Public Land: To Be, or Not To Be

Used for posting Land Use issues
Forum rules
This area is for posting land use issues ONLY. Please do not post internet rumors. Please list sources for the information posted.
Post Reply

Topic author
stjohnspock
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2016 1:26 pm

Public Land: To Be, or Not To Be

Post by stjohnspock »

Long-time lurker--this is my first post.

I'm a recently retired US Forest Service road manager/engineer. I had a dream not long ago that a lot of our American public land had been either privatized or sold to the States, and that access was impossible on much of what I formerly went to. That possibility has a greater chance of happening during the current administration (federal) than at any other time in my life (Sagebrush Rebellion was the last attempt, during Reagan). The point I'm attempting to make is that if you value our public land in the US you should keep your ears peeled for efforts to do just that.

In this instance I am not espousing one Party over another. Merely saying that if you enjoy your public lands (BLM, USFS, NPS, and of course State Lands) you will likely have a dog in the fight if (IF) this administration gets far enough down it's TO DO list of privatization.

My perspective is that the feds are far from perfect but they work more for you, the citizen, than States and private interests do.

SJohn
Vendor
Posts: 319
Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2019 4:10 pm

Re: Public Land: To Be, or Not To Be

Post by SJohn »

I totally agree with you here. Coming from Texas to Utah, it's amazing the amount of public land that is available to explore out West, and yet I see billboards everywhere calling for state ownership of public land. If you want to know what that is like, move to Teaxs, where you are limited to state parks and small parks spread across the state. I was fortunate to grow up in East Texas in the piney woods near the few national forests in the state, but after moving to Dallas, I realized how sparse the state is of public land. Texas has 4.2% public land and ranks 45th in the country while being the 2nd largest state in the country. It's even more depressing to read about what the landscape of the South East was before it was reaped for its resources. Pine trees 8'+ in diameter, herds of bison, bears, big cats, and eagles were all normal before widespread logging and development. It's absurd to me that some people take issue with protecting what little bit of natural land we have left for 1% of our nations budget.

Sent from my SM-S911U using Tapatalk

Owner/Operator/Chief Engineer of Johnson Production FSJ Parts
https://www.johnsonproductionjp.com/

1986 J20 LS Swap
https://www.fsjnetwork.com/forum/viewto ... 12&t=17875

1981 Cherokee Chief - Rustard - 2JZ swap
https://www.fsjnetwork.com/forum/viewto ... 12&t=22981

Topic author
stjohnspock
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2016 1:26 pm

Re: Public Land: To Be, or Not To Be

Post by stjohnspock »

Good observations SJohn. The amount of public (usually federal) land in Texas (<2% federal) is the opposite of what is found in most western states. The reason is that Texas, was its own republic before joining the Union (i.e. was not a US Territory). The rest of the western states were territories, and were acquired from other contries stock of their 'national/federal' land. Those acquisitions sometimes included Land Grants to private interests, which sometimes were preserved during the transfer, but in the main it went from foreign 'federal' to US federal ownership. So, when you hear some people espouse 'returning the land to the States', that's a ruse. And when politicians say it it's usually a lie, as most of them know enough to realize what they're saying 'sounds good to their base', but is untrue. The land in western states was federal before they became a State.

I worked at Big Bend National Park for several years and found out how that became federal land. The State of Texas bought that land, which was not worth much, and hoped to bundle it into a donated package of land that the fed would make into a National Park. Multiple reasons, not least of which is that National Parks are often economic engines, especially in locations where the land is not worth much per acre. Think of all those 'entry towns' that you find around Grand Canyon, Yellowstone, Yosemite, and places like Alpine, TX near Big Bend NP.

Another point is that the US provides 'payments in lieu of taxes' to the States as a way to make up for the lack of property tax receipts from the federal land within those states. There are other tax and payments the states receive from private activity on federal land, such as grazing, mining and energy extraction. It's far from the case that federal lands are without benefit to western states.

My J-20 felt right at home at Big Bend!

letank
Posts: 4256
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2012 9:16 pm
Location: SF bay area

Re: Public Land: To Be, or Not To Be

Post by letank »

So what is the answer to : How can we find federal land for sale?

Being in Cal we have some large swat of national forest, but, some are already divided in private parcels. Some years ago I met some owners and in a casual way I said: " how do you buy land in a national forest?" no answers...

In fact it is known that the forest service business is really road maintenance and building, cheers to your service.
Michel
74 wag (349 Kmiles... parked, next step is a rust free body)
85 Gwag (229 Kmiles... the running test lab)
Post Reply