Why So Much Land In The West Is Owned By The Federal Government

[@powerwagon3731]

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.

[@bret9741]

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.

[@powerwagon3731]

@@bret9741 Great comment but I’m sure you meant FDR Franklin Delanor Roosevelt not JFK John Fitzgerald Kennedy.

[@Jfilimo]

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

[@bret9741]

@@Jfilimo it was the general land office on the 1920’s. They changed the name in the 40’s

[@bret9741]

@@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.

[@azdbuk]

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.

[@gregfreese6317]

The states could do the exact same thing with the land as the feds without having the federal government involved.

[@MiddleKingdom305]

@@gregfreese6317 the problem is no one trust the states lmao

[@TAPATIOPLEASE]

Lol laughs in Texas

[@JaCrispy3060]

You can you just cant get caught!

[@gregfreese6317]

@@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.

[@garys.2291]

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.

[@JewHater1945]

If anyone that sees this knows of a map like this dude said share cuz I’d like to see too

[@b_uppy]

That would be interesting.

[@hewhohasnoidentity4377]

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.

[@MinhNguyen-nl8zz]

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.

[@johndonajelon21]

Is Nevada a smaller State than Hawaii though?

[@htturk]

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!!

[@jamessmaby8758]

A lot of small land owners were forced to sell at gun point in the west to cattle and timber barons !!

[@samerabdallah82]

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.

[@richard09able]

I could never live in the west, enjoy Arizona

[@MeneTekelUpharsin]

@@richard09able You can't teach an old dog new tricks

[@LoveyK]

Yeah, more people work for Walmart than live in New Mexico.

[@412StepUp]

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.

[@KEW1945]

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...😢

[@Cavebabyberserker]

Very soon the feds will have absolutely no rights on this land. By law of the land. Wars are coming

[@brandenrunyan1821]

This explains why forest fires are getting so out of control. The Federal and State government cannot manage the land properly.

[@davidcollinhannah5606]

No, climate change....

[@tylerahlstrom4553]

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.

[@Crypto_Circus]

Nevada is basically Federally owned, just make it the new Capital.

[@elwoodblues9613]

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.

[@jenbasa5677]

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. 🤗🤗🤗

[@jeni2114]

Me also

[@apolloorosco6852]

Nothing is by accindent. I t was recomended by googles algorithms because you have viewed similar content in the past.

[@thatblack_kid1651]

@@apolloorosco6852 yep true

[@thedevilandhertrumpets4268]

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.

[@cdlu2.028]

Always wondered about this. When I fly from Iowa to Vegas I'm always amazed at the nothingness between Colorado and Vegas.

[@ni12907]

Isn’t Utah in between, Utah is spectacular tho

[@sluggo206]

There's not enough water for a large population.

[@TopeRopeTom]

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.

[@frankhall7005]

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.

[@RomanVarl]

Very insightful, thank you )

[@someonesomebody5453]

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?

[@MOEMUGGY]

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.

[@vknight7497]

It’s outrageous. Feds need to open up a lot of that land for homesteading.

[@UTBDubya]

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.

[@geisaune793]

That’s fair

[@clayhackney3514]

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.

[@CaseNumber00]

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.

[@clayhackney3514]

@@CaseNumber00 just blame it on climate change! Anyone who objects can only be a far right extremist.

[@dingusdingus2152]

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...

[@dingusdingus2152]

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...

[@clayhackney3514]

@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

[@CarsTechWood]

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

[@Supershark83]

Great graphics and information!

[@PetePuebla]

Did you see the map of Nevada? The government owns almost all of it.

[@j.l.salayao8055]

The Government manage it for the The People/US Citizens. Government is the "HOA" for all Public Land.

[@clownworldtimes6434]

There are just two departments covered. The Department Of Defense and Department Of Interior. The various agencies discussed are part of Interior.

[@trevorkuttler920]

The Forest Service is Department of Agricultural even though logically it should be Interior.

[@clownworldtimes6434]

@@trevorkuttler920 good to know. Thanks

[@opossumlvr1023]

@@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.

[@quincybirwood2629]

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!

[@internetgangsta4543]

Yeah I caught that word play 😂 #ADOS #FBA

[@revinhatol]

SHOOT, Nevada is DEFINITELY hit the hardest when it comes to federally-owned land.

[@Istandby666]

I grew up in the Mojave desert from 1984 to 1992. I still think about going back every now and then.

[@gnome9167]

what part?

[@Istandby666]

@@gnome9167 Mojave/ Cal City/ Edwards Air Force Base

[@jerradwilson]

@@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.

[@777sibannac]

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.

[@kevinhamilton7222]

💯

[@geisaune793]

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

[@fredflintstone6163]

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

[@fredflintstone6163]

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

[@ferratilis]

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.

[@michaelkendall662]

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]

Yes, indeed. We also have the responsibility to enjoy and preserve it for the next generations.

[@ferratilis]

@@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.

[@questingquillback4263]

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?

[@OVER9000xDxD]

terrible video. discovery doctrine is the reason the federal government owns all land in the US.

[@klaytonpeterson]

Yes...I'm looking forward to that video too

[@Redditor6079]

Alien spaceships and highly classified experimental projects. Live there long enough and you'll be abducted.

[@misternobodysixtynine]

🎶Run to the hills Run for your lives Run to the hills Run for your lives🎶

[@tymarls]

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!!!

[@blakespower]

haha yeah in Maryland its the same way, you go hiking in the woods you may get shot by the owner of the land

[@opossumlvr1023]

You don't need Federal ownership to have public land, States can also own public land.

[@tymarls]

@@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.

[@opossumlvr1023]

@@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.

[@tymarls]

@@opossumlvr1023 glad that’s the case where you are at. Just further proving my point that it depends on where you live.

[@Opochtli]

Great vid Geoff!

[@daviddecelles8714]

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.

[@peterrose5373]

That is also likely true of the post office parking lot in your home town, but it's still part of the city.

[@daviddecelles8714]

Yes, but the city cannot collect land or any other kind of tax from that post office.

[@mcgunn74]

That was explained in the video.

[@alansach8437]

A lot of people live on federal land but are still subject to state taxes.

[@michaelkendall662]

@@alansach8437 NOT true....there is an adjustment the federal government gives to state and local governments for federal lands under use

[@janreed99]

Are there any populated areas within federally managed territory?

[@douglasharley2440]

indian reservations would be.

[@elwoodblues9613]

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.

[@danielevans3932]

@@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.

[@LD-Orbs]

Good video! It gave me the background, history, and facts on the ground to revise my opinion on the subject. Subscribed! 👏

[@posteroonie]

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.

[@robbie5138]

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.

[@catchampjade]

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

[@JurriexD]

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!

[@kellykiel5319]

Love me some good Geoff content 👌

[@mkvenner2]

The grazing fee is about $2.50 per AUM (animal unit mouth)

[@dalepellerin]

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.

[@robertsansone1680]

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.

[@paulvandam642]

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.

[@meganbaker9116]

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.

[@thoreau7]

Underground bases all over the American sw.

[@douglasharley2440]

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. 🤣

[@opossumlvr1023]

Deep Underground Military Bases are DUMB

[@zombie_snax]

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.

[@calebrosson]

Explaining the main conflict represented in the Yellowstone series

[@c.galindo9639]

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

[@Ivan.A.Churlyuski]

Alaska: Am I joke to you?

[@rosca.do.paraná82]

Wonderful channel! I'm brazilian and I like this kind of video a lot. Thanks for sharing.

[@fudomyoo9762]

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

[@HR-wd6cw]

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.

[@Brayden-rp5vu]

Thanks for best knowledge.

[@jamest1242r]

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.

[@Greenstrtjs87]

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

[@RingoBars]

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!

[@andyroubik5760]

Our public lands are the envy of the world!

[@alldayeveryday6464]

🤩 keep charging these up

[@terrapinrocks]

False. This land is owned by you and I, not the government. They only manage it.

[@ChristaFree]

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.

[@MoneyMikeMurray]

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.

[@geisaune793]

“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.

[@OffBrandChicken]

You look like discount Jimmy Steve from Shameless and I love it.

[@Anthony_Aú.GreenParty]

I'm homeless. I never knew this land was available for settling.

[@j.l.salayao8055]

Houseless but not homeless 😊.

[@LaFamiliaguild]

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.

[@shootermcgavin4999]

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.

[@tylerahlstrom4553]

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.

[@Greeniykyk]

And then a repub gets in office and opens it up for oil drilling.

[@jenniferbringman9054]

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.

[@thegoldstandard55]

Federal Government should release some of that land. Ridiculous that one has to pay $3000 a month for a 2 bedroom apartment these days.

[@mpat23]

Good and interesting points

[@jamesclugston1626]

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.

[@boaz63]

Very cool. Great clear explanation. 😎👍🇺🇸

[@bobbygreig15]

Wonderful video, I've always wondered when flying over America why there aren't more towns. I guess access water and climate.

[@troyb.4101]

Simple answer is the Government can control the growth. The lack of water resources is a critical issue.

[@LegitnessCenter]

America: let’s use other people’s oil although we have oil lands in America

[@catchampjade]

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.

[@quinnsnextstep]

I always wondered about this. Thank you for the explainer video. Makes the state government's look even worse for not being capable of taking care of the lands they are in charge of.

[@tylerahlstrom4553]

These states do want to control the land in their own states. Utah even voted on making the Federal Government give up their claims to the land. The narrator of this video just gave his assumption that the Western States appreciate that they have no control over most of the land in their states.

[@jenniferbringman9054]

Glad the federal government is in control. We would have land sold and privatized if states were in control. This would put pressure on our wild life.

[@meganbaker9116]

@@jenniferbringman9054 The feds enable PLENTY of exploitation and destruction. With the political system we have, your Congress critter is, almost by definition, a whore, and it isn’t average people coming round to the whorehouse, it’s corporate behemoths. They do not have anyone’s interests at heart but their own.

[@frankdayton731]

What does "taking care" of the land mean exactly? It's like people are simply incapable of thinking critically. Why would the Federal government based out of Washington DC (and whose employees come from all over the country) be better placed at managing land in Utah for example?

[@frankdayton731]

@@jenniferbringman9054 what stops the federal government from doing the exact same thing? And would you criticize them if they did, or just find another reason to delegitimize state government exercising control over their own territory?

[@TheEmpire822]

It would be interesting to see how this compares to what they own on the east coast..

[@HaroldBrice]

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.

[@marvinbrewer8637]

I like public land were I can go camping and other fun outdoor activities.

[@destroytheliberalmachineno861]

Because something they don't want us to know about resides in that area.

[@JamesCagney-wi4tx]

Another excellent video Geoff, thanks.

[@douglasharley2440]

extremely good, and interesting!...much thanks.

[@mrwess1927]

Because they used all that area for nuclear fallout then forcibly moved indian tribes in the direct path of the fallout

[@TheTechnologyFox]

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.

[@MountainGirlwIPA]

I love our public lands. Pack in pack out. ❤

[@philipmorphew6301]

High altitude, poor access, remote, freezing temperatures.

[@JPJ432]

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.

[@rpsoren]

What is NAWAPA?

[@abc123fhdi]

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.

[@thejokersonyou]

"this law allowed for very specific citizens of the US to claim land" 🤔🤔🤔🤔😏😏😏😏

[@barbarabrooks4747]

If you go to AZ, not only is there a lot of federal land, but a great deal of state trust land. It's great to have plenty of parks and areas for wild life, but these excessive government lands make residential lots artificially expensive. Much of this land isn't desirable for farming or ranching, so it's not a loss for farming. Many people in these areas would like to own land for ranching, but it's impossible to buy land at a reasonable price. I would like to see this number whittled down to 40 or 45%. I own a cabin near a 3 million acre national forest and a 3 million acre private corporation. Thus, little land is available, and most is very expensive. I would like to see more of the rolling areas near mountains become available to families and couples (not investors or developers). Buyers could agree to certain terms to make it hospitable to wildlife and agree to annual inspections, if necessary, based on type of land (such as not altering a deer breeding area). In the Los Padres National forest area, land without outstanding beauty or usefulness is going for $10,000 to $15,000/acre. Allowing people to own 40 acre tracts with building only permitted in a small area would maintain the natural landscape. Even if these were offered at affordable prices, such as $120,000, the federal government would get a lot of money to care for the national forest, such as removing dead trees and adding some lodges, cabins and restaurants. The camps owned by the feds are in poor condition, also. If they were improved so couples and family cabins were added, as well as updated, they would be used every weekend and all summer. There could be cabins rented to remote workers with day camp for the children! Also, there aren't enough rangers, and they are not paid well. Selling some of the land could mean the remaining land is better utilized and has fewer extensive fires.

[@michaelburbank2276]

yup only about 10% of land in AZ is publicly owned! And i used to live next to state trust land in Flagstaff, all state trust land is fenced with signs that say no trespassing

[@barbarabrooks4747]

@@michaelburbank2276 I used to have rural land near Seligman, but none of the state trust land there had fences or signs. The free range cattle roamed there. It was really nice because half the parcels were state trust land. Lots of wildlife and hunting

[@robertlittle3926]

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)

[@queefedworm]

4:00. That's when the video starts

[@aycoyote]

This was excellent. I need to rewatch and take notes. Thank you!

[@press3801]

I thought the government wasn’t allowed to own land???

[@TobeornottooB]

Exactly

[@patronsaintoflostcauses4029]

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

[@HaroldBrice]

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.

[@jc6226]

Subbed and like for the interesting and well made vid, thanks.

[@Dave-ul8px]

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

[@jeffblackard9753]

Walk back through a part of that again. I got the timber portion. BUT did I understand it correctly the land is rented out for example cattle ranching every year did I hear that correctly?

[@DennisWHJr]

Yeah, a lot of the land is perfect for farming grazing animals. As wild grazing animals once populated the same region. So it’s dually beneficial.

[@nrrork]

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.

[@michaelburke5907]

It's actually owned by we the people, the feds just manage it on our collective behalf. If you don't like that, try going to someplace where all the land is privately owned and access to the general public is severely restricted. It's no fun, believe me. Hell, rich folks routinely install gates on public roads to limit access to public lands if it passes through their own land. This has happened in every state in the west. Even public beach access in California has been cut off illegally by property owners. Even Lake Washington, in the Seattle area, has seen rich property owners illegally cut off public access points. It happens everywhere. I grew up in an area without significant public lands and trying to find someplace to hunt, fish, hike or go camping was almost possible. Even finding someplace to swim was difficult. No wonder the kids back there become sullen and hostile. There's no place for healthy outdoor activities, except for rigidly controlled sports fields or golf courses. Once I saw the mountains, rivers and lakes of the National Forests in the west, I felt a sense of awe and freedom I'd never known. Wouldn't trade it for the alternative, that's for sure.

[@brianjonker510]

A fun idea to to do a reorganization of the states. For instance divide California in 2 because of population add DC as a state. Merge some of the smaller states. SD & ND added together is very close in size to Montana so not to large to govern. The best idea is merge all of Maine, Mass, Conn, Rhode Island, Vermont, & New Hampshire then call it Brand New England.

[@DennisWHJr]

Meh, no real need for any of that

[@MasterGhostf]

Texas also would need to be split into a few. But, there isn't a need personally.