Is anyone else concerned about Congress voting to sell off Federal lands, and what that could mean for Overlanding and access for hunting, fishing, camping, etc?. If I read the numbers right, we only have about 2 acres of Federal land per person in the U.S. Is that enough for our children and their children? If Congress votes to sell those lands we permanently lose access for Overlanding and other outdoor activities.
Impact of Congress voting to sell Federal lands?
- Thread starter VA Mt Gal
- Start date
Sparse Gray Hackle
Geezer
Anyone who loves the outdoors should be calling their Representative and Senators, asking them to oppose this attempt to steal our public lands.
toddz69
Explorer
jkam
nomadic man
At some point, everything is for sale.
Just has to be the right price and then it's gone.
I live on public lands, have now for about 18 years. Out west it's easy enough to do and has saved me untold amounts of money.
If those lands go away, I will have to search more to find places that are still public lands.
But overall, I think there will still be plenty of places for me to do my thing no matter.
Just has to be the right price and then it's gone.
I live on public lands, have now for about 18 years. Out west it's easy enough to do and has saved me untold amounts of money.
If those lands go away, I will have to search more to find places that are still public lands.
But overall, I think there will still be plenty of places for me to do my thing no matter.
Moyshe Kapoyer
Well-known member
I'll wait for the rumors to become action before becoming emotional or forming an opinion.
Also, last I saw the fed was looking at giving much of the land to the States, where it will be better utilized.
Also, last I saw the fed was looking at giving much of the land to the States, where it will be better utilized.
Last edited:
Sparse Gray Hackle
Geezer
Better utilized sounds like a euphemism for a chance to make a quick buck, with no thought to future generations.
Moyshe Kapoyer
Well-known member
Considering how inept and inefficient the Feds is at managing land and how good many of the States are... I'd trust states anyday over the fed.
Kingsize24
Well-known member
It sounds great to me. Less federal and more state owned would be ideal. Minus the big money making national parks, the state parks are always cleaner and better managed IMO.
Moyshe Kapoyer
Well-known member
Facts!
Sparse Gray Hackle
Geezer
I suspect the chaps that are advocating public lands be sold/released to the states or privatized are from places where there isn’t a significant amount of public lands. Places where you can’t explore the back of beyond because you’re not permitted on private lands unless you have permission of the land holder.
For example, public land (state and federal) in Texas is less than 2% of the total. Georgia is less than 5%. Here’s a link to support the two examples. There are many other supporting sources. Somehow, just somehow, that doesn’t seem like the land of the free.
For example, public land (state and federal) in Texas is less than 2% of the total. Georgia is less than 5%. Here’s a link to support the two examples. There are many other supporting sources. Somehow, just somehow, that doesn’t seem like the land of the free.
Moyshe Kapoyer
Well-known member
What's the difference between the States owning it and the Feds - other than the Feds being completely out of touch with what people actually want?
Last edited:
Kingsize24
Well-known member
Has ZERO to do it that. It's 100% ONLY getting it out of federal hands, into the hands of the states in which the lands reside, and the people that frequent it. That's who should have the say, NOT the federal government.
Gravelette
Well-known member
IIRC, there have been other threads about this recently with some facts presented. Short version is that the Feds do a better job managing our public land than states. Poster child is Utah, where they have sold or given away virtually all of the public land they were given at statehood. People who live in western states and want more "local control" seem to forget that proximity gives them no more ownership than a random citizen on the east coast, for example.
tacollie
Glamper
I'll wait to see if anything actually gets sold off. Most likely there will be more leases sold for resource extraction which in the short term is essentially the same thing but in the long-term leaves the land for public luse.
State Management is probably worse if you like open spaces. The feds do a horrible job managing federal lands but at least it's there and we get to use it. States would do worse. They would have an even harder time managing it and even less resources protecting it. It would lead to less space, less dispersed camping, and less off-road trails. What's left would be more sanitized and more crowded. I'll take our poorly managed NF and BLM land over any state park I've been to.
State Management is probably worse if you like open spaces. The feds do a horrible job managing federal lands but at least it's there and we get to use it. States would do worse. They would have an even harder time managing it and even less resources protecting it. It would lead to less space, less dispersed camping, and less off-road trails. What's left would be more sanitized and more crowded. I'll take our poorly managed NF and BLM land over any state park I've been to.
rruff
Explorer
No it wouldn't. If the states get control of the land, they have no obligation to keep it public. The only reasons states want control is to make $$$ from it.