As a multi generation westerner I’m glad there is so much land owned by the Feds. I can camp, hike , explore on these lands unhindered. My mountain county is 85% public land full of recreational activities, besides you could never grow a crop here with the short dry summers,long cold winters, high elevations and rocky sandy soils.
In the Great Depression, most of the land was private. My grandmother and father owned 50,000 acres in New Mexico. They were born in the 1880’s and spoke of the Geronimo raids that killed New Mexicans and some US soldiers. They also remember when Navajo Apache still were a threat to the lives of settlers even though NM had been under Spanish control since the 1600’s. Anyway during the Great Depression FDR wanted to help ranchers and farmers who were going broke. He saw it as a national threat and wanted families to be able to keep their land. So he used the GLO (pre BLM) and the Taylor grazing act as a way to get cash into the farming and ranching communities. Some of the public lands were sold some private lands purchased and there was land traded to consolidate public lands. Basically the government would buy the land but not own it outright. That is, a rancher would still own the rights to use the land, it’s water and they could still sell the land or do what ever they wanted in terms of improvements. In return for the cash infusion, the ranchers would pay small BLM ACREAGE fees. In 1980 we had purchased some private land that also had about 200 acres of BLM. The land was inaccessible by the BLM as it was surrounded by private. The BLM office then asked us if we would trade some of our private land that bordered a large BLM holding. When we researched the deeds all of the BLM had been private but sold back in and leased during the depression in 1938. JFK and congress of that era never believed the BLM would be turned into an environmentalist weapon to force ranchers who had owned the land for many generations to sell or go broke due to overreaching rules and high BLM fees. Thankfully my grandfather and mother were republicans and understood that one day the Government might not be run by good people who cared about them.
Makes you wonder if Bret has any idea of what they’re talking about. Especially since the Bureau of Land Management was created by President Harry S. Truman in 1946. Lol
@@Jfilimo www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/blm/history/chap1.htm My parents always called it the BLM and that is what I grew up knowing it as. My grandparents lived until I was 16. What I wrote is what they told me. Evidently the BLM was the GLO and and there were lane acts involved that released lands and also purchased lands back and placed into leases. The Cohope ranch that mostly surrounded us was 1200 sections of land or about 792,000 acres was private land until the 1930’s when it was sold back to the government and then leased back to the same family. The This family also had lane taken during WW2 and the Cold War that became part of the larger military land ranging from El Paso to Northern New Mexico. I don’t know much about this other than what my grandparents and parents said. I do know all our land including minerals and water rights was private and most ranches around us were not. Those ranchers always regretted that their parents had sold back the land but acknowledged they would have gone broke without the transfer. I’ve not been back since my parents sold the land in 1992. I was in the military and went on to be an airline pilot, now own a construction company also. My sister went back recently and the ranch has been closed to all traffic and fenced off around the one county road going through it. She said a company owned by Bill Gates owns the land and that of several others ranches who still were still private lands. We still own the mineral rights and some water rights. Dad wouldn’t sell those. The BLM lane is still being ranched in the area but it’s now cattle instead of sheep, the predators, coyotes, eagles and mountain lions have made it too costly to have large sheep operations.
Being from one of these states, I was astonished when I worked out of state for a couple years, how impossible it was to go biking, hiking, shooting freely in the temp state I was in.....private land everywhere, you could not go anywhere freely, it was bizarre, was glad to return home.
@@Iskander24 Just give the funding now being spent by the federal government to the states to manage. The states can manage it without so much of the red tape so it would actually cost less to manage.
Would be interesting to redraw the Western state's boundaries minus the federal lands to truly represent their true shapes. For example, Nevada is actually one of the USA's smallest state's.
Nevada really got a raw deal ever since it obtained statehood. The state joined the union during the civil war to give the union the ability to borrow money to fund the war. The agreement was that the federal government would maintain ownership of the land with Congress having the power to conduct transactions to transfer lands to the state for other purposes. In exchange, the federal government would pay the state what is called PITA, payment in lieu of taxes. Remember, 89% of the state can not be privately owned so it can't generate property taxes. The state constitution was created with the idea it would remain with a very limited government and have very low taxes due to the promises of the federal government and the impracticalities of managing such a large territory at the time. The reality is that Congress treats Nevada like the homeless people it doesn't house. It has proven to be nearly impossible to get the payment in lieu of taxes that was promised, and when even a percentage of it is paid we are treated as if it is a handout. We also have to spend years and millions of dollars to formally request access to land in southern Nevada for any purpose. Before people say this is about water, it isn't. This has been the process since the railroad first covered the trails from LA to Salt Lake.
The better solution would be to force the federal government to hand over all lands that are not being use for Military Bases, testing ranges and other constitutionally mandate function etc to the state in whom border they are in.
The Homesteads offered in the West ranged from 160-640 acres, which would be a lot of potential in the Midwest and East, but would only run 10-15 cows in the arid west. So almost all homesteaders claimed plots with water. They eventually went broke and sold their homesteads to bigger landholders. The West is vastly different than the East and many in Government had never seen the West and considered their policies based on Eastern and Midwest's fertile lands and wet climates. Awesome Video!!
I can see why more people live on East Coast. I can see why the West has many different sceneries, such as grassland, forests, rivers, waterfalls, and deserts. I am from Arizona, we have everything except the ocean, but we are not far from it.
More people live in the eastern half of the US because that’s where the country was originally settled from. People came across the Atlantic and settled on the east coast, and then people eventually moved and settled further west.
You're kinda forgetting something on Why So Much Land In The West Is Owned By The Federal Government. 🙁 The federal gov may have tried to give the land away for 100 years in desert areas and gave up about 84 years ago. The Fed gov, owning most of the land in the west, is because of Mineral Rights. Central and Eastern US, don't have full mineral rights protection laws with land they buy/own referred to as "locatable minerals." Example, you buy/own 100 acres and stumble on valuable minerals, the Gov takes control of your land until they have exhausted the minerals from your land. You may have title to the mineral rights on a property you own, or a previous owner may have sold or leased them, in which case, they may not be yours. In the West they do have full mineral rights protection laws with land they buy/own, The Gov REFUSES to sell land even back to the states, to be able to keep the mineral rights they do have. They even run off private landowners to get their mineral rights. Uranium is a huge one, 7 western desert area states have all the Uranium that is used as fuel for nuclear power plants and the nuclear reactors that run naval ships and submarines. The Gov is never going to give that up..😞 Oregon is the Only state that produces emery and a major producer of common clay, gemstones, and zeolites. Central Oregon is Not desert, It's perfectly clear they don't give a hoot about the forests, if they did, they would do their Job by LAW for the past 15 years with thinning/clearing and replanting the forest like they're supposed to, so there would be less forest fires. But they don't do their Job😠. You might ask why!😜 Most of the Land In The West Is Owned By The Federal Government because of mineral rights that the GOV don't have unless they keep the land....So the Gov trying to sell the land ended years ago once they realized what they were selling. And they will kill to get it all back from private owners...😢
I found you by accident and I so enjoy this channel, clear, direct, factual information and I love the maps. Thanks so much for your information, I really needed a refresher on locations. 🤗🤗🤗
Hey Dao King, that's a great idea. Move all these politicians from Washington DC to Area 51! Then they can do all the criminal activity they're already doing, including rigging elections, but we (and the election process) will no longer be affected because nobody can find the politicians.
They need to move many of these land Agencies to the West, so the people making the decisions for these lands actually live next to it and care about the land and the opinions of their neighbors who actually use the land.
Even if your name is on the deed you don't own the land. You are just a caretaker that's all. How could you "own" something if you constantly have to pay for the land year after year? Property taxes is essentially paying rent to the government. The government owns the land. Period.
I would much rather pay rent to the government than a private landowner. Like the video said at 7:58, the Bureau of Land Management charges far less to lease a piece of land than any private landowner would. And I’d much rather pay that money to an agency that will use my money to maintain the land I’m on, rather than enrich themselves like a private landowner would. All in all, Henry George would be pleased
I moved out west from NC 7 years ago, and was suddenly confronted with smoky skies and the worst wildfires in decades. I hear climate change blamed for this and the drought, and I'm genuinely curious I want the truth no politics. California's water and river system is completely artificial diverting from North to South, and the water table region wide has been tapped and drained faster than it can replace itself, which no one argues. The forests have been badly mismanaged, preventing all wildfires to protect rural boomer McMansions rather than allow the seasonal burning of undergrowth natural to the forests, which we see clearly in fire scarred redwoods over a thousand years old. It seems like modern agriculture and forest mismanagement is to blame, and not "climate change" though that's a separate issue.
One big problem I noticed with wild fires is in homes are present in wildfire areas now. 20 years ago there were no homes or people living in wildfire areas but with populations increasing, people wanted to expand and build in new areas. They built their homes in areas susceptible to wild fires.
Wildfires are in fact a mismanagement issue. At least as far back as the early 1900s the forest service instituted a 100% fire suppression policy. As a result, fuel loads (flammable vegetable debris) have accumulated to explosive levels in many places, resulting in extreme fire behavior when (not if) they do catch fire. This, exacerbated by (possibly, if not probably, global warming induced) dry conditions, is why fires are now so severe as to be almost unextiguishable. Had sensible let-it-burn policies been in place, we would not be having this problem. Periodic, naturally occurring fires would have kept the fuel load accumulation in check, and droughts would still be a bane for economic development, but at least the ecosystems would be healthier and fires not such major disasters...
Addendum to last week's comment: fun fact --- well over 90% of wildland fires are caused by serial arsonists. The authorities even know who these guys are but don't arrest them because they would be unable to obtain evidence which would be admissible in court, and thus no convictions would result. Since the odds of catching one of them in the act of actually igniting a fire is just about zero the pyros get away with it year after year and are responsible for incalculable damage to property and loss of life...
@Dingus Dingus it still seems to me like those fires get as bad as they do because of overall mismanagement. I don't doubt the pyro's at all after seeing so many arsonists in Portland living there
It would have made more sense to explain to the people how lots of this federal governant land is being sold to China, and surrounding farmland also, why nobody is talking about this is so concerning, considering most of what they buy surrounds our military bases- what they hell is our country thinking?
You do realize the largest foreign land owner in the U.S. is Canada at 37%, right? followed by the Netherlands (12%), Italy (7%), the United Kingdom (6%), and Germany (6%) China comes in very last at less than 1%. And the U.S owes the largest portion of its foreign debt to Japan, not China.. Also, Donald Trump paid more in taxes last year alone to Chyna, than he did his entire career to the U.S. ...sleep well.
When you retire you'll see the value of public lands. Nevada is a campers paradise. Try pitching a Tent in Texas every inch of land is privately owned, except for the National Park's.
I love how when i go to visit the southwest and vegas is all by itself because it’s surrounded by federal land. You have to go an hour towards zion to get back into another town.
Camping, hunting, and off roading are all so much better in the West due to Federal lands. In the east you have to have land or know someone with land or pay to go to some establishment. It’s lame
horseshite! certainly, there's cheyenne mountain in colorado springs, and missile silos all over of course (those are just like 2 or 3 people, and small size), but no underground bases that i've seen, and i've driven all over the southwest. lol, you cannot hide a base, there's thousands of people working there, coming and going, getting deliveries/etc., with a million other things to give it away. don't be a conspiracy nut, conspiracy nut. 🤣
6:39 “As climate change worsens fires in the west”. Also mention the government policies that promote such large scale fires if you’re going to try to be fair and balanced.
This video has a lot of misinformation The map shared for the Louisiana purchase included Texas and parts of Mexican territory before the Mexican American war. Don’t be fooled y’all.
Neat video, I’d love to see a video like this on Alaska, I’ve heard the federal government owns 60-80% of the land there, I wonder if it’s for similar reasons or, are there different things at play there?
From Idaho, right now live in Nebraska. Can’t wait to get back after school. It’s so suffocating here not having open public land to go hike, camp, bike, shoot, hunt, and just enjoy life on. Here there’s nowhere to go cause everything is private and it’s terrible!!!
@@opossumlvr1023 sure. There’s just almost none in Nebraska. There’s 8 state parks in Nebraska. They all charge an entry fee. And they are full of people. Compare that to Idaho. There’s 27 state parks. And you get in free with an Idaho license plate. That’s not to mention the BLM land or forest service land that is sure to border your town or backyard that you can go on for free, any time. With super easy access. And there’s hardly anyone on it cause there’s so much of it. Out here you are relegated to the sparse state public land which I argue is not public because you have to pay to get in. Or there’s private groups that have bought up some natural land you can get onto, also with paying an entry fee. Yeah, it hurts to pay $50 for my family of five to go on a nature walk through two acres of woods for an afternoon. Yes it’s their prerogative to charge because the own the land, I’m not arguing against that at all. I’m just saying it sucks after living in Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming all my life where you can easily get to open wilderness pretty much everywhere for free.
@@tymarls Smith falls state park is great and even on busy days hardly anyone is hiking the Jim MacAllister Nature Trail, you can use the cowboy trail for free and the Nature Conservancy near Norden has land that is free to roam on. I'm from Michigan and you get into all state parks and have access to state land with a recreation pass at a cost of $15 that is displayed on your car registration tag. We also have a Commercial Forest Program that offers a tax exemption on the land if it is open to the public. Access to land outside of the federal system is extensive.
@@Istandby666 Those areas I think haven't changed much. Lancaster, Palmdale, and Victorville have grown drastically since the 90's. I was shocked by all of the cookie cutter homes and big box stores that have taken over many open fields of desert.
BLM land is public lands. I look at it as anyone who lives in the US has partial ownership, you can recreate any way you'd like within the law. I've lived in Wyoming and Utah over the past 5 years and love the access to public lands. I'm a libertarian and dislike big government but truly appreciate the access to all of the beautiful land that makes up America. I'm currently an off road tour guide in Utah. I use BLM lands every day I'm working and most days I'm not working. I get many guests from the eastern US and they're always amazed at the vast amount of land that be can accessed out west.
“BLM land is public lands. I look at it as anyone who lives in the US has partial ownership…” I think that’s a very good way to look at it. One of my unpopular opinions is that I think allowing private individuals and entities to profit off of simply owning land is one of the most destructive forces to society there is, whether it happens in big cities, or in the middle of nowhere. I would recommend you look up something called the *Land Value Tax.* This is a tax that would mostly (or maybe even entirely) replace all other taxes. No more income tax, sales tax, taxes on improvements to lands, etc. Just a Land Value Tax. You mentioned being kind of libertarian. Milton Friedman was an economist that today would be described as libertarian and he called the Land Value Tax “the least bad tax.” Pretty high praise from a libertarian. Joseph Stiglitz leans more to the left, but he is also a strong supporter of the LVT. In fact, the LVT attracts supporters from all over the political spectrum. Anyway, it’s just a thought.
The Homestead Act allowed "very specific citizens of the US to claim land in newly organized territories". That was brilliantly worded to avoid that political hot potato while still disseminating the information. Well done Geoff!
the land RIGHTLY belongs to the STATES in which it resides....the federal government illegally withheld it when it extorted the states west of the Mississippi on the conditions for entering the union
@@j.l.salayao8055 I never said we don't. Do you think the government should tell you how to do everything? And what does preserve for next generation entails? There are lands now that the previous generation had access to and enjoyed, that we currently don't have access to, and can't enjoy.
As a large land owner mostly Forrest it is a burden to pay the annual real estate taxes every twenty to forty years spending more than the cost of the land many. Are forced to try to make money by raising crops cutting Forrest or selling dirt or minerals this destroyed the land
One tract less than one square mile has four different types of vegetation Forrest three types of soil wet lands and dry sand to support cactus nine types of Harwood trees dozen types of shrubs bearing fruit and every type mammal in the region more insects than you want and several dozen bird species never disturbed by money making efforts 🤔 just thinking
one of the only good things the government does right, private land owners either horde huge areas of beautiful to themselves or ruin it with some exploitative idea to make money off it, i’m not blaming private owners for that because anyone would do that in their shoes but i believe more land / nature should be owned by state to protect it
The federal governments around the world actually own all land in their respective territories.. If you pay taxes on the land than its theirs and if you don't they take it. If individual people actually owned the land it would be all brought up by wealthy rich people and than conflict rises. Rich vs Rich more than likely.
While I enjoyed the video, it left a major legal issue unresolved: respecting those vast swaths of land first 'owned' by the federal government because of its being unincorporated, why later did some-if not nearly all-of that land come to be included within the juridical boundaries of the various states? After all, what authority does, for example, the State of Nevada have over most of the land that defines it when another government 'owns' it? The most basic right a State has is to to impose tax upon the land within its borders and to impose it upon the non-State owners of that land. Perhaps I'm mistaken but I daresay that these States probably don't impose land taxes upon the federal government.
It isn't as complex as an 8 minute video. Look at where the Uranium deposit are located in the US, and it magically all makes sense. Because US federal lands and Uranium deposits sure do look almost 100% alike. U.S government put those lands in federal jurisdiction because they want to control that resource. It is the simplest explanation that makes the least amount of assumptions.
I was a lifelong Californian, got out before it collapses completely. The Sierras are nearly all Forest Service land. Yet there are towns there. I think the "landowners" actually lease the land from the Forest Service, and develop it according to USFS regulations. Don't quote me on that, though.
@@elwoodblues9613 i want to be in california when its govt collapse. Tremendous opportunity without a functioning govt. Wild ,wild,wild west. No gun laws, no taxes,no bs.
There is a reason people don't live permitaly in the desert without an addiction issue. Without air conditioning or a stable supply of water barrens secretly charging more for water than oil. I could absolutely see why someone would be drawn to an actual dessert. And yes I want all my iguanas to eat banana splits, its adorable.
@@trevorkuttler920 Trees are plants and agriculture is the science of growing plants. It is logical that the Forest Service is in the Department of Agriculture.
the biggest issue for this is lots of areas dominated by the rich suddenly wouldn't be. I lived in Vail Colorado for 2 years and left because it was too expensive and i didnt see any hope for making a real lasting future in the area. Meanwhile there is plenty of land that COULD be populated but instead its owned by millionaires or billionaires in massive parcels and anytime recently the fed did sell land they sell it in the thousands of acres for profit not a few acres at a time to people who genuinely want to live in the area
As written in the Constitution the U.S cannot own that land without adding an Amendment and not a Bill. They are in direct violation of the U.S Constitution. All current Federal land must be returned to the States. Also this land wasn't managed for millions of years so Why does the Federal government feel a responsibility to manage area's that they can't use for settlement? Answers in your video explaining how much money they make off recreational activities is the very reason why they won't return the land back to the respective States.
We got Randy Weaver in the comments, you ignorant as they come, state’s articles of statehood specifically state that state government have no right to federal lands, federal lands have stood up in courts for decades, the feds never ceded the land when these places became states and it’s specifically stated in articles of statehood
@@twostop6895 read article 1 section 8 clause 18, government can't own land more than 10 miles square miles as it's written, NEW ROCHELLE, N.Y. - U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said that the Constitution is not a living document and should not be rewritten each year by the unelected justices of the Supreme Court.
@@twostop6895United States Constitution Article 1, section 8: "....To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings......". Yeah, it has "stood up in Courts for decades", because the Federal Government is controlled by people who also control the Courts.
Enjoyed your presentation. I do, however, have concerns about the BLM managing our lands well. In many areas of Utah there are concerns about over grazing and its effects on those lands. The fact that the BLM charges so little for grazing makes ranchers use our public lands rather than paying much more for private grazing rights. We are also fighting how they and the Fish and Wildlife Service manage (or mismanage) our Red Cliffs National Conservation Area, one of the last refuges for the threatened (should be "endangered") Mojave desert tortoise. Just a few things worth mentioning. Overall, your presentation is excellent.
I thought the same thing when he portrayed cheap land leases as a good thing. You know corporations are getting these cheap leases while not giving a flying f*** about sustainability. They’re always behind the scenes when there’s an environmental battle to be fought, and the environment usually loses.
Land has gotten so expensive it's out of reach of a lot of people now. All anyones wants is an acre of land within a few hours from decent size city...but the top 10 percent own everything. Future generations will mostly be renters while the oligarchs collect their capitol gains and rent.
One way to fix this problem is to create NAWAPA. JFK was about to get it into action right before he died. It would bring freshwater from Alaska and Canada to the Arid West. It would have completely transformed/greened everything between the Cascade Mountain Range and The Rockies. It would have been a project of a lifetime creating so much life were once there was nothing but just desert.
my man... you barely mentioned the ethnic cleansing that was required, idk why you think no one wanted that land, it was literally all already populated and entire wars were fought into the 1920s because people didn't want to give up their land en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Indian_Wars en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_genocide
The government doesn't own the land. The land is public land and the government is suppose to be managing the land for our use. (THE GOVERNMENT DOESN'T OWN THE LAND)
Excellent & informative. Thank You. I moved to Idaho years ago for the solitude. I've seen many beautiful places. I never want to see a large city again.
According to westward expansion laws the federal government isn't supposed to own any property. They're supposed to reimburse states for land used for military bases.
This is actually compounded by the fact in the 70s congress passed a bill to tell the BLM and Forest service to STOP selling or distributing land all together. I know many people who at this point in our technological advancement would love to live in some of these areas but they are now completely denied to new settlement. I understand the wants of locals too to keep their population densities low and that can be accomplished while simultaneously letting new settlement but when for 50 years your only real land sales are in multi thousand acre parcels to the extremely wealthy it gets to the point where average people are being entirely forced out of these areas as land and housing prices skyrocket.
Most of the western states contain large national parks, like Death Valley, Yellowstone, Grand Canyon, etc, and then there are also the national forests too which are also owned by the Feds. So yeah, this makes sense. There are fewer national forests and parks on the eastern and midwestern states.
There was once upon a time a bunch of folks who were sort of unhappy with the rulers of the lands they lived in/on. Those brave folks travelled to a new land and took it over from the people already living there. Might is right. When the colonists felt they were being taken advantage of by the rulers they had fled from, they formed a new country and kicked the Brits out. Several times. Then the push to the west began and it led to the far west. By then the people in the East of the U.S. had become full of themselves and forgot the lessons that had led to the creation of our nation. So they used the governing structure to impose federal ownership of much of the WEST. All in the name of getting it developed. Power corrupts. There is no good reason for the Federal Government to own as much land in the West. Parks yes. Property for vital purposes like national defense and energy (a dam does not take up much land). The rest should be sold to private enterprise and that does not include foreign governments who would like to own us 100%. Folks, it is all about greed, power, corruption, and the desire to impose a will on others. Read the Constitution. We trusted Politicians to run the U.S.based on our original plan. They did us dirty.
It is nice to have so much public land in the West that is open for recreation. However, what is frustrating, and what people in the East don’t understand, is that it can be extremely frustrating to have bureaucrats back East making decision about land in your own back yard that they have never been to themselves. So often the land is yanked out from under the feet of people in the West for some non-sensical environmental reason and it is completely closed off. This happens every time there is a Democratic President. To boost their eco-friendly credentials, they will take a large chunk of land in Utah, bigger than some US States, and just declare it a National Monument overnight. They put all these rules on the land and restrict off road vehicle activity. Apparently, the land is so beautiful, that nobody is allowed to see it.
If not for the feds the land would not be preserved for future generations. I want peace when I go camping and hiking. I don’t want vehicles or radios blasting country music as every bodies dogs are fighting and kids screaming in camp sights.
Hi Geoff, You are doing a great job in explaining very interesting but complex subjects. It would be even better to show data points in the graphs you are using to illustrate/reaffirm your words. For example, in the doughnut chart at min 4.25. Keep up the good work!
When the feds transferred some lands to Utah, the state sold them to private parties, and local people who had had access for generations lost their old stomping grounds.
This is what I got from the video. The federal government owns and manages the forementioned pieces of land due to lack of interest from "everyone else". It's not that they're hugging it all, no one else wanted to maintain it, including the State. As is, lots of State owned land for example in California was mismanaged, ignoring and performing budgeted fire prevention management and efforts due to various reasons. This lands have become fire hazards for a few decades and getting worst. I'm not knowledgeable enough to know what other "things" need to be managed in federal and state lands, fire? wildlife? It'll be interesting to see what is the percentage of wildfires and fire prevention between federal vs state own land.
If the government owns most of the land that burns every year, they need to open it up to logging. The average forest fire puts more carbon in the air than all of the cars in Colorado running 24 / 7 for a year put in the air.. how many million acres burned in 2022?
Dear patronsaintoflostcauses4029: There you go using the biggest word in the dictionary, and more than once. IF IF IF does not get much done IF you just talk talk talk, As Andy Dufresene said in Shawshank Redemption - Hope is among the best of things. We can always hope people will....................get their heads out of their rectums.
Well, because the US government bought it with US tax payer dollars. All land bought this way belongs to the federal government in a trust belonging to the American people, minus land grants. The land belongs to ALL Americans, not a few.
you do UNDERSTAND (maybe) the UNITED STATES is a conglomeration of SOVEREIGN entities that grant power to a central government.....I suggest you READ your constitution for a more accurate description of what the federal government can and can NOT do.....owning excess land within a SOVEREIGN state is on the can NOT list....when Congress approved their entry into the union they LEGALLY ceded ALL that land except what the government needed under the provisions of the US Constitution to those states
The US government owns every inch of US soil other than the Reservations. You’re essentially renting your property from the government by paying a property tax. If you don’t pay your “rent” you get evicted.
Fantastic production value and visuals, mate! Kept my attention throughout with useful info & interest maps & scenery. Just came across your channel and you got a new subscriber - excited to see more of what ya got!
"The government seems to manages the land pretty well overall" Hahahahahahahaha! That's funny. I have friends who work for the US Forest Service and they are always telling me how terribly the government is able to actually do anything. They cannot keep healthy forests healthy due to lack of funding and personel and out of fear of irritating environmentalist groups. A US Forest Service Botnist told him that a healthy pine forest is 250 trees per square mile. They try too cut down trees to make that happen, then they get sued by environmentalist groups for cutting down trees (even though the trees are dying). They don't have enough personel to fight wildfires, so they often have to let them burn, then they risk encroachment onto private property. Basically, the Federal Government is noy managing the land very well at all.
Ive been hearing from several people. Even the Land you buy, you dont own. The government owns!?! Hence why they can legally keep charging you for property tax. You have only the rights to your house.
The video mentions the profit the federal government makes off the land, and yet then assets the states do not have the money to manage the land. If the land is making a profit, the numbers went quickly by, but it sounded like the profit is 5 billion, then states might be much more effective in managing the land since overall it makes a profit.
There is a lot of federally owned land adjacent to populated areas that could be sold to increase supply of housing. We need to balance being green to meeting the needs of the population.
My hypothesis before I watch: no one else wants it because that's not particularly useful land. Which also makes it useful as land for certain things the government wants secret or as far from civilian population centers as possible. They weren't testing h-bombs in quaint, picturesque Vermont! We'll see how I did.
The federal government may have not wanted to keep it, but they wanna keep it now they won’t sell it they won’t give it up even when it’s in the middle of a farmers field surrounded on all four sides they refused to sell it to the farmers
It’s good that the federal government actually does a great job to maintain land. Also how it maintains it with the public also able to explore it is a win win. Seems very great to have
Yeah... How about we start homesteading the land out again. There would be plenty of people who would jump on that. At the very least most of this federally owned land should be given to the states to manage or lease out, the federal government does a lot to prevent mining, logging, and other commercial or industrial activity from taking place.
As a multi generation westerner I’m glad there is so much land owned by the Feds. I can camp, hike , explore on these lands unhindered. My mountain county is 85% public land full of recreational activities, besides you could never grow a crop here with the short dry summers,long cold winters, high elevations and rocky sandy soils.
In the Great Depression, most of the land was private. My grandmother and father owned 50,000 acres in New Mexico. They were born in the 1880’s and spoke of the Geronimo raids that killed New Mexicans and some US soldiers. They also remember when Navajo Apache still were a threat to the lives of settlers even though NM had been under Spanish control since the 1600’s.
Anyway during the Great Depression FDR wanted to help ranchers and farmers who were going broke. He saw it as a national threat and wanted families to be able to keep their land. So he used the GLO (pre BLM) and the Taylor grazing act as a way to get cash into the farming and ranching communities. Some of the public lands were sold some private lands purchased and there was land traded to consolidate public lands. Basically the government would buy the land but not own it outright. That is, a rancher would still own the rights to use the land, it’s water and they could still sell the land or do what ever they wanted in terms of improvements. In return for the cash infusion, the ranchers would pay small BLM ACREAGE fees. In 1980 we had purchased some private land that also had about 200 acres of BLM. The land was inaccessible by the BLM as it was surrounded by private. The BLM office then asked us if we would trade some of our private land that bordered a large BLM holding. When we researched the deeds all of the BLM had been private but sold back in and leased during the depression in 1938.
JFK and congress of that era never believed the BLM would be turned into an environmentalist weapon to force ranchers who had owned the land for many generations to sell or go broke due to overreaching rules and high BLM fees.
Thankfully my grandfather and mother were republicans and understood that one day the Government might not be run by good people who cared about them.
@@bret9741 Great comment but I’m sure you meant FDR Franklin Delanor Roosevelt not JFK John Fitzgerald Kennedy.
Makes you wonder if Bret has any idea of what they’re talking about. Especially since the Bureau of Land Management was created by President Harry S. Truman in 1946. Lol
@@Jfilimo it was the general land office on the 1920’s. They changed the name in the 40’s
@@Jfilimo www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/blm/history/chap1.htm
My parents always called it the BLM and that is what I grew up knowing it as. My grandparents lived until I was 16. What I wrote is what they told me. Evidently the BLM was the GLO and and there were lane acts involved that released lands and also purchased lands back and placed into leases.
The Cohope ranch that mostly surrounded us was 1200 sections of land or about 792,000 acres was private land until the 1930’s when it was sold back to the government and then leased back to the same family.
The This family also had lane taken during WW2 and the Cold War that became part of the larger military land ranging from El Paso to Northern New Mexico.
I don’t know much about this other than what my grandparents and parents said. I do know all our land including minerals and water rights was private and most ranches around us were not. Those ranchers always regretted that their parents had sold back the land but acknowledged they would have gone broke without the transfer.
I’ve not been back since my parents sold the land in 1992. I was in the military and went on to be an airline pilot, now own a construction company also. My sister went back recently and the ranch has been closed to all traffic and fenced off around the one county road going through it. She said a company owned by Bill Gates owns the land and that of several others ranches who still were still private lands. We still own the mineral rights and some water rights. Dad wouldn’t sell those.
The BLM lane is still being ranched in the area but it’s now cattle instead of sheep, the predators, coyotes, eagles and mountain lions have made it too costly to have large sheep operations.
Being from one of these states, I was astonished when I worked out of state for a couple years, how impossible it was to go biking, hiking, shooting freely in the temp state I was in.....private land everywhere, you could not go anywhere freely, it was bizarre, was glad to return home.
The states could do the exact same thing with the land as the feds without having the federal government involved.
@@gregfreese6317 the problem is no one trust the states lmao
Lol laughs in Texas
You can you just cant get caught!
@@Iskander24 Just give the funding now being spent by the federal government to the states to manage. The states can manage it without so much of the red tape so it would actually cost less to manage.
Would be interesting to redraw the Western state's boundaries minus the federal lands to truly represent their true shapes. For example, Nevada is actually one of the USA's smallest state's.
If anyone that sees this knows of a map like this dude said share cuz I’d like to see too
That would be interesting.
Nevada really got a raw deal ever since it obtained statehood. The state joined the union during the civil war to give the union the ability to borrow money to fund the war. The agreement was that the federal government would maintain ownership of the land with Congress having the power to conduct transactions to transfer lands to the state for other purposes. In exchange, the federal government would pay the state what is called PITA, payment in lieu of taxes. Remember, 89% of the state can not be privately owned so it can't generate property taxes.
The state constitution was created with the idea it would remain with a very limited government and have very low taxes due to the promises of the federal government and the impracticalities of managing such a large territory at the time.
The reality is that Congress treats Nevada like the homeless people it doesn't house. It has proven to be nearly impossible to get the payment in lieu of taxes that was promised, and when even a percentage of it is paid we are treated as if it is a handout. We also have to spend years and millions of dollars to formally request access to land in southern Nevada for any purpose.
Before people say this is about water, it isn't. This has been the process since the railroad first covered the trails from LA to Salt Lake.
The better solution would be to force the federal government to hand over all lands that are not being use for Military Bases, testing ranges and other constitutionally mandate function etc to the state in whom border they are in.
Is Nevada a smaller State than Hawaii though?
The Homesteads offered in the West ranged from 160-640 acres, which would be a lot of potential in the Midwest and East, but would only run 10-15 cows in the arid west. So almost all homesteaders claimed plots with water. They eventually went broke and sold their homesteads to bigger landholders. The West is vastly different than the East and many in Government had never seen the West and considered their policies based on Eastern and Midwest's fertile lands and wet climates. Awesome Video!!
A lot of small land owners were forced to sell at gun point in the west to cattle and timber barons !!
I can see why more people live on East Coast. I can see why the West has many different sceneries, such as grassland, forests, rivers, waterfalls, and deserts. I am from Arizona, we have everything except the ocean, but we are not far from it.
Thats BS. Arizona is all desert wasteland. They have no real climate diversity.
I could never live in the west, enjoy Arizona
@@richard09able You can't teach an old dog new tricks
Yeah, more people work for Walmart than live in New Mexico.
More people live in the eastern half of the US because that’s where the country was originally settled from. People came across the Atlantic and settled on the east coast, and then people eventually moved and settled further west.
You're kinda forgetting something on Why So Much Land In The West Is Owned By The Federal Government. 🙁
The federal gov may have tried to give the land away for 100 years in desert areas and gave up about 84 years ago. The Fed gov, owning most of the land in the west, is because of Mineral Rights.
Central and Eastern US, don't have full mineral rights protection laws with land they buy/own referred to as "locatable minerals." Example, you buy/own 100 acres and stumble on valuable minerals, the Gov takes control of your land until they have exhausted the minerals from your land. You may have title to the mineral rights on a property you own, or a previous owner may have sold or leased them, in which case, they may not be yours.
In the West they do have full mineral rights protection laws with land they buy/own, The Gov REFUSES to sell land even back to the states, to be able to keep the mineral rights they do have.
They even run off private landowners to get their mineral rights. Uranium is a huge one, 7 western desert area states have all the Uranium that is used as fuel for nuclear power plants and the nuclear reactors that run naval ships and submarines. The Gov is never going to give that up..😞
Oregon is the Only state that produces emery and a major producer of common clay, gemstones, and zeolites.
Central Oregon is Not desert, It's perfectly clear they don't give a hoot about the forests, if they did, they would do their Job by LAW for the past 15 years with thinning/clearing and replanting the forest like they're supposed to, so there would be less forest fires. But they don't do their Job😠. You might ask why!😜
Most of the Land In The West Is Owned By The Federal Government because of mineral rights that the GOV don't have unless they keep the land....So the Gov trying to sell the land ended years ago once they realized what they were selling. And they will kill to get it all back from private owners...😢
Very soon the feds will have absolutely no rights on this land. By law of the land. Wars are coming
I found you by accident and I so enjoy this channel, clear, direct, factual information and I love the maps. Thanks so much for your information, I really needed a refresher on locations. 🤗🤗🤗
Me also
Nothing is by accindent. I t was recomended by googles algorithms because you have viewed similar content in the past.
@@apolloorosco6852 yep true
Nevada is basically Federally owned, just make it the new Capital.
Hey Dao King, that's a great idea. Move all these politicians from Washington DC to Area 51! Then they can do all the criminal activity they're already doing, including rigging elections, but we (and the election process) will no longer be affected because nobody can find the politicians.
They need to move many of these land Agencies to the West, so the people making the decisions for these lands actually live next to it and care about the land and the opinions of their neighbors who actually use the land.
Even if your name is on the deed you don't own the land. You are just a caretaker that's all. How could you "own" something if you constantly have to pay for the land year after year? Property taxes is essentially paying rent to the government. The government owns the land. Period.
💯
I would much rather pay rent to the government than a private landowner. Like the video said at 7:58, the Bureau of Land Management charges far less to lease a piece of land than any private landowner would. And I’d much rather pay that money to an agency that will use my money to maintain the land I’m on, rather than enrich themselves like a private landowner would. All in all, Henry George would be pleased
I moved out west from NC 7 years ago, and was suddenly confronted with smoky skies and the worst wildfires in decades. I hear climate change blamed for this and the drought, and I'm genuinely curious I want the truth no politics. California's water and river system is completely artificial diverting from North to South, and the water table region wide has been tapped and drained faster than it can replace itself, which no one argues. The forests have been badly mismanaged, preventing all wildfires to protect rural boomer McMansions rather than allow the seasonal burning of undergrowth natural to the forests, which we see clearly in fire scarred redwoods over a thousand years old. It seems like modern agriculture and forest mismanagement is to blame, and not "climate change" though that's a separate issue.
One big problem I noticed with wild fires is in homes are present in wildfire areas now. 20 years ago there were no homes or people living in wildfire areas but with populations increasing, people wanted to expand and build in new areas. They built their homes in areas susceptible to wild fires.
@@CaseNumber00 just blame it on climate change! Anyone who objects can only be a far right extremist.
Wildfires are in fact a mismanagement issue. At least as far back as the early 1900s the forest service instituted a 100% fire suppression policy. As a result, fuel loads (flammable vegetable debris) have accumulated to explosive levels in many places, resulting in extreme fire behavior when (not if) they do catch fire. This, exacerbated by (possibly, if not probably, global warming induced) dry conditions, is why fires are now so severe as to be almost unextiguishable. Had sensible let-it-burn policies been in place, we would not be having this problem. Periodic, naturally occurring fires would have kept the fuel load accumulation in check, and droughts would still be a bane for economic development, but at least the ecosystems would be healthier and fires not such major disasters...
Addendum to last week's comment: fun fact --- well over 90% of wildland fires are caused by serial arsonists. The authorities even know who these guys are but don't arrest them because they would be unable to obtain evidence which would be admissible in court, and thus no convictions would result. Since the odds of catching one of them in the act of actually igniting a fire is just about zero the pyros get away with it year after year and are responsible for incalculable damage to property and loss of life...
@Dingus Dingus it still seems to me like those fires get as bad as they do because of overall mismanagement. I don't doubt the pyro's at all after seeing so many arsonists in Portland living there
It would have made more sense to explain to the people how lots of this federal governant land is being sold to China, and surrounding farmland also, why nobody is talking about this is so concerning, considering most of what they buy surrounds our military bases- what they hell is our country thinking?
You do realize the largest foreign land owner in the U.S. is Canada at 37%, right? followed by the Netherlands (12%), Italy (7%), the United Kingdom (6%), and Germany (6%) China comes in very last at less than 1%.
And the U.S owes the largest portion of its foreign debt to Japan, not China..
Also, Donald Trump paid more in taxes last year alone to Chyna, than he did his entire career to the U.S. ...sleep well.
When you retire you'll see the value of public lands. Nevada is a campers paradise. Try pitching a Tent in Texas every inch of land is privately owned, except for the National Park's.
I love how when i go to visit the southwest and vegas is all by itself because it’s surrounded by federal land. You have to go an hour towards zion to get back into another town.
Camping, hunting, and off roading are all so much better in the West due to Federal lands. In the east you have to have land or know someone with land or pay to go to some establishment. It’s lame
Always wondered about this. When I fly from Iowa to Vegas I'm always amazed at the nothingness between Colorado and Vegas.
Isn’t Utah in between, Utah is spectacular tho
There's not enough water for a large population.
Underground bases all over the American sw.
horseshite! certainly, there's cheyenne mountain in colorado springs, and missile silos all over of course (those are just like 2 or 3 people, and small size), but no underground bases that i've seen, and i've driven all over the southwest. lol, you cannot hide a base, there's thousands of people working there, coming and going, getting deliveries/etc., with a million other things to give it away. don't be a conspiracy nut, conspiracy nut. 🤣
Deep Underground Military Bases are DUMB
This explains why forest fires are getting so out of control. The Federal and State government cannot manage the land properly.
No, climate change....
6:39 “As climate change worsens fires in the west”. Also mention the government policies that promote such large scale fires if you’re going to try to be fair and balanced.
This video has a lot of misinformation The map shared for the Louisiana purchase included Texas and parts of Mexican territory before the Mexican American war. Don’t be fooled y’all.
Did you see the map of Nevada? The government owns almost all of it.
The Government manage it for the The People/US Citizens. Government is the "HOA" for all Public Land.
Neat video,
I’d love to see a video like this on Alaska, I’ve heard the federal government owns 60-80% of the land there, I wonder if it’s for similar reasons or, are there different things at play there?
terrible video. discovery doctrine is the reason the federal government owns all land in the US.
Yes...I'm looking forward to that video too
Alien spaceships and highly classified experimental projects. Live there long enough and you'll be abducted.
From Idaho, right now live in Nebraska. Can’t wait to get back after school. It’s so suffocating here not having open public land to go hike, camp, bike, shoot, hunt, and just enjoy life on. Here there’s nowhere to go cause everything is private and it’s terrible!!!
haha yeah in Maryland its the same way, you go hiking in the woods you may get shot by the owner of the land
You don't need Federal ownership to have public land, States can also own public land.
@@opossumlvr1023 sure. There’s just almost none in Nebraska. There’s 8 state parks in Nebraska. They all charge an entry fee. And they are full of people.
Compare that to Idaho. There’s 27 state parks. And you get in free with an Idaho license plate. That’s not to mention the BLM land or forest service land that is sure to border your town or backyard that you can go on for free, any time. With super easy access. And there’s hardly anyone on it cause there’s so much of it.
Out here you are relegated to the sparse state public land which I argue is not public because you have to pay to get in. Or there’s private groups that have bought up some natural land you can get onto, also with paying an entry fee. Yeah, it hurts to pay $50 for my family of five to go on a nature walk through two acres of woods for an afternoon. Yes it’s their prerogative to charge because the own the land, I’m not arguing against that at all. I’m just saying it sucks after living in Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming all my life where you can easily get to open wilderness pretty much everywhere for free.
@@tymarls Smith falls state park is great and even on busy days hardly anyone is hiking the Jim MacAllister Nature Trail, you can use the cowboy trail for free and the Nature Conservancy near Norden has land that is free to roam on. I'm from Michigan and you get into all state parks and have access to state land with a recreation pass at a cost of $15 that is displayed on your car registration tag. We also have a Commercial Forest Program that offers a tax exemption on the land if it is open to the public. Access to land outside of the federal system is extensive.
@@opossumlvr1023 glad that’s the case where you are at. Just further proving my point that it depends on where you live.
It’s outrageous. Feds need to open up a lot of that land for homesteading.
I grew up in the Mojave desert from 1984 to 1992.
I still think about going back every now and then.
what part?
@@gnome9167
Mojave/ Cal City/ Edwards Air Force Base
@@Istandby666 Those areas I think haven't changed much. Lancaster, Palmdale, and Victorville have grown drastically since the 90's. I was shocked by all of the cookie cutter homes and big box stores that have taken over many open fields of desert.
BLM land is public lands. I look at it as anyone who lives in the US has partial ownership, you can recreate any way you'd like within the law. I've lived in Wyoming and Utah over the past 5 years and love the access to public lands. I'm a libertarian and dislike big government but truly appreciate the access to all of the beautiful land that makes up America. I'm currently an off road tour guide in Utah. I use BLM lands every day I'm working and most days I'm not working. I get many guests from the eastern US and they're always amazed at the vast amount of land that be can accessed out west.
“BLM land is public lands. I look at it as anyone who lives in the US has partial ownership…” I think that’s a very good way to look at it. One of my unpopular opinions is that I think allowing private individuals and entities to profit off of simply owning land is one of the most destructive forces to society there is, whether it happens in big cities, or in the middle of nowhere. I would recommend you look up something called the *Land Value Tax.* This is a tax that would mostly (or maybe even entirely) replace all other taxes. No more income tax, sales tax, taxes on improvements to lands, etc. Just a Land Value Tax. You mentioned being kind of libertarian. Milton Friedman was an economist that today would be described as libertarian and he called the Land Value Tax “the least bad tax.” Pretty high praise from a libertarian. Joseph Stiglitz leans more to the left, but he is also a strong supporter of the LVT. In fact, the LVT attracts supporters from all over the political spectrum. Anyway, it’s just a thought.
The Homestead Act allowed "very specific citizens of the US to claim land in newly organized territories". That was brilliantly worded to avoid that political hot potato while still disseminating the information. Well done Geoff!
Yeah I caught that word play
😂
#ADOS
#FBA
This land is owned by the people of the US, and is managed by the government for it's citizens. It belongs to every citizen.
the land RIGHTLY belongs to the STATES in which it resides....the federal government illegally withheld it when it extorted the states west of the Mississippi on the conditions for entering the union
Yes, indeed. We also have the responsibility to enjoy and preserve it for the next generations.
@@j.l.salayao8055
I never said we don't.
Do you think the government should tell you how to do everything?
And what does preserve for next generation entails?
There are lands now that the previous generation had access to and enjoyed, that we currently don't have access to, and can't enjoy.
As a large land owner mostly Forrest it is a burden to pay the annual real estate taxes every twenty to forty years spending more than the cost of the land many. Are forced to try to make money by raising crops cutting Forrest or selling dirt or minerals this destroyed the land
One tract less than one square mile has four different types of vegetation Forrest three types of soil wet lands and dry sand to support cactus nine types of Harwood trees dozen types of shrubs bearing fruit and every type mammal in the region more insects than you want and several dozen bird species never disturbed by money making efforts 🤔 just thinking
one of the only good things the government does right, private land owners either horde huge areas of beautiful to themselves or ruin it with some exploitative idea to make money off it, i’m not blaming private owners for that because anyone would do that in their shoes but i believe more land / nature should be owned by state to protect it
The federal governments around the world actually own all land in their respective territories.. If you pay taxes on the land than its theirs and if you don't they take it. If individual people actually owned the land it would be all brought up by wealthy rich people and than conflict rises. Rich vs Rich more than likely.
While I enjoyed the video, it left a major legal issue unresolved: respecting those vast swaths of land first 'owned' by the federal government because of its being unincorporated, why later did some-if not nearly all-of that land come to be included within the juridical boundaries of the various states? After all, what authority does, for example, the State of Nevada have over most of the land that defines it when another government 'owns' it? The most basic right a State has is to to impose tax upon the land within its borders and to impose it upon the non-State owners of that land. Perhaps I'm mistaken but I daresay that these States probably don't impose land taxes upon the federal government.
That is also likely true of the post office parking lot in your home town, but it's still part of the city.
Yes, but the city cannot collect land or any other kind of tax from that post office.
That was explained in the video.
A lot of people live on federal land but are still subject to state taxes.
@@alansach8437 NOT true....there is an adjustment the federal government gives to state and local governments for federal lands under use
It isn't as complex as an 8 minute video. Look at where the Uranium deposit are located in the US, and it magically all makes sense. Because US federal lands and Uranium deposits sure do look almost 100% alike. U.S government put those lands in federal jurisdiction because they want to control that resource. It is the simplest explanation that makes the least amount of assumptions.
The grazing fee is about $2.50 per AUM (animal unit mouth)
It's not owned by the federal government it's owned by the people back east in the midwest you can't go camping cuz there's no public land
Are there any populated areas within federally managed territory?
indian reservations would be.
I was a lifelong Californian, got out before it collapses completely. The Sierras are nearly all Forest Service land. Yet there are towns there. I think the "landowners" actually lease the land from the Forest Service, and develop it according to USFS regulations. Don't quote me on that, though.
@@elwoodblues9613 i want to be in california when its govt collapse. Tremendous opportunity without a functioning govt. Wild ,wild,wild west. No gun laws, no taxes,no bs.
There is a reason people don't live permitaly in the desert without an addiction issue. Without air conditioning or a stable supply of water barrens secretly charging more for water than oil. I could absolutely see why someone would be drawn to an actual dessert. And yes I want all my iguanas to eat banana splits, its adorable.
Very insightful, thank you )
There are just two departments covered. The Department Of Defense and Department Of Interior. The various agencies discussed are part of Interior.
The Forest Service is Department of Agricultural even though logically it should be Interior.
@@trevorkuttler920 good to know. Thanks
@@trevorkuttler920 Trees are plants and agriculture is the science of growing plants. It is logical that the Forest Service is in the Department of Agriculture.
Be nice if they brought back just a little bit of homesteading. I live surrounded by federally owned land I'd love to get some land here.
the biggest issue for this is lots of areas dominated by the rich suddenly wouldn't be. I lived in Vail Colorado for 2 years and left because it was too expensive and i didnt see any hope for making a real lasting future in the area. Meanwhile there is plenty of land that COULD be populated but instead its owned by millionaires or billionaires in massive parcels and anytime recently the fed did sell land they sell it in the thousands of acres for profit not a few acres at a time to people who genuinely want to live in the area
As written in the Constitution the U.S cannot own that land without adding an Amendment and not a Bill. They are in direct violation of the U.S Constitution. All current Federal land must be returned to the States. Also this land wasn't managed for millions of years so Why does the Federal government feel a responsibility to manage area's that they can't use for settlement? Answers in your video explaining how much money they make off recreational activities is the very reason why they won't return the land back to the respective States.
We got Randy Weaver in the comments, you ignorant as they come, state’s articles of statehood specifically state that state government have no right to federal lands, federal lands have stood up in courts for decades, the feds never ceded the land when these places became states and it’s specifically stated in articles of statehood
@@twostop6895 read article 1 section 8 clause 18, government can't own land more than 10 miles square miles as it's written, NEW ROCHELLE, N.Y. - U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said that the Constitution is not a living document and should not be rewritten each year by the unelected justices of the Supreme Court.
@@twostop6895United States Constitution Article 1, section 8: "....To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings......". Yeah, it has "stood up in Courts for decades", because the Federal Government is controlled by people who also control the Courts.
Enjoyed your presentation. I do, however, have concerns about the BLM managing our lands well. In many areas of Utah there are concerns about over grazing and its effects on those lands. The fact that the BLM charges so little for grazing makes ranchers use our public lands rather than paying much more for private grazing rights. We are also fighting how they and the Fish and Wildlife Service manage (or mismanage) our Red Cliffs National Conservation Area, one of the last refuges for the threatened (should be "endangered") Mojave desert tortoise. Just a few things worth mentioning. Overall, your presentation is excellent.
I thought the same thing when he portrayed cheap land leases as a good thing. You know corporations are getting these cheap leases while not giving a flying f*** about sustainability. They’re always behind the scenes when there’s an environmental battle to be fought, and the environment usually loses.
Land has gotten so expensive it's out of reach of a lot of people now. All anyones wants is an acre of land within a few hours from decent size city...but the top 10 percent own everything. Future generations will mostly be renters while the oligarchs collect their capitol gains and rent.
🎶Run to the hills
Run for your lives
Run to the hills
Run for your lives🎶
Our public lands are the envy of the world!
One way to fix this problem is to create NAWAPA. JFK was about to get it into action right before he died. It would bring freshwater from Alaska and Canada to the Arid West. It would have completely transformed/greened everything between the Cascade Mountain Range and The Rockies. It would have been a project of a lifetime creating so much life were once there was nothing but just desert.
What is NAWAPA?
my man... you barely mentioned the ethnic cleansing that was required, idk why you think no one wanted that land, it was literally all already populated and entire wars were fought into the 1920s because people didn't want to give up their land
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Indian_Wars
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_genocide
The government doesn't own the land. The land is public land and the government is suppose to be managing the land for our use. (THE GOVERNMENT DOESN'T OWN THE LAND)
Excellent & informative. Thank You. I moved to Idaho years ago for the solitude. I've seen many beautiful places. I never want to see a large city again.
According to westward expansion laws the federal government isn't supposed to own any property. They're supposed to reimburse states for land used for military bases.
This is actually compounded by the fact in the 70s congress passed a bill to tell the BLM and Forest service to STOP selling or distributing land all together. I know many people who at this point in our technological advancement would love to live in some of these areas but they are now completely denied to new settlement. I understand the wants of locals too to keep their population densities low and that can be accomplished while simultaneously letting new settlement but when for 50 years your only real land sales are in multi thousand acre parcels to the extremely wealthy it gets to the point where average people are being entirely forced out of these areas as land and housing prices skyrocket.
A correction for the title: Federally managed public land is owned by the American people. The Federal Government does not own this land. We do.
That’s fair
My favorite area of the country. I couldn’t live anywhere where I can’t walk out my front door out into millions of acres of open space.
I'm homeless. I never knew this land was available for settling.
Houseless but not homeless 😊.
Love me some good Geoff content 👌
The govt owns all land. We just have to pay an annual fee to have the privilege of using the land we inhabit.
Most of the western states contain large national parks, like Death Valley, Yellowstone, Grand Canyon, etc, and then there are also the national forests too which are also owned by the Feds. So yeah, this makes sense. There are fewer national forests and parks on the eastern and midwestern states.
Federal Government should release some of that land. Ridiculous that one has to pay $3000 a month for a 2 bedroom apartment these days.
There was once upon a time a bunch of folks who were sort of unhappy with the rulers of the lands they lived in/on. Those brave folks travelled to a new land and took it over from the people already living there. Might is right. When the colonists felt they were being taken advantage of by the rulers they had fled from, they formed a new country and kicked the Brits out. Several times. Then the push to the west began and it led to the far west. By then the people in the East of the U.S. had become full of themselves and forgot the lessons that had led to the creation of our nation. So they used the governing structure to impose federal ownership of much of the WEST. All in the name of getting it developed. Power corrupts. There is no good reason for the Federal Government to own as much land in the West. Parks yes. Property for vital purposes like national defense and energy (a dam does not take up much land). The rest should be sold to private enterprise and that does not include foreign governments who would like to own us 100%. Folks, it is all about greed, power, corruption, and the desire to impose a will on others. Read the Constitution. We trusted Politicians to run the U.S.based on our original plan. They did us dirty.
I thought the government wasn’t allowed to own land???
Exactly
Explaining the main conflict represented in the Yellowstone series
Alaska: Am I joke to you?
It is nice to have so much public land in the West that is open for recreation. However, what is frustrating, and what people in the East don’t understand, is that it can be extremely frustrating to have bureaucrats back East making decision about land in your own back yard that they have never been to themselves. So often the land is yanked out from under the feet of people in the West for some non-sensical environmental reason and it is completely closed off. This happens every time there is a Democratic President. To boost their eco-friendly credentials, they will take a large chunk of land in Utah, bigger than some US States, and just declare it a National Monument overnight. They put all these rules on the land and restrict off road vehicle activity. Apparently, the land is so beautiful, that nobody is allowed to see it.
And then a repub gets in office and opens it up for oil drilling.
If not for the feds the land would not be preserved for future generations. I want peace when I go camping and hiking. I don’t want vehicles or radios blasting country music as every bodies dogs are fighting and kids screaming in camp sights.
Hi Geoff,
You are doing a great job in explaining very interesting but complex subjects. It would be even better to show data points in the graphs you are using to illustrate/reaffirm your words. For example, in the doughnut chart at min 4.25. Keep up the good work!
When the feds transferred some lands to Utah, the state sold them to private parties, and local people who had had access for generations lost their old stomping grounds.
This is what I got from the video. The federal government owns and manages the forementioned pieces of land due to lack of interest from "everyone else". It's not that they're hugging it all, no one else wanted to maintain it, including the State. As is, lots of State owned land for example in California was mismanaged, ignoring and performing budgeted fire prevention management and efforts due to various reasons. This lands have become fire hazards for a few decades and getting worst. I'm not knowledgeable enough to know what other "things" need to be managed in federal and state lands, fire? wildlife? It'll be interesting to see what is the percentage of wildfires and fire prevention between federal vs state own land.
America: let’s use other people’s oil although we have oil lands in America
If the government owns most of the land that burns every year, they need to open it up to logging. The average forest fire puts more carbon in the air than all of the cars in Colorado running 24 / 7 for a year put in the air..
how many million acres burned in 2022?
I personally wouldn't mind purchasing my own patch of that land if it was ever offered again- and if I ever have the funds to lmao
Dear patronsaintoflostcauses4029: There you go using the biggest word in the dictionary, and more than once. IF IF IF does not get much done IF you just talk talk talk, As Andy Dufresene said in Shawshank Redemption - Hope is among the best of things. We can always hope people will....................get their heads out of their rectums.
Well, because the US government bought it with US tax payer dollars. All land bought this way belongs to the federal government in a trust belonging to the American people, minus land grants. The land belongs to ALL Americans, not a few.
They didn’t buy most of this Western land. They took it from Mexico.
you do UNDERSTAND (maybe) the UNITED STATES is a conglomeration of SOVEREIGN entities that grant power to a central government.....I suggest you READ your constitution for a more accurate description of what the federal government can and can NOT do.....owning excess land within a SOVEREIGN state is on the can NOT list....when Congress approved their entry into the union they LEGALLY ceded ALL that land except what the government needed under the provisions of the US Constitution to those states
False. This land is owned by you and I, not the government. They only manage it.
Wonderful channel! I'm brazilian and I like this kind of video a lot. Thanks for sharing.
Great graphics and information!
High altitude, poor access, remote, freezing temperatures.
SHOOT, Nevada is DEFINITELY hit the hardest when it comes to federally-owned land.
Because they used all that area for nuclear fallout then forcibly moved indian tribes in the direct path of the fallout
Good video! It gave me the background, history, and facts on the ground to revise my opinion on the subject. Subscribed! 👏
The US government owns every inch of US soil other than the Reservations. You’re essentially renting your property from the government by paying a property tax. If you don’t pay your “rent” you get evicted.
Fantastic production value and visuals, mate! Kept my attention throughout with useful info & interest maps & scenery.
Just came across your channel and you got a new subscriber - excited to see more of what ya got!
"The government seems to manages the land pretty well overall" Hahahahahahahaha! That's funny.
I have friends who work for the US Forest Service and they are always telling me how terribly the government is able to actually do anything. They cannot keep healthy forests healthy due to lack of funding and personel and out of fear of irritating environmentalist groups. A US Forest Service Botnist told him that a healthy pine forest is 250 trees per square mile. They try too cut down trees to make that happen, then they get sued by environmentalist groups for cutting down trees (even though the trees are dying).
They don't have enough personel to fight wildfires, so they often have to let them burn, then they risk encroachment onto private property.
Basically, the Federal Government is noy managing the land very well at all.
Ive been hearing from several people. Even the Land you buy, you dont own. The government owns!?! Hence why they can legally keep charging you for property tax. You have only the rights to your house.
Probably because that’s where the most gold is and they want the claim…
The video mentions the profit the federal government makes off the land, and yet then assets the states do not have the money to manage the land. If the land is making a profit, the numbers went quickly by, but it sounded like the profit is 5 billion, then states might be much more effective in managing the land since overall it makes a profit.
There is also incredibly high land costs and home costs in the west 🤨
Maybe the government should F off and give us our land back
Great vid Geoff!
Yes but how much of that “Federal Land” is DoD/Military areas?
Simple answer is the Government can control the growth. The lack of water resources is a critical issue.
There is a lot of federally owned land adjacent to populated areas that could be sold to increase supply of housing. We need to balance being green to meeting the needs of the population.
You look like discount Jimmy Steve from Shameless and I love it.
My hypothesis before I watch: no one else wants it because that's not particularly useful land.
Which also makes it useful as land for certain things the government wants secret or as far from civilian population centers as possible.
They weren't testing h-bombs in quaint, picturesque Vermont!
We'll see how I did.
I like public land were I can go camping and other fun outdoor activities.
i can barely manage a few acres, its just to much work.
"this law allowed for very specific citizens of the US to claim land"
🤔🤔🤔🤔😏😏😏😏
The federal government may have not wanted to keep it, but they wanna keep it now they won’t sell it they won’t give it up even when it’s in the middle of a farmers field surrounded on all four sides they refused to sell it to the farmers
It’s good that the federal government actually does a great job to maintain land. Also how it maintains it with the public also able to explore it is a win win. Seems very great to have
Why did texas join during the Louisiana purchase?
Less land that will be sold to foreign governments... I wish it was ALL "federal land" and only rented to the temporary residents.
Yeah... How about we start homesteading the land out again. There would be plenty of people who would jump on that. At the very least most of this federally owned land should be given to the states to manage or lease out, the federal government does a lot to prevent mining, logging, and other commercial or industrial activity from taking place.
Wonderful video, I've always wondered when flying over America why there aren't more towns. I guess access water and climate.
Experimental nuclear detonations northwest of Las Vegas.. Yeah, probably best they keep that part of the land?