Another aspect of viability that is occasionally mentioned is federal land ownership. More federal land ownership might mean an excuse for federal meddling in the state, but it could also mean a legitimate grievance for the state's citizens. So it's not clear whether more federal land ownership is worse, better, or irrelevant.Yet, in spite of that statement, So much worry is still spent in many threads on how much of a state is owned by the feds. Yes, the feds can meddle, but ONLY to the extent of their land ownership. They can not meddle in private land, and the Free State would have grounds to force the issue all the way to the US Supreme Court when they do. Sure they could meddle in private affairs to the degree those affairs affect the federal holdings. But how is that different than if Weyerhauser or Great Northern or Harry Potter owned that land? Would not libertarians hold that those private interests would have a say about what neighboring land owners do that affect their private property?
If we can get the lands handed over to Indian tribes, that would do the trick. Once it's in the market, it's in the market.Since when are tribal lands "in the market?"
As to the issue of reclaiming federal land -- it ain't gonna happen folks -- at least not in your lifetime even if you are just graduating high school. So that is a dead issue not deserving of its separate thread.Like Jason I think federal land might be a positive. If nothing else it provides a significant irritant to citizens of a state when their land is being run by an outside entity, along with all manner of nutty environmentalist mandates, etc. We can tap into that kind of sentiment. Look at this, it is dynamite:
Call, I didn't catch how to get to that doc file. Is it something you could just post in this thread? Or is it too long?
A question - anybody know if Indian lands are included in government owned figures?
Probably if Alaska gained independence, it would have to take on its share of the U.S. debt and compensate the federal government for some of the lands it takes.
1. The feds have a large latitude of Constitutionally-mandated power to control federal land...
2. The amount of land available for private ownership within a state for is physically reduced and even distorted by public lands within that state.
3. States with considerable amounts of public lands also have special interest groups that are politically mobilized to maintain or enlarge those lands by the government for the uses of those lands that politically motivate them.
My premise is that the amount or percentage of federal land does not hurt the Free State! It is the amount of land left in private ownership which is the most important criteria! How is discounting a state because a large resource of forest, mountains, minerals, grassland, lakes, etc. is in federal ownership any different than discounting it for not having those resources in the first place? What if a smaller state has more square miles of private forest and mountains than a much larger state?
What is the area the Free State can actually use for private advantage? If you include any of the federally owned land then you are making a case for it being an advantage - mining, forests, water, recreation, grazing, etc. That the Free State would have to wrestle with the feds over access to that land must be compared to not having it at all -- if you just wrote off any access to it. So, regardless of the fed factor, such land is a net gain.
During the first decade or so of the Free State the amount of State-owned land may be a criteria - then again it may not for the same reasons above. It will take a long time for the State to divest itself of its holdings - if it does so at all given the public demand for parks, state game lands, etc.
| State | Percentage | (fed & state own of total area) | Area left |
| Maine | 94.3% | (1,762 of 30,865) | 29,103 |
| Delaware | 92.6% | (143 of 1,955) | 1,812 |
| South Dakota | 91.1% | (6,712 of 75,898) | 69,186 |
| North Dakota | 90.8% | (6,310 of 68,994) | 62,684 |
| Vermont | 84% | (1,458 of 9,249) | 7,791 |
| New Hampshire | 82% | (1,609 of 8,969) | 7,360 |
| Montana | 62.5% | (54,545 of 145,556) | 91,010 |
| Wyoming | 44% | (54,323 of 97,105) | 42,782 |
| Idaho | 29.6% | (58,231 of 82,751) | 24,520 |
| Alaska | 4% | (546,605 of 570,374) | 23,770 |
| State | Percentage | (fed own of total area) | Area left |
| Maine | 98.7% | (373 of 30,865) | 30,492 |
| Delaware | 97.5% | (48 of 1,955) | 1,907 |
| North Dakota | 92.6% | (5,041 of 68,994) | 63,953 |
| South Dakota | 91.2% | (6,572 of 75,898) | 69,326 |
| Vermont | 85.8% | (1,309 of 9,249) | 7,940 |
| New Hampshire | 84.9% | (1,352 of 8,969) | 7,617 |
| Montana | 68.1% | (46,426 of 145,556) | 99,130 |
| Wyoming | 50.2% | (48,284 of 97,105) | 48,821 |
| Idaho | 34.8% | (53,937 of 82,751) | 28,814 |
| Alaska | 32.9% | (382,230 of 570,374) | 188,145 |
3. States with considerable amounts of public lands also have special interest groups that are politically mobilized to maintain or enlarge those lands by the government for the uses of those lands that politically motivate them.