Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire How much land do the feds own in your state?

Gee, looks like being LEFT of the Rockies ain't just a clever name.

Notice how there are more BLUE states there than RED. People REALLY love their LAND welfare.

Land welfare? Lol

It's called freedom dipshlt, not that a carpetbagging New Jersey Yankee like you would know shlt from shinola about freedom. You cash your federal pension check each month, right? F'cking hypocrite. You're an angry little loser that has been a failure at marriage and settled for companionship from another Yankee with a liberal family. Fix your f'cking messed up existence first, you're running out of rocks but you're too stupid to realize it from your glass house.

Not much in Texas. We own our state

Yes, but more to the point, pretty much every state north and east of Texas has the same status.

They only condemn "Texas" for private ownership...

Idaho looks like a great place to be.

Damn right!

EXACTLY

Considering all those states West of the Mississippi EXCEPT Texas were acquired via purchase by the U.S. Treasury or by conquest (and therefore funded by the Treasury), and that said Treasury is the money of the people of the United States, the fact that the states were GIVEN any land at all at statehood was a gift. Those lands were always Federal lands, and as remaining Federally managed lands, they benefit the purchasers and owners: the PEOPLE of the United States

That gift was largely squandered by every one of them.

72-73%

not a lot of private property postings like other states

I hope the Federal land in this state stays Federal, because the first thing Wyoming does with the land if they get control of it is put it up for sale to the highest bidder. Living next to the Bighorn National Forest is the main reason to live in an area like this. Without the access to public land there would be no "Blue Collar" hunters in Wyoming..............

Left of the Rockies..........

I like that........some of 'Our' BLM property.........

States that were created in that manner had absolutely no chance at solvency, nor will they ever do anything other than be dependent on federal dollars.

Small tax base doesn't do state budgets any favors.

So, Jefferson should not have made the Louisiana Purchase? Andrew Johnson and Congress should not have made Seward's Folly and bought Alaska?

Funny, Alaska is pretty damned solvent, and given the mineral and energy resource extractions done and possible on Federally managed lands in the West, many of the rest of those states are sitting rather pretty as well (as are the rest of us because of those potentials). Add to that the conservation and recreational benefits made possible by the legacy of Teddy Roosevelt, and the public lands of the United States remain one of the envies of the rest of the world; and rightly so.

To literally GIVE that away to states that have proven, time and again, that they will mismanage and then squander that resource would be incredibly foolish.

Around 52% of Oregon, and I love it. It's about 61,598,720 acres or 96,248 square miles. Squared up it would be 310 miles to a side. One of the reasons I've stayed here. I use two classifications. 1 being government land like military facilities and such that are not available to me. Then #2 is the public lands that we can all enjoy. These are the real treasures in this state. Also, all of our beaches are available as are rivers and their banks within the high water mark.

Now Nevada is something else!

I don't have a problem with public lands.

It's their management I have a problem with.

Lately the fox has been guarding the hen house.

Public lands were managed successfully for decades. The transition of liberals into management, then the same ideology of liberal socialism and the added factors of the global warming hoax, combined with gross political agenda and special interests and corruption, strayed the mission statement from Multiple Use to something way different and much more corrupt.

On all those points, you get no disagreement. Management of public lands has been FUBAR at many levels and for many reasons. Fixing that needs to happen. It needs to be multi-use, managed for the long-term benefit of the American people, and done in a manner that is as cost-effective as possible.

Look at a map of blue counties instead of blue states. All the blue is heavily concentrated in a few cities: Seattle, Portland, Las Vegas, and the big cities in CA. A county map is MUCH redder.

This is not about voting.
This thread is about how much land is owned by the feds in each state.

I enjoy the large swath of 'Public' land in Virginia as it's basically right out my back door[W&J NF].
Killed my first deer and turkey there.
Also like the 'no motorized vehicles' deal beyond maintained roads.

A lot of Nat Forest land is closed to MV's but a lot is open, too. Much of the BLM land is open. Unfortunately, a lot of atv & bike riders abuse the privilege and go cross country leaving ruts and tracks. We have lots of jeep roads and trails, enough to keep a rider happy for a long time but some guys just can't resist taking off across fragile land.

Land use regulations are separate from hunting regulations in Idaho. The IDFG limits ORV's in many hunting units, restricting them to roads for hunting. After the game is down, though, they can be used to pack it out IF THE LAND USE REGULATIONS ALLOW IT.
The IDFG is very liberal in their definition of 'road'. It has to be a visible road (allowing for 2 tracks with tall grass in the middle) and has to be passable by a full sized vehicle. Full sized is defined as anything over 1500lb. Of course many of the newer UTV's will exceed that so basically, if you see 2 tracks, you can use it.