So you decide
[url=http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/13833486.htm:cc224]http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/13833486.htm[/url:cc224]
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
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
“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
Perhaps he felt it was just best to post the article?
he = me ?
Yes dudley 
LadyFisher, Publisher of
FAOL
Forgive my neivete’, but in my mind there was no way anyone could defend the administrations position.
That is why I posted the link without comment.
I stand corrected.
[This message has been edited by dudley (edited 11 February 2006).]
I don’t understand how any government agency can sell public land, and use it for some other purpose. I know in the State of Minnesota, that the Minnesota DNR cannot sell public land, except to purchase other land to increase a acreage in another public land area, for the good of the new area helping improve the addition to other public land area. Case in Point, some marginal public land was sold, to help purchase more prairie grassland, to connect separate sections of native grasslands, to help the Prairie Chickens have a better chance at increasing their chances of survival.
But to sell public land, for the purpose of helping out school districts, is not a solution to a problem, it is only a band-aid. Also how do they justify taking land sales (Department of Interior), and transfering the money to Department of Education? I can see selling these isolated land tracts to use the funds to purchase land to add to larger tracts of public lands, to enhance those larger tracts. I just do not see the logic or the legality of selling pubic lands to temporaryly help out schools that have a budget problem.
There are other ways of correcting problems, without having to sell off property.
Steven, the money is not going to the Dept. of Education. It is going to the local school systems who in part depend on timber sales from ‘public land’. Timber sales have declined in recent years
and this is way to help that. None of the money from these sales goes to the Federal Government for any use.
Go back and read the first article posted.
LadyFisher, Publisher of
FAOL
Steven. Lady Fisher is correct when she states that the money is allocated to the local government in lieu of monies received from timber sales. Local governments have become somewhat dependent on those funds to run their schools. What is not being said is the economic benefit the local people receive when the land is sold to a private party. Not only will the local governments receive part of the proceeds of the sale, but the sale will place that piece of property on the tax roles which will mean increased revenue again for the local folks.
So if a person was not at all worried about the enviromental impact or the loss of the land to the public, it is a reasonable method of disposing of excess government property.
All that being said, I do hope that if this sale goes forward that the impact on access to hunting, fishing and other recreational purposes be given more than due consideration before a parcel is offered for sale.
Tim Anderson, Klamath Falls, Oregon
Just got done mapping out the proposed sales in my area.just under 5000 acres in my immediate area.My map only covered the north end of the Kootenai national forest.I did a property swap with my father last year.the piece I swapped out of,butts up against one of the proposed sale pieces.
A couple of really nice lake front properties
and a really big chunk of river frontage just south of my place.
It also looks like a big hunk is off the Kootenai River between Libby and Troy.
southwest of Libby.
Gonfishin? May I ask where you got your information? The total land sale is for 200,000 acres…
LadyFisher, Publisher of
FAOL
[url=http://www.fs.fed.us/land/staff/rural_schools.shtml:5646d]http://www.fs.fed.us/land/staff/rural_schools.shtml[/url:5646d]
I only mapped out and counted the acreage on the area in my immediate local that I felt most likely to affect me {north end Kootenai national forest Libby dam to the Canadian border}and I also realize that these are only proposed as areas for further investigation for future sales.
I can tell you that several local developers
are salivating as we speak.Some of the proposed pieces are very nice properties
with excellent development potential.
Yes some of the proposed properties are under utilized and probably should go on the auction block but several are public access to local lakes,a river,several streams and
popular local hunting areas.So in short it’s
not all a bad idea since payment in lieu of taxes[PILT] to our schools has been declining steadily with the demise of the timber industry.Just proceed with caution and respect local opinion because I know what its like to lose access to land you love.
gonfishing, I just checked the Montana section map from the link you provided, and the parcels are indeed very isolated with the largest being 280 acres and the smallest 1.66 acres. The plat is titled Bitterroot National Forest and is the only Montana plat given. Are we looking at the same thing?
Sorry I just found the list, wonder why they don’t show the plat of the Kootenai NF like they do for the ‘root’?
LadyFisher, Publisher of
FAOL
[This message has been edited by LadyFisher (edited 11 February 2006).]
Just saw your last post Ladyfisher.
It looks like the site will be updated with maps on 28 Feb.
[url=http://www.fs.fed.us/land/staff/spd.html:41f9e]http://www.fs.fed.us/land/staff/spd.html[/url:41f9e]
Ladyfisher I went to the upper link. lands for potential sale or development I believe.
then did it the hard way by tract,township,range and section noting as I went how many acres were in each proposed sale area then marked the areas that affected my area on a current Kootenai National Forest[KNF] map to get a better feel for the potential impact.Below is a list just for the north end of the KNF.
By Township,Range,Section,acreage and legal description.
R27W T36N section 20 is my old stomping grounds R26W T35N section 4 231 acres has a few good fishing holes in it.I usually wade up to it from my place and at the going rate for river frontage is worth between 2-1\2 and 3-1\2 million by its self.Priced based on what the 100 acres just down river sold for this winter and another comparable adjacent piece is selling for currently.
Kootenai
Principal 34 N. 26 W. 4 70.71 Lot 3, SENW
Kootenai Principal 34 N. 26 W. 7 40 NENE
Kootenai Principal 34 N. 26 W. 10 40 SENE
Kootenai Principal 35 N. 26 W. 2 159.99 Lots 3 & 4, SWNE, SENW
Kootenai Principal 35 N. 26 W. 3 320 SWNE, S2NW, E2SW, N2SE, SWSE
Kootenai Principal 35 N. 26 W. 4 231.79 S2NW, N2SW, SWSW, NWSE less railroad right-of-way
Kootenai Principal 35 N. 26 W. 5 160 E2SW, W2SE
Kootenai Principal 35 N. 26 W. 10 40 SENE
Kootenai Principal 35 N. 26 W. 11 340 S2NW, NESW, W2NWSW, S2SW, NESE, W2SE
Kootenai Principal 35 N. 26 W. 13 160 SWNE, SENW, NESW, NWSE
Kootenai Principal 35 N. 26 W. 25 80 SWNE, SENW
Kootenai Principal 36 N. 26 W. 15 280 SWNE, NWNW, S2NW, N2SW, NWSE
Kootenai Principal 36 N. 26 W. 17 80 SESW, SWSE
Kootenai Principal 36 N. 26 W. 20 240 W2NE, E2NW, NESW, NWSE
Kootenai Principal 36 N. 26 W. 27 40 SWSE
Kootenai Principal 36 N. 26 W. 34 120 N2NE, SWNE
Kootenai Principal 37 N. 27 W. 22 40 NWSW
[This message has been edited by gonfishn (edited 12 February 2006).]