Public Lands
White House Unveils Plan to Sell Off 200,000 Forest Service Acres
By Greg Lemon, 2-06-06
Tucked in at the end of a Monday morning news release, the Forest Service announced a White House plan to sell off about 200,000 acres of public land.The news release focused mainly on how President Bush's proposed 2007 budget would fund the goals of his Healthy Forest Initiatives. The land sale would be used to help fund the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act, said Dan Jiron, agency spokesman in Washington D.C.
The act was passed in 2000 to help rural communities and schools, which were getting less and less money from timber revenue off the National Forests, Jiron said. The act is set to sunset in a year, Jiron said, but Bush is asking Congress to extend it for five more years.
In Bush's 2007 budget the act is slated to cost about $800 million, he said. Selling 200,000 acres would only cover part of the bill.
A list of specific parcels to be sold should be available by Friday, Jiron said.
"None of the parcels are things that are in the wilderness or those kind of special lands," he said. "Essentially, these would be disconnected parcels."
In the entire scope of National Forest lands, 200,000 acres is a small portion, Jiron said. The National Forest system is composed of 193 million acres, Jiron said. And since 1990, the agency has actually acquired 2 million acres, he said.
The agency buys or trades for land in a variety of situations based on wildlife, habitat or managment values, Jiron said.
"What is being proposed here is a very, very small percentage of lands that are not easily managed."
Presumably the lands the agency will propose to sell will be surrounded by private lands, or in some other way undersirable.
Jiron couldn't say how much land would be for sale in each state. But whatever land the Forest Service proposes to sell, Congress will have to approve it when they address Bush's budget. [End of article]
This is insanity at it's finest, and criminal to boot. Selling off the nation's treasured public lands, not to provide for additonal land adjacent to communities that need room to grow or to swap for checkerboard inholdings, but for short term spending. In essence, to dump into the out of control spending and politicians coffers. My congressmen will hear from me.
Shame, shame, shame,
rob
Rob, the american public has allowed the federal gov to become a monster. As long as everybody wants a federal job and is unwilling to go it alone this monster is going to continue to eat the very reason for its existence. For example: the feds are trying to out source some of the work for the FS and the FS unions are going to court to stop it, because they don't want to lose their jobs. Competition is a good thing and usually only the fat and lazy complain.
The bucks gotta stop somwhere.
Rod
The federal government has been buying property and adding it to their inventory for years... even groups like the Elk Foundation and others have been acquiring property and adding it to the inventory of state & federal lands. The BLM has been selling or trading property for years, in order to enhance the recreational opportunities for the public or secure pristine lands from being developed. Selling 200,000 acres certainly will have no real effect on the inventories of public lands. You gotta remember that almost every time lands are bought for the government, that land is taken off the tax role and the in-lieu tax revenues never match the dollars that those local entities (counties/states) used to count on. Why isn't someone standing up for the property tax payers who are always getting the shaft... Why isn't someone standing up for those who wish to create a balance in the lands use controversy... Why isn't someone or some organization working to find partnership avenues in which to work for the common good, instead of the "win at all costs" attitude that most wildlife & environmental groups follow??? Let's start finding ways to work towards solutions where everyone can give & take, instead of this nonsense of blocking everything and find creative ways to solve problems!
Comment By Patrick, 2-08-06I love rural western private property rights advocates like Rod and Dan who always bemoan the fact that we protect public lands for EVERYBODY's benefit, not their small, narrow, parochial little greedy interests. What's even more ironic about this particular story is that they offer platitudes about competition being better. Where is your faith in competition and the free market when it comes to the Congressionally mandated end to the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act? For six years now (and actually since 1908 under a previous version of the program that encouraged BOTH timber harvests as well as payments to communities), hundreds of millions of dollars each year have been handed out to timber dependent communities who didn't use the time to diversify their economies so they are LESS dependent on timber. Instead, Rod, Rob, and their timber addicted brethren want to sell public lands to continue their TRUE DEPENDENCE ON FEDERAL TAX DOLLARS! Why continue this federal welfare handout to rural communities? Rod and Rob, I suspect, were the first to cheer when elimination of Welfare for single mother's was passed by Congress. Why now do they believe it's necessary to sell PUBLIC lands to fund RURAL COMMUNITY WELFARE?
Comment By Patrick, 2-08-06My apologies to Rob. I meant to direct my comments to Rod and DAN ROSTAD above. I mistakenly said Rod and "Rob." Otherwise I stand by my comments.
Comment By Rod, 2-09-06Generally when someone responds like you did there is no getting through to them (must have hit a raw cord). Isn't this a great United States, where we can feel free to voice our opinion without reprisal(at least from the government). Lets hope the public wakes up and slows this monster down or we may very well lose this right of free speech.
Comment By Richard Artley, 2-10-06Bush says he will only sell scattered public land parcels that are costly to manage. Nonsense!
Since Bush wants to maximize the amount of money he earns to pay off the national deficit, he won't do it by selling "scattered parcels."
He'll do it by selling the best ... the best views, the best fishing, the best hiking, the best camping etc.
Enjoy your vacation this summer, because next year your favorite national forest location will have lodges and summer homes where you and your family used to camp for free.
Its sad to think that Bush can't figure out real deficit reduction. To really reduce the deficit, America must end its involvement in the Iraq war and pass legislation to stop all tax breaks for wealthy Americans.
I do not trust this administration, when they say they will sell off this land do they really mean for more pollution of our land and water by promoting more methane wells etc. or developing the land into more cheaply built houses, and selling them for more than what they are worth. Do you know why your loved ones are dying of cancer and all these neurological diseases are happening, because our forests areas are going away, to make way for more of Bushes oil wells etc. I work as a nurse and talk to people who have worked or lived in the areas where methane gas etc. are mined and my oh my their cancer rates are sky high, what a wonderful world we are living in.
Comment By AJ, 2-12-06I have been waiting for the current administration to begin the process of selling off our assets,i.e., public lands, to cover the exorbitant spending on the military machine. Once this process comes into full swing I believe that we will become reliant on the process to take care of any and all of our national financial woes. I don't feel very proud of us as a nation right now.
Comment By Matthew, 2-15-06This sell off of public lands could be well managed and if we had good oversite of the land in question may be a good thing. I repeat maybe! But as usual the proceeds from this will not go to a badly under funded forest service, whos budget was cut again this year by 160 million. And yet with less Rangers and equipment and sub stations, decaying facilitys across the board, we expect them to deal with a two to three fold increase in usage in the last 10 years alone. Why cant the central goverment let the forrest and park service keep there usage fees. I just scratch my head at the math. As usual the American public will only profess outrage when the system is truly broken. Then the costs will be well over what the proper matainance and care would have cost. And what will we have lost forever in the mean time.
Matthew