The Bush administration's 2007 budget is proposing to sell more than 300,000 acres of public land within the National Forest system to help fund schools and county programs such as roads.
The proposal includes selling public land in the Shasta-Trinity and Klamath National Forests to boost the coffers of the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000.
The funding program, begun in 1908, has provided local governments with a portion of timber sale revenue. As timber sales declined, the program continued to be funded based on a complex formula, taking into account the potential value of the timber.
The Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 stabilized the funding when it was slated to be terminated.
But with the Act of 2000 set to terminate at the end of 2006, land sales have been proposed in order to continue the funding, albeit at a reduced level.
Even with the land sales, the program will be cut by 50 percent in 2007, then it will continue to decline before completely ending in five years.
Siskiyou County receives over $9 million from the program, so the program's demise will impact school funding, county roads and other smaller programs.
The Siskiyou Union High School District, for example, receives over $350,000 from the program. Anticipated loss of the funds is one of the significant reasons the district is reducing, by layoff or retirement, four certified staff positions in its 2006-07 budget.
Locally, the Shasta-Trinity National Forest has approximately 5,000 acres proposed for sale and the Klamath National Forest nearly 33,000 acres. The entire National Forest system contains 193 million acres.
Forest Service spokesperson Mike Odle said the majority of the local acreage proposed for sale is comprised of small parcels that have little use to the Forest Service.
"They are isolated and surrounded by privately owned land and are extremely difficult to access," Odle said.
He said the criteria for selecting acreage for the sale is that the lands are detached, isolated parcels, difficult to manage, and no longer "meet management needs," meaning they have no significant timber resources or are roadless areas with little recreational use.
"The great majority of the parcels fall into these categories," Odle said.
The land sales will be subject to "full public disclosure," Odle said, with 30-day comment periods and environmental reviews.
"They will be open to the full scrutiny of the public," he said.
Odle said he could not speculate on when sales would take place as the 2007 budget has yet to pass Congress or be signed by the President.
Shasta-McCloud Management Unit district ranger Mike Hupp said the designated acres have been slated for disposal from the unit for many years.
"They were previously identified in 1995," Hupp said. "What has changed is the authority to sell."
Hupp echoed Odle's view that the parcels are small, isolated parcels.
"They are not lands we can access or use," Hupp said.
Numerous Congressional representatives, including California Senators Barbara Boxer and Diane Feinstein, and environmental groups have expressed opposition to the land sale proposal.
Sierra Club senior regional spokesperson for California and Nevada Barbara Boyle said the proposed sale is a "crazy idea."
"You don't sell off assets to get one time money," she said.
Although Boyle concedes that many of the parcels are small and isolated, she says the sale is still a bad idea.
"The overall acreage is a tremendous amount of land," Boyle said. "It's potentially a dangerous precedent to sell large tracts of National Forest land."
Boyle says there needs to be better alternatives to selling public lands.
"Rural counties have had this problem for years. There are better ways to wean counties off the funding or provide another mechanism to fund it. A one time sale leaves no asset left," Boyle said. "Schools should be funded on an adequate basis, regardless."
For more information on the sale and maps of the proposed acreage, visit the USDA National Forest website at www.fs.fed.us.
Thats it for me fellow conservatives. I'm officially off the GW Bush bandwagon. He's a poor speaker, he's done nothing for pro-life issues, he's done minimal things for hte economy .......... but selling national forest lands that the Hunting Community is greatly dependent on, as well as a heritage that is suppose to be for EVERYONE in the United States ? Pure idiocy and I hope this fool plan gets shot down by someone, anyone. If it happens, a trend will be set, and the future of hunting will take a huge, huge blow people.
"
The government has a solemn obligation to safeguard public assets such as forests and not sell them off to the highest bidder.
There are numerous ways the Bush administration could find funds for rural schools and roads that traditionally depended on timber funds without abusing the public trust.
A small percentage reduction in huge agricultural subsidies, or cutting waste in national security spending, or reducing tax benefits for highly profitable businesses are some ways money could be found for rural schools "
Geez i cannt believe i may agree with fienstien[][&o]
Seems a real dumb move selling of OUR lands - i dislike when the state does it here with state land to.
__________________
Let others praise ancient times; I am glad I was born in these.-- Ovid (43 B.C.-A.D. 18)
Things ain't what they used to be and probably never was. ~Will Rogers
Tomorrow hopes we have learned something from yesterday.
"Shouldn't someone tag Mr. Kennedy's 'bold new imaginative program' with its proper age?" "Under the tousled boyish haircut it is still old Karl Marxfirst launched a century ago.
There is nothing new in the idea of a government being Big Brother to us all. R.Reagan-1960
Location: land of the Lilliputians, In the state of insanity
Posts: 24,186
RE: I just changd my mind on GW Bush - damn fool
[:@][:@][:'(] Add that to NCLB as another screw up. But then agian, look at what the other choice would have been. Damn if you do, Damn if you dont. We need a decent 3rd party.
__________________
kaafir mushrik
Unintended consequences and God have one thing in common: Liberals dont believe in either of them.
I wouldn't mind having some of that land. Think about it.
I also find it a bit ironic that so many people vehemently oppose the expanded powers of eminent domain, yetthey seem towant the federal government to own large tracts of land. Come on, socialism is socialism, whether in the big city or the national forest. This country was founded for Americans, not the government.
$2,770,000,000,000. That"s the projected government budget for 2007.
$8,184,000,000,000. That"s the federal debt ceiling. Stable for several years, the debt ceiling was raised by $450 billion in 2002, $984 billion in 2003 and $800 billion in 2004. That comes to" $2,230,000,000 borrowed by the government, to be paid back by taxpayers with interest, since President Bush assumed office. Within a week or two, it will quietly be raised yet again, probably around $800 billion.
This year"s budget includes a record dollar deficit of $423 billion. The only happy faces slapped on that number are that it isn"t an all-time record in percentage of gross domestic product, and that foreign investors are still willing to lend to us.
With the debt at $27,000 for each and every one of the 298 million citizens of this nation, that isn"t much comfort. In comments reported by The Associated Press, Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., told Treasury Secretary John Snow, "America is borrowing 80 percent of the world"s annual savings. We are handing our children and our children"s children a set of obligations they will owe to foreign central banks."" This year"s budget keeps us on that path. It"s a warmed-over series of pledges to cut or eliminate programs and rein in spending. It"s also a warmed-over sacrifice to the altar of supply-side economics, sticking to tax cuts and hoping we grow our way out of the debt hole.
That is not going to happen. According to supply-side urban legend, President Ronald Reagan"s tax cuts in 1981 sparked huge growth and only out-of-control spending caused massive deficits. A Treasury Department report (http://www.treas.gov/ offices/tax-policy/ library/ota81.pdf) on major tax cuts and increases would seem to contradict that. The deficits piled up beginning with the 1981 tax cut weren"t straightened out until after a series of little-noticed tax increases during the Reagan era (every single year from 1982 to 1987), the infamous tax increase that helped cost President George H.W. Bush his job, a Clinton tax increase and economic jump-start helped by the Internet.
The deficit turned into a surplus, and we turned right around and jumped back into the red.
As a result 9 percent of this year"s budget " 9 percent of your tax dollars " will go to finance the debt. That"s the big picture. The 2007 budget offers no change in course. Its attempts to cut spending are often shallow and sometimes best described as cruel. "Scandalous"" and "disappointed"" were words used to greet the plan by two Republican senators, Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania and Olympia Snowe of Maine.
"Scandalous"" sounds about right. The budget doesn"t include spending for the military in Afghanistan and Iraq, or for Hurricane Katrina relief aid. It shows hideous priorities in calling for an elimination of the Social Security death benefit ($255) and would cut off survivor benefits to high school dropouts aged 16 and 17 " while eliminating all funds for dropout prevention programs. Much has already been made about proposed cuts of around $65 billion from Medicaid, Medicare, food stamps, education, etc.
This budget also continues years-long attacks against things like public broadcasting. But dig a little deeper and you find other gems, including:
" A proposal to sell acreage from national forests and Bureau of Land Management properties;
" Cuts of $360 million from drug and alcohol abuse programs, including $322 million removed from the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities programs and the entire budget for the Demand Reduction Program run by the Drug Enforcement Agency;
" A defense budget heavy on money but short on priorities. It calls for more special forces to fight terrorism, which makes sense, but is heavily larded with wildly expensive and currently nonessential items like nuclear attack subs and costly new short-range fighters. Worse, there are no plans to enlarge our overburdened ground forces. In fact, the Army is projected to shrink is size.
What an excellent post. But what can we do about it?
ORIGINAL: Aught Six
I also find it a bit ironic that so many people vehemently oppose the expanded powers of eminent domain, yet*they seem to*want the federal government to own large tracts of land.*
As I understand it the goob doesn't own the land , but rather holds it in trust for the real owners , us . Hence my question above , is it legal for the goob to sell public land ? If so , why don't they have to endure rounds of public hearings first ?
__________________
Kevin Haendiges
NAHC Life Member
NRA Member
Wildlife Forever Member
GOA Member
Buckmasters Member
http://hunting-indiana.com
I just changd my mind on GW Bush - damn fool
][&o]
