PDA

View Full Version : Farm Bill means AT relocation



rlharris
05-16-2008, 14:57
I walked into the living room Thursday evening during a segment about the farm bill on NPR's "All Things Considered" just in time to hear the reporter say that (if signed by Bush), a section of the AT would have to be relocated. Did anyone else hear anything about it? Which segment? Why?

Dances with Mice
05-16-2008, 15:02
Good catch.

http://www.rutlandherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080516/NEWS03/805160363/1004/NEWS03



One provision of the bill that came under fire during debate was a move by Leahy to sell a parcel of Green Mountain Forest land to Bromley Ski Resort, a move Republican House Leader John Boehner called a "boondoggle."



The sale would require a portion of the Appalachian Trail and Long Trail to be relocated. Leahy spokesman David Carle said the current setup, which has those hiking trails running across the ski area, has never been a good situation. Bromley now rents the parcel from the U.S. Forest Service for $13,000, but it costs the service $17,500 to manage it. The sale makes sense, Carle added.

hopefulhiker
05-16-2008, 19:02
From the article above...



"The bill was applauded by the Trust for Public Land, which has been a crucial player in the fate of Montpelier's Sabins Pasture. Rodger Krussman, the trust's Vermont and New Hampshire state director, said a provision would provide federal matching grants to help local governments and nonprofits acquire forests and open space.

One provision of the bill that came under fire during debate was a move by Leahy to sell a parcel of Green Mountain Forest land to Bromley Ski Resort, a move Republican House Leader John Boehner called a "boondoggle."

The sale would require a portion of the Appalachian Trail and Long Trail to be relocated. Leahy spokesman David Carle said the current setup, which has those hiking trails running across the ski area, has never been a good situation. Bromley now rents the parcel from the U.S. Forest Service for $13,000, but it costs the service $17,500 to manage it. The sale makes sense, Carle added."

River Runner
05-16-2008, 21:50
Bromley now rents the parcel from the U.S. Forest Service for $13,000, but it costs the service $17,500 to manage it. The sale makes sense, Carle added.


Or maybe they should just rent it for more than it costs to manage it. ;)

LIhikers
05-24-2008, 10:20
If money is the determining factor then all of the AT lands, owned by government agencies, should be sold off because I'm sure managing them is a money loosing proposition.

Odd Thomas
05-24-2008, 10:37
Or maybe they should just rent it for more than it costs to manage it. ;)

Yea, good idea.

Why's it cost >17k to manage it anyway if a renter maintains it?

sylvan
05-24-2008, 10:56
Yea, good idea.

Why's it cost >17k to manage it anyway if a renter maintains it?

Just an idea, but just because Bromley rents and "maintains" it, doesn't release the Forest Service from ultimate responsibility of the land. The $17,000 very likely goes to pay for road repairs within the area and a portion of the salary of a ranger or employee responsible for surveying and providing feedback to the Forest Service about the health of the forest.