Tough to say without being political

[Gigmaster]

Don't believe it. The Feds are doing the smokescreen thing, again.

First off, the Feds are not going to sell land and not get thier cut from it. It would be illegal. No one gets something for nothing, not even a local government.

Second, schools are funded through local property taxes, not timber income. A portion of the sales tax may be used, but most of it is through property taxes. There is no reason why these rural locations cannot finance thier own schools, just like everywhere else.

If the Feds are so wanting to help, then they can do more by cutting the areas tax burden and providing tax credits and incentives to the businesses and local citizens. They could provide vouchers for private schooling, etc..., we could turn the Iraqi occupation over to the other UN countries (and just tell them we can't afford it), bring our sons and daughters home, and give the money they were using for that to the rural counties. There are many solutions, none of which involve selling public land.

Don't be fooled. It is another scam by the Feds. Some politically powerful entity wants those lands, and will most likely get them. The parcels may be 200 acres, but what's to stop a single concern from purchasing all of them? A similar situation arose in the 1800s after the passage of the Homstead Act. Ranchers paid people to file homesteads on small parcels of land, but the parcels controlled the water rights for
large areas, allowing the mega-ranches to flourish and have virtual control over miles of land they didn't own, driving smaller farmers and other concerns out.

Beware!!!!!!

Semper Fi!

[gonfishn]

Gigmaster out here we have what is called PILT [payment in lieu of taxes] since we have so much federal land [If I remember right around 70% in my county] in some counties a percentage of timber reciepts were recycled
to that county for education and if I remember right road maintainance, but with the demise of the timber industry that amount has rapidly declined so either increase the tax base by increasing taxes on real property mine this year are 1.5% of my assessed value on my home [around 1250]don't know on my river frontage yet,institute a sales tax or encourage the kids to dropout in 6th grade and get a job.

[Rawthumb]

It may be usedul to put all of this in context and examine the law, rather than writing a tome of opinions.

The federal government is a major landowner in many counties and states throughout the nation, and nowhere is that more prevalaent than the after-acquired lands of the west. lands that were acquired through the Louisiana Purchase, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidlago, and the Treaty of Fort Vancouver. The fed pays no property taxes to the state or counties on lands owned. As the supreme government in our system, it has the power to exempt itslef from state regulation and taxation, or the power to submit and cooperate. The people within communities where the fed is a major landowner acted through their Congresmen and Senators in DC to get some relief from the fed since it paid no taxes. Moreover, the feds-USDA/USFS and BLM saw benefit in working with the locals because they (for the benefit of the greater public) and the locals need roads and maintenance and the locals can help them with that. The locals do in fact maintain the overwhelming majority of public roads through federal lands.

So, through the years, and through the political process Under federal law, a system developed in which counties and/or states receive a percentage of revenue from extractive activities on federal lands. Generally, counties receive 25% of revenue generated from logging USFS land. The BLM owns some fine timberlands in the Pac NW, under the Oregon & California Lands Act (OCLA), and the counties in which those BLM timberlands are located receive 50% of the revenue. Interestingly, the OCLA is a domninant use statute-timber production-and they are not subject to the multiple use mandate of FLPMA that control other BLM lands. The dominant use aspect of the OCLA is what drove the NIMBYism in the Pac NW to get the Spotted Owl, Marbled Murrelet, and other species listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA. Once they were listed and the critical habitat designated, the enviro groups accomplished what they could not in the absence of a multiple use mandate on the BLM timberlands. USFS lands are subject to a multiple use mandate under the Nat'l Forest Mgt. Act (NFMA), and to my recollection, the USFS does not hold lands that are exceptions to a multiple use mandate. Apparently, the operating income is low from the extractive acitivities on a lot of western public lands and the fed. govt is trying to take up the slack by selling land.

States generally receive 50% of the oil and gas revenue earned under the Mineral Leasing Act; and 25% of money earned for offshore activities under the Offshore Leasing Act. The BLM has leasing and supervising authority for virtually all lands that award leases under the MLA, even those controlled by other agencies, and BLM does so even if the other agency objects. The agency conrolling the surface has no statutory power to stop it. The Nat'l Wildlife Refuge Act generally provides the Sec of Interior with discretion to determine if extractive activities are "consistent" with the purpose of a given NWR. The case is different with ANWR, because Congress passed the American Nationail Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) shortly before Carter left office that remoeve the Secretary's discretion with respect to that NWR, and required a further act of Congress to open it to oil production. The NWR Act generally provides 25% of revenue to the states

[foxxtrot]

here is your link by state showing tracks and total acreage. Not hard to find by anymeans thru usda.gov or the forest service site. [url=http://www.fs.fed.us/land/staff/spd.html:a0a90]http://www.fs.fed.us/land/staff/spd.html[/url:a0a90]

the largest parcel is 640 - 720 acres. Not under 200 acres. Yes there are alot of smaller tracks.

"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." [url=http://www.bettermines.org/pombo.cfm:a0a90]http://www.bettermines.org/pombo.cfm[/url:a0a90]

This statement above is fact, considering the public outrage at this budget provision for the 2007 budget and the mining provision for the 2006 Defense Spending bill that passed in January.

What I was trying to get at is: instead of fighting a war that big business is profiting from, why don't we take care of number 1, the United States of America. I understand that we have to protect the United States interests overseas and our oil interests as well to feed the animal we are.

"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?" - you

Also, when did I say this was to fund the troops? I never mentioned that. I said:
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.

You need to reread what was stated and look at the issue a bit closer and maybe you should reread the article. I understand that programs are being budgeted less to help rural development and every other social program. This money is going to Defense. Programs that matter and make a difference. Americorps is one that would be shutdown because of this budget. [url=http://www.americorps.gov/:a0a90]http://www.americorps.gov/[/url:a0a90]


We as Americans need to cut the pursestrings of our Elected officials and ask them why they cater to big business rather than the constituents that elected them. Get involved as I do, writing more than 50 letters weekly on issues that need addressing.
[url=http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=reports_pigbook2005:a0a90]http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=reports_pigbook2005[/url:a0a90]

[LadyFisher]

Rawthumb is absolutley correct and thank you gonefishin for the information as well. For those who are not familar with this at all, as it appears many aren't, this is not a new program, but the continuation of a year 2000 program. And it has been going on long before that.

Please don't just shoot from the hip with your political opinion, either contribute real facts and actual information or don't post on this subject.

I have removed two totally political posts which had nothing to do with the subject.
Those folks should have known better, or at least read the story before they posted.


------------------
LadyFisher, Publisher of
FAOL

[LadyFisher]

Foxtrot, I have read all of the articles you linked. None of them have any bearing or connection with the sales discussed here.
If you wish to start NEW topics on them, this is the place to do so.

You certainly have a right to your opinion on a topic, but your links are an attempt to
either highjack, or obfuscate this subject.
No where is there any 'proof' the money from these sales are "going to defense." Maybe some other funds, such as the mining bill you show, but not these.

It's obvious you have a dog in some fight, but not this one.



------------------
LadyFisher, Publisher of
FAOL

[foxxtrot]

Obviously you are not reading my posts.This statement of yours proves so:

No where is there any 'proof' the money from these sales are "going to defense." Maybe some other funds, such as the mining bill you show, but not these

I am comparing the the below, yet you cannot see it.
I am talking about the Fiscal 2007 budget vs. the sale of Federal Land with National Forest boundaries. Why are we cutting projects that help all americans and selling land when we should provision funds to support projects that the Excutive branch deems not important. We shouldn't sell the land, rather we should use the money we spend on defense to help the domestic policy that are getting shortchanged. Bring our troops home and rebuild from within.

[LadyFisher]

Foxtrot, I did read them. You are trying to confuse apples and horses. The land sales we are discussing are part of an on-going program. The money has been previously ear-marked. If you don't like what was done back in the year 2000, take it up with your government representatives. You aren't going to change it here.

------------------
LadyFisher, Publisher of
FAOL

[Rawthumb]

Ranchers, mining, and timber companies don't want tpublic lands going up for bid at the highest price. Their activities would be too capital intensive compared to the system that exists now--grazing permits, patenting mine iste, and timber sales for which USFS builds roads. They'd rather see the lands ceded to the state so that they could exert more influence over it through an entirely local political process.

Lands going up for sale will attract developers who think that they can build on it and turn a big profit and well heeled sportsmen looking for their own little spot. Ranchers can't compete with them, and most timber and mining companies can't either. Mining is expensive to undertaks in the first instance, it has to be a huge deposit to draw the big cos. in to do it on the large scale that is necessary, and itcarries a long term expense of reclamation.

[Arkriver]

OK, folks in a previous life I worked and retired from what is often called "Uncle Sams' Tree Club" or the Forest Service. I worked in AZ and NM. You need to take a look at each parcel of land and decide if it is good or bad to let it pass to private ownership. In some places we had lands occupied by private parties due largely to lack of surveys when the land was settled. A cemetary serves no purpose in public owership and would be best administered by a local unit of government. In other areas there were small isolated parcels scattered among patented mining claims. To even locate these parcel on the ground would have required major expenditure for surveys.

If you don't like some of it that is fine. Get the facts and discuss it with you local landmanager and tell your congressman. In other cases govt. efficiency will be improved by selling some of these particles. Allyn