In no case should more then 50% of a state be federal land. That is just too much. Its entirely unreasonble and its not sustainable in the long term.
United States Dystopian America
- Thread starter KilroywasNOTHere
- Start date
In no case should more then 50% of a state be federal land. That is just too much. Its entirely unreasonble and its not sustainable in the long term.
How is it either of those things, when both are completely subjective evaluations dependent on personal definitions.
Did you see the map of Nevada? How the hell is that even remotely fair to the people of that state? Its all fine for you people in the east coast you don't have to live with it but those of us in the west do.
Yes, I've seen the map of Nevada, and I've also driven through Nevada; most of that land is barely usable as anything but military test ranges.
As well, some of that land is part of several Indian reservations:
List of Indian reservations in Nevada - Wikipedia
And in many cases, unless it is a military base, most Federal land is open to the public and acts as a tourist/income stream for towns nearby.
Acting like just because it's Federal land that people in the state don't benefit from it is just dishonest.
Yes, I've seen the map of Nevada, and I've also driven through Nevada; most of that land is barely usable as anything but military test ranges.
As well, some of that land is part of several Indian reservations:
List of Indian reservations in Nevada - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
And in many cases, unless it is a military base, most Federal land is open to the public and acts as a tourist/income stream for towns nearby.
Acting like just because it's Federal land that people in the state don't benefit from it is just dishonest.
Then the state can take over some of that land because having more then 80% of your states land in federal hands is fucking rediculous, and the army doesn't need that much land as test ranges.
It's not the army, it's mostly Air Force and Navy; the Top Gun school is at Fallon, Area 51/Groom Lake has a lot of land around it set back for security, and outside Nevada, not many place pilot's can practice supersonic maneuvers over land in CONUS.
Supersonic test training ranges require massive tracks of land to keep from busting civie windows, and for weapons testing as well.
Add in the black projects that are also happening at those test ranges, and well...there is no where better to do them. Nevada has a small, sparsely settled population, very marginal land that is mostly desert, and it has existing infrastructure already in place.
Testing shit in Nevada has a smaller chance of civies getting hurt if something goes wrong, and also, well, a large chunk of Nevada has radioactive debris/fallout covering it from the nuclear tests. Keeping people away from radioactive debris or waste is also something Nevada is useful for, when people actually do proper storage/survey's (Yucca Mountain is fucked because it has a fault in it no one found till construction was already very far along).
The fact is, the Federal lands in the US are often better cared for under Federal watch than the states could do, because the states rarely have the funds to upkeep those lands to the same degree.
None of what you discribed requires more then half of an entire state.
This killed John Wayne and many others who worked on the set of...The Conqueror.
Here's a picture of John Wayne with his two sons while holding a Geiger counter on set; it was making so much noise Wayne thought it was broken.
There's definitely a reason we avoid those places.
Why not?
'What arbitrary percent of land inside a state's boundaries should be long to which portion of the US government' sounds like a kneejerk reaction to raw numbers without examining what-all is actually involved in said lands, what the lands do for the locals despite being Federal lands, what they are currently being used for, and who is footing the bill for what projects/upkeep on aid lands.
I mean, unless you want to give the public access to still dangerous nuclear fallout and testing ranges and places where sonic booms happen low to the ground. Do you want somewhere nicer to have to deal with those issues, rather than the ass-end of Nevada where no one lives anyway?
Eh, it kinda does. A lot of the shit the US tests takes large areas. Because we can't launch supersonic things over civilian areas, and we can't test range of ground based systems much else.
Plus there is a reason Nevada has one of the highest UFO sightings in the world.
Damn near every stealth aircraft we own, or super advanced airforce thing, has been tested there.
hell, Arwa 51 had some sort of super advanced never before seen aircraft out in the sun amd got taken pictured by sats one day.
you cant test that when you can have random joes walking or dirving there.
Yeah, this is a reason we have so much federal land as well.
We can make sure these things get quarantined. They fucjed up there.
prinCZess
Warrior, Writer, Performer, Perv
Federal mismanagement of lands caused decades of mass wildfire suppression that caused literally incalculable damage to ecologies and state economies whenever fires grew beyond suppression attempts (especially when paired with increasing burden on logging or other management).
Similarly, poor federal decisions and 'protections' have damaged those states economies and ecologies as well--Washington's logging industry was destroyed by protections on the spotted owl that were ineffective at preventing the species decline because the actual cause of the decline was the predatory migration of a foreign species of owl which preyed on the spotted owl. ANWAR has undergone decades of environmentalist-nonsense prevention or on-again off-again'ing because feds and environmentalist lobbyists of them think pipelines somehow threaten caribous habitat when they're used as convenient scratching posts to remove velvet (similar to trees). The Bundy's (and other ranchers) in Nevada have had their own misadventure of decades with federal management because cattle grazing was thought to be a threat to a certain species of turtle when that turtle ended up being benefited by cattle manure. Mass federal conservation corps planting and marketing of kudzu vine in the South caused THAT whole environmental fiasco...The list here truly is endless.
Federal stewardship can, by no means, be claimed as 'better' than hypothetical state management.
Even if only because state mismanagement would have produced less severe, less widespread, examples by virtue of being limited in scope to within a state's borders.
In any case, it's disingenuous to pretend a majority of federal land in western states is radioactively contaminated or used as bombing ranges or military facilities. The majority is none of those, but as oft retains a smorgasboard of over-onerous regulation designed to impede or even outright prevent its use (oft courtesy of the Sierra Club or other lobbyist organizations) in even low-impact scenes of recreational vehicles, hunters, or outdoorsmen, not to even mention the burdens put on any exploratory mining, or the outright bars oft placed on logging even when practiced with replanting and variable-choice retention of preexisting trees--to the point a number of companies just wholesale own their own swathes of private land they manage and log to avoid the costs and variables of trying to make their business off extraction from public land--and THAT in turn bars millions of acres more from public use and adds further costs to basic wood resources. It's a system rife with inefficiencies regularly made worse by federal interventions.
Last edited:
If my post implied that all the federal lands were somehow there to protect us from radiation, I apologize. That was not my intent.
My intent was that there is a good reason for SOME of that land to be under Federal control.
I'm of the opinion that there should be VERY minimal amount of land under Federal control, and that the rest should immediately revert to its State's control.