Bush selling federal lands including 21,000 acres of Mark Twain National Forest land in Missouri - y

Discussion in 'MWT Community Bulletin Board' started by Gamegetter, Mar 6, 2006.

  1. Gamegetter

    Gamegetter Well-Known Member

    Jan 21, 2004
    Proposed national-forest land sale tilted in Washington's, Oregon's favor
    By MATTHEW DALY

    The Associated Press

    WASHINGTON — More than a quarter of the $800 million the Bush administration plans to raise by selling national-forest land would benefit rural schools in Washington and Oregon, though just 6 percent of the sales would occur in those forest-rich states.

    Only about 10 percent of the proceeds would go toward rural schools in the South and Midwest, the two regions where more than a third of the sales of 300,000-plus acres would occur, according to an analysis by the Southern Environmental Law Center.

    The proposed land sale is part of the administration's plan for reauthorizing a 2000 law set to expire Sept. 30 that has pumped more than $2 billion into rural counties hurt by logging cutbacks on federal land.

    The so-called "county payments" law has helped offset sharp declines in timber sales in Oregon and other Western states in the wake of federal forest policy that restricts logging to protect endangered species such as the spotted owl.

    Under the proposal, Oregon alone would get $162 million in exchange for 10,581 acres. Washington would get $46.9 million in exchange for 7,516 acres.

    Agriculture Undersecretary Mark Rey, who directs U.S. forest policy, said the law was devised to help those rural counties hurt by logging cutbacks on federal lands. Parcels proposed for sale are isolated, difficult or expensive to manage, or they no longer meet Forest Service needs, he said.

    "They are not evenly distributed" throughout the country, Rey said, although Congress could adjust the funding formula as it sees fit. The plan also calls for a phased reduction in funding to zero by 2011.

    David Carr, public-lands director for the nonprofit law center, called the regional disparity unfair and said the land sales would set a dangerous precedent. The center's analysis is based on how states fared under the Forest Service land-sales program this year.

    "Selling off America's natural heritage is not the way to fund government services," Carr said. "We need to be adding to the public-land base in the South, not holding a bake sale on bits and pieces of our limited national forests for short-term budget needs."

    Even prominent Republican leaders question the plan.

    "Why sell most of the lands in those states that don't get much money from these payments and very little land in the states that get the most money?" asked Sen. Pete Domenici, chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.

    The New Mexico Republican said he wanted to "keep an open mind" about the idea. His state would get $2.3 million, just one-fifth of 1 percent of the overall proceeds, in exchange for selling 8,000 acres, or 2 percent of the sales.

    Sen. Jim Talent, R-Mo., also questioned the proposal, saying there was no guarantee money generated by the sales would stay in Missouri.

    Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden, one of the chief architects of the rural-schools law, called questions raised by Talent and Domenici legitimate and said they were a key reason he opposes the plan. "I don't want to pit your beautiful forest against school stability in Missouri," Wyden, a Democrat, told Talent last week.

    Wyden and other Oregon lawmakers say the state receives so much money under the rural-schools law because it was hurt the most by federal policies that restricted logging in the 1990s.

    Other states "aren't half-owned by the federal government, and they didn't see a 95 percent harvest reduction on federal lands," as happened in Oregon and Washington, said Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore.

    Money from the six-year-old "county payments" law has helped offset sharp declines in timber sales in Oregon and other Western states in the wake of federal forest policy that restricts logging to protect endangered species such as the spotted owl.

    Andy Stahl, of Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics, said the land-sale plan puts the inherent inequality of the county payments law in stark relief. "Special places in other states are proposed to be sold so Oregon can get its pork," he said.

    Carr said he would oppose the plan even if formulas were adjusted to give more money to Southern states.

    "We don't think they should be selling land in Oregon or Virginia or Alabama," he said. "The need is to fill in the gaps, not get rid of what they've acquired
     
  2. beanpile

    beanpile just a no body

    And to think I voted for that #@%*#@! and his lap puppet Blunt too


    :moon:
     

  3. glennasher1

    glennasher1 Well-Known Member

    Sep 16, 2004
    Radcliff, KY
    I've seen some of the maps of the land up for sale in KY, in the Daniel Boone NF. It's all surrounded by private property, anyway, and is practically inaccessible. What they plan to sell, is practically useless to the public, for any purpose. If they sold it to some of the surrounding landowners, and used the money from those sales to purchase more land, contiguous with the rest of the DBNF, I would have no objections. That's not the case, unfortunately. I think it's time for some Libertarians in office............ I have precious little faith in the Republicans or Democrats, at this point.
     
  4. mobiggerbucks

    mobiggerbucks New Member

    Jul 21, 2005
    lake of the ozarks
    Sorry guys . I know that politics can ruin a good friendship but I can not keep silent on this one . I was not born a Bush basher . I was made one . He has squandered our wealth to such a point that he has to sell our national treasures to pay for his big government , big business and stupid war . It's like Ronald Regan said " big government is not the answer to our problems , Big government IS the problem ", and George ain't no Ronald Reagan . R.R. would never have done what this idiot is doing . Just think , I voted for him , it's part my fault .
    There ,,,,,,,,,, that is the last politics you will hear from me . Sorry if I pi??ed you off . I am no liberal . I am a STATES RIGHTS guy , Just like R.R. and I don't trust big government so I don't trust George Bush . I hope he is gone before he destroys everything we have . I can't believe he is selling our national forest .
     
  5. Gamegetter

    Gamegetter Well-Known Member

    Jan 21, 2004
    Has anyone seen a map of the Missouri land? With over 21,000 acres from Missouri, doesn't some of that have to be in big chunks? I heard that in mid missouri there were two tracts with a little more than a hundred acres each. I understand something like that or smaller - especially if like glenasher says, they used the money to buy more land. But 21,000 seems like a lot of acres and Missouri is only going to get about 2 million (if that). That comes out to a whopping $100 per acre. Deal or no deal???
     
  6. glennasher1

    glennasher1 Well-Known Member

    Sep 16, 2004
    Radcliff, KY
    mobiggerbucks, no argument from me. I never liked the guy, I just liked the other guy even less.......We need better candidates, not just party affiliations, to go with. So far, we got bupkis.
     
  7. beanpile

    beanpile just a no body

    There is supposed to be a web site up last Wednesday...still not up according to news radio out of Jeff City.
     
  8. Rebel2

    Rebel2 Well-Known Member

    Dec 16, 2003
    Ozark, MO
    "Selling off America's natural heritage is not the way to fund government services," Carr said. "We need to be adding to the public-land base in the South, not holding a bake sale on bits and pieces of our limited national forests for short-term budget needs."

    Nuff said...:soapbox:
     
  9. beanpile

    beanpile just a no body

    I'v got a friend that lives by Boone NF

    Libertarians have a supriseing hold on local politics in the Southwest & NW of the USA. You'd think with Mo's history in the civil war, Libertarians would do well here.

    I vote that way every time I vote :soapbox:
     
  10. Rebel2

    Rebel2 Well-Known Member

    Dec 16, 2003
    Ozark, MO

    Well........... technically NO... our idiotic electoral college is the one that truly casts the votes for the president.. you do NOT have to win the popular vote (us citizens) to win the election.. you have to get the electoral college votes... bunch of idiotic bullcrap.. almost as idiotic as the BCS in college football.. both need to be :sniper:
     
  11. Bowhuntr

    Bowhuntr New Member

    240
    Jun 25, 2005
    Maybe the Electorial College is what is the law but this picture says it all.

    No I don't agree with the land sales, but he was a he!! of a lot better choice then Kerry.
    We would all be reading the Koran and praying to Muhammed by now if Kerry had won.
     
  12. Rebel2

    Rebel2 Well-Known Member

    Dec 16, 2003
    Ozark, MO
    Im shallow as a 6" water well :peepwall: