Give me one good reason why the federal government should have land outside of DC

Give me one good reason why the federal government should have land outside of DC.

...

bases
testing
bunkers
kys

to regulate and protect wildlife living there

If it was privitized, who do you think would get it?

How is land owned by rich jewish banks different than owned by a rich jewish government?

Is Nevada even sovereign as a state ?

>Nevada being the most purple

confirmed true seat of federal power

Because the states aren't as good as managing land for critters/land protection as a single federal agency is.
Things have gotten out of hand with obongo designating enormous national monuments, but the new administration is already fixing that.

Well you don't want a fucking test nuke to hit you right OP?

>letting corporations ruin some of the most beautiful land in the world
Absolutely cucked as fuck kill yourself OP. This country's natural splender has been written about for hundreds of years

Does that include native reservations?

The land should be taken back by the states and sold to american ranchers.

Because this

This

Fuck the feds.

Most of this land is prairie.

The BLM is infected with incompetent bureaucrats and leftist ideology like any other federal agency. They operate from the leftist assumption that animals grazing the land is bad for the land. Keep in mind that these grassland ecosystem evolved over hundreds of thousands of years with immense herds of MILLIONS of bison grazing.

Arid grasslands will become desterified if large herd of animals don't periodically maintain the land. The BLM operates under that grazing is bad for the land and not even necessary to maintain it.
Left of pic is land maintained by large herd of sheep/cattle (2-4x carrying capacity BLM requires). The right is what the land looks like when it's leased to ranchers under the philosophy that animals = bad for the land.They are incompetent idiots like any other federal agency.

BLM here stands for Bureau of Land Management

yea, I mean it only makes sense that the cattle would eat the grass, and then shit out that eaten grass back onto the ground the help fertilize it. Why are people in government so functionally retarded?

Jesus Christ. You cant really even argue to preserve nature there. PA and upstate NY are beautiful for their nature despite so little of the land being federally owned. Have not even been to that one large purple chunk in PA

It shouldn't.

I agree that leftist ideologies are present in most/all of the federal land/wildlife management agencies. BLM controls far too much land. I also agree that the majority of this land should be states property to sell back to ranchers.
The regulations on grazing in my opinion should only be used to keep stream banks stabilized. When the cows get in the streams it fucks shit right up for any sensitive fish species present, and is extremely difficult to reverse.
>inb4 fuck those faggot fish
I am a fish biologist, so I cannot help but agree with certain regulations for certain species. Common sense is key, and I stand with the Bundys et al in the matter of giving back the majority of land to the states.

>Because the states aren't as good as managing land for critters/land protection as a single federal agency is.
Then wouldn't the UN be even better at owning and maintaining this land as well as land in other countries?

This is an example of states managing effectively, precluding the need for federal management.
Western states have a shitload more land, and many more contentious issues to deal with, therefore some federal management is sometimes a good thing.
It has gone too far in many aspects.

>allowing the burghers to have land and money
Spotted the Jew.

I only want to say army bases, a few government buildings like courthouses mints federal prison but it absolutely shouldn't have entire massive swaths of land. Maybe a few national parks but damn that map is a lot

Because it needs to be protected from entrepreneurial shitstains for reasons.

And I don't want to live in a damn concrete desert when I'm a 100.

Does the UN have stakes in protecting wildlife and habitat for the worlds population of people?
It doesn't, that is a shit analogy.
Hunting, fishing, and recreating outdoors is a core value to many Americans.

PA and upstate NY don't hold a candle to the western states

>Give me one good reason why the federal government should have land outside of DC.

"for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings"

Source: United States Constitution Article I section 8

It's astounding how you fuckwits come in here pretending to discuss politics and haven't even read the constitution.

Hunting

They are not supposed to be able to own land outside of dc under the constitution.

Because dude weed bro

This is what really kills me when people complain about the national debt or whatever. Like, just sell the fucking federal land. Whoever buys it becomes American by the standards of left or right. Or just sell it to Americans or whatever. ffs

Ah, gotcha. The furthest west I have gone is the eastern edge of South Dakota. Only big chunk of fed land I've been in was the northern point of Minnesota, which seemed to pretty much be run the same as state land.

I'm guessing the large difference in biomes also has a factor? Forests seem easier to maintain than grasslands, barring fires of course

Hey user , I remember the time when the BLM killed some people to take their land. As soon as that happened BLM (the black lives one) popped up. I always wondered if it was a misdirection tactic to cover up that federal agents killed landowners to steal their land.

>It doesn't, that is a shit analogy.
If the states aren't as good at managing land, then it should be consolidated to a federal agency. By that same logic, governments' land should be consolidated to a single world-wide agency as that would be better.

Why doesn't a state have as much stake in protecting wildlife while the federal government does?

They have to own to so they can sell it off to foreign governments.

Why is the californian coast federal "land"
And do people live on federal land ? Is it possible to buy it ?

No, look at the northeast corner of AZ, it's all Indian reservations but there's almost no federal land there

>being upset

WE THE PEOPLE are the federal government, silly. That means WE own all that land. I fail to see the problem.

>nevada wildlife
yes sure

They have cool mountains, i guess that counts as protected areas or something

I like to camp on BLM land. In the northwest its typically rather nice

Thick forests here cover a lot of our land, but the unique beauty of these states should not be underestimated. Even New Jersey has some wonderful sights.

Unless you are in Delaware I guess, there really isnt much there but nice people. I looked

Gimmie one good reason the federal government should be larger than one office building.

So that Mexicans won't try to turn it into favelas

To distribute freely as parcels to members of the new ethnostate?

Try pulling that one to see classified info or even enter certain government buildings like the NSA.
"But we are the government." lol

Yes, but THAT amount? Deserts are deserts, protecting them and leaving all the tropical forests at mercy of shitskins in the end it's damaging

Welcome to Nevada, home of the world's largest missile and artillery range.

But you're right, we should give all that prime real estate to spics and nignogs.

>he thinks the desert is devoid of life
try harder Mario

What the fuck is going on in Nevada?

>post yfw mormons rule the us

research 'military bases and complexs in Nevada'

Zinke (Trumps Interior Secretary) is putting energy production on public lands as the TOP priority for the use of public lands.The plan is that not only could energy independence add to our national security, but the money from energy sales goes directly back to the managing agency,, and I believe they could use it to lower the national debt as well.
It really comes down to how much the state is willing to do.
>Govts land should then be consolidated to a single worldwide agency
So by your logic, why aren't all the different countries considered "States" that fall under one world capital? Why isn't the planet just a single "State" in the world of galaxies? You're really pulling at straws here.
>why doesn't the state have a stalke like the feds do
They do. See The states can manage wildlife how they see fit. Feds will step in if it isn't up to standards dictated by governing agencies.
Much of this land out west was bought up by the gov many years ago, and needs to be sold back to the public.
I agree that BLM should be drained, and their entire inventory needs to be re analyzed for the best uses for the American public.

We like parks

Yes, it was intentionally done to divert attention to what was going on with the bureau. It was a Soros money play.

California in the hands of Californians would be 3rd world shit hole.

Because for profit businesses would shit it up and dipshit farmers would pollute it

>Does the UN have stakes in protecting wildlife and habitat for the worlds population of people?
that's the whole point you fucking aspie
any given state's government has a greater incentive to balance its resources than a larger, more abstract government

Testing bombs and other military weapons in the desert

Why isn't DC marked purple on this map...?

This is entirely another matter
Yes, that desert is so full of life that you used it as a testing ground for nukes.
No places in Earth are devoid of life, but protecting so much very cold and/or dry places is stupid. What are you protecting them from, desertification?
The politically incorrect thing that nobody has the courage to say because of white guilt is that we should force non westeners to stop killing every thing they see because "they need their chance to industrialize". Protecting deserts and Siberian tundras is basically useless, but you know, whites are the only one that cares and will be the one accused when we'll live in a Blade Runner world.

>implying the majority of the land mass of the American West is a giant arsenal visible from space
Eat shit, bootlicker.

>Why is the californian coast federal "land"
It's offshore, not the coast itself. Everything within 12 miles from land is the California Coastal National Monument. It's pretty much only there to protect a bunch of islets, reefs, rocks, etc. and the seagulls that shit all over them.
In other words, no fucking reason.

Some issues overlap multiple states, and the feds oversight of those issues is the best option currently available.
I agree that commissions of multiple state representatives are better suited for managing those issues, which is why I have been agreeing with your viewpoint with other posters in this thread. Coastal fisheries are managed jointly this way, and federal land should be no different.
Trumps interior is working to get more power back to the states.

National Parks, for one?

Wow, it's almost like an out of control federal government will claim everything it can.

Because the West is wide open and beautiful and federal ownership helps keep it that way. Bug men and rats don’t appreciate that, which is ominous for the future.

Actually, Federally Managed land, owned by the state.

They shouldn't.

Keeps rich cunts from buying up public land and barring people from passing through.

I know. It's impossible to navigate the Midwest by land for this very reason. That's why they call it "fly over country"

Where are they supposed to keep federal prisoners?
Where are they supposed to train troops?
Where are they supposed to keep and disect aliens?
Where are they supposed to keep nuclear waste?

You are a retard

This

However,
>splender
kys

There isn’t, trump gave some back to Utah and the left called it “tyranny”

National Parks

The water's shit brown

>seriously implying all land isn't federal
Newfag, the government can take any land it wants.

>Some issues overlap multiple states, and the feds oversight of those issues is the best option currently available.
I don't see how that changes things. The respective states still have a greater incentive to manage their resources efficiently than the federal government does. If a fire starts on my land and spreads to my neighbors, then me and my neighbor are inevitably going to be more concerned, and better able to resolve the issue than someone living in an apartment in new york city.

Cunt.

fuck off, the Appalachians are gorgeous north and south

One word: Injuns.

>what are property taxes
they own all land you stupid goy

These days there’s a lot of bureaucrats and bullshit, no more patented mining claims, nobody enforces navigable waterway and high water mark rules in non-commercial areas, back room deals, landholding, over protecting certain endangered species, wild horse management, plus the bullshit fire policy that let forest fire fuels build up, etc, but...

When the feds got involved with land management back in the day it made sense. By 1890, 99% of the old growth forest east of the Mississippi River had been logged, invasive species were taking over, there were erosion and flooding problems. If they hadn’t held onto so much land the same would have happened in the west, no national parks, no giant sequoias or redwoods or 5000 yr old bristlecones in CA, no rainforest in WA, places like Yellowstone and Carlsbad caverns would be privately owned and possibly closed to the public, no public hunting/fishing/prospecting/grazing/recreation lands, and the timber industry would have destroyed itself by completely over logging the entire US (not just the east) so we would have had to import timber products hindering 20th century economic growth (China had this problem in the 1970-90s and only recently started to rebuild timber stocks)

The feds are’nt ideal and they could do better, but things could be a lot worse