So you decide
[url=http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/13833486.htm:cc224]http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/13833486.htm[/url:cc224]
Tough to say without being political
So you decide
[url=http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/13833486.htm:cc224]http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/13833486.htm[/url:cc224]
The simpler the outfit, the more skill it takes to manage it, and the more pleasure one gets in his achievements.
--- Horace Kephart
Two Steps Forward, Three Steps Back, then Shuffle to the Right, than Shuffle to the Left.....
Seems every generation, tries to improve things by tearing apart what past generations built to improve things. Too bad we cannot start to learn that to build does not require to destroy past project or acquisitions. You have something that works, then someone has to try to make it "New and Improved", with more problems than improvements.
"I remember a situation back ins the late 1920's that brought on lot of troube, was referred to as the "Tea Dome Scandel" where many members of President Hardings Cabinet ended up in court... and some to went to jail.
These are very small parcels of land, (frankly no loging company is going to bring equipment and men in to log sites of 1/2 to 200 acres) and I'm wondering if the sales would be to 'in-holders' - a group of people who bought cabins/cottages within National Forest lands who found they had very limited access to their property, as access rights expired or the only road became gated and locked.
------------------
LadyFisher, Publisher of
FAOL
I don't think there are many of us who actually DO know what the plan involves, other than the total acreage. In principal, I'm opposed to privatizing public lands in favor of a very few people who have more money than the average Joe that can't afford it. It allows the Camel's nose into the tent. As far as privatized land being valued the most by the purchaser, I beg to differ. It just means he has more money. It may help with access issues for some landowners, but it would create as many or more issues by being locked up from use by people who've perhaps been utilizing it for many years. At the least, it should be undertaken on a case by case basis, with at least some oversite by advocates for the public. Once they're sold, they WILL be gated and locked.
------------------
Lew
They're just fish, right? Right?
since my thread was closed, here are the land totals by state.
State Total
Ala. 3,220
Alaska 99
Ariz. 1,030
Ark. 3,612
Calif. 85,465
Colo. 21,572
Fla. 973
Ga. 4,522
Idaho 26,194
Ill. 191
Ky. 4,518
La. 3,895
Mich. 5,880
Minn. 2,622
Miss. 7,503
Mo. 21,566
Mont. 13,948
Neb. 360
Nev. 2,782
N.M. 7,447
N.C. 9,828
Ohio 420
Okla. 3,572
Ore. 10,581
S.C. 4,665
S.D. 13,961
Tenn. 2,996
Texas 4,813
Utah 5,398
Va. 5,717
Wash. 7,516
W.Va. 4,836
Wis. 80
Wyo. 17,659
Nation 309,441
************************************ [url=http://www.usda.gov:0abff]www.usda.gov[/url:0abff]
This is also an "opinion piece", my post on the main board says the exact same thing, yet you closed it. This as with the Pombo (R) mining provision that was earmarked into the defense bill is no different. The people of America do not want these provisions, yet big business does (mining industry and/or timber industry). This is for profits that will have the sound of politically correct backing (rural developement) but we can't budget for it in the 2007 fiscal year, because we have a deficit and have to put a for sale sign on federal land to pay for it. We are crushing medicare, social programs, National parks, and education in the name of Nation building in Iraq and Afghanistan for the boys we want home.
[url=http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=6008:b8632]http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=6008[/url:b8632] [url=http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/3624134.html:b8632]http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/3624134.html[/url:b8632]
Foxtrot, I closed the thread because it is confusing to have 2 threads running on the same subject. If you had even bothered to look in this section before you posted you would have avoided the problem.
And while the title of this thread says, "Tough to say without being political" you seem to feel you can be political and get away with it.
You now claim this is big business, mining and logging who wants these sales...exactly which of those is going to jump up and down to buy a 1/2 acre piece? Or 200 acres, which is the largest of all the parcels? The sale numbers you give by state do not hold up. The total land sale is for 200,000 acres . I did a search on the USDA site you listed and found no such figures. If you care to post the entire url where you found it I would appreciate it.
To politicalize the sale by adding links to Haliburton articles is disingenuous to say the least, it has no bearing on the subject being discussed.
Selling to fund the troops? Not. All of these sales have the funds earmarked for the local schools which have been funded in part by timber sales, did you bother to read the article at all?
[This message has been edited by LadyFisher (edited 11 February 2006).]
LF, I'm not defending Foxtrot's point of veiw but if I felt we were were free to express our true feelings here on FAOL I would have stated my thoughts on the issue rather than just posting the news link.
------------------
I never lost a little fish
yes, I'm free to say
It always was the biggest fish
I caught that got away
...Eugene Field
The simpler the outfit, the more skill it takes to manage it, and the more pleasure one gets in his achievements.
--- Horace Kephart
"Just the facts mam" - One can express their opinion, but when people say things which are not true that crosses the line. Trying to not be political is difficult. Perhaps he felt it was just best to post the article?
------------------
LadyFisher, Publisher of
FAOL
he = me ?Perhaps he felt it was just best to post the article?
The simpler the outfit, the more skill it takes to manage it, and the more pleasure one gets in his achievements.
--- Horace Kephart
Posting Permissions
