# Selling public lands to fund schools.



## Robert A. Langager (Feb 22, 2002)

Food for thought..........just some info.

http://makeashorterlink.com/?J3D6627AC

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/13833486.htm

CITIZEN-TIMES.com
For sale: National forest land

By Doug Abrahms
STAFF WRITER
February 12, 2006 6:00 am

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration said Friday it wants to sell thousands of acres of federal forest land to aid rural schools, but critics say the plan is an unprecedented auction of public lands.

The Forest Service is considering selling 300,000 acres of land in North Carolina and 33 other states, although the final amount will run about 175,000 acres, said Mark Rey, Agriculture Department undersecretary.

The agency expects to raise $800 million over five years with the sale.

"The parcels ... are isolated, expensive to manage and no longer meeting national Forest Service needs," he said. "We'll revise the list one more time before transmitting it to Congress."

In North Carolina, the Forest Service proposed selling 9,828 acres. That breaks down to 3,835 acres in the Nantahala National Forest; 2,780 acres in the Pisgah National Forest; 2,317 in the Uwharrie National Forest; and 895 acres in the Croatan National Forest, the Southern Environmental Law Center in Chapel Hill said. Land parcels range in size from less than an acre to 561 acres.

North Carolina's four national forests cover 1.25 million acres.

Terry Seyden, spokesman for North Carolina's national forests, could not be reached for comment Friday.

Christopher Joyell, campaign coordinator for the Asheville-based Southern Appalachian Biodiversity Project, said he had few details about the proposal. But he said it seemed to be another step in the Bush administration's effort to move public lands into private hands.

"We've just seen a trend of commercialization of public lands," he said.

Conservationists and some Democratic lawmakers called the sale unprecedented and said the federal government was auctioning off public lands to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy.

Nationally, many of the tracts are in Tahoe, Sequoia, Bridger-Teton and other well-known national forests.

"In my view, selling public lands to pay down the deficit would be a short-sighted, ill-advised and irresponsible shift in federal land management policy," said Sen. Jeff Bingaman, the top Democrat on the Senate's Energy and Natural Resources Committee. "Our public lands are a legacy for future generations. We shouldn't liquidate that legacy."

The Forest Service plans on reviewing the plan for 30 days before sending it to Congress, which could approve, modify or reject it.

The proceeds from the land sales would fund a federal program that provides money to rural counties for schools and roads. Previously, that money came from the general treasury and timber sales, which have fallen off in recent years.

The majority of payments go to Oregon, Washington state and California although communities and counties in 34 states receive some money.

Joyell said his environmental organization believes a balance can be struck to aid rural areas.

"Public lands provide a valuable reservoir of biodiversity. We consider people to be part of that biodiversity," he said.

Rey said many of the tracts lie outside federal forest boundaries and in some cases are surrounded by private land owners. The agency put information on its Web site about the tracts to be auctioned off to make it an open process, he said.

He also noted the Forest Service purchases at least 100,000 acres a year from conservation funds and that will offset the agency's land sales in two years.

The Bureau of Land Management has sold land around Las Vegas and used the money to buy other environmentally sensitive properties in Nevada, said Nicole Anzia of the Wilderness Society, a conservation group. And last year the Forest Service sold off a small amount of land, she said.

"But this sale of forest service land is unprecedented," she said. "I just don't think the American public will go along."

Staff writer Ellyn Ferguson contributed to this report.


----------



## Robert A. Langager (Feb 22, 2002)

Here is another from the Washington Post.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 69_pf.html

Bush Administration Details $1B Land Sales

By MATTHEW DALY
The Associated Press
Friday, February 10, 2006; 6:53 PM

WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration on Friday detailed its proposal to sell more than 300,000 acres of national forests and other public land to help pay for rural schools in 41 states.

The land sales, ranging from less than an acre to more than 1,000 acres, could total more than $1 billion and would be the largest sale of forest land in decades.

Western lawmakers immediately objected, saying the short-term gains would be offset by the permanent loss of public lands. Congress would have to approve the sales, and has rejected similar proposals in recent years.

Forest Service officials say the sales are needed to raise $800 million over the next five years to pay for schools and roads in rural counties hurt by logging cutbacks on federal land. The Bureau of Land Management has said it also plans to sell federal lands to raise an estimated $250 million over five years.

Dave Alberswerth, a public lands expert with the The Wilderness Society environmental group called the plan a billion-dollar boondoggle to privatize treasured public lands to pay for "tax cuts to the rich."

"This is not going to be politically acceptable to most people," Alberswerth said.

But Agriculture Undersecretary Mark Rey, who directs forest policy, said the parcels to be sold are isolated, expensive to manage or no longer meet the needs of the national forest system. The administration expects to have to sell only about 200,000 of the 309,000 acres identified Friday to meet the $800 million goal, he said.

"These are not the crown jewels we are talking about," Rey said in an interview. The public can review the land parcels that are up for sale on the Forest Service's Web site, Rey said; Maps of just four national forests were posted as of Friday, but Rey said all the properties should be posted by month's end.

The public will have until late March to comment on the proposed sales.

"This is a reasonable proposal to take a small fraction of a percentage of national land which is the least necessary and use it for those in need and achieve an important overarching public purpose," Rey said.

The proposed sell-off would total less than half of 1 percent of the 193 million-acre national forest system. The money would be used for roads, schools and other needs in rural counties hurt by sharp declines in timber sales,in the wake of federal forest policy that restricts logging to protect endangered species such as the spotted owl.

A spokeswoman for the Bureau of Land Management, which previously said it will sell another 125,000 acres, said BLM land to be sold would be identified at the local level. The lands are typically part of a checkerboard pattern of small parcels surrounded by suburban or urban areas, Interior officials say, and have been identified as holding little natural, historical, cultural or energy value.

BLM spokeswoman Celia Boddington said much of the land would be near urban areas with high market value. In recent years, the government has sold parcels for tens of millions of dollars in Nevada, for example, she said.

"Lands formerly remote are now abutting metro areas. That is certainly the case in New Mexico, Arizona and Utah," she said.

Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., said that is precisely the reason the land should not be sold.

"Our hunters, anglers, campers and other recreational users benefit from _ and depend on _ access to public lands," Bingaman said. "In my view, selling public lands to pay down the deficit would be a shortsighted, ill-advised and irresponsible shift in federal land-management policy."

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., called the plan "a terrible idea based on a misguided sense of priorities."

Not only is the administration proposing to sell off public lands to help finance the president's budget, the move also won't sufficiently fund the rural schools program, which has helped California and other states, Feinstein said. "I will do everything I can to defeat this effort," she said.

Nearly 500 parcels totaling more than 85,000 acres in California are identified for possible sale.

The proposal follows a failed move last year to allow the sale of public lands for mining. Western senators had criticized the idea, as well as a plan by Rep. Richard Pombo, R-Calif., to sell off 15 national parks.

___


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

I am against it. I know Robert I know its inconsistant but I'm still against it.

Although I don't think either side is sincere, I never thought I would agree with Diane Fiendsteine  

The public land is the only hope  for sport hunting in the future without it we will decend into a European style "elitist only" hunting format, and then as the number of hunters drops precipitously the gun control people will move in without any political block to fear....

I hope it never happpens I've seen enough loss of hunting access for one lifetime


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

love it Bobm, I always told you that when it comes to hunting issues you guys are socialists.  You and Diane Feinstein, whats next Al Sharpton? I do believe this bill has some merit.By selling some dead properties off they will be allowed then to purchase some better properties such as the Ebert Ranch here in ND


----------



## adokken (Jan 28, 2003)

If the Farm Bureau would keep out of it we would probably have the Ebert Ranch by now, They are afraid that it would compete with their paid hunters in that area. They are the worst anti hunting group we have unless of course it is paid hunting


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

there is no such thing as "dead properties" all habitat is needed. The way they claim its land "near already developed" areas is stupid, using that logic you would eventually get all of the public land because there will always be development at its edge.

Too bad that the Public ownership of game animals doesn't stop thieves like you from selling them :eyeroll:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I would become socialist before I would let our public lands be sold off. Nothing ticks me off more than the gready trying to get cheap land at a government basement sale. I don't want it going to ranchers, oil companies, or especially guides or outfitters. I'd dig up Stalin with my bare hands and give him CPR before letting outfitters get it.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

Bobm. For your information I've never sold anything that did not belong to me. Now until you can prove otherwise as a moderator here I take offense to be called a theif.


----------



## Robert A. Langager (Feb 22, 2002)

Although I think it would not make it past congress, I'm not sure which aspect of this story troubles me the most; selling off public lands or the fact that the administration thinks it needs the proceeds to fund public schools. That, within itself, is a sad state of affairs.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

g/o every red-blooded American should be offended by people who sell wildlife under the guise of access. What ever you want to call it, we all know what it really is. It is my opinion that it is selling a public resource for personal gain. Hunting isn't a life or death situation, it is much more important than that for many of us. Society may consider this business legitimate, but I am offended by the disregard, and lack of respect they exhibit. They for sure think we are stupid when they say we only charge for access. I am offended that they think I am that dumb. I would rather be buried with a child molester to my left, and Ted Kennedy to my right than in the same cemetery as an access salesman.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

Plainsman, May I repeat I've never sold anything that doen't belong to me. Now you say you are offended by my disregard,and lack of respect. Could it be the youth hunting area I have? Or could it be the countless projects that benefits wildlife? You continue to say I have and sell wildlife that the public owns. Like I 've said many times, why are the people staying at my place not considered public? Again unless you and Bobm can prove that I am stealing I would appreciate it if you would refrain from calling me a thief.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I was very careful not to offend any thieves. Also, I don't care if it is your land, you don't own the wildlife. Can you wrap your mind around that? Those people are not just the public that stay with you, I consider them purchasers of wildlife. Charge for your room and board, your other services, make them pay through the nose, I don't care, but don't tell me your charging for access I didn't just fall off the cabbage truck. This isn't personal I feel this way about all access salesmen and saleswomen. 
I also don't believe that a access salesman gives a rats behind about youth hunts. It's just good business to appear concerned for today's youth. You may actually very well be concerned, after all they are tomorrows John's.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

Plainsman, Please tell me where I said I own the wildlife on my property?? Please Plainsman do that for me and the others who read this. Please explain to me how it differs that one staying at my place from someone who stays at a motel? Pay through the nose? Clearly you have no idea as usual what you are talking about . To even suggest that I have youth hunts and area because I feel they are the next John is beyond words. Again, prove any of this which of course you can't.


----------



## Robert A. Langager (Feb 22, 2002)

I thought this thread was about the govt. selling public land to fund public schools?


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

g/o ... I don't want to pretend I know a lot about what is happening here ...

BUT ...

If someone creates a situation were by (and I use the phrase loosely here) "the transaction ends" ... isn't there a certain amount of "implied ownership there?"

Can I allow (even entice) someone to take something off my property (especially if I'm being paid for it in some way) without me (and everyone watching me) assuming I have the right (and legal ownership) to do so?

Sorry about that last paragraph ... it was convoluted, but if you read it sowly enough it does make sense :lol:

Just a thought ...


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Yup, we got off topic. 
I don't want to see public land sold. This will be the last place the average Joe will be able to hunt. It will perhaps be the last place they can have any access to land. Greed has no end, and if this land falls into private ownership the future will be pay to hunt, pay to fish, pay to photograph, pay to hike. Set foot on it and you pay. Once the public land is gone the prices will go only one direction, up. 
Not only do the greedy want this public land cheap, they don't want to see the government have anymore land. Many who sell access see public land as competition that holds down the price they can charge.


----------



## Robert A. Langager (Feb 22, 2002)

Should't these rural school districts be adequately funded anyways? Sure, the tax base isn't there. But to advocate selling off National Forest land to timber interests to offset the losses of tax revenue due to timber industry regulation is just plain asinine.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

Robert, Let me again try to make the point I was origianlly trying to make. Many people and groups such as the FB do not want the federal government to own anymore land. Many counties also because that land is off the tax base. One of the reasons the county commisioners on the Eberts Ranch want that property to remain private. Sen Dorgan informed them that the forest service would sell some land off so there would be no net loss. If thats what it takes to get this done then thats not all bad as far as I'm conserned. Please go to hot topics and read Eberts Ranch 3


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I hate to say it, but it is perhaps more of an excuse to sell to lumber companies than to help education. Now you are talking about something that does tick me off at Bush. I'm going to call somebody and find out what the heck is going on. Here in North Dakota we have democrats in Washington, so I think I will phone some other senators (republicans) and express my displeasure of this crap. No matter who is in Washington I guess they all need watching. 
I would let the lumber companies have lumber at fair market value, but I certainly don't want them to have the land, or control of it.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

First post on the politics forum,  : The Ebert Ranch purchase last session wasn't killed because of potential property tax loss; NDGF would have been the purchaser and the property tax would have been paid by NDGF. The purchase was killed by anti-conservation, anti-NDGF forces. Outfitters in western ND fight public land purchases and did so in the press. Farm Bureau, Stockmen's Asc., LAND, etc.

North Dakota has a$$ backwards laws on no-net gain of public land, even though every concern these anti forces advance is met to their satisfaction. Whatever happened to property rights of the public? The antis wear this bagde of porperty rights on their collar when it benefits them, and hide it under their coat when it does not.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Dick
As you explain the Ebert's ranch is as I suspected. The other thing about taxes on these lands that many people don't realize is many agencies pay I think 75% of the taxes as compared to farmers. At first one may say that isn't fair. When you stop to think about it, it is more than fair. A farmer living on the land needs services. On public land there are no children going to school, there are no roads that require snow removal, there are services not required which do not need a tax base to support.

I can just see FB and outfitters not wanting more public land. If it was not for public land hunters would have to hunt on private land or give it up. Hunter numbers would fall lower each year until no one cared if the animal rights people ended hunting. This pay for access will first restrict hunting to the rich, then it will end it.


----------



## Robert A. Langager (Feb 22, 2002)

g/o,

I am somewhat aware of the Ebert's ranch deal, and I do appreciate your perspective. But, given where I sit on things, I do not advocate releasing any public land, but rather the opposite. I will have to stop there. Not safe here to go any further.:wink:

Plainsman,

You are right about keeping any eye out. I heard about this the other day on the local NPR newscast, as it relates to western NC. I was completely dumbfounded and I knew you guys would be too. So I had to end my hiatus from the Politics forum.

Robert


----------

