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.

---

I'm in favor of them selling off the land, but they need to do so slowly so as to maximize the price and use that to pay down the debt.

Many people seem to want them to throw everything on the market at once and drive prices down. We need to concentrate on reducing the debt.

Some of the "public" lands are now protecting people from themselves. Building homes in the middle of a desert or on the top of a mountain may seem "romantic" but in reality it is the same as building in a flood plain. Some day mother nature will be around to bite you in the ass.

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?

---

Going off the massive number of people I saw in Rocky Mountain National Park for a few days last summer, I am going to go out on a limb and suggest that % is larger than you think.

I don't have a problem with judicious sales of some parcels that are never used.

But the Feds own tens of thousands of unused and under-utilized office buildings. Sell them first.

https://www.atr.org/taxpayers-shell-out-billions-for-empty-federal-buildings/

Quote:

---

The Government Accountability Office recently submitted a report to congress showing taxpayers are shelling out their hard-earned money to pay for largely empty federal government buildings in the DC swamp:

-The report showed that ALL 24 of 24 agency headquarters buildings are vastly underutilized.

-Most agency headquarters are under 25% capacity. As in 75% empty.

-Several agency headquarters are below 10% capacity. As in 90% empty.

-Taxpayers pay for air conditioning, heating, maintenance and security for agency buildings at a cost of billions per year, while the same agencies lecture Americans about "climate" and the type of stove you have in your home.

---

https://www.npr.org/2014/03/12/287349831/governments-empty-buildings-are-costing-taxpayers-billions

Quote:

---

Government estimates suggest there may be 77,000 empty or underutilized buildings across the country. Taxpayers own them, and even vacant, they're expensive. The Office of Management and Budget says these buildings could be costing taxpayers $1.7 billion a year.

---

doubledog said:

---

Some of the "public" lands are now protecting people from themselves. Building homes in the middle of a desert or on the top of a mountain may seem "romantic" but in reality it is the same as building in a flood plain. Some day mother nature will be around to bite you in the ass.

---

Mother Nature may bite you in the ass only if Father Time doesn't get you first

If the lands were sold, the .gov would piss off the cash. I'd rather have the ability to visit the recreational land.

Gotta hide UFOs somewhere.

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.

Why does China own so much of the East?

Squadron7 said:

---

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.

---

Yeah, if you like the fact that Texas basically has no public land. I don't.

Tarponfly said:

---

Squadron7 said:

---

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.

---

Yeah, if you like the fact that Texas basically has no public land. I don't.

---

Texas retained the minerals on a lot of land that it sold. That's what funds the PUF. Had the feds owned that land, Texas would get none of that revenue. Holding public land just for the sake of not putting it in private hands is not responsible stewardship.

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.

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.

My major reason for not selling is they will completely waste the money... rather have the land.

And tons of BLM land is available for hunting, fishing, and recreation.

B-1 83 said:

---

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

---

Millions of public land hunters would be pissed. It's a way of life for many of us..

John Dutton would have Glacier in better shape than the feds

Cinco Ranch Aggie 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?

---

Going off the massive number of people I saw in Rocky Mountain National Park for a few days last summer, I am going to go out on a limb and suggest that % is larger than you think.

---

I am happy to be wrong. Good to hear.

Squadron7 said:

---

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

---

It started out because of the railroads. If you look at a lot of the west it is like a checker board of 40 to 60 acre plots. The railroads own a lot of them, or owned a lot of them in the past, and the government still owns a lot of them. They kept the land open in the past because of railroads, plus not many people migrating out west; at least not as much as in the South and Eastern US... Didn't want to get scalped by Apaches or Utes I guess.

What is missing is the land that is "owned" by DoD for military training and housing.

Urban Ag said:

---

John Dutton would have Glacier in better shape than the feds

---

Agreed... but to what benefit of Americans?

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?

---

More now than ever it seems like where I live in AZ. I see people in places out in the woods I never used to hardly see anyone. Parking lots for lakes are over loaded with cars and closed, campgrounds all full...

Just curious, why would anyone seriously consider selling off public lands to private entities? People need to get out of the cities and breathe man. You want to be like China and have hundreds of people living above you in buildings stacked to the sky, and have a little park that you call the outdoors?

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

Squadron7 said:

---

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

---

Several Indian tribes were moved off their traditional grounds and were granted western lands which they've turned down since the 1870's, the Lakota Sioux could own a large swath of the west due to treaty's but to this day they will not accept the lands.

I, and many others out here, spend many weeks out in BLM land every year.

So needless to say, I disagree on it serving no use.

If you wanna see what it looks like when the .gov sells stuff, look at DC... seems like they've already sold most of it to the highest bidders.

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?

Didn't Texas do that?

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

What is the benefit to "we the people" by the feds selling any public land? Our lives won't change except we lose access. And if anyone believes they'll be fiscally responsible with the proceeds or that it'll solve any part of our debt problem, then I have some "federal seashore" in Arizona to sell you.

GAC06 said:

---

Didn't Texas do that?

---

No. Texas retained it's public lands when admitted to the Union. However, Texas sold off its territory in what is now New Mexico, Colorado, and Wyoming, in exchange for the federal government assuming Texas's debt (which was substantial). Sale of public land was a primary revenue source for the state through much of the 19th century.

I'm aware of the public land issue. The question was "what sovereign territory ceded land and later became a state"

Old May Banker said:

---

What is the benefit to "we the people" by the feds selling any public land? Our lives won't change except we lose access. And if anyone believes they'll be fiscally responsible with the proceeds or that it'll solve any part of our debt problem, then I have some "federal seashore" in Arizona to sell you.

---

Well, I suppose to someone living in Texas, they dont' see any benefit. But, local residents would like to have control over how the land where they live is used. Utah in particular has been active in trying to wrest control from the feds.

I know hunters don't like the idea, but in the long run, I think hunters will find that local control will be better for hunting than leaving it up to the White House. We've seen Washington take radical actions that no one would have imagined in the last four years. Given a chance, the environmental whackos who want us all to drive electric cars will decide to ban hunting on federal lands.

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.

---

do your research - when federal lands get passed to the state , the state ends up selling it to private owners which eliminates any public use. States generally sell it to cover their own spending deficits. And the loser in the end are the American people who utilize their right to the land.

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.