http://www.fs.fed.us/land/staff/rural_schools.shtml
Secure Rural Schools Forest Service FY 2007 Initiative - The FY 2007 President's Budget proposes to reauthorize the Secure Rural Schools program for another five years. To help fund this initiative, the Administration recommends selling a limited number of acres of National Forest System lands around the nation. Lands that are potentially eligible have been identified and are displayed in a table here.
http://www.fs.fed.us/land/staff/spd.html

The Forest Service will be publishing a notice in the Federal Register around February 28th, requesting comments from the public. At that time, more detailed maps will be available for all lands identified as potentially eligible. The location of the maps will be published on this site at that date.
http://www.fs.fed.us/land/staff/rural_schools.shtml

This is pretty disturbing, because even though funding rural schools is important, I'm not sure selling tons of national forest land to private owners is the solution. There are other options, for instance, less weapons and illegal wars, perhaps.

Agriculture Secretary Mark Rey says that these lands "are not the crown jewels," and Forest Service spokeperson Heidi Valetkevitch's says that the "lands in question aren't environmentally sensitive wilderness or protected scenic areas." However, American Whitewater says they "question the adequacy of their review."
http://www.americanwhitewater.org/content/Article/display/articleid/1635/display/full

Take a look at the list of acreage to be sold. It's about 300,000 acres total.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-021006forest_lat,0,1030546.story?coll=la-home-headlines&track=morenews

I used to go hiking and camping in Pisgah National Forest with my parents, and now they're going to sell alot of it. What if the areas where I used to camp in the gorgeous wilderness of NC one day becomes a Walmart? I shudder to think...

[Edited on February 21, 2006 at 9:04 AM. Reason : .]

2/21/2006 9:01:37 AM

Quote :

"This is pretty disturbing, because even though funding rural schools is important, I'm not sure selling tons of national forest land to private owners is the solution. There are other options, for instance, less weapons and illegal wars, perhaps."

Why not do both? Have fewer wars, AND sell of some government land. Why not cut the deficit while we're at this?

Quote :

"I used to go hiking and camping in Pisgah National Forest with my parents, and now they're going to sell alot of it. What if the areas where I used to camp in the gorgeous wilderness of NC one day becomes a Walmart? I shudder to think..."

I doubt walmart wants to build out in the middle of nowhere. Odds are the land is going to sold to a logging firm which would commense tree farming or to someone eager to build a vacation resort of log cabins. Either way the trees will still be there and probably still available for your use.

A third option is to sell it to developers from an encroaching city which already surrounds the land, meaning the government would get top dollar for the land, easily justifying the sale of this high-priced land with the purchase of other cheaper land to replace it. Either way, the government makes out, some people are made happy, and you still have a place to go walk-about. If it is the third option, then you always have the option of "least-cost avoider": use money to pursuade the developer to leave your valley alone in hopes it would drive up the value of his other land. People would pay far more for a house next to a neat valley with walking trail than just another house next to other houses.

2/21/2006 11:41:00 AM

Quote :

"I doubt walmart wants to build out in the middle of nowhere."

obviously that was just an example of the nature of this.

Quote :

"Why not do both? Have fewer wars, AND sell of some government land. Why not cut the deficit while we're at this? "

being of the mindset that limited government involvement is good, I still think that national forests are one of the exceptions.

it's not about whether i have "a place to go walk-about." it's about protecting as-of-yet undeveloped land before it ALL becomes developed.

2/21/2006 12:07:24 PM

Quote :

"DirtyGreek: I used to go hiking and camping in Pisgah National Forest with my parents, and now they're going to sell alot of it. What if the areas where I used to camp in the gorgeous wilderness of NC one day becomes a Walmart? I shudder to think..."

I don't shudder at all, I think it would be fantastic. Whatever logging company rips through these lands will help lower the artificially exorbitant cost of lumber and help create jobs in just about every single sector of the economy.

Just speaking for me personally, I'd prefer employing more people and ending corporate welfare for companies like Wayerhauser over preserving your nostalgia...

[Edited on February 21, 2006 at 12:20 PM. Reason : ---]

2/21/2006 12:18:55 PM

I'm partial to keeping forrests protected too.

We need some pretty up in this peice.

2/21/2006 12:19:04 PM

Quote :

"it's not about whether i have "a place to go walk-about." it's about protecting as-of-yet undeveloped land before it ALL becomes developed."

And where did you get the idea that was going to happen? Obviously not from the statistics which proclaim that every year the acreage of America's forested lands increases:

2/21/2006 12:46:04 PM

^
don't be silly, those statistics are before W took office

2/21/2006 12:48:06 PM

real forrest > replanted forrest with little genetic variation

2/21/2006 12:49:33 PM

tax cutter & high spender... hes gotta go somewhere for the money

2/21/2006 12:54:52 PM

replanted forrest > lie that there is no forest

You literally cannot see the forest for the genetic makeup of the trees.

2/21/2006 12:57:38 PM

oh i know
i just wanted to make it clear that replanting new forrests isn't really something to put much weight on

2/21/2006 1:01:29 PM

http://www.cnr.umn.edu/bp/courses/cd/ev11.html
Great site. Good graphs too.




Note the slight decline in net forest growth since 1976. This decline in growth rate is traceable to the fact that volumes of standing timber in U.S. forests have been increasing steadily since 1930. This reality means, in turn, (Figure 24 from Powell et al) that the average age of trees has increased, leading to increased maturation of forest stands and increased natural mortality (Powell et al.). The decline in growth rates, in combination with increased harvests, driven by increasing demand for wood, has served to reduce growth/harvest ratios for the nation as a whole.

2/21/2006 1:07:22 PM

that website is really old

2/21/2006 1:10:33 PM

Quote :

"©1998-1999"

Not that old... but how much do we expect to have changed in one decade for the oldest industry in America?

2/21/2006 1:19:17 PM

well at the end of the graph removals are trending up and net growh is trending down
so i might expect a lot to have changed since 1991

2/21/2006 1:35:59 PM