July 08, 2017 by: Amy Goodrich
Though most of us know the American federal government owns some land, not many people realize how much exactly is controlled by the feds. Today, they hold approximately 640 million acres of land or 28 percent of the 2.27 billion acres of land in the United States. Around 92 percent of all the federally owned acres are in the West.
According to shocking statistics published by Ballotpedia, the federal government collectively owns 47 percent of all land in 12 western states. Interestingly, states East of the Mississippi River seem to be less controlled by the feds, with only 4 percent of all land owned by the government. Given the very poor management of the government, many states are calling for a reduction in federal land ownership and more control for the states.
Did you know 84.9 percent of Nevada, 64.9 percent of Utah, 61.6 percent of Idaho, and 52.9 percent of Oregon are federally-owned? Though Nevada has the greatest percentage of land owned by the feds within a state, Alaska has the most land total owned by the federal government. A whopping 223.8 million acres (or 61.2 percent) in Alaska are owned by the feds.
Other states where the feds own a vast amount of land include Washington (28.5 percent), Montana (29.0 percent), New Mexico (34.7 percent), Colorado (35.9 percent), Arizona (38.6 percent), California (45.8 percent), and Wyoming (48.1 percent).
These numbers stand in sharp contrast to states as Connecticut and Iowa, where the federal government only possesses 0.3 percent of all land. This huge difference makes you wonder why so many acres are owned by the feds in the western states.
Federal landowners are bad neighbors
The Heritage Foundation noted that uses of federal lands include national parks, national forests, recreation areas, wildlife refuges, vast tracts of range and wasteland managed by the Bureau of Land Management, reservations held in trust for Native American tribes, military bases, and ordinary federal buildings and installations.
Though nobody will dispute the fact that the government needs a certain amount of land for national purposes, do they really need that much? If the federal government would do a good job there wouldn’t be much of an issue. Unfortunately, the majority of federal land managers have an extremely bad reputation.
According to Sue Lani Madsen, frustrated local federal land managers are hindered by layers of internal regulations and restricted funding that make a timely response to weed outbreaks difficult. Since federal land is exempt from state noxious weed control laws, having a federally owned plot of land next door is bad news.
Also, due to mismanagement, wildfires tend to spread very rapidly in areas controlled by the federal government. As reported by The Economic Collapse Blog, over 2.6 million acres of land has gone up in flames in 2017 alone.
Since the feds don’t care about local issues or concerns, it can be very frustrating for people living in areas where the federal government is in control of vast stretches of the state. Wouldn’t it be better if the land and its natural resources were owned and managed by the people who live in the state?
Though Sue Lani Madsen quoted a study which found that it is more profitable for states to manage their own public lands, those that are against transferring ownership of federal land to the states often argue that it would be too expensive for the states to handle the extra costs.
Writing for the Economic Collapse Blog Michael Snyder noted: “At the end of the day, this is just another area where we need to readjust the balance of power between the states and the federal government. Our founders intended to create a system where the states had much more power than the central government, but instead that has become totally flipped around.”
Sources include:
[http://www.naturalnews.com/2017-07-08-this-shocking-map-illustrates-how-much-land-the-federal-government-really-owns.html]
How to Provide 
Yes. Thessalonians : For you know quite well that the day of the Lord’s return will come unexpectedly, like a thief in the night.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Reblogged this on The way I see things ….
LikeLiked by 1 person
Forgot the moral of the story. In fact, you never really own your own land. If not by Eminent Domain, then by the factor of property taxes. Even if your mortgage is paid off, if you default on your taxes, they can take your house and land
LikeLiked by 2 people
Tis a sad, sad reality… Sales tax, tariffs and possibly a fair tax….
LikeLike
The Federal Government took my grandfather’s farm in Texas by eminent domain to create space for the Blue Bonnet Ordinance factory in WWII. The City of White Plains, NY took my grandmother’s beautiful Victorian style house by eminent domain to create a parking lot. These two entities can kiss my butt
LikeLiked by 2 people
More often this happened/happens out West… But, it does happen out East. I personally believe that it is unconstitutional…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Unfortunately it isn’t. Unless they didn’t provide compensation for taking the land.
http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment5/annotation14.html
LikeLiked by 1 person
Just because it was placed into the constitution/interpreted from the constitution doesn’t mean it didn’t wander from original intent. Spirit of the law vs. letter of the law. What is more important? Because, we should all know, that if you decide that letter of the law is more important, there are a 1,000 politicians and corporate interests that desire and will do everything in their power to execute those desires, to manipulate the letter of the law. Without the people constantly watching and willing to exert their power over the government… well, chaos… hmmm….
LikeLiked by 1 person
Eminent domain was an assumption of the founding fathers. the part that was written into the constitution was the need for repayment of the value of the lost property to the owner. I agree that government will take it’s liberties wherever we allow it. If we don’t like the laws we need to work harder to change them. The main problem is complacency. Too many people just can’t be bothered. As long as it doesn’t effect them personally, they will ignore it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Completely agree… Spirit of the law here indicates that if the governing bodies harm the individual, the governing bodies must compensate the individual. What has been skewed is that the (okay, well most of the) founding fathers didn’t want the governing bodies to interfere or injure the individual. There lies the problem. What was to be a compensation became a “right of the governing body…..” again, chaos….
LikeLike
You are brilliant, by the way 😉
LikeLike