In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.

Federal land, whose country is this?

kyplumberkyplumber Member Posts: 11,111
edited June 2008 in General Discussion
mapownsthewestti3.jpg
· Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

Comments

  • CaptplaidCaptplaid Member Posts: 20,298 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by kyplumber
    mapownsthewestti3.jpg




    Yeah, I aways thought they owned to much of it. Our population has grown a bit. Why not give some of that land up?
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Rack OpsRack Ops Member Posts: 18,596 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Captplaid

    Yeah, I aways thought they owned to much of it. Our population has grown a bit. Why not give some of that land up?


    Because once it's developed, you can't get it back.

    Is too much land in the west under federal control? Maybe....but I think its plainly obvious there isn't enough public land in the east.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • jethrojethro Member Posts: 462 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    This does not show the amount controlled by the states in the East.


    quote:Originally posted by Rack Ops
    quote:Originally posted by Captplaid

    Yeah, I aways thought they owned to much of it. Our population has grown a bit. Why not give some of that land up?


    Because once it's developed, you can't get it back.

    Is too much land in the west under federal control? Maybe....but I think its plainly obvious there isn't enough public land in the east.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • 11BravoCrunchie11BravoCrunchie Member Posts: 33,423 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    A big chunk of that federal land is military bases.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Rack OpsRack Ops Member Posts: 18,596 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by jethro
    This does not show the amount controlled by the states in the East.


    I hadn't considered that aspect.

    Got any figures for those states?
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Big Sky RedneckBig Sky Redneck Member Posts: 19,752 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Problem with the state owned ground is it can be used for development. It's shady, probably illegal but PA has coughed up land to be used for development already, the last one I know about is the land that was GIFTED to Huntingdon County Business & Industry who promptly sold it to a developer for over a million smackeroos and built a Walmart Supercenter on it. There are times that yes the Feds needs to step in because the states are not always responsible enough to handle what they have. PA is about as corrupt as corrupt can get, developers are out of control and are one of the biggest special interest groups in this state, we are losing land at an alarming rate INCLUDING former state owned ground!
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • River RatRiver Rat Member Posts: 9,022 ✭
    edited November -1
    My county (in Wyoming) is 85 percent public land, most of it national park, forest service, and BLM. There's BuRec and state land in there also. The map kyplumber posted includes indian reservations and military installations also, but both do not relate to my home situation. The BLM lands are lands nobody wanted to homestead between 1862 and 1934, because you could not subsist on it. All of it is land I don't want to see get into private ownership. As much as I dislike having to work with the slow-moving, Soviet thinking who populate the NPS, USFS, and BLM, this is public land that we all can enjoy. Thay aren't manufacturing new dirt, so we need to keep what we've got.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • chollagardenschollagardens Member Posts: 4,614 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    According to the Federal goverment separation of church and state means you are not allowed to pray on all that land. Yet you are guaranteed the right to practice religion. So a transfer of land, in the correct pproportion, to private ownership would guarantee both the right to practice religion and prevent praying on goverment land.[:0] If the environmentalists don't like that then they can blame the atheists for bringing the problem to everyones attention.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Rack OpsRack Ops Member Posts: 18,596 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by chollagardens
    According to the Federal goverment separation of church and state means you are not allowed to pray on all that land.


    I really hope you're not serious....
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • nunnnunn Forums Admins, Member, Moderator Posts: 36,085 ******
    edited November -1
    That map doesn't show the ONLY piece of land that the Federal government is lawfully allowed to own: A 10 mile square piece of ground known as the District of Columbia.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • UncleFuddUncleFudd Member Posts: 146 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I agree with keeping it out of the hands of developers and almost as bad are the ranchers in my end of Wy.
    Unfortunately both the UP railroad and BLM have quietly been selling off some of the sections to those who know. I find it disarming that none seem to know when or where this is happening until it is done and only then is it made public.

    I know that some of the best hunting is still available on these lands, IF you know where they are but again the problem of the ranchers who have leased thousands of acres of BLM and RR sections and then post them NO Hunting.
    I spoke with a BLM manager in Kemmerrer Wy two years ago and was informed it is no more legal or illegal for me to cut the locks than it is for the rancher to post it and chain the gates.
    But you BETTER know for sure before you do.
    This never happened until it became so profitable for ranchers to sell their ground to hunting groups and now they control most of the county so the average person has no place to go except to govt grounds.

    Anyway, I would still like to see the ground stay available to the people so we do not have to pay someone to hunt or fish.

    UF
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • jimdeerejimdeere Member, Moderator Posts: 26,289 ******
    edited November -1
    Does the Fed pay property taxes to the localities on that land? A big part of my county is Jefferson Nat'l Forest. I guess it could be said that the Fed doesn't use the services of the county.
    On another note, the Fed has been known to trade land in this state. One proposed trade was just over the mountain from me. There is a stretch along the major highway they were going to trade for some steep private land. Everyone raised heck about it and talk died down. However, I wouldn't be surprised to go that way and see houses being built.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • kristovkristov Member Posts: 6,633
    edited November -1
    Federally-owned public lands include National Parks, National Forests, and National Wildlife Refuges. These are lands that are held for all Americans to use and enjoy, not just citizens of the state where these parks are located. Military bases take up huge tracks of land out in the western states but I doubt that any of the Gun Broker Gang wants to see those closed. Indian tribes have considerable lands set aside as reseverations. These are federal lands and outside the preview of most state laws, which is why we have indian casinos here in California. Land set aside in the 50 states for our enjoyment, land set aside for our national defence, and land set aside for the people who were here first. Who does this country belong to? We the people!
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • kimikimi Member Posts: 44,719 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    The federal government owns almost 52 percent of the land in 13 Western states, including more than 63 percent in Idaho. The other 37 states are only 4.1 percent federally owned. While the federal government promised in the enabling acts for states in the West to sell a portion of the federal lands to pay for state projects, the government instead has increased its holdings. It now spends almost $200 million a year to acquire new land. My, my, my, can anyone believe the government would get involved with swindling?

    http://www.agri.idaho.gov/Categories/NewsEvents/Documents/ThisWeek/031405_twia.pdf
    What's next?
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • UncleFuddUncleFudd Member Posts: 146 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Now about those National, state and other parks and forests and the "public" use.

    Yes they are there and most are pristine, but get your wallet out before you try to enjoy one of them. And its' not cheap either.
    In addition, they are to use these funds to keep them in good order etc.
    I know Yellowstone is still the most popular of all of the National parks and has more visitors than any and yet they are broke!!! How can that happen when the funds are constantly rejuvinated?

    I wrote to the manager of the region of the Bridger Forest in Wy about the deplorable conditions of the boat docks and restroom facilities. Forget it, they don't have the time or the manpower to do more and some things unfortunately suffer.

    After I received this pitiful excuse, I went back to the Pinedale Wy office of the forest service and took some pictures of the 11, branny new pickup trucks sitting around the office, and I even went inside the offices and took some pictures. They did not know of my intent and even waved and smiled for the camera from behind their shiny desks and coffee cups. I also went directly from there and time stamped the pictures I took outside their favorite coffee shop with 6 new trucks sitting outside at 09:40 coffee break.

    I sent the pictures to the regional manager with a copy to his boss, Bruce Babbitt. No response, but it made me feel better as the local paper posted the pictures and story.
    Then I got a very nice letter telling me all that would be done to straighten out the overlooked facilities etc.

    I don't know about feds paying for this land but it worries me that my own government is in business against me and you.

    UF
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • jma2006jma2006 Member Posts: 474 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by kyplumber
    mapownsthewestti3.jpg




    I wonder if they pay taxes on that property ?
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • chollagardenschollagardens Member Posts: 4,614 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Rack Ops

    quote:
    Originally posted by chollagardens

    According to the Federal goverment separation of church and state means you are not allowed to pray on all that land.

    I really hope you're not serious....



    There is a local lawsuit, a atheist wants to take down a cross on Mt Helix in San Diego Ca. I feel that because of his success he or others will sue to remove religious articles (cross, star of David, ect.) from military cemeterys. Only because of him and his efforts I am, up to a point, serious.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Rack OpsRack Ops Member Posts: 18,596 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by chollagardens
    There is a local lawsuit, a atheist wants to take down a cross on Mt Helix in San Diego Ca. I feel that because of his success he or others will sue to remove religious articles (cross, star of David, ect.) from military cemeterys. Only because of him and his efforts I am, up to a point, serious.


    The lawsuit claims the crosses are an offical government endorsement of religion, a violation of the Establishment Clause.

    I strongly disagree with that view, but it's far different from the idea that one cannot pray on government land
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
Sign In or Register to comment.