Eastern States Own Most of Their Land?

authentichunter

New member
Joined
Dec 9, 2015
Messages
62
Location
Orem, Utah
Last Friday I wrote my state representative, Rep. Michael Kennedy (Utah Legislative District 27), to express my disappointment that he voted to support HB0276. This bill, sponsored by Rep. Mike Noel, outlines how Utah will manage public lands if federal public land in Utah is transferred to the state. Tonight I received a response from Rep. Kennedy. Unfortunately, the response is more disappointing than the vote. See below.

Thanks for your thoughts Craig. I believe we are more able to take care of our homeland than Washington DC. I understand others may feel differently. Many Eastern states own most of their land and seem to manage them just fine. I suspect we are just as capable.Please continue to be in touch. Mike Kennedy

How would you respond? I want to ask him for a list of eastern states that own "most of their land," but I already know that would be a very short list, i.e. none. I have a draft response ready, but I wanted some additional ideas before I send it off.
 

genesis273

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 30, 2009
Messages
1,611
Location
North Carolina
I live in an eastern state. I would love to hear of what state(s) he's referring to. I can tell you that it's not NC!
 

tarheel

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 7, 2010
Messages
2,090
Location
Piedmont region of North Carolina
Last Friday I wrote my state representative, Rep. Michael Kennedy (Utah Legislative District 27), to express my disappointment that he voted to support HB0276. This bill, sponsored by Rep. Mike Noel, outlines how Utah will manage public lands if federal public land in Utah is transferred to the state. Tonight I received a response from Rep. Kennedy. Unfortunately, the response is more disappointing than the vote. See below.



How would you respond? I want to ask him for a list of eastern states that own "most of their land," but I already know that would be a very short list, i.e. none. I have a draft response ready, but I wanted some additional ideas before I send it off.

For sake of comparison, North Carolina has 1,254,000 acres of National Forest, 224,000 acres of state parks, but only 58,000 acres of state forest, so I doubt we'd make his list.
 
Last edited:

dcopas78

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 4, 2013
Messages
1,759
Location
Decatur, OH
http://www.backcountrychronicles.com/public-hunting-land/

Here is a link to some information useful to this thread. I'm not entirely sure how accurate this is but it seems this guy has done his research. I like that the guy that put this together also included the landmass of the entire state in the graphic. It really gives you an idea of how far off Rep. Kennedy really is if you do a little bit of calculation.
 
Last edited:

Sapper.dawg

New member
Joined
Aug 4, 2014
Messages
119
Location
Huntsville, AL
I was just researching this yesterday. Alabama has about 1.2M acres of public land - 900Kish are federally owned, 300Kish are State owned: http://www.outdooralabama.com/sites/default/files/outdoor-alabama/HowMuchFW.pdf

Most suprising to me, was that I didn't think hunter recruitment and retention was a big issue here. Turns out less than 4% of State's population buys a hunting license each year, and it is declining.

http://www.outdooralabama.com/advisory-board-considers-hunting-season-changes

Our DCNR does a pretty good job of managing thier lands, but no way could they do much more with thier current budget and declining license sales.
 

quarterhorse

Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2011
Messages
129
Eastern states do not own their land - it is mostly privately owned. The state lands tend to to be over used because that is the only place you can go without paying for the the privilege. That is exactly what the federal land transfer is all about. A land grab from the citizens of the United States so it can eventually be sold off to the highest bidder. Then everyone can lease land to hunt on which is quite common in the east.
 

quarterhorse

Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2011
Messages
129
The population densities are much higher in the eastern states which is the tax base to pay for the management the smaller state land holdings. The exact opposite would be the case in the west if the fed land became state land.
 

VAspeedgoat

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 4, 2014
Messages
2,741
Location
Timberville, VA
The population densities are much higher in the eastern states which is the tax base to pay for the management the smaller state land holdings. The exact opposite would be the case in the west if the fed land became state land.

Exactly! There is no way in the world the western states could fund and maintain that land. That's why the battle may be very heated in the west but it will be won or lost by perception in the east.
 

Gr8bawana

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 14, 2013
Messages
4,332
Location
Nevada
Eastern states do not own their land - it is mostly privately owned. The state lands tend to to be over used because that is the only place you can go without paying for the the privilege. That is exactly what the federal land transfer is all about. A land grab from the citizens of the United States so it can eventually be sold off to the highest bidder. Then everyone can lease land to hunt on which is quite common in the east.

Exactly right!!
 

authentichunter

New member
Joined
Dec 9, 2015
Messages
62
Location
Orem, Utah
I have thought about attaching this document, but I am still trying to determine its accuracy.
 

Attachments

  • publiclandownership.pdf
    83.1 KB · Views: 81

teej89

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 7, 2015
Messages
1,681
Location
West of the Rockies
Eastern states do not own their land - it is mostly privately owned. The state lands tend to to be over used because that is the only place you can go without paying for the the privilege. That is exactly what the federal land transfer is all about. A land grab from the citizens of the United States so it can eventually be sold off to the highest bidder. Then everyone can lease land to hunt on which is quite common in the east.


The exact reason I'm moving out west, it's all a money game here in OH and who you know. I lost 300acres I had access to for years from a guy I knew thru a mutual friend. This year, well, some nonresident offered him $30/acre. Got my butt kicked to the curb once that offer became present.
 

MTborn64

Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2015
Messages
35
He needs to know that it doesn't matter what he thinks. He is there to represent what you and "the others" think and want.
 

Topgun 30-06

Active member
Joined
Jun 8, 2009
Messages
3,773
Location
Allegan, MI
Any Legislator that would make that kind of a completely inaccurate statement, along with telling you that he disagrees with his constituents, won't be phased by sending another letter with the chart, unless it also includes a strong, but politely worded thought that his decision will decide whether he gets re-elected!
 

Chucknduck

Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2015
Messages
357
Location
Montana
Federal lands are owned by every citizen of this country. The only reason a state would want to take on the finacial burden is to sell them off. I'm sure the oil and gas industry will manage them for multi use of the people
 

teamhoyt

Active member
Joined
Dec 4, 2013
Messages
837
Location
glendive, MT
I don't know if it would be likely that the oil and gas industry would want to buy the land anyway. I Can't imagine that the federal government would sell the mineral rights with the property so the incentive for any company wishing to extract minerals of any nature would only be because of regulatory reasons. All I kno for sure though is this bs of trying to sell our land needs to stop.
 

johnp

Active member
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
235
Location
sourthern wis.
This is part of an article from last fall, but it shows one of Wisconsin's management methods.

Two weeks from now, hundreds of thousands of deer hunters will be sitting, stalking and still-hunting public lands across Wisconsin while politicians in Madison and Washington, D.C., continue their efforts to sell those properties to the private sector.

Of immediate concern are 118 state-owned parcels covering about 8,300 acres that the Department of Natural Resources is reviewing for sale by June 2017. This sale wasn’t the DNR’s idea. The Legislatures ordered the agency to make a shopping list totaling 10,000 acres, having decided the state can’t properly manage its 1.5 million acres of land. Never mind that budget cuts imposed by the same lawmakers basically cause such neglect.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
94,600
Messages
1,411,301
Members
29,673
Latest member
GillyCrush
Top