particularly when it lacked water.

The BLM leases 155 million of its 250 million acres for grazing, and much that it does not lease for grazing consists the 70 million acres it has in Alaska. 145 million of the Forest Service's 193 million acres are managed for timber harvesting. Leaving the management of this land to politicians in Washington, who have little regard for how it impacts the local population, is not a good idea.

twk said:

---

Teslag said:

---

APHIS AG said:

---

Urban Ag said:

---

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.

---

Correct for in addition, for these "territories" to become States, they were extorted by the Federal Government to cede land to the Federal Government.

---

Which sovereign territory ceded land to the united states and then later became a state?

---

California, and arguably Utah

---

California was not sovereign, it was a part of Mexico and ceded to the United States by treaty.

twk said:

---

AgDad121619 said:

---

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?

---

agree with this 100% - just because a big percentage of y'all don't ever use public land doesn't give you the right to sell it to private owners. The US is still the envy of the world with our public use lands and access to hunting and fishing for all. There is already to much restriction of access by private land owners out west already. We will turn into Europe where only the nobles get hunt and fish if we sell off all our public lands.

---

The US government has the right to sell this land, just like it sold almost everything west of the Appalachians. Whether it should exercise that right depends on the land involved.

No one wants to sell national parks or other big time recreation areas. But look at the map of federally owned land in the US:



You can't tell me that there is any reason why the feds need to retain the majority of that land in the west. The feds have always done a poor job managing it, and as we get more urban, leftist pressure groups are gaining ground. Eventually, if the feds retain that land, the leftists will do for federal land what they did for the border, and transform the west by outlawing private use of federal lands.

See: Sierra Club policy regarding Grazing on Public Lands

Keeping grazing and timber land in federal hands makes these socialist fever dreams possible. Getting the land into private hands, or at least into the hands of local government, would eliminate that threat.

ETA: Here is a map that better illustrates the problem:



There is really no reason to retain the land managed by the BLM. Some of the Forest Service land would be better off in private hands. Very little is included in National Parks, or Fish and Wildlife.

---

Disagree. In many cases BLM and Forestry Service lands serve as buffers between the wild and scenic National Parks and privately held property. Important extension of ecosystems, grazing lands, etc.
Also, these days it is often a lot easier to throw up a tent on BLM or USFS land than it is in overcrowded, overbooked, loves-to-death National Parks.

I see. Could have stopped at "sovereign territory" then, as that's an oxymoron

Exactly. My point to him was that these being territories of the United States made them owned by the US from the start. By definition they were incapable of being sovereign.

Old May Banker said:

---

I can understand their gripes. I would counter that their would be a tremendous loss of conservation revenue, via hunting license revenues, with private ownership. Additionally, will they feel the same if the .gov puts it on the auction block and bill gates buys it all?

Public lands ain't perfect and granted could probably be better managed privately.... but to what end? I love using the resources we're afforded thru the west and believe we would regret losing it.

---

Prime hunting and recreation land could be conveyed to the states with conditions for permitting recreation activities. Or, the feds could retain the best of this land.

Set all that aside, and we're talking about millions of acres of land that no one really cares about except the folks trying to make a living on that land.

The West is way more outdoor oriented than Texas. If it's popular out there, that should be their call. The Feds should listen. I love all that public land as an outdoorsman.

twk said:

---

Old May Banker said:

---

I can understand their gripes. I would counter that their would be a tremendous loss of conservation revenue, via hunting license revenues, with private ownership. Additionally, will they feel the same if the .gov puts it on the auction block and bill gates buys it all?

Public lands ain't perfect and granted could probably be better managed privately.... but to what end? I love using the resources we're afforded thru the west and believe we would regret losing it.

---

Prime hunting and recreation land could be conveyed to the states with conditions for permitting recreation activities. Or, the feds could retain the best of this land.

Set all that aside, and we're talking about millions of acres of land that no one really cares about except the folks trying to make a living on that land.

---

Who decides what land to sell and what to keep for recreation? Seems like there would be a ton of corruption in that process. There's a ton of barren looking land outside Phoenix that looks like barely a cactus can grow on it, but there's actually a lot of dove and deer in the mountains where that barren land is. I could see some government official selling the valley of that land below the mountains where it is flat, then guess what? No more hunting access to those mountains through the private land. No more hiking access, no more camping, no more riding dirt bikes, no more 4 wheeling/ 4 wheel driving, no more nothing.

Some aresholes bought 40 acres for 250 bucks an acre and fence it off and now believe they own the whole fricking 50,000 acres of mountain public land behind their land....Like a real life John Dutton from the Yellowstone show..

This kind of crap happens all over in the West all the time and screws the public..

Urban Ag said:

---

all good to hear. I am glad Americans are experiencing our outdoors.

---

I can be in the Tonto National Forest in 20 minutes and I'm out there usually twice a week. One of the best things about having moved to Arizona from Texas is the access to remarkable places. I was raised in far west Texas so this is refreshing after 28 years in the Houston area.

If they sell the land and piss off the money we'll have neither land nor money.

twk said:

---

When you talk about "rights" in public land, only a tiny amount of public land was set aside for recreation or preservation. The vast majority of it just wasn't sold because it wasn't worth the price the feds were asking, particularly when it lacked water.

The BLM leases 155 million of its 250 million acres for grazing, and much that it does not lease for grazing consists the 70 million acres it has in Alaska. 145 million of the Forest Service's 193 million acres are managed for timber harvesting. Leaving the management of this land to politicians in Washington, who have little regard for how it impacts the local population, is not a good idea.

---

I would say at least 95% of the acres the BLM and Forest Service you mentioned are open for recreation. They manage for multiple uses.

You should really dig into the management practices of each organization. They do a pretty damn good job.

I find most Texans are pretty ignorant to public land management and value as we have very little.

It's been proven over and over again transferring to the states equals the eventual sale to private ownership.

Old May Banker said:

---

If they sell the land and piss off the money we'll have neither land nor money.

---

Exactly!

Another graphic proportional ea state

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.

---

With Indians (dot) during the past few years.