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.
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
And what about the Tribes that were forcibly removed from all these lands that you're allowed to enjoy "unhindered"??? Their right to reclaim their homelands supercede your right to recreation.
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.
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.
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...😢
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 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. 🤗🤗🤗
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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 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.
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?
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.
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. 🤣
@@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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
@@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.
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 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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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!
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.
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!
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?
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.
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.
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
Much of the land that the BLM, and USFS "manages" in NM and AZ were privately owned and were taken by the federal government often by immanent domain. As to the forest service fighting fires you might be interested to note that many of the largest fires they have fought in the last 20 years were set by the forest service. Almost every western state has in the past decade made one sort of attempt of another to reclaim lands from the federal government several of the efforts are still on going but the federal government does not want to give up control of the lands.
@Steven Strain I am not talking about the border at all. Places like the national forests were almost all private property that was then taken to create the forest. The maps submitted to congress before the votes were altered to remove all the roads and other man made features to make them seem pristine. This happened just a few years ago when the Organ Mountain area was created the maps shown removed everything including building on the national registry and even the offices of the BLM and Park Service. Over a hundred families were forced off there ranches most dating back to the mid 1800's to create the park on 2014. Every time a new monument is declared people loose there land. Spanish Land grants that were given in the early colonial period were taken by the US government and it was not till the last 30 years or so that the lands were returned. A large amount of the western land was clamed and homesteaded. The government just took it back.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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?
@@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?
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.
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?
We must as Americans stand up for our right the governments is not a person and therefore can’t own land it’s is not a entity has a body soul or mind so how can it own a thing ask your self that question then u can get out the 🕳️
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
Yes, if youre willing to homestead in Alaska. You have to be a U.S. citizen and jump through some other hoops to show you will do something beyond just trying to horde land. Overall because of it's location, it's not a life you want.
The federal government can own land in D.C. and it can own Territory. When land ceases to be a Territory and becomes a State the Federal government can only own land for reasons laid out in the U.S. Constitution. "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;"
Oh shut up and stop with these mental gymnastics. One way or another the federal government acquired the land, either directly purchasing it or spoils of war. At that time there were no states to lay claim. They owned the land before states were formed and citizens were living there. Even humoring you, the federal government supersedes what you are trying to say from simply for being first in the area. Also, as the video pointed out, the federal government tried giving it out for over 100 years, thru homesteading, and no one wanted larges portions of land, either people or the state themselves. Then the decided to stop trying to give it out and began managing it themselves.
@@CaseNumber00 You are wrong, my knowledge of the US Constitution far exceeds that of the majority of US citizens. Few people know that the 19th amendment DID NOT grant women the right to vote. Anyone who is literate should see this yet they don't.
@@opossumlvr1023 Once you say something like "I know more than everyone else", I lose all respect and credibility for you. I would adjust my assessment of you if you had a political science degree work, law degree, or profession where knowing the Constitution is vital. For me, I worked under US Representative Ed Royce before he decided to not run again and move. Oh yeah, and dont ever vote for him in any political capacity.
@@CaseNumber00 I lose respect for people that deliberately misquote another persons words. The text you put in quotes isn't even close to what I wrote in my comment. I've heard college professors say absurdities such as "Black people are not considered persons in the constitution" and I've heard many people say "the constitution considers blacks to be 3/5ths of a person". Both of these statements are false, counting 3/5ths of a population clearly does not mean that an individual in that population is 3/5ths of a person. The U.S. Constitution makes no distinction between black and white only between free and other persons. Even well educated people such as former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice routinely stated in her speeches, “In the original U.S. Constitution, I was only three-fifths of a person.”
@@opossumlvr1023 that was done to reduce the power of the slave-advocating states...as all residents are counted for representation that would mean their total population counted would tally less with the 3/5 rule resulting in fewer representatives in the US House
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.
Any agency would claim to own anything if it showed up in the records; that's not enough. We're moving to an age where the government will claim to improve something in the name of something and that's a flat out lie. If an individual can improve situation; the federales need to stay far away. What ever you own, you need to maintain and improve; that's how it works
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.
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.
@Bret 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
And what about the Tribes that were forcibly removed from all these lands that you're allowed to enjoy "unhindered"??? Their right to reclaim their homelands supercede your right to recreation.
YES… We’ve all conquered…
@@samuelblack1687 The current generation can enjoy the land just like any other citizen if they want.
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.
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 explains why forest fires are getting so out of control. The Federal and State government cannot manage the land properly.
No, climate change....
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
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 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
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
It’s outrageous. Feds need to open up a lot of that land for homesteading.
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
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.
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
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
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.
The grazing fee is about $2.50 per AUM (animal unit mouth)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Love me some good Geoff content 👌
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.
Alaska: Am I joke to you?
Great graphics and information!
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.
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.
Explaining the main conflict represented in the Yellowstone series
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.
SHOOT, Nevada is DEFINITELY hit the hardest when it comes to federally-owned land.
Great vid Geoff!
Thanks!
No thank you! 😁
🎶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!
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
America: let’s use other people’s oil although we have oil lands in America
False. This land is owned by you and I, not the government. They only manage it.
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.
I'm homeless. I never knew this land was available for settling.
Houseless but not homeless 😊.
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)
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
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!
01:12 thats Monterrey, Mexico
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?
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!
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?
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.
Good video! It gave me the background, history, and facts on the ground to revise my opinion on the subject. Subscribed! 👏
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.
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.
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
Wonderful channel! I'm brazilian and I like this kind of video a lot. Thanks for sharing.
Much of the land that the BLM, and USFS "manages" in NM and AZ were privately owned and were taken by the federal government often by immanent domain. As to the forest service fighting fires you might be interested to note that many of the largest fires they have fought in the last 20 years were set by the forest service. Almost every western state has in the past decade made one sort of attempt of another to reclaim lands from the federal government several of the efforts are still on going but the federal government does not want to give up control of the lands.
@Steven Strain I am not talking about the border at all. Places like the national forests were almost all private property that was then taken to create the forest. The maps submitted to congress before the votes were altered to remove all the roads and other man made features to make them seem pristine. This happened just a few years ago when the Organ Mountain area was created the maps shown removed everything including building on the national registry and even the offices of the BLM and Park Service. Over a hundred families were forced off there ranches most dating back to the mid 1800's to create the park on 2014.
Every time a new monument is declared people loose there land. Spanish Land grants that were given in the early colonial period were taken by the US government and it was not till the last 30 years or so that the lands were returned. A large amount of the western land was clamed and homesteaded. The government just took it back.
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
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.
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.
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.
Yes but how much of that “Federal Land” is DoD/Military areas?
You look like discount Jimmy Steve from Shameless and I love it.
I thought the government wasn’t allowed to own land???
Exactly
"this law allowed for very specific citizens of the US to claim land"
🤔🤔🤔🤔😏😏😏😏
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.
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.
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.
@@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.
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?
@@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?
The govt owns all land. We just have to pay an annual fee to have the privilege of using the land we inhabit.
Federal Government should release some of that land. Ridiculous that one has to pay $3000 a month for a 2 bedroom apartment these days.
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.
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?
Because they used all that area for nuclear fallout then forcibly moved indian tribes in the direct path of the fallout
Good and interesting points
We must as Americans stand up for our right the governments is not a person and therefore can’t own land it’s is not a entity has a body soul or mind so how can it own a thing ask your self that question then u can get out the 🕳️
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
High altitude, poor access, remote, freezing temperatures.
is it still possible to get or buy land from the gov?
Unfortunately the answer is no.
Yes, if youre willing to homestead in Alaska. You have to be a U.S. citizen and jump through some other hoops to show you will do something beyond just trying to horde land. Overall because of it's location, it's not a life you want.
The federal government can own land in D.C. and it can own Territory. When land ceases to be a Territory and becomes a State the Federal government can only own land for reasons laid out in the U.S. Constitution. "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;"
Oh shut up and stop with these mental gymnastics. One way or another the federal government acquired the land, either directly purchasing it or spoils of war. At that time there were no states to lay claim. They owned the land before states were formed and citizens were living there. Even humoring you, the federal government supersedes what you are trying to say from simply for being first in the area. Also, as the video pointed out, the federal government tried giving it out for over 100 years, thru homesteading, and no one wanted larges portions of land, either people or the state themselves. Then the decided to stop trying to give it out and began managing it themselves.
@@CaseNumber00 You are wrong, my knowledge of the US Constitution far exceeds that of the majority of US citizens. Few people know that the 19th amendment DID NOT grant women the right to vote. Anyone who is literate should see this yet they don't.
@@opossumlvr1023 Once you say something like "I know more than everyone else", I lose all respect and credibility for you. I would adjust my assessment of you if you had a political science degree work, law degree, or profession where knowing the Constitution is vital. For me, I worked under US Representative Ed Royce before he decided to not run again and move. Oh yeah, and dont ever vote for him in any political capacity.
@@CaseNumber00 I lose respect for people that deliberately misquote another persons words. The text you put in quotes isn't even close to what I wrote in my comment. I've heard college professors say absurdities such as "Black people are not considered persons in the constitution" and I've heard many people say "the constitution considers blacks to be 3/5ths of a person". Both of these statements are false, counting 3/5ths of a population clearly does not mean that an individual in that population is 3/5ths of a person. The U.S. Constitution makes no distinction between black and white only between free and other persons. Even well educated people such as former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice routinely stated in her speeches, “In the original U.S. Constitution, I was only three-fifths of a person.”
@@opossumlvr1023 that was done to reduce the power of the slave-advocating states...as all residents are counted for representation that would mean their total population counted would tally less with the 3/5 rule resulting in fewer representatives in the US House
I am curious, is Federal ownership of land the same as Crown Land in Canada?
🤩 keep charging these up
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.
Any agency would claim to own anything if it showed up in the records; that's not enough. We're moving to an age where the government will claim to improve something in the name of something and that's a flat out lie. If an individual can improve situation; the federales need to stay far away. What ever you own, you need to maintain and improve; that's how it works
6:33 and I out bye
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.