Mount Lindsey Closure

[Ptglhs]

New York actually has a larger percentage of public land than might be expected, but much of it is state land.

The percentage of public land in New York is 37.1%, which is about the same as Montana's and not that much lower than Colorado. It has by far the largest percentage of public land of any state east of the Rocky Mountains. Much of the public land is in Adirondack and Catskill Parks.

I think that proves my point. The Aidondack and Catskills aren't farm friendly. I was in upstate NY in Oct, it's beautiful, but I wouldn't want to try to terrace those slopes or remove the rocks to make it farmable.

[Scott P]

I think that proves my point. The Aidondack and Catskills aren't farm friendly. I was in upstate NY in Oct, it's beautiful, but I wouldn't want to try to terrace those slopes or remove the rocks to make it farmable.

True, much of it isn't very farmable, though there are a lot of farms within its boundaries (most of them small).

For anyone interested in the history of the park, it is quite interesting:

https://visitadirondacks.com/about/adirondack-park

[Above_Treeline]

consider this: it has as much public land, percentage-wise, as Illinois, Iowa and Kansas combined. And Texas has some great places to hike, should you ever leave your Marxist-infused environs, such as Big Bend NP and Guadalupe NP. And Big Bend State Park has over 1.2 million acres of public land, which isn't counted in your 2.0% Federal lands.

I've been to those parks and they definitely have there charms, as does the little lake creek wilderness area in the Sam Houston national forest, or the blue hole near Austin.

I think this conversation is starting to miss the mark. Most public lands in the US are public because it wasn't feasible to farm them. Forests in mountains, swamps too expensive to drain, rocky areas above treeline, deserts. The reason NY and Illinois and Kansas and TX have so little public land is most of it is suitable for farming and ranching. When the US was still operating under the Homestead Act the homesteaders snagger valley floors and grasslands. Forests are valuable for logging, and much of that is managed as lease permits from the federal government. Mountains are valuable for mining, which is why there are private mining claims available for exploration with the land still owned by the USFS.

Since the early 1900s there has been a push to have certain areas be set aside as parks, because they were viewed as being uniquely beautiful. Since then private motor vehicle ownership has driven, pun intended, a desire to access areas with less human contamination. This has led to tension between who want to recreate on public land and people who wish to exploit its resources.

The US had been trying to sell off government owned lamds for most of its history. A proposed method of recouping debts incurred in the revolutionary war was to sell lands to private ownership. Turns out there weren't many takers back then, not enough to pay off the debt at any rate. I fall squarely on the public use side of this argument. I don't think private entities should be able to restrict access to land which isn't being used (active mining and logging or farming operations) and isn't next to someone's home.

I'm not sure how many if these posts I should respond to but I was thinking about this a lot today. The stuff that is good for farming got snapped up. Not nearly as much protected land along rivers etc in farming areas. It may have been pretty difficult, at best, to set up a cabin or sod house in meadow over 10k ft

El Paso is literally closer to L.A. than here. I'd like to do Guadalupe pk the state highpoint but it's so far I'd rather go do 14ers. So the large chunk of big Bend and big Bend state park is great and I hope to get out there someday. I can't just go there on a Saturday to go hiking though. There are a lot of public lands here in my area fortunately but not sure if this is true of most of the state.

Went to Utah several years ago. The swamps along Great Salt Lake looked like a park area (Google maps is better in town it turns out.) State land leased to hunters. Got told to leave, he had had something stolen. Didn't make much sense to run off a couple good sized guys binoculars and a camera, I'd think that'd make thieves think 2x didn't matter to him. State land can have issues. One park that had pink sand dunes apparently had a lot of orv traffic on weekends. Colorado might be better but still troubling. NY has Adirondack park, another fairly complicated subject and probably a good percentage of the total I'd think. Most states don't have that though. Yes Mahleur set aside in 1912 by Teddy Roosevelt you mentioned early 1900s

[Scott P]

Years ago I compiled a chart that included the percentage of all public lands in each state, but some of the figures are probably a bit out of date though the percentages probably haven't changed that much. If anyone is interested:

https://www.summitpost.org/public-and-p ... tes/186111

[Above_Treeline]

BTW, since you brought up how dismal Texas public land ownership is, consider this: it has as much public land, percentage-wise, as Illinois, Iowa and Kansas combined. And Texas has some great places to hike, should you ever leave your Marxist-infused environs, such as Big Bend NP and Guadalupe NP.

Of course it should be brought up that Guadalupe National Park used to be private land until the landowner donated his land with the request that it be made into a National Park.

Anyway, Texas is 4.2% public land (including state lands), the 6th lowest of the states. If the private lands weren't donated from people such as Pratt (who donated his lands at Guadalupe), it would be less.

Yeah it is not good. Some areas you wonder if there's anything outdoors in parts of the state. Quite a bit of local public land actually here, not much hiking though. If you go up into Arkansas they have federal lands and a lot more hiking. The state parks tend to be small, so it's hard to have long trails.

[Above_Treeline]

Years ago I compiled a chart that included the percentage of all public lands in each state, but some of the figures are probably a bit out of date though the percentages probably haven't changed that much. If anyone is interested:

https://www.summitpost.org/public-and-p ... tes/186111

Great list, NY does have a lot. Looked it up there's a lot besides the main park. The farms there can have a lot of walls after getting them out of the fields.

[Above_Treeline]

I have a hard time with people who want to criminalize hiking

[GuiGirard]

You might not like my posts.

Correct. I don't. BTW, since you brought up how dismal Texas public land ownership is, consider this: it has as much public land, percentage-wise, as Illinois, Iowa and Kansas combined. And Texas has some great places to hike, should you ever leave your Marxist-infused environs, such as Big Bend NP and Guadalupe NP. And Big Bend State Park has over 1.2 million acres of public land, which isn't counted in your 2.0% Federal lands.

Great, I'm delighted to know that. That does not set the bar very high, FYI. I live in Illinois. We are number 2 for something right behind Iowa, and that's for producing corn, not for public lands. Our public lands are that: minimal.

[Jorts]

Years ago I compiled a chart that included the percentage of all public lands in each state, but some of the figures are probably a bit out of date though the percentages probably haven't changed that much. If anyone is interested:

https://www.summitpost.org/public-and-p ... tes/186111

Thanks for compiling this list. Happen to know of one that further breaks it down between state and federally held public lands?

[Scott P]

Years ago I compiled a chart that included the percentage of all public lands in each state, but some of the figures are probably a bit out of date though the percentages probably haven't changed that much. If anyone is interested:

https://www.summitpost.org/public-and-p ... tes/186111

Thanks for compiling this list. Happen to know of one that further breaks it down between state and federally held public lands?

Here's one that has it by Federal:

https://ballotpedia.org/Federal_land_ownership_by_state

State would just be the remaining % from the total.

The list I created is the only one I know of that has them combined. I'd have to look and see if I still have the spreadsheet as I compiled it more than 15 years ago.

[cougar]

What is "public land" in these percentages? Does it include non accessible government land like military bases (a significant percentage of Nevada), and state trust lands for lease?

I don't care to hike on most of the farmland on the plains so it's fine being private. Not much of interest with a few exceptions, and county highpoints.

[painless4u2]

Of course it should be brought up that Guadalupe National Park used to be private land until the landowner donated his land with the request that it be made into a National Park.

Anyway, Texas is 4.2% public land (including state lands), the 6th lowest of the states. If the private lands weren't donated from people such as Pratt (who donated his lands at Guadalupe), it would be less.

So gifting land for public use doesn't make it any less desirable or accessible, so not sure of your point. And you probably don't want to hike on the other 95.8% anyway. So there's that. Being 6th doesn't really have a lot of meaning in that regard (see: Nebraska).