Free State Project Forum

Archive => Which State? => Topic started by: LeRuineur6 on August 28, 2003, 01:35:40 pm

Title: Federal Land Ownership Maps!
Post by: LeRuineur6 on August 28, 2003, 01:35:40 pm
These maps sure put the whole federal land ownership debate into perspective, don't they?

Alaska's (AK) Map of Federal Land Ownership (http://www.custom-tech.biz/files/fedland/Alaska.jpg)

Western (WY, ID, MT, ND, SD) Map of Federal Land Ownership (http://www.custom-tech.biz/files/fedland/West.jpg)

Eastern (NH, VT, ME, DE) Map of Federal Land Ownership (http://www.custom-tech.biz/files/fedland/East.jpg)

Map Key (http://www.custom-tech.biz/files/fedland/MapKey.jpg)
Title: Re:Federal Land Ownership Maps!
Post by: Summerlin on August 28, 2003, 02:19:07 pm
In relation to the map key, do you know what 'other' means specifically?

Maine really owns all that land?   :)
Title: Re:Federal Land Ownership Maps!
Post by: LeRuineur6 on August 28, 2003, 03:15:55 pm
In relation to the map key, do you know what 'other' means specifically?

I have no idea.  Check it out here:
http://nationalatlas.gov/natlas/NatlasStart.asp
Click on Boundaries, check Federal Lands and Indian Reservations, and Redraw Map.  Then you can zoom in on any state and see the specifics.  It says the data is from the USGS so you could probably learn more about it from there if you wanted to:
http://nationalmap.usgs.gov/nmjump.html

Maine really owns all that land?   :)

Yes, Maine owns almost all of it.  :)
Title: Re:Federal Land Ownership Maps!
Post by: Mike Lorrey on September 13, 2003, 05:14:14 pm
It's pretty telling, looking at the maps of western land ownership. Wyoming proponents have been pretending that the feds only own Yellowstone Park. Fact is they own over 2/3 of the state, with most significant private tracts being in the arid easern third of the state. It's pretty evident that Wyoming really is worthless as a Free State if we can't get all that land away from the feds.
Title: Re:Federal Land Ownership Maps!
Post by: Zack Bass on September 13, 2003, 06:15:35 pm


Wyoming proponents have been pretending that the feds only own Yellowstone Park. Fact is they own over 2/3 of the state, with most significant private tracts being in the arid easern third of the state. It's pretty evident that Wyoming really is worthless as a Free State if we can't get all that land away from the feds.


Not at all.  You have to stop looking at the 2/3 of the glass that is empty.  Look at the part that the Feds don't own.  That's all that matters.  Ignore the part they own.  Let them have it.  Don't think of it as yours or ours.  It's theirs, so what, the 1/3 is still a lot bigger than New Hampshire.
If the 2/3 that the feds own did not exist at all, would that make you dislike Wyoming?  Just pretend it doesn't exist.  How does its existence change anything?  It only makes for unrealistic expectations.

Is your Camry less functional if your neighbor owns a Lexus?

Title: Re:Federal Land Ownership Maps!
Post by: Mike Lorrey on September 14, 2003, 07:54:24 pm
My neighbor has a Schwinn bike he owns, the Lexus is a fleet vehicle owned by the feds that they let him drive on business, has lots of horsepower but gets shitty milage, and costs a lot more than competetive vehicles. I have a KITT 2000 camaro tricked out with wireless network, super-woofed-up stereo, mobile office, and lots of other high tech goodies. It runs on a nuclear power plant, and generates five times more economic power than my neighbors Lexus.

Zack, most of Wyoming in private hands is desert, or near desert, or currently burning, or burned out last year. The rest is agricultural land in the desert that requires irrigation with state owned water to maintain. While there certainly must be exceptions to this, I cannot see for any reason why Wyoming would be such a good choice when not a single Green in the US would ever let the Congress get away with letting Wyoming de-nationalize Yellowstone Park.
Title: Re:Federal Land Ownership Maps!
Post by: Zack Bass on September 16, 2003, 12:56:34 pm


  ... most of Wyoming in private hands is desert, or near desert, or currently burning, or burned out last year. The rest is agricultural land in the desert that requires irrigation with state owned water to maintain. While there certainly must be exceptions to this, I cannot see for any reason why Wyoming would be such a good choice when not a single Green in the US would ever let the Congress get away with letting Wyoming de-nationalize Yellowstone Park.


Forget about land that isn't ours!  All we need is a base of operations in the U.S. that we control with the Rights of a State.  It'll be like Singapore, with US-Most-Favored-Nation Trading Status!

How great do you think the agricultural land in Singapore is?

Did you see the South Korean idiot who killed himself yesterday at the WTO meeting because Korea wasn't propping up local farmers enough?  They've already got 100% to 200% import duties on agricultural products, yet the way they like to do their traditional farming isn't competitive with modern farming methods, even counting shipping it there and paying the import duties.  South Koreans pay FOUR TIMES as much for their rice as we do, and they STILL can't grow it any cheaper, they're importing it!!!!!

What does that have to do with this subject?  Like most industrialized nations, South Korea does not depend on its farmland to prosper.  Their industrial base is tremendous, and that does not depend in any way on whether their land is desert or not.  We will do the same.  Screw farming, we now have Technology.  All that matters is the People and the Location - which means, anywhere in the U.S. can be a powerhouse if we can keep the Looters out of our way.

Title: Re:Federal Land Ownership Maps!
Post by: Mike Lorrey on September 16, 2003, 02:48:33 pm
Every acre, every quare mile that the feds own is an excuse for federal interference in 10th Amendment rights of the Free State. The more those acres are beloved and worshipped by the Greens, the less probable that the federal government will allow the Free State to rule itself and move our agenda forward.

Anyone who is capable of rational thought KNOWS that this is truth.
Title: Re:Federal Land Ownership Maps!
Post by: Zack Bass on September 16, 2003, 03:26:15 pm


Every acre, every quare mile that the feds own is an excuse for federal interference in 10th Amendment rights of the Free State. The more those acres are beloved and worshipped by the Greens, the less probable that the federal government will allow the Free State to rule itself and move our agenda forward.


Simple.  Redraw our borders to exclude the Federal land.  Let them make it a Territory, or a Possession, or a Federal District like Washington.  Problem solved.

Title: Re:Federal Land Ownership Maps!
Post by: mactruk on September 16, 2003, 09:42:43 pm
  After the feds burn it down then as a free state throw them out - it is not legal for the feds to own land except for very specific reasons anyway.  The fed judges then need to be put in jail as an example of what will happen in a free state if you rule against the constitution.
Title: Re:Federal Land Ownership Maps!
Post by: freedomroad on September 16, 2003, 11:52:04 pm
It's pretty telling, looking at the maps of western land ownership. Wyoming proponents have been pretending that the feds only own Yellowstone Park. Fact is they own over 2/3 of the state, with most significant private tracts being in the arid easern third of the state.

Mike,

I am sorry to say this, but that is not a fact.  I do not know where you got that number but you should check your sources.  maybe you should find a better source.  

I found this old FSP report,
http://www.freestateproject.org/homeownership.htm

It says, "49.7" of Wyoming is federal land.  On different internet pages I've seen numbers from 49.5% to 50.6%.  Either way, it is not 66.6%.

Did you mean AK?  67.7% of AK is owned by the feds.

Also, I've been to Wyoming (spent a week driving all over the Eastern 1/2 of the state) and there is lots and lots of great land that is owned by private people.  Certainly, there is more of this great land in WY than all of the land in NH combined.
Title: Re:Federal Land Ownership Maps!
Post by: johnadams on September 17, 2003, 08:04:56 am
The maps are probably OK. I think Mike was likely overestimating. Like you say, Jamie, 49.7% of Wyoming land is owned by the feds. The map also includes Indian lands (which are administered, managed and held in trust by the US Bureau of Indian Affairs), which brings the total shaded area that you see on the maps up to 52.8%. Interestingly, if you add in the land owned by the state of WY, the total socialized land rises to 59%, which is not that far from Mike's 2/3 guess.

State by State Government Land Ownership
http://www.nwi.org/Maps/LandChart.html
Title: Re:Federal Land Ownership Maps!
Post by: Mike Lorrey on September 17, 2003, 11:39:33 am
I should note that the stats that you cite are dated to 1995, and are based on data dating back to 1991-1993, which is PRIOR to a large amount of land confiscation by the Clinton administration. Please find updated fed land ownership stats. This reference also does not count federally owned waterways (lakes, rivers, wetlands).

According to Wyoming's state government almanac, total public land ownership in Wyoming is 56,000 square miles out of a total of 97,914 square miles. This is 57.2%

http://eadiv.state.wy.us/almanac/gov&resour.pdf

The fact is that the average private ownership across the US is 60%. The feds own 29% of the US, one third of which is in Alaska. That the government owns nearly 60%, (and nearly 50% federally owned) of Wyoming, is a significant difference from the national average. Compared to states like Maine and NH, which are on the far opposite side of these statistics, Wyoming is essentially a state held hostage to federal control, especially since the feds own all the best land in WY.
Title: Re:Federal Land Ownership Maps!
Post by: johnadams on September 17, 2003, 11:21:27 pm
....According to Wyoming's state government almanac, total public land ownership in Wyoming is 56,000 square miles out of a total of 97,914 square miles. This is 57.2%

http://eadiv.state.wy.us/almanac/gov&resour.pdf
....
WY Gov't Land Ownership                      WY EQUALITY STATE ALMANAC 2000
www.nwi.org/Maps/LandChart.html       Government and Resources
Figures from 1990 - 1995                      eadiv.state.wy.us/almanac/gov&resour.pdf
                                 (000's)                     (000's)
Bureau of Land Mgt   18,398.4                  18,393.1
Forest Service            9,703.6                    9,259.2
National Park Serv     2,393.2                     2,391.5
Other                          406.8                           56.3
Total Federal           30,902.0                     30,100.1
Tribal Lands             1,909.4                              ?
State                       3,864.8                               ?
Total Gov't Land       36,676.2                               ?
Total Acreage           62,147.2                   62,604.2

The almanac at the link you provided, Mike, actually appears to show LESS government land in 2000, rather than more. Strangely, it also shows more total acreage for the state.
Title: Re:Federal Land Ownership Maps!
Post by: freedomroad on September 17, 2003, 11:45:46 pm
...especially since the feds own all the best land in WY.


Please stop saying this.  I've been to Wyoming (spent over a week there and drove 900 miles).  Not only do the feds not own all of the best land, they (from what I saw) do not even own almost all, or close to all, or even near all.  Most of the good land  that I saw in the 900 miles was privately owned.  

Title: Re:Federal Land Ownership Maps!
Post by: Karl on September 18, 2003, 08:35:30 am
...especially since the feds own all the best land in WY.


Please stop saying this.  I've been to Wyoming (spent over a week there and drove 900 miles).  Not only do the feds not own all of the best land, they (from what I saw) do not even own almost all, or close to all, or even near all.  Most of the good land  that I saw in the 900 miles was privately owned.  


They may not own "all" of the quality land, but certainly they own "the vast majority" of it, leaving considerablly less to private owners than is available to private owners in NH.  The 900 miles of privately owned land I'm sure was sagebrush.  Many of the pictures you took on your trip were of Federal land.

The typical non-Federal Wyoming landscape:
(http://members.aol.com/landwy/njb.jpg)
Title: Re:Federal Land Ownership Maps!
Post by: LeRuineur6 on September 18, 2003, 10:33:20 am
LOL!!!   :D :D :D

It's funny that the Free State Project logo at the top of the screen sure doesn't look like that.

The FSP logo looks like NH, VT, ME, or MT.

You can call it foreshadowing if you want, but it's a very funny coincidence that NH is a frontrunner as well, isn't it?   :)
Title: Re:Federal Land Ownership Maps!
Post by: Michelle on September 18, 2003, 10:52:18 am
An FSP member from Colorado called me at home the other day.

I debated about whether to post this or not (because I know some will find it offensive), but he kept saying to me "you have to let them know...you really need to let them know" (he doesn't have Internet/email access)...

Anyhow, the point he wanted to make is that he finds Wyoming to be a "dry, brown, windy, dusty, desolate place." He said it is the "type of place you visit for one day and never want to go back to."  :P

He did say that the parts owned by the feds are quite pretty, but that Wyoming has absolutely "nothing to offer the average person."

I know there are some here that disagree. I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder. But honestly, dry, brown, dusty, windy, and desolate sounds decidedly unappealing to me!
Title: Re:Federal Land Ownership Maps!
Post by: LeRuineur6 on September 18, 2003, 10:55:45 am
Maybe if WY wins we could put that hideous picture on the website to help people see what they will be getting themselves into.

You mean like this?

(http://www.custom-tech.biz/files/fdwp.gif)

LOL!   ;D
Title: Re:Federal Land Ownership Maps!
Post by: Karl on September 18, 2003, 10:57:25 am
ROFLMAO!   ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re:Federal Land Ownership Maps!
Post by: johnadams on September 18, 2003, 11:09:00 am
An FSP member from Colorado called me at home the other day.

I debated about whether to post this or not (because I know some will find it offensive), but he kept saying to me "you have to let them know...you really need to let them know" (he doesn't have Internet/email access)...

Anyhow, the point he wanted to make is that he finds Wyoming to be a "dry, brown, windy, dusty, desolate place." He said it is the "type of place you visit for one day and never want to go back to."  :P

He did say that the parts owned by the feds are quite pretty, but that Wyoming has absolutely "nothing to offer the average person."
That sounds almost exactly as my father described it from his travels through Wyoming and his conclusion was eerily similar. It sounds like you were actually talking to my father.

However, what is poison for one is gravy for another. My brother does say that WY has some excellent skiing and some people don't mind arid, sandy places. Perhaps some people like sagebrush. As long as people know that WY is not lush and green in most places and they don't mind that, I'm not going to criticize their choice. To each his own.
Title: Re:Federal Land Ownership Maps!
Post by: Michelle on September 18, 2003, 11:24:03 am
My husband also works with several guys who went to WyoTech in Laramie. All these months of researching states and he just got around to telling me about this a couple weeks ago  :-\

Apparently every one of them really disliked it...they complained about there being nothing to do outside of school, having to drive hours and hours to get anywhere, and (no big surprise since these are young men) there being hardly any attractive, available women.

But, as JohnAdams said, to each their own.
Title: Re:Federal Land Ownership Maps!
Post by: Solitar on September 18, 2003, 11:49:00 am
Maybe if WY wins we could put that hideous picture on the website to help people see what they will be getting themselves into.

Western advocates could find photos of New Hampshire winter scenes that would freeze people's infatuation with NH.  (I've been in New England and on its coast and lived in the Northeast, I know).
 But instead of New Hampshire bashing,

Consider this... (nearly all of which is private land)
View south into the Belle Fourche valley.

(http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/GeoPhotoVtrips/DevilsTower/DSC01735s.jpg)

or this...  (nearly all of which is private land)
The Belle Fourche River a few kilometers northeast of the tower.

(http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/GeoPhotoVtrips/DevilsTower/DSC01757s.jpg)

Here is a map of land ownership in the above area around the Belle Fourche River valley and Devils Tower.
Beige is private.  Turquoise is "state trust". Yellow is BLM.
http://www.wygisc.uwyo.edu/24k/own/quad56.html

(http://www.wygisc.uwyo.edu/24k/own/own56.gif)
The map legend is at:
http://www.wygisc.uwyo.edu/24k/own/legend.gif

Click on the link below for a map for all of Wyoming.
http://www.wygisc.uwyo.edu/24k/landown.html
Note that nearly all of eastern Wyoming is private land.
And only one tenth of Wyoming is more land than all of NH or VT or DE.
After you click on the above link and get the entire state on your screen,  note that Goshen, Platte, and Laramie counties in the southeastern corner (the three squares in the bottom right along the Nebraska border) are nearly all private land.
(the tiny red spot in the southeasternmost square is the Air Force Base at Cheyenne).

Obviously the above photos and maps shows that the posts by NH's Wyoming bashers are distorted, misleading hyperbole.  They pick the worst part and highlight it. They ignore the best parts which, if you added up "all" of the quality land held by private owners then Wyoming has more quality private land than New Hampshire has. After the National Forest Land and state land in NH is subtracted, NH has 7,360 sq miles. To rebutt Karl's statement above, just one sixth of Wyoming's 42,782 square miles of non-fed and non-state land needs to be "quality land".  Just the eastern counties of Platte, Goshen and Crook have 7169 square miles.

Thus the following underline text from Karl is a lie.
Quote
They may not own "all" of the quality land, but certainly they own "the vast majority" of it, leaving considerablly less to private owners than is available to private owners in NH.
Title: Re:Federal Land Ownership Maps!
Post by: DadELK68 on September 18, 2003, 01:45:10 pm
Joe, I agree that the preceding few posts may not have been in good taste and included selective data and exaggeration, but hardly sink to the level of 'lies'.

Then again, your postings tend to exaggerate in the other direction by selecting the rosiest pictures of WY, avoiding and minimizing the valid concerns of those who question whether the FSP could succeed in WY better than in NH, and emphasizing perceived drawbacks to NH.

Both are at best in poor taste, at worst not completely honest. At least the NH supporters in question are doing it with a sense of humor.

Eric
Title: Re:Federal Land Ownership Maps!
Post by: LeRuineur6 on September 18, 2003, 01:46:54 pm
We never said there was no private land in Eastern Wyoming, just that the majority of Wyoming's land is owned by the government, which is a well-known fact.

That's a nice picture of some private land in a square showing only 1/56th (one fifty-sixth) of Wyoming.   :D

Anyways, calling us liars is uncalled for.

Please try to remain positive.   :)  :)  :)
Title: Re:Federal Land Ownership Maps!
Post by: DadELK68 on September 18, 2003, 02:58:48 pm
It's true that there are places in NH which if photographed mid-winter during a period of severe weather would not look very appealing to those who don't like snow - however, even the best of WY photographed in similar mid-winter wouldn't exactly appeal to those people, either. The point is valid that the best of NH is pretty much in private hands, while what most people would consider the majority of the best of WY is not. If that doesn't matter to you because there is still a decent amount of desirable land available, that's fine.
Title: Re:Federal Land Ownership Maps!
Post by: Hank on September 18, 2003, 04:39:14 pm
What's wrong with that scene of sagebrush and rabbitbrush? It's great for dirtbiking and riding ATV's. It's great for really long range shooting of 600 yards to 1000 yards. You really ought to try really, really long range targets with honest-to-gosh sniper rifles (oops, precision long range rifles (300 magnums are great but 338 Lapua's and 50 BMG's are better))  ;D :o

Eastern and especially southeastern Wyoming gets less snow than New Hampshire.

Quality land?  You could fit all of New Hampshire's "private quality land" in a small corner of Wyoming.  Ignore the sagebrush if you want, our good parts out-acre your good parts.

Young people are leaving from every town and state for colleges and cities where they can party with more people, go to stadium games, concerts, and have "more to do" (which means more done for them).  They don't want to work for their keep anymore. They want to be taken care of. They want city discos instead of small town dances. They want big city football games instead of hunting rabbits with grampa or their brothers, sisters, or cousins.

I'd bet rural New Hampshire is losing young people to Boston and Massachusetts. I'd bet even southern New Hampshire is losing young people to the big cities and warmer climates further south.
Title: Re:Federal Land Ownership Maps!
Post by: Dave Mincin on September 18, 2003, 05:22:38 pm
Nothing is wrong with scenes of sagebrush and rabbitbrush!  Fact is it has its own special beauty.  Joe's pictures of WY are lovely too.

WY has some beautiful areas, were the mountains and water is, and were the people live.  Problem is most of the state is sagebrush and rabbitbrush.  

Don't you think there is a reason why the people who live there are all clustered in little areas.  People live were the good land is, that is a fact anywhere.  We have already been told most folks in WY live in towns.  Why?

The open spaces are great, and will remain that way, because they are just not suitable for people!
Title: Re:Federal Land Ownership Maps!
Post by: DadELK68 on September 18, 2003, 05:54:44 pm
Don't forget that I grew up in ID and love the West, including the broad vistas and sagebrush. My posting above was to counter the notion from Joe that comparing the worst place in NH in the worst possible weather to an area of WY which is pretty representative of a great deal of the state during a good part of the year is no more honest than was Karl's picking a photograph of a desolate part of WY and presenting it as representative of the entire state.

My family recently drove through WY, and I enjoyed the trip. My wife and kids absolutely refused to consider the possibility of moving there as we passed through various areas, except for the extreme Western slice of the state.

However, in spite of my personal fondness for the West, I do recognize that almost all of the growth in most of the West is 'urban sprawl' with the vast majority of immigrants moving into houses on tiny lots (less than an acre) on the more desireable/quality land either within or just outside of the limits of the towns/cities. This is why the Western states statistically have more dense 'urbanization' than the Eastern states. The vast open areas are largely uninhabited because they are either extremely unhospitable or are privately owned by large ranch operations and aren't going to be made available for sale to the average buyer any time soon. Argue away, but these are the facts.

Having a lot more acreage (whether privately owned or government-owned) in WY than in NH is irrelevant if you can't buy it or make a living on it, and I recognize that my family's preferences for living conditions are probably much closer to most people's than are mine - although I did rank it 4th on my list I still believe it's highly unlikely that WY will easily attract or support enough Porcupines to lead to what might be considered success for the FSP.

Those relatively few individuals who personally want what Hank describes may move there anyway, and there are probably at least 5,000 of them out there somewhere who might still do it; but that's not going to lead to anything but a state with a smattering of antisocial individualists wanting only to be left alone - activists insofar as they personally aren't free to whatever they darn well please, but not exactly a model to expand 'freedom'. Before anyone accuses me of personal attacks, read Hank's tagline about 'not belonging in civilization' - if he's going to brag about it, I'm willing to acknowledge it. I'm not criticizing his preferences, just showing that his preferences aren't necessarily in line with the goals of the FSP.

BTW, Hank - many parts of WY may get less snow than most of NH, but the wind chill factor and tendency to drift what snow there is can be much more difficult to manage than simply plowing aside the accumulations we get in NH snowstorms. There is a correlation between the amount of moisture (which does include snow, last I heard) and the fact that the only large plant growing in that picture is sagebrush. Would someone like to post a picture of the permanent fixtures on the freeways outside most 'major' towns along I-80, the gates with signs saying 'Road closed, return to _____ (the town you just left)'?

Eric
Title: Re:Federal Land Ownership Maps!
Post by: johnadams on September 18, 2003, 06:38:14 pm
Joe, I agree that the preceding few posts may not have been in good taste and included selective data and exaggeration, but hardly sink to the level of 'lies'.

Then again, your postings tend to exaggerate in the other direction by selecting the rosiest pictures of WY, avoiding and minimizing the valid concerns of those who question whether the FSP could succeed in WY better than in NH, and emphasizing perceived drawbacks to NH.

Both are at best in poor taste, at worst not completely honest. At least the NH supporters in question are doing it with a sense of humor.

Eric
I think you've hit it about right, DadElk. Some of the WY advocates post the best pictures they have of WY, some of it public lands, to present the most positive picture. Some of the NH advocates then post the worst pictures of private land they come across, to show that the WY advocates are not giving the full picture. The pro-WY folk then accuse the pro-NH folk of lying, because they are showing only a limited picture of WY and making some exaggerated comments about it. But if the limited picture presented by the pro-NH folk is lying, then so is the limited picture presented by the pro-WY folk.

Instead of name-calling I recognize that both sides are propagandizing for their favorite state and against the other. Between the two sides, people should be able to get a pretty accurate picture of both states. Neither WY nor NH is Eden, and neither is Hell. Neither is completely socialist and neither is perfectly libertarian. Different people will be attracted by different things.
Title: Re:Federal Land Ownership Maps!
Post by: johnadams on September 18, 2003, 06:44:57 pm
What's wrong with that scene of sagebrush and rabbitbrush? It's great for dirtbiking and riding ATV's. It's great for really long range shooting of 600 yards to 1000 yards. You really ought to try really, really long range targets with honest-to-gosh sniper rifles (oops, precision long range rifles (300 magnums are great but 338 Lapua's and 50 BMG's are better))  ;D :o
There, see, I told everybody, some people will like the sagebrush and rabbitbrush! :)

Quote
Eastern and especially southeastern Wyoming gets less snow than New Hampshire.
Skiers might see that as a negative and move closer to the parts of WY that get lots of snow. :)

Quote
Young people are leaving from every town and state for colleges and cities where they can party with more people, go to stadium games, concerts, and have "more to do" (which means more done for them).  They don't want to work for their keep anymore. They want to be taken care of. They want city discos instead of small town dances. They want big city football games instead of hunting rabbits with grampa or their brothers, sisters, or cousins.

I'd bet rural New Hampshire is losing young people to Boston and Massachusetts. I'd bet even southern New Hampshire is losing young people to the big cities and warmer climates further south.
Instead of everbody making assumptions about how many young people are leaving WY and NH, why doesn't someone look up the actual data?
Title: Re:Federal Land Ownership Maps!
Post by: johnadams on September 18, 2003, 11:18:56 pm
....Would someone like to post a picture of the permanent fixtures on the freeways outside most 'major' towns along I-80, the gates with signs saying 'Road closed, return to _____ (the town you just left)'?

Eric
Ask and ye shall receive:

Wyoming I-80 Signs

The links to these images are unreliable, so I'll just link to the main page:
http://www.aaroads.com/wyoming/i-080a.html

"I-80 Closed When Flashing, Return to Laramie"
Westbound Interstate 80 at road closed when flashing sign just northwest of Laramie. Photo taken 2/3/02.

"Strong Wind Possible"
"Strong Wind Possible Next Five Miles sign along Eastbound Interstate 80 ahead of Wyoming 72 (Exit 255). Signs like this one are frequently found along Wyoming highways, and they are generally placed every five miles, thus implying that strong wind is possible throughout the entire state! In our experience, the winds are always blowing in the section of Interstate 80 between Walcott Junction and Quealy Dome Road, so these signs and reminders are warranted. Snow fences along both sides of the highway seem to reinforce the fact that the wind can blow. The winds are stronger here because the land is of a lower elevation than the mountains to the south and north of this location, thus creating a wind funnel. Photo taken 2/3/02."

Arlington
"Eastbound Interstate 80 at Exit 272 in Arlington. This is Wyoming 13, but there is no shield on the advance guide signs. Although it may not seem like it in this photo, the section of transcontinental Interstate 80 most likely to be closed is the stretch of Interstate 80 near Arlington. This is primarily due to the steep grade on westbound after Exit 272 as well as strong winds, blowing snow, and black ice. Snow fences and sand have partially mitigated these issues, but nevertheless, Interstate 80 around Arlington may be treacherous in the winter and even in the summer, as severe thunderstorms are not uncommon. Photo taken 2/4/02."

Return to Evanston
"Along all major arterials, the Wyoming Department of Transportation has placed warning signs and crossing gates to allow for the closure of these highways during inclement weather. One of these barriers is located on eastbound Interstate 80 just east of Exit 5. This gate may be activated during storms involving snow, wind, or dust or in the event of black ice. Drivers faced with this barrier are required to turn around via the median U-turn connector and return to Evanston. Photo taken by Dan Stober, 6/98."

---------------------------------------------------------------

If someone likes the Belle Fourche Valley, they may want to consider SD, as most of it is contained within that state, but it does extend into the Northeastern corner of WY. It looks like the largest community in that region of WY is Sundance.

Map: Belle Fourche Area, (mostly) South Dakota (http://www.sddot.com/Operations/cvo/bridge_weight_limit/bellefourchelayers.gif)
(http://www.sddot.com/Operations/cvo/bridge_weight_limit/bellefourchelayers.gif)

Devil's Tower National Monument (federal land), Belle Fourche Valley, WY (http://www.devilstowerkoa.com/images/koahorse.jpg)
(http://www.devilstowerkoa.com/images/koahorse.jpg)

---------------------------------------------------------------

Images of the beautiful Red Desert of South-Central Wyoming:

Map: Greater Red Desert (http://www.wyomingoutdoorcouncil.org/programs/reddesert/wy_red_desert_map.jpg)
(http://www.wyomingoutdoorcouncil.org/programs/reddesert/wy_red_desert_map.jpg)

Fremont (http://www.wwcc.cc.wy.us/wyo_hist/images/a.fremont.ra.3.jpg)
(http://www.wwcc.cc.wy.us/wyo_hist/images/a.fremont.ra.3.jpg)

Red Desert Landmark, The Boars Tusk (http://www.geocities.com/Yosemite/Trails/7478/ind/Nope.jpg)
(http://www.geocities.com/Yosemite/Trails/7478/ind/Nope.jpg)

Antelope: Red Desert, Wyoming (http://www.red-feather-lakes.com/images/hunting/antelope.jpg)
(http://www.red-feather-lakes.com/images/hunting/antelope.jpg)

---------------------------------------------------------------

The more important fact about the large portion of federal lands in WY to a libertarian is not that it means there isn't private land left to develop, but that the federal government socialized much of the land and it will be difficult for the FSP to liberate that land, as it will require control of the US Congress and Presidency to do it. A free state is not really completely free until its land is free. Some have advocated having the mostly private portion of the state secede, but that would leave the people in the rest of the state screwed.

Also, lots of federal land means lots of people and businesses dependent on the federal government for jobs, grazing rights, oil and gas extraction rights, mineral rights, etc. The federal government can also shut down thru roads and access roads in areas they control, start brush fires that can get out of control, introduce predators, etc. All the evils that the federal government is known for they can do with greater latitude in lands they control. If you don't think federal land is a bad thing, think about what it would mean if ALL land was federalized and you'll realize that it is bad.

But this doesn't mean that WY should be excluded from consideration, just that ALL the facts should be considered, not just some.
Title: Re:Federal Land Ownership Maps!
Post by: Muleskinner on September 18, 2003, 11:37:58 pm
God Almighty?
Where do I start?

Karl found a photo of honest-to-God desert in Sweetwater county just west of Rawlins and called it "typical non-Federal Wyoming landscape".  That got me so angry that I had to take a walk and commune with my Lord before coming back here.

You use that high desert country to paint a despicable picture of the rest of Wyoming. (I have to take another walk.)
Sweetwater county is proud of its high desert country.
http://www.wyomingshighdesertcountry.com/
You spit on it instead!

You ignore the dairy country around Torrington which is all private ranchland.  You ignore those lush river bottoms in Crook county that Joe found photos of.  (Joe, there are lot's more out here. You only found a few of our best private lands.)  You ignore the hundreds of square miles of forests and meadows in the Laramie mountains that are privately owned.

Hank is right.  We have more good private farm and forest land than New Hampshire could fit in its borders. Where do I start?

I better stop here.
Title: Re:Federal Land Ownership Maps!
Post by: Mike Lorrey on September 18, 2003, 11:48:48 pm
What's wrong with that scene of sagebrush and rabbitbrush? It's great for dirtbiking and riding ATV's. It's great for really long range shooting of 600 yards to 1000 yards. You really ought to try really, really long range targets with honest-to-gosh sniper rifles (oops, precision long range rifles (300 magnums are great but 338 Lapua's and 50 BMG's are better))  ;D :o

I certainly enjoy long range shooting, but outside of shooting prairie dogs, what good is it? Militarily speaking, the legend of the lone rifleman is a myth disproven by scientific fact.

Quote

Eastern and especially southeastern Wyoming gets less snow than New Hampshire.

Certainly, but how big does it drift, as that part of the state has strong winds in winter? Moreover, looking at hydrological records, the little snow that part of the state gets is the majority of its yearly precipitation.

Quote

Quality land?  You could fit all of New Hampshire's "private quality land" in a small corner of Wyoming.  Ignore the sagebrush if you want, our good parts out-acre your good parts.


Counting quality for quality, the quality acre in NH is worth 100 'quality' acres in WY, just from looking at the production stats that farmers in the two states report. You need hundreds of acres in WY to equal a smaller lot in NH.

Quote

Young people are leaving from every town and state for colleges and cities where they can party with more people, go to stadium games, concerts, and have "more to do" (which means more done for them).  They don't want to work for their keep anymore. They want to be taken care of. They want city discos instead of small town dances. They want big city football games instead of hunting rabbits with grampa or their brothers, sisters, or cousins.

Not much escaping by kids from here, more like TO here. NH has the largest sports draw in all of New England, Loudon Speedway, which seats over 80,000 people on race weekends. We've got minor league baseball, regualr rock concerts in a number of places, night clubs, art galleries and museums, PLUS we have tons of outdoor recreation year round of ALL sorts: water sports, fresh and salt water, hunting and fishing, camping and LOTS of excellent hiking, antiquing, historic sightseeing in spades, lots of world class golf courses, gyms, tons of colleges and universities. Kids love moving here. Plymouth State University was rated the number 8 party school in the country by Playboy, and Dartmouth and UNH are not far behind. We've got amusement parks, beaches, rivers and lakes.

Quote
I'd bet rural New Hampshire is losing young people to Boston and Massachusetts. I'd bet even southern New Hampshire is losing young people to the big cities and warmer climates further south.

While some go to the big cities for a time, many move back to raise families, and more never leave, as there are plenty of opportunities right here. I moved back here permanently after a decade out of state in the military and on business.

Southern NH is actually pretty popular with the younger folks, they tend to move to the southern part of the state from the northern part for job and educational opportunities. It is very easy to live in Nashua or Portsmouth and commute to work in the Boston area. My grandfather commuted for a decade from Hooksett (between Manchester and Concord) to Boston.
Title: Re:Federal Land Ownership Maps!
Post by: freedomroad on September 19, 2003, 12:13:43 am
Joe, I agree that the preceding few posts may not have been in good taste and included selective data and exaggeration, but hardly sink to the level of 'lies'.

Then again, your postings tend to exaggerate in the other direction by selecting the rosiest pictures of WY, avoiding and minimizing the valid concerns of those who question whether the FSP could succeed in WY better than in NH, and emphasizing perceived drawbacks to NH.

Both are at best in poor taste, at worst not completely honest. At least the NH supporters in question are doing it with a sense of humor.

Eric

Eric, I would say that the comments by the above posters are sick and more (but I will not use those words).  I hope those posters delete their posts.  Vermont, upstate NY, and the entire New England region looks nice.  

However, WY/SD/MT also look nice.  The WY/SD/MT region gets a ton more tourist even though less people live near it.  It has far more famous tourism sities (both private and public), and I like it much better.  I have to say, in the 7 days th I traveled WY (thought it only take 5 hours to drive from Cheyenne in the south to Sheridan in the north), I did not see but maybe 1-3 small sections that looked somewhat like the previous picture.  

Personally, I like variety.  I would never live in a sanding, dry, dusty, brown place.  However, I've only seen places like that in AZ and NM and I loved them.  I never saw them in WY (but there is a large area like that somewhere on I-80).
Title: Re:Federal Land Ownership Maps!
Post by: Mike Lorrey on September 19, 2003, 03:32:15 pm
Sorry Keith (just how many identities are you going to invent to create the illusion that your opinions have more support than they do?) but I've driven every mile of every interstate in WY, as well as several state highways. I found no place in the state that appeared anywhere as fertile as the average acre of NH. Everywhere seemed very dry. The few areas that were forested were very dry, the grasslands were parched. The only wet areas were being irrigated by well water that very instant.

You couldn't start campfires, smoke in public, what have you, and this was in late October and mid June, respectively, not August. The photos presented by WY supporters here reflect a very short period of spring when things are green and living off of snowmelt.

NH is green throughout the year. Right now it is September, and the grass is green, the bushes are green, the trees are green, the ground is wet. Some of the trees are just barely starting to change color for the fall, and I am at a relatively high altitude (over 1200 ft) for residential living. The rivers are full, campers can have campfires, and land owners freely forest and manage their lands without fear of forest fires torching their assets.

Every time I was in WY, the place was like a tinderbox. A week after I left last time a big chunk of the state went up in smoke. The BLM restricts logging on its land, which puts at risk the land of everybody else that neighbors them.
Title: Re:Federal Land Ownership Maps!
Post by: johnadams on September 19, 2003, 09:38:34 pm
God Almighty?
Where do I start?

Karl found a photo of honest-to-God desert in Sweetwater county just west of Rawlins and called it "typical non-Federal Wyoming landscape".  That got me so angry that I had to take a walk and commune with my Lord before coming back here.

You use that high desert country to paint a despicable picture of the rest of Wyoming. (I have to take another walk.)
Sweetwater county is proud of its high desert country.
http://www.wyomingshighdesertcountry.com/
You spit on it instead!

You ignore the dairy country around Torrington which is all private ranchland.  You ignore those lush river bottoms in Crook county that Joe found photos of.  (Joe, there are lot's more out here. You only found a few of our best private lands.)  You ignore the hundreds of square miles of forests and meadows in the Laramie mountains that are privately owned.

Hank is right.  We have more good private farm and forest land than New Hampshire could fit in its borders. Where do I start?

I better stop here.
I'm not sure who you are directing your post to, Muleskinner, but I personally find the desert to be very beautiful. I certainly don't spit on it, I savor it. If arid air didn't do a job on my skin and my throat I might live in the desert myself. To pretend that WY's beautiful deserts and arid areas don't exist would be to do a disservice to WY and the truth. I think that ALL the areas of WY should be presented, not just some. Joe did a good job of showing some of the more water-endowed areas. I supplemented that with some photos of the beautiful Red Desert. I am interested in learning about all of WY, not just some of it.

Lawrence of Arabia found the Arabian deserts to be beautiful. I agree with him, and I think the American deserts are beautiful too.
Title: Re:Federal Land Ownership Maps!
Post by: johnadams on September 19, 2003, 09:46:14 pm
....Eric, I would say that the comments by the above posters are sick and more (but I will not use those words).
LOL!  ;D Too late, you already did!  ;D :D

Quote
Vermont, upstate NY, and the entire New England region looks nice.  

However, WY/SD/MT also look nice.
That's right, Keith/FreedomRoad/YestoAmerica, they are all nice, they are just different, that's all. As I keep saying, different people like different things. What is nectar for one is poison for another. To each their own.

Quote
Personally, I like variety.  I would never live in a sanding, dry, dusty, brown place.  However, I've only seen places like that in AZ and NM and I loved them.  I never saw them in WY (but there is a large area like that somewhere on I-80).
It's too bad you missed the Greater Red Desert of Southcentral WY. It looks gorgeous!--and nice antelope hunting too!
Title: Re:Federal Land Ownership Maps!
Post by: johnadams on September 19, 2003, 10:47:06 pm
Wyoming's Physical Geography
http://thomas.senate.gov/html/body_geography.html

"Climate

Wyoming is accustomed to warm summers and harsh winters. The average temperature in July is about 65 degrees Farenheit. January averages are 19 degrees F in the northwest corner and as high as 27 degrees F in the Southeast. Water is scarce in the high altitude deserts of Wyoming. The basins can expect to get less than 10 inches of precipitation per year. The areas in the northeast receive slightly more with about 15 inches per  year. Snowfall differs greatly depending on the elevation. In the large basins there is an average of about 20 inches of snowfall compared to over 200 inches in the high mountains. Wyoming is also known for the constant winds that sweep through the basins.

The basins, which lie in the rain shadow of mountains, are very dry, with an average annual precipitation of 25 cm (about 10 inches) or less. The Great Plains region has an annual average of about 38 cm (about 15 inches). The Black Hills region receives slightly more. Thunderstorms and hailstorms are relatively frequent in summer. The annual snowfall ranges from about 50 cm (about 20 inches) in the Bighorn Basin to well over 510 cm (over 200 inches) in the higher mountains where annual precipitation can be 114 cm (45 inches) or more. A distinctive climate feature is the high and persistent winds of the Wyoming Basin. The growing season in Wyoming diminishes generally from east to west, from more than 120 days in the Plains region to less than 80 days in the mountainous northwest.

Plant Life

Wyoming has over 2000 different species of plants located in areas ranging from alpine tundra to vast desert. Throughout the lowlands the land is scattered with sagebrush, Western wheatgrass, and Juniper trees which lie in ridges and along riverbanks. Nearly one fifth of Wyoming is forested. The forested areas are packed densely with ponderosa pines, Englemann spuce, aspens, and fir trees. Above treeline, which is usually about 12,000 feet above sea level, the mountains are covered with many of the same herbaceous plants as those found in the Artic."

Title: Re:Federal Land Ownership Maps!
Post by: Zack Bass on September 26, 2003, 07:47:53 am


Don't you think there is a reason why the people who live there are all clustered in little areas.  People live were the good land is, that is a fact anywhere.
  ....
The open spaces are great, and will remain that way, because they are just not suitable for people!


Why do we need good land?  How many of us intend to be farmers?  Have you ever made use of "good land"?

What we need is the Freedom to do as we please.

Do you think Singapore was situated on "good land"?  How many people in Singapore do you think are farming?

Manhattan seems to do fine without any farmland or grass at all.  The landscape is far more barren than any picture of Wyoming posted here.

Title: Re:Federal Land Ownership Maps!
Post by: Liberator on September 26, 2003, 04:50:57 pm
When I started reading this thread it was about federal land ownership. It seems to have devolved into a beauty contest between two supposed front runners for the Free State. If this thread was ever about fed. land ownership why has no one discussed Maine, which has the least fed. land ownership of all the candidate states? Not that it really matters since the voting is over.