Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Anyone who thinks that the public lands in this country consist of nothing but desert hasn't been paying attention to the land, never mind anything else. The vast majority of public lands are anything but.
That in and of itself is enough to cast doubt on the whole theory, because the theorist clearly is picking and choosing his data to fit the predetermined theory. Sloppy, at best.
There is pubic land all around us in Michigan.
State near us and a lot of federal near the middle of the state.
You will note that there are not a lot in Texas. That's because Texas kept the vast majority of its public lands upon joining the Union, so most of our public lands are state parks rather than federal.
This does not include, of course, the numerous private property owners who open their lands to the public for a fee or, at the very least, the common courtesy of asking and receiving permission.
Seems to me someone has a bad case of Entitlement Syndrome.
You will note that there are not a lot in Texas. That's because Texas kept the vast majority of its public lands upon joining the Union, so most of our public lands are state parks rather than federal.
This does not include, of course, the numerous private property owners who open their lands to the public for a fee or, at the very least, the common courtesy of asking and receiving permission.
Seems to me someone has a bad case of Entitlement Syndrome.
A question for you...do you post it simply because you do not want activities that could alter the land (parties, motorized recreation, etc.), or do you post it because you want the land ALL TO YOURSELF and do not want ANYBODY on the land?
Would you be okay with the occasional (say, once every three days) passerby one of the trails that traditionally existed on your land, and does not come in view of any house?
I post my property because I have PURCHASED THE RIGHT to do so. My land is off limits to anyone for any reason whatsoever without my permission. If I see someone on my property, the sheriff will be called and if the person is snooping around my house, they could very well get shot. Simple as that.
Millions of acres of national park surrounding my area. A lot of it is free to access and camp on. It's also beautiful country and I see more animals than people.
So many breath taking, beautiful nation parks in America. They attract a lot of international travelers.
Land is also pretty affordable and ownership is within the grasp of just about anyone who chooses to make it a priority in their life.
I should also add that there has been more than a few 'greedy' landowners who have donated their land to public. Ever heard of Rockefella and the Grand Tetons?
Anyone who thinks that the public lands in this country consist of nothing but desert hasn't been paying attention to the land, never mind anything else. The vast majority of public lands are anything but.
That in and of itself is enough to cast doubt on the whole theory, because the theorist clearly is picking and choosing his data to fit the predetermined theory. Sloppy, at best.
OK, to back up your claim, you should give us desirable acreage owned by "public", less desirable acreage owned by "public" and give us the laughable percentage of desirable land owned by public (or at least give us a few locations as an example). In my corner of Ohio public owns whooping 0.1% (very optimistic estimate) of land mass on federal, state and local levels. Besides state & government ownership doesn't make it "public", take a trip along Ohio river to enjoy miles and miles of "State property, No trespassing" signs. State, local etc. properties that are open for public frequently are very restrictive and they do charge a fee. Those $3-5 a pop to visit county park add up unless you chained yourself to a TV.
After all those years I still remember me (Young and broke) dating a girl in Metro Detroit. The lack of public space is the most "vivid" memory. You have to pay to occupy space (or pretend), lock yourself in a house/apartment or drive. Those are your realistic options. The more "desirable" location is the less public space is available.
To put it into plain English, I think you're saying cities/close confines make people crazy? Or, more crazy than they might otherwise be due to a separation from nature?
In today's world average folks know more corporate logos than plants in their areas. That's our modern environment and it makes us crazy. Yet, separation is not limited to cities. I live in the country and I can tell you without much exaggeration that some of my neighbors leave their houses to move maniacally grass or to bring in a case of beer. Other than that they are quite content watching other places and people's lives on TV screens. That's modern country folks. What can I say about cities built and supplied as space stations? I'm not quite sure whether our separation is a consequence or a prerequisite of modern life.
I already gave you two links that were absurdly easy and quick to get with google, that showed millions of acres of desirable public lands all across this country. It took me about 10 seconds to get BOTH links for you.
Others gave examples in their own areas of the same.
Are you just as carefully ignoring those as you apparently have the existence of all of those public and publicly-accessible lands before putting forth your theory?
In my youth, when we were all young and broke, going to nearby public parks (city, county, or state - remember, the links I gave were to federal or state of Texas parks only, there's lots more locally available across the country) was one of the more affordable ways to date.
Not sure what parks are in Metro Detroit. I'm sure google can let me know, though.
You will note that there are not a lot in Texas. That's because Texas kept the vast majority of its public lands upon joining the Union, so most of our public lands are state parks rather than federal.
This does not include, of course, the numerous private property owners who open their lands to the public for a fee or, at the very least, the common courtesy of asking and receiving permission.
Seems to me someone has a bad case of Entitlement Syndrome.
Yup, I think some people think they are entitled by higher powers to restrict access and/or to charge a fee. I don't understand why it's so hard to understand that 190,000,000 acres of state land (leased to various commercial entities) don't make up for the lack of public space within your reach, whether you are a land owner or not. Children are especially deprived. They know nothing about navigating natural environment, playing and exploring rivers, forests, fields on their own. All they know parking lots, busing, organized sports, TV, computers, shopping, no trespassing/loitering, cops. Their environment makes a perfect corporate grunt, yet it deprives them of something very important.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
