PDA

View Full Version : Bush proposes liquidating southeast public lands



Tha Wookie
03-02-2006, 12:06
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 so-called "Secure Rural Schools and Community Act." (not to mention all the mining, oil, and forestry interests)


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).

Cuffs
03-02-2006, 12:26
Hey! those 3000 Ac in Alabama is where I hike! That wont happen if I have anything to do with it! Thanks for the info Wookie! (And see you at Cheaha!)

Tha Wookie
03-02-2006, 12:41
Hey! those 3000 Ac in Alabama is where I hike! That wont happen if I have anything to do with it! Thanks for the info Wookie! (And see you at Cheaha!)

You're more than welcome. These potential liqidations are a step back in trail development, especially in southern states like Alabama, where we have already have to scratch and fight for every inch of trail.

We must speak up now, or face the consequences.

We must also vote these type of people out of office and replace them with true stewards of public lands!

MarcnNJ
03-02-2006, 13:04
Guess who the single biggest pollutor in our country is? Nope, not the dreaded oil companies. And no, not even the evil chemical companies. Nuclear power plants? wrong again. Its the US Federal Government.

So who better to protect our land from over-development and pollution?? Thats right, the largest pollutor of them all!! What a genius idea!!

Wouldnt these lands be better protected if they were purchased by a private land trust?? You really trust our government that much??

Mike
03-02-2006, 14:56
the sky is falling! the sky is falling!

Tha Wookie
03-02-2006, 15:03
Wouldnt these lands be better protected if they were purchased by a private land trust?? You really trust our government that much??

Maybe. At least they would be protected from the politicians out to reward their special interest political investors. Ideally, you may be right.

But in reality, most of these pulblic lands -many that contain current or planned trails- will be bought by the very people Bush is rewarding. These are the ones who can make money off the land.

That is what is so special about goverment (i.e., public) lands. They don't have to make money to remain in a natural state.

Tha Wookie
03-02-2006, 15:12
Guess who the single biggest pollutor in our country is? Nope, not the dreaded oil companies. And no, not even the evil chemical companies. Nuclear power plants? wrong again. Its the US Federal Government.


Acutally the biggest pollutors are coal-power plants, which were given huge breaks in emissions by the Bush Administration. But this is thread is not about pollution, it's about selling public lands.

ARambler
03-02-2006, 18:56
Last weekend, I spent a couple nights in Ocala NF, Florida, near the Florida Trail. Too bad, the central Florida area will be lossing a nice area. I bet the new owners will need ... more rural schools!!!

blindeye
03-02-2006, 20:01
i am sorry to say that i will respond to a semi political thread BUT the current president and his administration are idiots. that being said, neo i apologize, a couple of months' ago i complained about a thread you were in for the same reason, being political, i am sorry.

blindeye

Dances with Mice
03-02-2006, 20:33
None of the areas in GA are within the AT viewshed. But selling these lands removes them as options to trade for private land closer to the Trail.

MarcnNJ
03-02-2006, 21:18
Maybe. At least they would be protected from the politicians out to reward their special interest political investors. Ideally, you may be right.

But in reality, most of these pulblic lands -many that contain current or planned trails- will be bought by the very people Bush is rewarding. These are the ones who can make money off the land.

Wouldnt you rather see groups like Greenpeace, Sierra Club, National Audoban Society, etc. have massive campaigns to raise funds to buy these lands?? As land owners they could put a permanent moratorium on development so no administration can change decades of conservation efforts.


That is what is so special about goverment (i.e., public) lands. They don't have to make money to remain in a natural state.

Thats where we see things differently. You think government land is still the public's land, where as i think government will always do whatever to protect the power of the party in office, no matter republicrat or democrin. Im not too sure what that last sentance means. Land (Real Estate) makes money when it remains in its natural undeveloped state by virtrue of property appreciation.

MarcnNJ
03-02-2006, 21:24
Acutally the biggest pollutors are coal-power plants, which were given huge breaks in emissions by the Bush Administration. But this is thread is not about pollution, it's about selling public lands.

Department of Defense, Department of Energy, and US Army Corps of Engineers equate to more pollution and over-all environmental degredation.

Public land it is clearly not. Does the public manage this land? If the government can decide to build a road through a national park, without the public able to stop them, who are we kidding anyway???

Mike
03-03-2006, 01:04
Biggest poluters are not coal power plants, biggest polluters are you and me. We create demand, private sector industries supply that demand. Government (local,state,federal) creates incentives to keep private sector industries (coal power plants) from going broke due to cost prohibitive regulations (read that last sentance as value neutral, just a statement of fact).

Some 39% of the landmass of the USA is owned by either federal, state or local govt. While we were talking about supply and demand, maybe we should talk about how much comes out of each and every one of our paychecks to maintain that land. This sale of 26,200 acres of govt owned land compares to the 900,000,000 acres that are owned nationally.

For more info: http://www.nwi.org/Maps/LandChart.html

Best things that we can do to halt the sale of public lands in my opinion:
1. Support politicians who wish to curb spending at the local, state & federal levels. Too many hands in the till cause for budget shortfalls that must be compensated for. Real estate is a good investment these days, especially when you have 900,000,000 acres under your belt.

2. Push for term limits. Too much money, time & effort is spent securing those all important votes from constituents to perpetuate a politicians time in office. 3rd rail issues like fixing social security are never touched due to concerns of public backlash. Thus, problems get bigger over time, while our politicians get smaller.

3. Vote for the person who shares your views on use of public lands. Just because said person supports the keeping of public lands doesnt mean that person doesnt have one of those "mixed use" mentalities.

Sly
03-03-2006, 01:21
I'm not sure what pollution has to do with the sale of forest service land... but it's not just the southeast we're talking about. Practically every NF on the PCT and CDT will have land up for grabs and most in-between.

I would think most would realize this is only a test and a beginning and it's the largest land sale of public property is history. Do any of you honestly believe Joe Citizen, the Sierra Club or Nature Conservancy ect. will be in on the bidding or that land will get swapped? Considering the administration at the helm, not likely.

The budgets to manage these lands are miniscule compared to the overall budget.

woodsy
03-03-2006, 01:44
Acutally the biggest pollutors are coal-power plants, which were given huge breaks in emissions by the Bush Administration. But this is thread is not about pollution, it's about selling public lands.

Thanks for verifing my thoughts. When GW gets back on his horse and rides it to Texas the world will be much better off.

Chef2000
03-03-2006, 06:53
Hey Yall voted for him? I drove 4500 miles this summer to Colorado, around Colorado and back to Massachusetts. Through all those RED STATES, I could not find one person who would admit to voting for the current president.I know MASS was a blue state. (do I have the colors right?) red= republican blue = democrat

woodsy
03-03-2006, 08:44
His own mother wouldn't admit to that.

Uncle Wayne
03-03-2006, 08:59
You're more than welcome. These potential liqidations are a step back in trail development, especially in southern states like Alabama, where we have already have to scratch and fight for every inch of trail.


He told me "that's only 1% of the entire forest, you'll never miss it. Besides it's land that is unmanageable"

Meaning by that it's not suitable for clearcutting because of the ruggedness of the terrain. But in 10 years that 1% per year will be 10% (if I done that advanced math right) of our entire forest.

You're right, we have to fight to keep every inch of trail and forest acreage we have left.

The school program funding problem wouldn't exist if we weren't spending, what is it now $100,000,000 per day, in Iraq. JMO.

hopefulhiker
03-06-2006, 17:29
I saw a map of the tracts to be offered in the Charlotte observer and they extend all up and down the NC/TN line. I know some NC state officials are upset about it because the land they want to sell is not the little isolated plots here and there but huge long tracts which look like they run near or on the AT... I would like my kids/grandkids to have the opportunity to thru hike the AT if they want .... Once it is developed we cannot get it back... Future generations won't even know what they missed....:eek:

Disney
03-06-2006, 22:07
I'll admit to voting for him.

I'll also admit I made a mistake.

Tha Wookie
03-06-2006, 23:06
I'll admit to voting for him.

I'll also admit I made a mistake.

You are a brave and honest person.

Glory Halleluiah!

Skyline
03-06-2006, 23:44
I'm not sure what pollution has to do with the sale of forest service land... but it's not just the southeast we're talking about. Practically every NF on the PCT and CDT will have land up for grabs and most in-between.

I would think most would realize this is only a test and a beginning and it's the largest land sale of public property is history. Do any of you honestly believe Joe Citizen, the Sierra Club or Nature Conservancy ect. will be in on the bidding or that land will get swapped? Considering the administration at the helm, not likely.

The budgets to manage these lands are miniscule compared to the overall budget.


Agree this is a trial balloon to see what they can get away with. Bush/Cheney/Rove only have less than three years left to sell off their, er, OUR property.

You conservatives on WB who are always apologizing for Shrub remember this thread when you're out hiking and you come to a blockage / posted sign that reads "No Trespassing. Private Property." It will probably be close by to some clear cuts.

Krewzer
03-06-2006, 23:49
Wookie, all I get is "file unavailable" on the link. Got a better one?
Thnx

Krewzer
03-07-2006, 00:11
Oops! Thanks anyway, but I found it.
http://www.fs.fed.us/land/staff/rural-pdf.shtml

Almost There
03-07-2006, 00:48
Toot, Toot!!!

I've said it many times about voting for the dude from the cover of Mad Magazine. While I do regret that decision, I couldn't have brought myself to vote for the other idiot either. Thought Mad Monkey was the lesser of two evils...now I'm not so sure!!!

Sly
03-07-2006, 02:28
While I do regret that decision, I couldn't have brought myself to vote for the other idiot either

Pretty amazing when a decorated war hero, who had the conviction to come home and say it was wrong and unjust, can't win the popular vote over a stateside slacker.

Oh well, live and learn.

Teatime
03-07-2006, 07:10
I voted for GB and would do so again given the same choice. Kerry is a joke! His own Swifties wouldn't even stand by him. He's a liar of the first degree. What kind of a guy would lie about his friends commiting war crimes? Did he witness any of these? No! What's the use! All these threads are, or turn into, are GB bashing parties. You just love to hate him. Don't you guys have anything better to do? Oh by the way, lets use the same analogy for Clinton and Bush Sr. Bush was a decorated war hero, shot down over the Pacific during WWII. Clinton was a draft dodging hippie living in England. Now concerning the land sales, look at the maps. I almost had to laugh at the fuss made up over this.
Pretty amazing when a decorated war hero, who had the conviction to come home and say it was wrong and unjust, can't win the popular vote over a stateside slacker.

Oh well, live and learn.

Tha Wookie
03-07-2006, 09:10
OK, so the Bush Corp. has screwed over our country in a countless number of ways, and now it's Kerry's fault because the GOP special interest groups didn't salute him? ok...... um......

Back to the thread topic....

Teatime, before you almost laughed, did you really look at all 50-some maps that show the lands for sale? Did you notice them as areas along some popular trails, say the AT or PCT?

Sorry, but losing current or potential trail lands, or lands that otherwise are in a better state unlogged and condo-free, doesn't make me laugh at all. In fact, it makes me a bit sad and shameful of my fellow hiking community members, many of which who love to use the trails but do little to protect them.

But most of all it makes me sad to think that Bush would cut the funding for rural schools for loggers, and then make up for it by selling them more public land to deforest. AM radio is just not worth it, folks.

Almost There
03-07-2006, 09:20
Pretty amazing when a decorated war hero, who had the conviction to come home and say it was wrong and unjust, can't win the popular vote over a stateside slacker.

The truth is it has nothing to do with what they did in war. It has everything to do with snobbery that comes with the boatloads of money they both possess. I thought Bush was more down to Earth, but truth be told...neither understands what the common man needs or wants. I might have thought about voting for Howard Dean had he made it that far...but then his sanity cracked. I like genuine people...I thought Bush might be...but knew Kerry wasn't. Now I know neither of them are!!!

As for the land sale...sorry don't care where they're selling land...once it's gone you are never gonna get it back. Maybe there is some ridgeline for sale that some asshat can build his 3rd Mcmansion Summer Home on...for all to see in a 20 mile radius.

Skyline
03-07-2006, 10:41
Kerry definitely wasn't my first choice for the Democratic nomination, but compared to Shrub he was my choice in November 2004.

BOTH come across as rather snooty, methinks. At least Kerry comes by it honestly. Shrub was born with a silver spoon in his mouth, descended from New England "royalty," but he masquerades as a "common man" Texas cowboy. I've seen better Halloween costumes.

digger51
03-07-2006, 16:02
Ho Humm, SSDD.

Sly
03-07-2006, 16:16
Ho Humm, SSDD.

Yeah, the Bush/BushCo scandals do get tiring. The list has to be getting quite long...... and I'm sure they still has a few more up their sleeves.

The consequences of the Bush***** hitting the fan should be quite interesting for generations to come.

jmaclennan
03-07-2006, 17:20
lead on wookie! our representative "democracy" is a sham. decisions like this are made in the interests of an elite few while the majority is ill-informed and/or ignored. i'm sure it wouldn't be much different if kerry was in charge. it's political, but whether you're democrat or republican makes only a slight difference.

Almost There
03-07-2006, 18:11
The big problem here is that one party controls both the legislative and executive. This has always been a problem throughout our country's history.

TJ aka Teej
03-07-2006, 18:17
Kerry is a joke! His own Swifties wouldn't even stand by him. He's a liar of the first degree. What kind of a guy would lie about his friends commiting war crimes?
This post brought to you by the Karl Rove Propaganda Company...

Tha Wookie
03-07-2006, 19:25
it's political, but whether you're democrat or republican makes only a slight difference.

You're right. Really this issue is not about the silly dichotomy of left and right. It's about the simple ethics of serving the public.

We can discuss it a number of ways here.... but the only thing that will really make a difference is if each of us takes three minutes and calls our representative's offices.

Look at the first post for a link to take action.

RockyTrail
03-07-2006, 19:32
You're right. Really this issue is not about the silly dichotomy of left and right. It's about the simple ethics of serving the public.

Finally, something we all can agree on, I think...:-?

irritable_badger
03-07-2006, 20:05
While selling off these tracts of land is a crappy idea, it is somewhat naive to believe that any person/small group of people can prevent this and similar scenarios from taking place over and over again. This is not a political manuver that our representatives can help with, it is a capatalisitic manuver that can only be resolved by one thing; money.

Unless some incredibly wealth individual shows up to save the world then the only viable option to resolving these issues is to create a land purchase organization that acquires these properties when they are offered for sale. Refocusing the donations made by major gear manufacturers would go along way toward this. Look up your favorite gear manufacturer/retailer and see what groups they make donations to. While all the causes are laudable they have little practical impact outside of non-profit profiteering. Combining the funds dontated by these companies would provide a viable vehicle for protecting these lands with little or no impact on current business, which is what the money men are going to look at. In addition think about the marketing potential of the "Marmot Wilderness Area", it's just like "Turner Field" from a publicity standpoint. Sure it would take a lot of effort to set up the structure for this and some groups would loose funding but it does provide a real solution that meets everyone's needs.

Booley
03-07-2006, 20:23
Just watch out for the black Chevy Suburbans. If you see them, RUN! Didn't vote for W, not that my vote really mattered!

irritable_badger
03-07-2006, 20:36
Just watch out for the black Chevy Suburbans. If you see them, RUN! Didn't vote for W, not that my vote really mattered!

I voted for Bush the fist time and I am going to owe my children (if I ever have any) one hell of an apology. I voted for Nader the 2nd time around. I'd just as soon have a Pres that everyone knew was nuts as have one that people argued about his sanity.

Every vote counts. It's the principal of the matter.

TJ aka Teej
03-07-2006, 22:00
I voted for Nader the 2nd time around. >snip<
Every vote counts.

Sadly, no...

jmaclennan
03-07-2006, 22:26
I posted a similar article on one of the other two threads devoted to this issue. hopefully, lawmakers will not let this go through. if enough people make their feelings known (as wookie suggest, by emailing, mailing, and calling their reps.) maybe the plan will be scrapped.

Senators balk at plan to sell U.S. forest land
Some Republicans join Democrats against Bush administration proposal

MSNBC News Services
Updated: 1:23 p.m. ET March 1, 2006


WASHINGTON - Senators from both parties are challenging a Bush administration plan to sell up to 300,000 acres of national forest land to help pay for rural schools in 41 states.

Lawmakers said the short-term gains would be offset by the permanent loss of public lands. They also said profits from the proposed sales would fall far short of what's needed to help rural governments pay for schools and other basic services.

"I just don't think we can play Russian roulette with these local communities," said Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., who vowed to "do everything I can" to stop the plan.

Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, had a more visceral reaction: "No, heck no," he told Bush administration officials at a Senate hearing Tuesday.

Wyden and Craig were co-sponsors of a 2000 law that has pumped more than $2 billion into rural counties hurt by logging cutbacks on federal land. The so-called "county payments" law has helped offset sharp declines in timber sales in Oregon and other Western states in the wake of federal forest policy that restricts logging to protect endangered species such as the spotted owl.

The law is set to expire Sept. 30. The land-sale plan would reauthorize the law for five years, but calls for a phased reduction in funding to zero by 2011.

Official: ‘One-time’ event
Agriculture Undersecretary Mark Rey, who directs U.S. forest policy, called the proposed cutbacks painful but necessary. The law was never intended to be permanent, he said, but was a way to help rural counties make the transition from dependence on timber receipts to a more broad-based economy.

The lands proposed for sale are all isolated, difficult or expensive to manage, and no longer meet Forest Service needs, Rey said.

"We think this is justified as a one-time transition to help rural schools" for five more years before eliminating the program entirely, Rey told the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.

Rural counties that have diversified their economies and local budgets in recent years should be fine, Rey said, but those that have not "are facing rather dramatic and immediate reductions in their school budgets."

Rey added that local governments and land trusts would have the right of first refusal in the sales, provided that they pay “fair market value.”

The U.S. Forest Service would sell parcels of lands that do not connect to greater federal holdings. The list will continually change but, as it stands now, is topped by almost 80,000 acres in California, 25,464 acres in Idaho and 21,572 acres in Colorado.

While the list of eligible lands for sale encompasses more than 300,000 acres, Rey said the service may not sell that much. Once the goal of $800 million has been reached, he said, the sales would be suspended. He estimated that only 175,000 acres would have to be sold.



More senators weigh in
His comments were met with bipartisan derision.

"To propose selling off public lands we will lose forever, in exchange for a program we can pay for by other more prudent means, is simply irresponsible," said Sen. Craig Thomas, R-Wyo.

"The Bush administration wants to eliminate a proven, balanced initiative in favor of a public lands fire sale," added Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash.

Sen. Jim Talent, R-Mo., said he was not opposed to the land sale in principle, but was concerned about how much revenue would go to Missouri schools. The Bush plan would sell 21,566 acres in Missouri's Mark Twain National Forest — the third-largest land sale in the country — but would result in a likely cut in funding for Missouri schools.

"Our schools need the money," Talent said.

Opponents say there are other ways to raise money.

“This administration is under-funding schools and to make up for that they want to sell off lands in a one-time deal,” said Rob Vandermark, forests director of National Environmental Trust.

Background on the Forest Service land sale proposal is online at www.fs.fed.us/land/staff/rural_schools.shtml

Almost There
03-08-2006, 01:49
As a teacher I find offense by this whole proposal...money for schools? Isn't that part of the incentive for "No Child Left Behind" or what some of like to call "No Teacher Left Standing." The Bush administration has proven itself inept and I hope that Congress opposes this whole plan. Theory does not always equate to reality. For example some school districts have ignored No Child left behind because doing the math they figured it would cost more to comply with the idiotic plan then they would receive in federal funding...this makes me believe that they won't come anywhere near the 800 million they need from the land sale. BTW what are we spending weekly over in Iraq?

Tha Wookie
03-08-2006, 13:58
As a teacher I find offense by this whole proposal...money for schools? Isn't that part of the incentive for "No Child Left Behind" or what some of like to call "No Teacher Left Standing." The Bush administration has proven itself inept and I hope that Congress opposes this whole plan. Theory does not always equate to reality. For example some school districts have ignored No Child left behind because doing the math they figured it would cost more to comply with the idiotic plan then they would receive in federal funding...this makes me believe that they won't come anywhere near the 800 million they need from the land sale. BTW what are we spending weekly over in Iraq?

I'm sure we're just a wee bit over the promised $80 Billion by now. Sure would be nice to use some of that for our own schools....

Almost There
03-08-2006, 15:57
Sorry the War on Terra is more important than our kids' education!!!

Lump76
03-08-2006, 16:18
I would like my kids/grandkids to have the opportunity to thru hike the AT if they want .... Once it is developed we cannot get it back... Future generations won't even know what they missed....:eek:

I'm not disagreeing with the spirit of what you're saying, but technically speaking, large portions of the AT were previously developed (or should I say, inhabited and then subsequently reclaimed by nature once those lands were set aside for the AT. Nature has a way of rebounding if we let it. But I agree that puting in shopping malls and factories on previously protected national forest land is depressing.

Yes, I voted for GW... and I agree with him on a lot of issues. Environmental policy is not one of them. Unfortunately GW was the better of two evils. I don't even want to imagine what this country would be like with Al Gore or JF Kerry at the helm.

Sly
03-08-2006, 16:39
Yes, I voted for GW... and I agree with him on a lot of issues. Environmental policy is not one of them. Unfortunately GW was the better of two evils. I don't even want to imagine what this country would be like with Al Gore or JF Kerry at the helm.
GW, the better of two evils? That's a joke. If you tired, it would be quite easy to imagine the US on a better path than it is now with either Gore or Kerry in office.

Skyline
03-08-2006, 16:47
GW, the better of two evils? That's a joke. If you tired, it would be quite easy to imagine the US on a better path than it is now with either Gore or Kerry in office.


Exactly right Sly, in fact I was just thinking about that last week . . .

http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/showthread.php?p=178387#post178387