Sick to my stomach (again) [Archive]

The Solemates

02-15-2006, 16:51

---------------------------------------------------------------
List of National Forest Land to Be Sold

The Forest Service hopes to raise $800 million by selling 300,000 acres of national forest land in “isolated parcels” to secure funding for rural schools. That amounts to 469 square miles and is less than 1 percent of the National Forest Land. By contrast Rhode Island is 2,000 square miles and Manhattan is 31 square miles. Here’s a calculator.

Amazingly Missouri ranks fourth in acreage identified for sale behind California (85,000), Idaho (26,000) and Colorado (21,572). Since I’m originally from Missouri I’ll break down the numbers further. The 21,000 acres in Missouri amounts to approximately 34 square miles. The City of St. Louis consists of an area of 61 square miles.

The National Forest says most of the land is “orphan” non-contiguous with other Forest property and thus hard to manage.

Here’s a list of national forest land to be sold sorted in descending order by Forest Region:

Acres Forest Region Rank
32921 Klamath 001
21566 Mark Twain 002
19436 Plumas 003
14350 BLACK HILLS 004
14051 Lassen 005
07920 THUNDER BASIN NG 006
07906 Ouachita 007
07337 Boise 008
06937 Kaniksu 009
06740 PAWNEE NG 010
06671 BUFFALO GAP NG 011
06117 ROOSEVELT 012
05717 GW/Jefferson 013
05458 Sawtooth 014
05436 Shasta 015
05200 Cibola 016
04860 Kootenai 017
04836 Monongahela 018
04513 Stanislaus 019
04193 Wallowa-Whitman 020
04083 Homochitto 021
04025 Wasatch-Cache 022
03973 Chattahoochee 023
03895 Kisatchie 024
03835 Nantahala 025
03620 Hiawatha 026
03586 Bienville 027
03569 Sumter 028
03552 DeSoto 029
03090 Coeur d’Alene 030
02996 Cherokee 031
02929 Flathead 032
02874 Ozark 033
02782 Humbolt-Toiyabe 034
02781 Pisgah 035
02697 Wenatchee 036
02523 Six Rivers 037
02503 Holly Springs 038
02409 Sabine 039
02317 Uwharrie 040
02290 ARAPAHO 041
02260 Ottawa 042
02184 Eldorado 043
02122 Tahoe 044
01966 Ochoco NF/Crooked River National Grassland 045
01913 Talladega 046
01878 Colville 047
01760 MEDICINE BOW 048
01745 Custer 049
01742 Fremont-Winema 050
01707 Lincoln 051
01620 COMANCHE NG 052
01460 Caribou-Targhee 053
01400 SAN ISABEL 054
01370 Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie 055
01370 Rogue River-Siskiyou 056
01281 Tomigbee 057
01261 Lolo 058
01240 WHITE RIVER 059
01142 St. Joe w/Palouse 060
01096 Francis Marion 061
01091 Bitterroot 062
00973 Ocala 063
00895 Croatan 064
00879 Bridger-Teton 065
00852 Okanogan 066
00834 Bankhead 067
00808 Davy Crockett 068
00802 Manti-LaSalle 069
00755 Clearwater 070
00750 PIKE 071
00729 Columbia River Gorge NSA 072
00670 Apache-Sitgreaves 073
00630 Trinity 074
00550 Oconee 075
00540 Kiowa NG 076
00473 Conecuh 077
00454 Angelina 078
00440 SAN JUAN 079
00430 Los Padres 080
00428 Caddo-LBJ NG 081
00420 Wayne 082
00415 Rita Blanca NG 083
00400 C-T Curlew GL 084
00397 Deerlodge 085
00388 San Bernardino 086
00377 Mount Hood 087
00370 UNCOMPAHGRE 088
00360 Kaibab 089
00360 OGLALA NG 090
00355 GUNNISON 091
00347 Cabinet RD-KootNF 092
00336 Helena 093
00320 Willamette 094
00318 Sierra 095
00313 Sam Houston 096
00298 Sequoia 097
00250 RIO GRANDE 098
00240 Fishlake 099
00220 Gallatin 100
00200 Nez Perce 101
00170 Payette 102
00161 Deschutes 103
00160 Umatilla 104
00140 Siuslaw 105
00125 Inyo 106
00090 Angeles 107
00090 Tongass 108
00080 Chequamegon-Nicolet 109
00080 Olympic 110
00040 FT PIERRE NG 111
00040 Umpqua 112
00028 Chugach 113
00022 Malheur 114
00007 Dixie 115
00003 Lewis & Clark 116
00000 Gifford Pinchot 117
00000 Cleveland 118
00000 Daniel Boone 119

original list: http://www.fs.fed.us/land/staff/spd.html

--------------------------------------------------------------------

"...to secure funding for rural schools."

Um, why is the Forest Service concentrating on something other than forests? No wonder they're losing money. Maybe I'm missing something, but I doubt it. Please, enlighten me.

Alligator

02-15-2006, 17:20

As I understand it, the states and local communities lose tax revenue on parcels of land owned by the federal government as they can't tax (real estate) the federal lands. So there's some formula for deciding this amount and the money is intended to go towards schools (plus some other specific areas roads maybe?) Sorry, I don't remember the exact details.

The article mentions that logging cutbacks have lowered revenues too. Again, I think due to the taxation issue, some of the logging revenues are earmarked back to the local communities.

This is a Bush Administration plan. Don't blame the Forest Service. The FS hates to lose land.

halibut15

02-15-2006, 17:34

Sly

02-15-2006, 18:38

It looks like just about every National Forest along the PCT is included in the land sale which is the most in the history of the NFS.

MisterSweetie

02-15-2006, 18:38

if that's truly the case and no major blocks are being sold...Based on my perusal of the list, I'd hardly say no "major blocks" are being sold.... Pisgah for one is a mountain biker paradise. Regardless of the feeling toward users of that sort of trail, they are still non-motorized users... A few are close to home for me, too... Ozark, Ouachita... probably others. So while it may not be major to others, I think it's major for me, at least.

Sly

02-15-2006, 18:42

It sucks, just like the Prez and Dick Cheney's aim.

kyhipo

02-15-2006, 19:32

It looks like just about every National Forest along the PCT is included in the land sale which is the most in the history of the NFS.yes I noticed the first one right off and then started to realize just how many of them i have actually been in pretty crazy:-? :-? ky

Pennsylvania Rose

02-15-2006, 22:01

While in general the whole idea sucks, I live in Madison Co, KY, and there is a tract of Daniel Boone NF for sale here along with 4 tracks in Jackson Co, which is less than 5 miles from my house. We're looking for rural property to build an alternative type home on and start family and truck gardens to feed ourselves as much as possible and make a little $ on the side. So, while I don't like the idea of the govt selling forest land, I've bookmarked the auction page and am waiting to see what the opening bids are going to be.

Fiddler

02-15-2006, 22:20

I've bookmarked the auction page and am waiting to see what the opening bids are going to be.
Would you please post the link to the page here? I saw where several tracts by the Conecuh forest in Alabama may be sold. I don't agree with this sale, but if it does go through, well..........

rainmaker

02-15-2006, 22:42

As I understand it , schools operate annually. What does Bush and Dead Eye Dick plan to sell next year and the year after that. BTW , in the mountain counties of SC, it seems the real estate folks are most upset. It seems this plan could actually drive down property values. One fellow was quoted as saying the proximity of the National Forest was a selling point.

freefall

02-15-2006, 23:19

Teatime

02-16-2006, 02:27

Ha! Ha! I love to see you tree hugging liberals with your panties in a bunch!

Nokia

02-16-2006, 04:09

Ha! Ha! I love to see you tree hugging liberals with your panties in a bunch!

What does seeing our National Forests and recreation areas sold have to do with being a liberal? The only thing that really get's my undies in knots is the fact that every time someone argues to save our national forests, scenic trails, and wilderness areas, they are automatically a tree humping hippie. Come up with something a little more original.

Teatime

02-16-2006, 06:34

Okay, I was really just trying to get a rise out of someone. It worked! My point is that all these types of threads turn in to a Buch/Cheney bashing party and the point becomes lost. Didn't take long for that to happen on this one.

Sly

02-16-2006, 07:24

Any Bush/Cheney bashing is well deserved. If you haven't noticed the southern Appalachians are also on that list.

Tin Man

02-16-2006, 07:54

Teatime

02-16-2006, 08:29

Small non-contiguous parcels that the Forest Service has trouble managing don't seem worth getting upset about. If I'm not mistaken, the Forest Service/Nat'l Park Service/Dept. of Interior also acquires land at times. I believe in responsible conservation but not all areas are of equal worth. Maybe they are just doing some needed house cleaning, so to speak. Also, I don't have a problem with differences of opinion but I do have a problem with attacking the president personally. I don't agree with him all the time myself but I do believe him to be a good man doing the best he can. Not all issues have the same weight for a president, especially with things like Hamas in power, Iran trying to build Nukes, the insurgency in Iraq and the wacky Kim Jong Il in North Korea occupying much of his time. No way I would want this job. I doubt he actually had much input in the decision to sell the land. Okay, now all you Bush haters can pile on and start attacking me.

Teatime

02-16-2006, 08:39

Okay, I guess he did put it in his budget so obviously he had input on the idea. Also, it is a legislative proposal and not a done deal.
Frequently Asked Questions:

Question: How Can I comment on this proposal?
Response: A Federal Register notice requesting comments on the lands identified as potentially eligible for sale will be published by the end of February. Once published, a 30-day comment period will provide an opportunity for anyone who wishes to provide input on the proposed authorization to sell certain land parcels or to comment on specific lands identified as eligible for conveyance. Comments will be accepted either by mail, fax, or e-mail. Detailed information about how to submit remarks will be included in the Federal Register notice (which will be available to be accessed through this website). All comments will be read and fully considered as the process goes forward.
Question: If this proposal were to be enacted how would the land sales occur?
Response: Since the Forest Service has very limited authority to sell parcels of National Forest System land (Small Tracts Act, Townsite Act, Forest Service Facility Realignment and Enhancement Act), Congress would have to pass, and the President would have to sign, legislation to enact an authority for general land conveyances of this nature. For general information on current land sales policies and procedures click here.
Question: Where can I find a map of the land parcels?
Answer: Maps showing the locations of the land parcels will be available on the website listing the potentially eligible land parcels during the 30 day comment period after the proposal is published in the Federal Register.
Question: What criteria were used to select lands that are potentially eligible for this proposal?
Answer: These parcels meet criteria identified in existing Forest Land Management plans as potentially suitable for conveyance. Many of these lands are isolated from other contiguous National Forest System lands, and because of their location, size or configuration are not efficient to manage as a component of the National Forest system. Isolated tracts can be expensive to manage because of boundary management and encroachment resolution costs.

USDA Forest Service

Small non-contiguous parcels that the Forest Service has trouble managing don't seem worth getting upset about. If I'm not mistaken, the Forest Service/Nat'l Park Service/Dept. of Interior also acquires land at times. I believe in responsible conservation but not all areas are of equal worth. Maybe they are just doing some needed house cleaning, so to speak. Also, I don't have a problem with differences of opinion but I do have a problem with attacking the president personally. I don't agree with him all the time myself but I do believe him to be a good man doing the best he can. Not all issues have the same weight for a president, especially with things like Hamas in power, Iran trying to build Nukes, the insurgency in Iraq and the wacky Kim Jong Il in North Korea occupying much of his time. No way I would want this job. I doubt he actually had much input in the decision to sell the land. Okay, now all you Bush haters can pile on and start attacking me.

shades of blue

02-16-2006, 08:49

I can't lie...I don't like the current President or his policies. I wasn't that way when he was first elected (2000). Let's say that the man does have a ton of other things to worry about. I'll agree with that completely. That is why you choose people who know their job and place them in positions of power.

The national forests/parks have been getting the sh** kicked out of them for a while now. Funding has been cut, land is being sold, the roadless rule is either being overturned or sought to be overturned. This hasn't been a friendly administration to all things green. He speaks a good line...talking about investing in alternative energy...but there have been little actions to support his words.

We are seeing from FEMA,Homeland security and other places that the people he appoints to power can't get the job done. Major failure. Wasn't it Truman who said "the buck stops here"? We have this man for three more years...we have three choices here...imho. We can bend over and just take it....and allow a major degredation of the lands we want to protect; we can fight these policies tooth and nail and try to keep them in check; or we can lobby strong enough and maybe open his eyes. I can't accept that we do nothing. I'm not sure his administration will listen (although that would be the best solution) but it is an election year, and congress is very nervous about their jobs...dem and repubs alike. Maybe we can hold the policies in check.

There's a Christian saying..."hate the sin, love the sinner". It's ok to love Bush and all things Republican, but that doesn't mean that people who support "conservative ideas" have to swallow the entire package.

shades of blue

02-16-2006, 08:52

There's a Christian saying..."hate the sin, love the sinner". It's ok to love Bush and all things Republican, but that doesn't mean that people who support "conservative ideas" have to swallow the entire package.

By the way...this applies equally to liberal/democrat ideas.

Tha Wookie

02-16-2006, 08:53

I wonder if this bush plan will make as much as ONE DAY as the Iraq war costs every single day.

Probably not.

But I'm sure oil and logging companies will find a way to quickly make some money by owning our national forests.

This is what makes me sick: For a year before the scond worst president in the history of the US (Bush is behind Andrew Jackson in my book, amazingly), so many people on Whiteblaze argued with me (especially Jack Tarlin and people following his lead, which comes from the think-tanks ultimately) when I said that as hikers a vote for Bush is a vote against trails.

This is what happens when you sell the US to oil and logging companies: They eat it up.

I mean really, what did you expect ya'll?

Lone Wolf

02-16-2006, 08:55

More oil!! Drill!Drill!Drill! Go Bush/Cheney

shades of blue

02-16-2006, 08:59

I'd be careful wolfie.....Deadeye may take you hunting with him....

sparky2000

02-16-2006, 09:16

Your way off topic again. No wonder the money people walk all over youns. The LOCAL tax revenue expands - not the fed.

kyhipo

02-16-2006, 09:41

Cookerhiker

02-16-2006, 10:04

Notes from a conservative who respects trees and not Bush.

1. Any dollars gained from the sale of NFS land will go to the Washington spend it and waste it management system.

2. Any tax revenue from home owners on the now "taxable" land will not come close to paying the incremental costs of adding more burden to the local infrastructure. There are studies that show this.

3. Any tax revenue from businesses will be given away as tax credits to encourage businesses to move to these areas.

I don't believe in saving every snail darter that was undiscovered before someone decided they want to put up a dam, but forest land was preserved for a reason - they don't make any more land.

Of course I'm against this land sale especially coming from this administration which has time and time again demonstrated it hasn't the foggiest conservation ethic.

But of course, I'm liberal on most (not all) issues so that makes me suspect. It's refreshing to hear opposition from a self-described and obviously thoughtful conservative. Would that all conservatives think more open-mindedly. I believe your quote about not making more land first emanated from Will Rogers.

That post about the opposition of local realtors in SC is interesting. Economic and commercial interests are the only ones Bush/Cheney listen to. Hopefully it will carry the day.

Pennsylvania Rose

02-17-2006, 00:28

Would you please post the link to the page here? I saw where several tracts by the Conecuh forest in Alabama may be sold. I don't agree with this sale, but if it does go through, well..........

Here's the forest service link:
http://www.fs.fed.us/land/staff/disposal.html

A link within the text will take you to this auction site:
http://www.auctionrp.com/auctions2/

Since none of these tracts have been officially approved, they aren't listed yet. I'm going to keep an eye out.

Pennsylvania Rose

02-17-2006, 00:43

must of been reading my mind,I am also moving back to the hills jackson county,be nice to find some nice land back their.ky love to get some land along the sheltowee trace trail.ky

Let me know when/where you're looking. I'm 10 minutes from northern Jackson Co. & have a good realtor that works the area.

Land is cheap in Jackson Co. for good reason...you can't get from one ridge to the next without a 10 mile, 1 1/2 lane, winding detour, the schools suck (the high school can't afford a football team and they've cut down to 4 days of school/week to save $$$), and you're just a little too far from the interstate to get to Lexington conveniently (which is where we work for now), there is no industry, and only one real town. Wait - that's why we've been looking there (except for the schools part). Now if I could just take the leap to self-employment...

Jack Tarlin

02-17-2006, 00:51

Hey, Wook, can you for once omit the personal cheap shots every damned time you post?

It's tiresome and childish.

The main reason I try and avoid the political threads here is because of thier constant nastiness.

As well as because they're boring.

I'm sorry Wookie spends so much of his time and energy sending along whines, complaints, and weepy jeremiads about how horrible things are in America.

Perhaps some day he'll actually start being useful here, instead of merely dropping by to lecture, screech, and gnash his teeth.

Ya know what, Wook? Bush and Cheney won by something like 60,000 votes. Maybe if you'd spent more time registering people to vote or doing something remotely useful, instead of spending hundreds of hours on the Internet on pointless political threads, maybe you'd be happier now.

But I doubt it. Some people are just born whiners.

freefall

02-17-2006, 01:19

Would you please post the link to the page here? I saw where several tracts by the Conecuh forest in Alabama may be sold. I don't agree with this sale, but if it does go through, well..........

If you don't agree with the sale then do something about it. Rather than just sitting around waiting for them to go on the chopping block, let your elected officials know that it is not OK to sell OUR land. It wouldn't suprise me if I'm on some list of Senators Ken Salazar and Wayne Allard saying "keep this lunatic away from us". I email their offices almost daily about environmental issues and snail mail at least once a month.

BTW, I am not a 'tree hugging liberal'. As a matter of fact, up until about a year and a half ago, I was a line toeing Republican. But I have seen the light- our current politcal structure is broke, and will continue to be so until we, the American public, demand it be fixed.

Teatime

02-17-2006, 02:42

Wasn't the "roadless rule" something that Clinton did at the 24th hour before leaving office? That's what I remember but could be wrong. So the gov't shouildn't sell any forest lands? Why not? After reading the proposal it seems fine to me. These things should be looked at on their merits on an individual basis. The North Shore rode? Now that is a lame idea. I still think their are a lot of sour grapes out their from the 2000 and 2004 elections, which spurs a lot of this Bush/Cheney hatred into something irrational and silly. I don't know why I even bother with this thread. I guess I believe a dissenting voice is needed just to keep it honest.

By the way, Shadesofblue68, I don't "love" Bush so much as I respect his office. I don't agree with everything he does but, you will have to admit he has had a lot on his plate: 9/11, Afghanistan, Iraq, Katrina, etc. I'd be interested to hear what you thought about what happened at Coretta Scott Kings funeral. Whatever, I'm just wasting my breath here. Back to threads that have to do with hiking. God bless the USA!

weary

02-17-2006, 11:07

Wow, that definitely sucks, but I can see in way where they're coming from. looking at a FS map, there's always several small "blocks" of land isolated nowhere near the main natl. forest. That's not as bad as it could be then....if that's truly the case and no major blocks are being sold...
Probably these are just small scattered acres -- sort of like the parcels my town's land trust has accumulated over the years. You know 253 acres here, 114, there, 13 elsewhere, a 46 acre hillside ....

Hmmm. Come to think of it that's all we do own. I wonder what people find to do on such land -- and why they keep supporting us year after year. And even send more money whenever we get a chance to buy more?

Weary

Skyline

02-17-2006, 11:25

This is just part of a larger agenda.

For instance, it has been on the Bush agenda to destroy almost all of what remains of quasi-public passenger rail in the USA (they've almost succeeded) and of course they have no love for public schools--preferring vouchers to religious-indoctrinating private schools.

So why should anyone be surprised that they want to sell off our public lands? This bunch has no use for things like trails, national parks, forests, etc. and furthermore have proven time and time again that protecting our air and water quality is not on their radar.

While there is >>>some<<< truth in the posturing that some of what is proposed to be sold may be just a few acres here and there that are not really "connected" to the "main" forest lands in certain places, does anyone really believe this is the last we will hear of the sale of our public lands? IMHO this is more like a trial balloon to see what they can get away with.

Fiddler

02-17-2006, 11:33

If you don't agree with the sale then do something about it. Rather than just sitting around waiting for them to go on the chopping block, let your elected officials know that it is not OK to sell OUR land.
I don't believe I even hinted that I will "just sit around waiting for them to go on the chopping block". I will occasionally send e-mails to both state and U.S. senators and representatives when I have concerns over what they are doing. But I prefer regular letters and telephone calls, I feel they may have more impact than an e-mail. Seems more personal because of the additional effort required. And I do get a response once in a while, much more so than with e-mail. I am waiting to get maps showing the location of the plots, if they are isolated from the main areas that is different than if a large forest will be chopped up.

BTW, I am not a 'tree hugging liberal'. As a matter of fact, up until about a year and a half ago, I was a line toeing Republican.
Neither am I a tree hugger, nor do I toe either party's line. I support the person (their ideas and their record) not their party.

Tha Wookie

02-17-2006, 11:36

Ya know what, Wook? Bush and Cheney won by something like 60,000 votes. Maybe if you'd spent more time registering people to vote or doing something remotely useful, instead of spending hundreds of hours on the Internet on pointless political threads, maybe you'd be happier now.

But I doubt it. Some people are just born whiners.

Gee, Jack, perhaps you missed my thread on voting in 04. http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/showthread.php?t=6080

I think it's hilarious that you can be so self-righteous (2,500 post milestone?) for internet forum posting. I laugh my ass off every time you make a post in a political thread starting with "Gee, I never contribute to political threads, but....". What really got me was your thread entirely devoted to accusing hte media of being "left-wing" because they said Osama with using the word terrorist. Gee, Jack... at least you "talk the talk".

"It's getting tiresome and foolish" -Jack.

I speak out for trails. That's not whining. Neither is rebutting past arguements with the present results. If you can't live with what you've supported in the past being shown to you without getting nasty, then I'm sorry, maybe you should just stick to helping the new hikers and stay away from matters about trail protection.

You do a good job letting them know about logistics, and that's fine. But what bothers me is that on the political side you and other good folks side with the dichotomus right on issues that adversly effect the experience and opportunity of hiking trails like the AT.

I thought a while back that I wished you would hike the PCT to see how devestating the logging is in areas. Now, I don't think you'll need to. The destruction of the trail will come to you.

Yes, it is a political issue. The AT is a political entity, if you haven't noticed. It was created by what you would probably call "left-wing hatred-filled socialist whiners" who wanted to preserve a place safe from spawling development and the pressures of natural resource exploitation that still exist today.

Isn't it ironic that you have built your life around such a "program," and continue to support the very pressures that threaten and rape it? Seems like self-destructive behavior to me, Jack. I don't care what you do to your own liver, it's yours to deal with. But when recognizable figures in the trail community like yourself undercut the foundations that support the health of the trail, I feel like I have to deal with it. If you haven't noticed, our national trails are beyond being in danger. THEY ARE BEING SOLD.

So excuse me if my words sound to you a bit like whining. But we need to remember that the AT is a political creation, thanks to a lot of what you call whining. So go ahead, tell people what packs to buy and which hostels to support, I think that's great. But be careful before you criticize those who speak up to protect the foundations of the experience.

If you don't like politics, then I'm fine with that. I agree that I wish it didn't come down to it myself. But it does, Jack. It always has.

And the current politics have our trails in their sights.

Skyline

02-17-2006, 12:29

I still think their are a lot of sour grapes out their from the 2000 and 2004 elections, which spurs a lot of this Bush/Cheney hatred into something irrational and silly.

Speaking for myself, yeah, I can't stand either one of them and don't forget the "architect," Karl Rove. But it's not about sour grapes from the elections. It's about every wrong-headed decision and agenda they can't seem to avoid. Not that they've tried to.

BTW, you might research the difference between "their" (poss. pronominal adj.) and "there" (adv.).

Fiddler

02-17-2006, 12:39

Correct me if I am wrong, but weren't the national forests created for the purpose of a timber reserve (for future needs) and not for recreational purposes? There is a difference between a NATIONAL FOREST and a NATIONAL PARK. If the main issue is to raise money then timber rights, if anything, should be sold and NOT the land. Logging rights could possibly bring in as much money as outright land sales. I am not advocating selling logging rights, merely suggesting a lesser evil. Trees will grow back, the land won't.

Sly

02-17-2006, 13:36

Correct me if I am wrong, but weren't the national forests created for the purpose of a timber reserve (for future needs) and not for recreational purposes?

Actually the NFS was created with a multiple use mandate. Along with logging, is recreation including hunting, fishing, wildlife management and hiking.

Tin Man

02-17-2006, 13:47

Probably these are just small scattered acres -- sort of like the parcels my town's land trust has accumulated over the years. You know 253 acres here, 114, there, 13 elsewhere, a 46 acre hillside ....

Hmmm. Come to think of it that's all we do own. I wonder what people find to do on such land -- and why they keep supporting us year after year. And even send more money whenever we get a chance to buy more?

Weary

I think you are on to something here. Interested parties can come together and create a "Former NFS Land Trust", seek donations, buy the land, and have the land set aside as open space!

kyhipo

02-17-2006, 13:50

Let me know when/where you're looking. I'm 10 minutes from northern Jackson Co. & have a good realtor that works the area.

Land is cheap in Jackson Co. for good reason...you can't get from one ridge to the next without a 10 mile, 1 1/2 lane, winding detour, the schools suck (the high school can't afford a football team and they've cut down to 4 days of school/week to save $$$), and you're just a little too far from the interstate to get to Lexington conveniently (which is where we work for now), there is no industry, and only one real town. Wait - that's why we've been looking there (except for the schools part). Now if I could just take the leap to self-employment...I totaly understand I use to live in berea,Mt.vernon ,sand Gap in jackson county and Owsley county,:welcome life in the eastern part has always been hard unless your in a click!good luck to you all and keep posted!I am planning a spring hike on the sheltowee trace hopefully:banana ky

Skyline

02-17-2006, 13:51

Actually the NFS was created with a multiple use mandate. Along with logging, is recreation including hunting, fishing, wildlife management and hiking.

Exactly right, Sly. In fact there are road signs all over the GWNF here in VA that have a tagline: "Land of Many Uses."

But Fiddler has a point. If the gummint wanted to raise maximum dollars it would sell logging rights--not land. And they should charge a lot more for those rights than they have historically charged. As it stands now, we (the people) often LOSE money on the deal because loggers get such sweetheart deals. The Shrubbies didn't invent these sweetheart deals but they are perpetuating them.

Of course both of these suggestions are WAY beyond Team Shrub's comprehension, and neither fits neatly into their agenda anyway.

Sly

02-17-2006, 13:59

Not only does the timber industry get sweetheart deals on timber rights, they typically have the access roads built by the NPS at the taxpayers expense. I don't have the figures but it very well may be a losing propostition aka corporate welfare.

Alligator

02-17-2006, 14:26

Actually the NFS was created with a multiple use mandate. Along with logging, is recreation including hunting, fishing, wildlife management and hiking.
Not true. National forests were created as reserves. It wasn't until the Multiple Use and Sustained Yield Act (1960) that recreation was added as a management concern.

Not only does the timber industry get sweetheart deals on timber rights, they typically have the access roads built by the NPS at the taxpayers expense.
I think you meant the USFS here.

Tha Wookie

02-17-2006, 14:39

Sly

02-17-2006, 14:51

Not true. National forests were created as reserves. It wasn't until the Multiple Use and Sustained Yield Act (1960) that recreation was added as a management concern.

I think you meant the USFS here.

I stand corrected. Regardless, it doesn't appear that the NFs have ever been used solely for timber production.

weary

02-17-2006, 15:01

The original three goals of the USFS, created in 1905, were the following:
Improve and protect the public forests;
Secure favorable water flows; and
Provide a continuous supply of timber, under regulation.
Read more at: http://www.fs.fed.us/plan/par/2003/final/html/fs_glance/founding_legislation.shtml
But public recreation has been part of the mix from the beginning.

My folks honey-mooned in a National Forest campground in the mid 1920s, and camped there and climbed the trails there until their deaths 60 years later. I don't remember the details, but they tell me I climbed my first mountain in the White Mountain National Forest at the age of four in 1933.

My kids started even younger from trailheads near the same campground.

Alligator: LOng before the 1960 addition of recreation, I had climbed scores of White Mountain trails, traversed the presidentials numerous times, and even done a winter backpacking trip or two.

The law change didn't change what was happening. It just made the law reflect the reality of long practice.

Weary

Ridge

02-17-2006, 15:30

The USFS is basically a "Timber Company" in disguise. They have to do the public recreation thing just to get their checks and lucrative benefits. If you do the research you'll see.

Alligator

02-17-2006, 15:32

I stand corrected. Regardless, it doesn't appear that the NFs have ever been used solely for timber production.

Very true. In fact, it should be remembered that even though timber is a major factor, the legislation was motivated by rampant overexploitation of forest resources. It was an extraordinary change in public sentiment, away from just giving away land and resources and a move toward greater conservation and preservation.

So no, I don't agree with selling off these lands either, no matter how non-contiguous it is. We could just let them grow on their own. There are no management costs in that.

Sly

02-17-2006, 15:37

The USFS is basically a "Timber Company" in disguise. They have to do the public recreation thing just to get their checks and lucrative benefits. If you do the research you'll see.

Yeah I'll look into it, but I don't think the USFS is a timber company as much as a road builder. They sell rights to timber and build roads, lots of them.

RockyTrail

02-17-2006, 15:45

Scientific management of the forest was a new thing in 1905 when the FS was created. Until that time it was simply slash and burn forestry. The first FS boss, Gifford Pinchot, had been employed by George Vanderbilt to manage his vast Biltmore Estate holdings (now Pisgah Nat Forest) using scientific methods. This eventually led to the first forestry school in America being established near Brevard NC and the techniques subsequently spread across the country.

These men were interested in preserving/conserving the woods as a renewable resource instead of one-time destruction of timberland, a vast achievement in that day. If you read their histories, you find that they were trying to achieve a balanced use of the land and had a love of the woods as well. After George died in 1914, Vanderbilt's widow gave the Pisgah land to the USFS in order to preserve it.

I've always thought this was a fascinating subject.
Today things are vastly more complex politically with the FS, and I don't claim to understand it, but without the vision of the early pioneers there likely wouldn't be much forest left, and certainly the AT would be a different place than we know today. Just some background, FYI...

Ridge

02-17-2006, 15:47

Yeah I'll look into it, but I don't think the USFS is a timber company as much as a road builder. They sell rights to timber and build roads, lots of them.

You gotta have roads to the timber. The roads aid firefighting and selective track cutting.

Alligator

02-17-2006, 15:48

But public recreation has been part of the mix from the beginning.

My folks honey-mooned in a National Forest campground in the mid 1920s, and camped there and climbed the trails there until their deaths 60 years later. I don't remember the details, but they tell me I climbed my first mountain in the White Mountain National Forest at the age of four in 1933.

My kids started even younger from trailheads near the same campground.

Alligator: LOng before the 1960 addition of recreation, I had climbed scores of White Mountain trails, traversed the presidentials numerous times, and even done a winter backpacking trip or two.

The law change didn't change what was happening. It just made the law reflect the reality of long practice.

Weary

I'm sure you did all those things Weary. Yes, these things occurred on NFS land. Initially however, there was no mandate to provide recreation on NFS land. But now you can sue the FS if recreation is not considered. It's a good law (MUSY) and an important turning point in the management of public lands.

Jack Tarlin

02-17-2006, 15:53

Hey, Wook, my point was that I hadn't gone anywhere NEAR this thread, yet you felt the need to invoke my name anyway in order to take a cheap shot that you felt would aid your arguments. What the hell is your problem?

I avoid the political threads (as I avoided this one, and the latest idiotic Dick Cheney ones, and most of the others) because they're usually boring, and generally involve a handful of pathetic dogmatic screechers making the same pitiful comments over and over again, evidently believing that making the same point badly six thousand times is more effective than trying to say it intelligently once.

Guess what?

You're by far the worst offender.

I simply don't have the time to deal with this witlessness today.

Oh, and by the way, Wook, you not only mis-spelled "dichotomous," but you used it incorrectly.

Oh, and you also mis-quoted me, again. I think the post you're referring to was when I objected to the left-wing media NOT using the word terrorist, as opposed to the words you put in my mouth.

So let's see.....in one short post, you use big words you don't know the meaning of, you mis-attribute comments to other folks, and you ignore one of my principal points, which was that you should try applying some of your time and energy spent whining here to actually doing something useful.

The only thing you forgot to do (this time) was incorrectly relate an event from American history, Wook, something else you don't know much about.

In future skip annoying and scary big word like "dichotomous", Wook.

Short ones, like "asshat", are more your style.

Tha Wookie

02-17-2006, 15:53

The USFS is basically a "Timber Company" in disguise. They have to do the public recreation thing just to get their checks and lucrative benefits. If you do the research you'll see.

This is not entirely true nor false.

I work with many natural resource people in the FS who are very good people and respected scientists that are not the people you are describing.

However, there certainly is a contingent that seems to only care about extraction of resources. Just look at Bush's Agriculture appointee.

The people who I know in recreation are outstanding people, and while there certainly is political pressure from both sides to extract or protect, most of their policies are reasonably sound once you "do the research" (which I have, although I certainly have much more to learn I admit).

In my experience, the public at large is not well informed enough to really understand what the FS is all about. Look on their website I posted above and check it out.

Since Bush has been in office, he has axed their funding severely. The good people are losing jobs and contracts. Every year there are more deep cuts in their total budget -1% here, 5% there ... it adds up real quick.

Our forest are indeed in very deep trouble. This presidency has been a benchmark in backstepping from sustainable values toward our miserable past of over-exploitation. We will see a lot more to come.:(

vipahman

02-17-2006, 15:56

Yeah I'll look into it, but I don't think the USFS is a timber company as much as a road builder. They sell rights to timber and build roads, lots of them.
Quoting from this link http://www.fs.fed.us/aboutus/meetfs.shtml :
"
When and why was the Forest Service established?
Congress established the Forest Service in 1905 to provide quality water and timber for the Nation's benefit. Over the years, the public has expanded the list of what they want from national forests and grasslands. Congress responded by directing the Forest Service to manage national forests for additional multiple uses and benefits and for the sustained yield of renewable resources such as water, forage, wildlife, wood, and recreation. Multiple use means managing resources under the best combination of uses to benefit the American people while ensuring the productivity of the land and protecting the quality of the environment.
National forests are America's great outdoors. They encompass 191 million acres (77.3 million hectares) of land, which is an area equivalent to the size of Texas. National forests provide opportunities for recreation in open spaces and natural environments. With more and more people living in urban areas, national forests are becoming more important and valuable to Americans. People enjoy a wide variety of activities on national forests, including backpacking in remote, unroaded wilderness areas, mastering an all-terrain vehicle over a challenging trail, enjoying the views along a scenic byway (http://www.byways.org/), or fishing (http://www.fs.fed.us/fishing/) in a great trout stream, to mention just a few.
"

Oh what the heck! All these organizations and departments have lost their meaning and purpose over time. Everything is fudged. Just like the Patriot Act. If you don't support it, it's supposed to make you feel unpatriotic! Sorry for the aimless rant.

Ridge

02-17-2006, 16:04

This is not entirely true nor false.

I work with many natural resource people in the FS who are very good people and respected scientists that are not the people you are describing.................

I have good friends with the USFS but what I'm saying is that the USFS is in business first for the timber, other things are secondary, it has nothing to do with the people that have to do it. I've met USFS folks on the recreation side of their business who hate the road building and the stripping of lands as much as anyone.

Skyline

02-17-2006, 16:42

I have good friends with the USFS but what I'm saying is that the USFS is in business first for the timber, other things are secondary, it has nothing to do with the people that have to do it. I've met USFS folks on the recreation side of their business who hate the road building and the stripping of lands as much as anyone.

I'd say the MAJORITY of rank-and-file USFS folks (and NPS too) are good people who see things the way most hikers see them. They must do what they are told from higher up, however, or at least make a good show out of pretending they do. These days, what they are being told from higher up makes many USFS and NPS employees angry, sad, and to get back to the first post of this thread--sick to their stomachs.

Where I live--within a 10-minute drive of both SNP and GWNF--I have never seen employee morale so bad. Old-timers who have been here for 50, 60, 70 years agree. But being the dedicated people they are, most are not ready to just give up. They hope that the political winds will shift back so they can resume the proud traditions they signed on for originally.

Every year since Bush took office, there have been cuts in the local NPS and USFS budgets. This has created staff shortages, cancelling of important programs, deferred maintenance of already-ignored infrastructure, and lessening of support provided to volunteers. Many of the dedicated employees have taken it upon themselves to do some of the stuff for free that they used to get paid to do. Talk about honor!

In 2002, Bush did a photo op at a National Park at which he delivered the lines written for him, promising to fully fund the NPS and get rid of a vast maintenance backlog (that grew during both Republican and Democrat administrations). Hollow words indeed. Nothing of the sort has happened.

Despite what many pundits say, it DOES matter who is in the White House. It DOES matter who the President appoints to carry out his agenda. In 2006, that agenda has real ramifications--so bad that it puzzles me how anyone concerned with the environment in general (or backcountry recreation specifically) can continue to beat the drums for the neo-cons in charge.

Sly

02-17-2006, 17:07

Despite what many pundits say, it DOES matter who is in the White House. It DOES matter who the President appoints to carry out his agenda. In 2006, that agenda has real ramifications--so bad that it puzzles me how anyone concerned with the environment in general (or backcountry recreation specifically) can continue to beat the drums for the neo-cons in charge.

Yeah, pretty amazing. It's projected to raise $800 million in 5 years. Look at what we've spent in Iraq, look at what we could have done...

http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182

.. imagine what it's going to cost additionally in the next 5 years.

Cookerhiker

02-17-2006, 17:44

......
Every year since Bush took office, there have been cuts in the local NPS and USFS budgets. This has created staff shortages, cancelling of important programs, deferred maintenance of already-ignored infrastructure, and lessening of support provided to volunteers. Many of the dedicated employees have taken it upon themselves to do some of the stuff for free that they used to get paid to do. Talk about honor!......

The FY 2007 budget released this week continues the cutting of the National Park Service. Cuts in maintenance, zero for land acquisition.

Teatime

02-17-2006, 18:09

Jack, the power of your reason and intellect has asserted itself once again. Well said!

Sly

02-17-2006, 18:14

Jack's reason and intellect? Can you post a link?

It certainly wasn't a post on this thread and he hasn't debated the topic at all, only sounded off on Tha Wookie again.

Skyline

02-17-2006, 18:28

The FY 2007 budget released this week continues the cutting of the National Park Service. Cuts in maintenance, zero for land acquisition.

The Bushies will tell you that it is to pay for Iraq and Katrina. The first part at least they're being honest about--the second part, watch very carefully. His new budget reneges on a lot of what he promised only 5 or 6 months ago.

And they say Clinton was the Slick One!

Jack Tarlin

02-17-2006, 18:43

Hey, Sly, welcome to the WAA! club......the Whiteblaze Association of Asshats.

I "sounded off" on Wookie because he felt the need to invoke my name on a thread and topic that I hadn't even commented on! I "sounded off" on him because he made a tacky and silly remark, and his bringing my name up on a thread that I hadn't even contributed to seemed to be a low-rent, shabby way for him to make his point. I wouldn't have "sounded off" or even mentioned him if he hadn't taken it upon himself to cheap-shot me in a conversation that I wasn't even involved in! If you don't won't your pal Wookie to get "sounded off" on, then advise him to direct his comments to folks who are actually participating in the discussion at hand.

And you're right....I hadn't debated the topic at all, because, GUESS WHAT?

I wasn't interested in doing so. I intentionally skipped the thread as I do most of the political discussions, as they bore me, and detract from more useful discussions and topics.....like the Trail, maybe. Gee, silly Jack. I actually thought that was what this site was primarily for.

What I objected to, Sly, was Wookie's pathetic flailing around, and using my name to make his points, even on a subject and thread that I hadn't even contributed to. Like most folks here, I generally respond to individual comments made on individual threads.....to bring up someone's name or someone's supposed thoughts and sentiments on a thread that they've deliberately avoided contributing to, seems to me, a pretty sad and desperate way to try and make one's point.

Sly: Take a bow and wave to the audience, you look good in your new hat.

jmaclennan

02-17-2006, 19:46

a general point to wookie and jack: it's a complete waste of time to argue with a person who refuses to even consider the possibility that someone who disagrees has a valid point. it's like beating your head against a wall. i suggest talking to people who will listen and, of course, doing something tangible about it (not that you're not).

jack, i think you're being mischaracterized here (and generally). i listened to your trailcast interview in which you state something about (please forgive me if this is not completely accurate) bill bryson not contributing to the trail with some of the $ he made from his book (unless it was anonymous) and how someone should contact robert redford's production company to inform them of the possible impact the "walk in the woods" film would have on the AT if he decides to make the movie. message: JACK CARES ABOUT THE TRAIL AND PROTECTING IT! he just doesn't want to admit it because that would make him appear to agree with "tree hugging liberals" (as some might call them).

solution: first: forget your differences in "political" ideology and see your common ground when it comes to protecting the trail (i know that's not really what this thread was about, but still). second: write a book already jack and do what bryson should have done. that way you could have a larger positive impact on the hiking community in addition to being a wealth of great info.

Tha Wookie

02-17-2006, 20:02

I wasn't interested in doing so. I intentionally skipped the thread as I do most of the political discussions, as they bore me, and detract from more useful discussions and topics.....like the Trail, maybe. Gee, silly Jack. I actually thought that was what this site was primarily for.

What I objected to, Sly, was Wookie's pathetic flailing around, and using my name to make his points, even on a subject and thread that I hadn't even contributed to. Like most folks here, I generally respond to individual comments made on individual threads.....to bring up someone's name or someone's supposed thoughts and sentiments on a thread that they've deliberately avoided contributing to, seems to me, a pretty sad and desperate way to try and make one's point.

Sly: Take a bow and wave to the audience, you look good in your new hat.

Sly,

You have to forgive Jack. You see, it's new hiker season and he likes to act like he is so noble and just as to steer clear of "politics". As proof of this, Jack must not have read the thread to realize that this topic, the selling of National Forest lands, includes trail lands. He clearly must be perfectly ignorant to this fact that we are here to discuss, as he tells us this has nothing to do with trails. Gee, silly Jack indeed. I always thought the land that the trail was composed of had something to do with it.

I mean really, Jack has been skipping "political" threads so much, that he entirely skipped the part about the land sales as proposed by the Bush plan to make 800 million for the same agency whose budget he has slashed by over 7%. So just give him a break, Sly, he's innocent.

Of course, he probably and conviently forgot his political input during the 2004 presidential races, and when I repeatedly warned him and other people on this site that a vote for Bush would be a grave danger to trails, and I was continually attacked and called names by our buddy Jack. Now that the consequences are upon us, Sly, Jack has better things to do than be referred to for his participation in weakening trail protections. In fact, he'd rather skip this thread entirely, although he must have clicked on it accidentally because he read it anyway (at least my post).

He just doesn't have the time for this Sly, so I suggest we leave it alone.
Let's stick to the topic. Sorry Jack for calling you out on it. No need to call people names.

freefall

02-17-2006, 20:26

I don't believe I even hinted that I will "just sit around waiting for them to go on the chopping block". I will occasionally send e-mails to both state and U.S. senators and representatives when I have concerns over what they are doing. But I prefer regular letters and telephone calls, I feel they may have more impact than an e-mail. Seems more personal because of the additional effort required. And I do get a response once in a while, much more so than with e-mail. I am waiting to get maps showing the location of the plots, if they are isolated from the main areas that is different than if a large forest will be chopped up.
The last line of your original post, ending with the trailing "well....." led me to believe you were taking the "when in rome" stance on this issue. In other words, I took it to mean that you did not agree with the sale but if they are going to sell it(the land), you might as well buy some. If that was not the case, I stand corrected.
Beteween email and regular mail, I agree that regular mail seems more personal. However, though I do not believe completely in a paperless society, I do believe in a paper reduced society. This of course is a personal choice matter. The responses I recieve either way, are about the same.

Neither am I a tree hugger, nor do I toe either party's line. I support the person (their ideas and their record) not their party.

This was not directed to you specifically. It was a general statement to anyone that might be reading this post as to my background.

MOWGLI

02-17-2006, 20:34

Bill Maher on the issue;

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-maher/lets-have-a-mexican-land_b_15840.html

He's back live on HBO tonite at 11 - after a 3 month break. I can't wait! Other than the Sopranos, it's the best thing on tv.

Jack Tarlin

02-18-2006, 17:00

You're absolutely right, Wook.

I haven't the time for it, and prefer to discuss more worthwhile things.

But feel free to keep ranting and whining, son. A day without you bitching and wailing about one thing or another just wouldn't seem right.

We expect nothing less from you.

jmaclennan

02-18-2006, 21:32

jack, if i am not mistaken, wookie and others are discussing issues having to do with protecting the AT; the Trail we all know you love. so, what's more worthwhile to discuss? gear? resupply options? without a trail to hike we won't need to think about these things in the first place.

also jack, i'll ask you again: why don't you write a book, make millions doing it, and donate the proceeds to protecting the trail? i promise i won't call you a tree-hugging liberal.

Jack Tarlin

02-18-2006, 21:43

*I don't think there's anything wrong with discussing politics or environmental issues, especially ones that pertain to the Trail.

*However, I think there are folks who spend too much time here on political
matters, and they tend to make the same points over and over again. It
generally downgrades into a discussion where little is accomplished, little
is learned, and usually degenerates to name calling. When someone
begins a typical post whining about "the corrupt jack-booted thugs of
the Bush-Rove puppet insurgency" or other such rot, it's easily apparent
to sensible, rational folks that this isn't a conversation worth entering. So
while I think it's fine to talk politics here, it usually isn't worth the trouble,
at least not for me.

*As to your last suggestion, I have no illusions about writing anything that will
make millions. If that ever changes, you can be sure the ATC will be hear-
ing from me.

weary

02-18-2006, 21:55

....*However, I think there are folks who spend too much time here on political matters, and they tend to make the same points over and over again.,,,,.
Yup Jack, that sure is a problem

jmaclennan

02-18-2006, 21:59

first point taken. i guess it's just unfortunate that with all these folks obviously passionate about the Trail, we can't all admit we would like it protected (or maybe it just seems like we can't agree); never mind agree on HOW to do it. i'm with you on the following though: name calling doesn't accomplish anything constructive.

as for you writing a book, i was being slightly facetious about the millions part. however, don't sell yourself short. you certainly have a great many hilarious and interesting stories (i've heard a few myself). i could see it being THE great AT book amongst a sea of relative wannabes.

it's graymatter ('03) in case you're wondering who i am.

bfitz

02-19-2006, 06:25

People that care should just get organized and buy it, since it's for sale. Oh, wait a minute.....

Teatime

02-19-2006, 10:24

weary

02-19-2006, 10:51

Is the trail actually threatened by the sale of these forest service lands? The trail is protected, no? The ATC with the help of the NFS has been acquiring land for the trail, no? Seriously, I would like to know the true impact to the trail that these NFS land sales will have. Can anyone give a lucid, well thought out answer that isn't politcally motivated but based on fact? I mean besides Jack (sorry to invoke your name) who I think is right on the money.
And please go to the NFS page that I linked. The land IS NOT for sale! The legislation has to be passed for it to be sold. This is America. Contact your local, state and federal representatives and let them know you disagree with this legislation.
All except a few miles (maybe 20 miles, I forget) of a narrow corridor through which the trail runs has been protected. The ATC has not acquired any of this land, certainly it has not acquired any significant land either in the trail corridor or adjacent to the trail corridor.

The acquisition approved by The Congress at the urging of Presidents Johnson and Carter directed that the trail corridor be purchased by the National Park Service and the US Forest Service. ATC advised the federal agencies. It has never been a serious purchaser of land, either then or now.

I haven't seen any maps so I have no way of knowing the impact on the Appalachian Trail. The sick feeling I get in the pit of my stomach when I read about such things is because they are evidence that after years in office this administration continues to have no sense of environmental awareness.

It's part of a pattern that began with Newt Gingrich when he proposed a "Park Closing Commission" patterned after the military base closing effort.

Based on 40 years of work dealing with public land, I think I can say with some confidence that each of these proposed sale lands are favorite places of a few and viewed with total indifference by many.

I'm less concerned with the specifics than with the way it is being proposed -- the first public notice was an obscure note in a multithousand page budget bill. Such things need broad public scruntiny and hearings before being proposed.

Weary

neo

02-19-2006, 15:42

sucks bigtime:cool: neo

Alligator

02-24-2006, 17:18

RockyTrail

02-24-2006, 18:33

The name of the act that this action is related to is the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act. I don't think this link was previously provided.

http://www.fs.fed.us/news/2006/releases/02/secure-rural-schools.shtml

Actual maps are supposed to be produced after publication in the Federal Register. It says by the end of Feb. in the release.

Is this the same Act? If you look in the link, and click on "lands eligible" it lists only land in the Mountain West and Mississippi, no AT states.

The original list (see one of the first posts of this thread) shows many states involved. In my home state Georgia it looks like most of the parcels are around +-100 acres or so, but one parcel in Towns Co is only 0.03 acre. Can you believe it, that's only about 34 x 34 feet!

I would like to see maps indicating just where the land is but I agree it's a shame to sell any at all, its hard to get it back once its gone. I know my Chattahoochee Natl Forest map has many green squares that are far removed from the main hulk of forest, maybe that's where it all is??

Alligator

02-24-2006, 18:45

I'm not sure where you ended up Rockytrail in the link process. From the first link, 2 paragraph For a list of these lands click here (http://www.fs.fed.us/land/staff/rural_schools.shtml).

That goes to this page. [Has a disclaimer that the list is subject change, but it was updated 2/23/06]
http://www.fs.fed.us/land/staff/rural_schools.shtml

Then another link in the first paragraph goes here

http://www.fs.fed.us/land/staff/spd.html

This page lists 42 srtates.

Whether it matches the list posted previously I haven't checked. The list was updated today in this posts links.

RockyTrail

02-25-2006, 19:53

You're right, Alligator.

I see now that the 4 maps listed are sample maps only...they say they plan to post all the maps soon.

Thanks for the clarification; but I still want to see where that 34 foot square parcel is, it might make a good private preserve and I might could actually afford that one!:)

jmaclennan

03-01-2006, 12:28

seems lawmakers on both sides see that the public land sale is problematic.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/bush_land_sale;_ylt=AiVSTbL7nKyYmKnaQls90Oes0NUE;_ ylu=X3oDMTA3ODdxdHBhBHNlYwM5NjQ-

Sly

03-01-2006, 13:12

seems lawmakers on both sides see that the public land sale is problematic.

Yup it appears more and more are finally coming to their senses. BushCo is selling America to the highest bidder or best connected.

I saw a map in the Asheville Citizen-Times and although it was large scale some of the land looked dangerously close to the trail south of Hot Springs, near where they're already clear-citting.

Wake up Sheeple!

Pennsylvania Rose

03-01-2006, 13:27

The maps have been posted online. Go to http://www.fs.fed.us/land/staff/rural_schools.shtml
then click on geocommunicator.gov.

Or go directly to http://geocommstg.esri.com/NILS-PARCEL2/map.jsp?Map=USFS
There's a pull down menu on the top right. Select USFS rural schools. The site is slow and sometimes doesn't work.

The following message has been added:
NOTE POSTED Wednesday, 01-Mar-2006 12:12:08 EST: We are aware of the technical difficulties with the Geocommunicator.gov map viewing tool. We are trying to get this up and working as soon as possible.

Tha Wookie

03-02-2006, 10:11

Thnks for the info links here folks. I was wondering if they were going to make these sources available.

More than ever, we have to speak up to protect the remaining remnants of this once wild continent, and the experiences waiting for us and our descedents with pure nature.

Fiddler

03-02-2006, 11:13

Thanks very much for the info Rosie. If you run across any more, or any map links that show the parcels better, please post those also. I am against these sales, my phone calls and letters might not help but cannot hurt. But if they do go thru with it I would like to try to get 100 acres or so. At least I could try to preserve a little bit of it.

Tha Wookie

03-02-2006, 12:11

The president's public lands proposal would put parts of the following public lands up for sale.
View the USFS listing of specific tracts (http://www.fs.fed.us/land/staff/spd.html/t_blank). According to President Bush budget, it will help reduce the enormous federal deficit and fund a "Secure Rural Schools and Community Act."

ALABAMA - 3,220 acres
Bankhead National Forest
Conecuh National Forest
Talladega National Forest
FLORIDA – 973 acres
Ocala National Forest

GEORGIA - 4,522 acres
Chattahoochee National Forest
Oconee National Forest
NORTH CAROLINA - 9,828 acres
Croatan National Forest
Nantahala National Forest
Pisgah National Forest
Uwharrie National Forest
SOUTH CAROLINA - 4,665 acres
Francis Marion National Forest
Sumter National Forest
TENNESSEE - 2,996 acres
Cherokee National Forest
Speak up for your public lands now!
Email your senators and your representative (http://action.nwf.org/campaign/presbudget20060224).

The Solemates

03-02-2006, 12:57

can someone post names and addresses of senators/representatives we can send letters of disapproval to? I would be happy to write some nearly 30-something letters, one for each member of my extended family (and ask for their permission to forge their signature, of course:D ). But they live in different states....is there a website listing ALL senators/reps we can write to?

weary

03-02-2006, 13:08

Alligator

03-02-2006, 13:33

Before writing, there are at least two opposition options to present to your Rep/Sen.
Complete opposition to the sale.
Complete opposition to the sale and suggest to fully fund the Secure Rural Schools and Communities Act.

There is growing bipartisan support for the latter option. Whatever your position, here is some additional information from the Society of American Foresters.

Bipartisan Coalition Grows in Support of Secure Rural Schools Act

February 22 – The bipartisan coalition of lawmakers calling on the House Budget Committee to provide full funding for the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act has grown to 68.

Passed in 1996 with a sunset provision for this year, the act provided funds in replacement of the moneys federal timber-dependent counties lost out on because of significant declines in federal timber harvesting. If not renewed, 2006 will be the last year for payments to timber counties. If not renewed, 2006 will be the last year for payments to timber counties in Oregon and other states within the Northwest, as well as state sin other parts of the country.

Initiated by Reps. Greg Walden (R-OR) and Pete DeFazio (D-OR) in early February, the coalition aims to reauthorize and fully fund the program. In his budget for fiscal year 2007, President Bush supported partial funding of the act, and proposed offsetting this cost with revenues from the sale of federal lands. According to coalition members, however, partial funding is inadequate.

To read a statement from Reps. Walden and DeFazio about their efforts to fund the act, visit Walden's website. http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/or02_walden/pr_060206_srs.html

To view the text Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Reauthorization Act of 2005 bill (HR. 517) visit the Thomas website and search with the term "HR 517." http://thomas.loc.gov/

For additional information about the efforts to restore funding to the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act, read the following article from the Newport News Times.
http://www.newportnewstimes.com/articles/2006/02/22/news/news08.txt