Skip to comments.Forest Service plans land sale
Posted on 02/09/2006 12:35:03 PM PST by george76
With budgets getting tighter every year, the U.S. Forest Service plans to raise up to $800 million in much-needed cash by selling off 200,000 acres of land across the country...
The proposed land sale would be authorized under a Congressional amendment to the 2,000 Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act.
The law is intended to help rural communities that have seen National Forest logging-based revenue drop as timber cutting dwindled across the country.
The list is based in part on land ownership adjustment analyses that designate lands suitable for disposal.
Most of the lands to be sold are parcels completely surrounded by private land or difficult to manage because they are surrounded on three sides by private land...
Newton said the Dillon District is reviewing the three chunks of land to make sure they meet the criteria for sale, but said they had been previously identified for disposal.
Forest Service officials in Washington, D.C. said a detailed list of the parcels would be made available by the end of the week.
None of the parcels are in wilderness or other protected areas...
The national forest system encompasses about 193 million acres nationwide, and the agency doesn't expect a net loss of lands due to other ongoing acquisition programs.
Since 1990, the agency has added about 2 million acres of land...
(Excerpt) Read more at summitdaily.com ...
Sounds good to me. The US land area is 5,984,685 square miles. The national forest lands of the US make up about 5% of the total area. This is a drop in the bucket.
Money used for: Secure Rural School Act, which sends money to rural schools.
Utah received $2 million from the program in 2005, part of $380 million distributed nationally...
National Forests and Bureau of Land Management land.
The two separate proposals are part of an effort to make the agencies operate more efficiently and generate new revenue in tight budget times, agency officials say.
Together, they would generate more than $1 billion over five years.
Southern Nevada has been where most of the land-sale action has taken place, with the BLM selling off chunks of land surrounding the Las Vegas area.
Sell New England to France.
Not in Utah (or Nevada). The Forest Service is a one of the major land owners, the others being Bureau of Land Management and Utah State Government/Schools.
The fed giveth and the fed takes away....
It's less than a drop in the bucket. It is .001% of the forest land.
As many who live in big cities may not know...
On many counties, the federal government ownes between 90 percent to 99 percent of the land.
It is like living on an island, where you have to get permission from Washington and pay money to Washington to use and/or visit the public land.
The environuts, socialists, and other DUmmies think that it is "government land."
The Feds took in 2 million acres recently...
Now, they will sell 10 percent of the 2,000,000 acres.
Hopefully, some of the money will make it to rural schools.
Quote: "Sell New England to France."
Why bother. The French, seemingly, have already squatted there and now own it by adverse possession.
I covered public land use for Southwest newspapers for about 12 years. "Government land" really gets my goat. If I remember correctly, just 15 percent of Nevada is privately owned.
Re story: "Surrounded on three sides." I made that mistake in my first week, and got laughed at by the whole newsroom.
Been there and had to cater to those nutjobs.
I still own 50 acres that are bounded by NFS. I hope they sell my adjoining parcels, hope they notify me....and I hope I have enough money to buy them.
Back in the 70's, my congressman Wayne Owens (D) somehow managed to purchase several hundred prime lakefront acres. My dad owned the adjoining parcel, and was never notified that it was for sale. Afterward there was a survey that pushed my father's land down under the lake in order for the congressman's new aquisition to be more favorably situated.
Owens' partner in this investment was the State Director of Transportation. My father didn't have the time or money to fight them. He died not long afterwards from his ongoing battle with cancer.....just a side story.
Give em Ted Kennedy as a bonus!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
When the land comes up for sale, post it here.
We could raise some money for the official Free Republic.
That would be fun and piss off the DUmmies at the same time.
Many people in the big cities do not believe it when we say that public lands are being closed.
When were young, we could hike 30 miles per day. As we get older and slower, we can do 3 miles per day.
Disabled folks may not be able to walk at all. How do they get access to public lands ?
By closing the roads, dirt roads, jeep roads, hiking trails, horse back trails, mountain bike trails, and the "ways"...the DUmmies deny us access.
Many state governments also own land & buildings that are not being used. California could raise millions if it sold off 10% of the unused property.
They can have my two acres. That'll be $800 million dollars, please. :)
Trade Canada for Alberta. Heck, throw in CA too :-)
...and throw in New Jersey, too.
The FS land was put into reservations to preserve watershed and to protect the timber for use. It belonged to the Federal government, in large part, being managed by what is now the BLM but was the GLO.
The BLM lands were basically, for the most part, lands that the GLO couldn't sell.
The recreational use and value of the FS lands came later, but are not a part of their originating act.
FYI, for the most part, all land beyond the original colonies was owned first by the US government and then sold; this is not a new thing.
Somehow, though, I have a feeling that there is going to be much bad feeling about this land sale (mostly because local people are going to be concerned that they will lose revenues, and potentially access, and that non-locals will be fighting because they don't want any of the public lands going private, where they have less sayso over how those lands get used. I wouldn't be surprised if they end up not doing it.
As you know, but some others may not remember...
The Federal Government has been selling land since George Washinton was President.
The "North West" was often given to soldiers as partial payment for their services from 1776 to 1784.
We now call that land Ohio, Indiana...
Thomas Jefferson's Lousiana Purchase was paid for, in part, by land sales in Missouri, Kansas, Iowa...
The same in California, Oregon, Washington, Colorado, Arizonia...after James K. Polk was President.
Lincoln sold land in Oklahoma...
The list goes on.
Good news! The less land the forrest service owns, the less harm they can do managing it! :)
and the agency doesn't expect a net loss of lands due to other ongoing acquisition programs.
Aquisitions? From whom?
If I remember correctly, just 15 percent of Nevada is privately owned.
I believe the number was closer to 10%.
I have no problem with the sale. Such a little percent is being proporsed.
1% of Alaska is privately owned. Maybe that estimate is a little high.
No one manages the land better than a private person, rancher, farmer...
They need to be responsible if they are to pass the land to the next generation.
A farmer or rancher has to be environmentally friendly to keep the land productive.
A healthly soil means a future for the family farmer for the generations to come.
They bought 2,000,000 acres recently from American citizens.
Now, they are proposing to sell 10 percent.
The net might be a gain of 1,800,000 acres.
Selling the states lands might be useful.
Often, drug dealers use government lands for drug growing and/or manufacturing.
Meth labs and/or pot farms are often placed on "government" lands.
A private citizens would care more than anyone...and protect that envirnoment from the drug dealers "pollution."
Plus some of the money from the sales goes to local, rural schools.
Let us near from the DUmmies who hate local, rural schools.
I looked at the article last night and notided it talked about land sales in Colorado. Today I see I need to register to read it, which I do not do. Hard to say what the feds will do around here....
Siskiyou County has almost 63% of its land base in federally managed lands (USFS, BLM, USFWS refuges.) There is not enough of a private tax basis to adequately fund essential community services. The federal ownership also precludes any expansion of communities so that development could occur and increase the tax base. When the Forests were reserved, Congress recognized that and passed a law that 25% of the revenue that came from federal lands would go to the counties for schools and roads.
When the Northwest Forest Plan went into effect (northern spotted owl and salmon,) the forests were shut down from timber harvest. Back in the 1950s, we had 50 sawmills, now we have zero - just one plywood mill (peeler/corer) and one door moulding mill.
The Secure Schools and Communities Act was passed by Congress to backfill the counties for this lost revenue. The Act sunsets this year. In Siskiyou County, we will lose slightly under $4 million in revenue for schools, half of our road department's operating budget and the funding for our general county fire (Amador Plan) and search and rescue services. It will be a huge and immediate crisis.
The Act is up for reauthorization. The President wants to renew for five years, but decrease the amount of payment to zero. Then the County will go back to its 25% of whatever harvest is allowed, which has been almost none.
I was told today that 33,000 of those acres slated for disposal are in the Klamath and Shasta Trinity National Forests. Sale would release them into private ownership and back on the private tax roles. I understand that most are along the I-5 corridor. I haven't seen the list, so I don't know how I feel about it. They gave me the URL today: http://www.fs.fed.us/land/staff/spd.html
Thanks for the link. The KNF is selling alot. A cursory check of the list showed scattered parcels near Callahan, also the scattered parcels north of Fort Jones in the Rattlesnake, Patterson and McAdams Crk areas. I also see there scattered parcels around copco lake on the list. Parcels on I-5 in south county would be the Shasta NF. Which I didn't check. Looks like there will be lots of work for me this year if this indeed moves forward.
Is this a proposal, or did congress already pass this?
Tell that to another federal agency, the Tennessee Valley Authority, which is currently selling off land to developers, land it TOOK from families here decades ago.
Why do they need the same number of schools in these areas when the mill have shut down and the jobs have gone. Haven't the people there moved on to greener pastures by now?
And when both the land and the money are gone...then what will rural schools do?
Not familiar with the case you are referring to. Can you tell me more?
Are you referring to the case a few months ago where a municipality took someone's property to put up a shopping mall or something?
They bought 2,000,000 acres recently from American citizens.
Now, they are proposing to sell 200,000 acres, nationwide. These unrelated acres are inaccessable ( inholdings already surrounded by private land, etc. )
The would be a net gain of 1,800,000 acres (since 1990). Thus the public owned land is expanding, not declining.
"The national forest system encompasses about 193 million acres nationwide, and the agency doesn't expect a net loss of lands due to other ongoing acquisition programs."
Hopefully, the rural communities and rural schools will not die. They have been under attack for many decades.
The would be a net gain of 1,800,000 acres (since 1990). Thus the public owned land is expanding, not declining.Hopefully, the rural communities and rural schools will not die. They have been under attack for many decades.
Be careful what you wish for, yours might be next.
forester - the disposal list is the raw list. They have not yet vetted the list for archaeological sites and other features of interest. I have asked them to identify those with mineral claims or grazing allotments. I want to make sure that those areas are either retained to protect those historic split estate uses, or that the rights to those uses are preserved upon sale. That is what happened with BLM land - they wanted to get rid of the split estate lands and wash those interests out through land ownership transfer. We worked out a right of first refusal type of agreement.
This is not the final list. The comment period will be used to vet those that are ok to sell. The hunters will oppose any sale. They are suffering from some severe access issues.
Part of this Presidential initiative is to increase timber sale targets. Because the funds will not be stable, it is likely that the USFS will contract out some of the sale prep work.
As for the comment on schools, this area of California has historically been dotted with small isolated commenuities with small schools. My kids attended a two room elementary school with 40 children. The fifth - eighth grade was in one room and K-4th in the other.
For instance, along the Klamath, towns are separated by a half an hour to an hour drive. There is a large tribal presence in some areas, and others are populated with fifth generation pioneer families that aren't budging. Yes, the school attendance has dropped a bit, but there are still young families in these communities in need of a school. Distance learning helps get expertise to some of the remote areas.