|
happiegrrrl
Feb 12, 2006, 4:59 PM
Post #26 of 72
(8465 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 25, 2004
Posts: 4660
|
I didn't delve very deeply into the provided link(s), but one thing that caught my eye was a disclaimer that the list was subject to change without notice, and the descriptions(and acreages too, I think, but maybe am rememebring wrong; it was last night when I read it) might not be accurate.
Is it NOT like our admin to post lands that aren't that big an issue, if one really is able to see what they are passing off as the parcels, and then, after the time alloted for discussion, switch up things and auction off lands that are ....oh, just a weee bit different.
|
|
|
|
|
bandidopeco
Feb 12, 2006, 6:25 PM
Post #27 of 72
(8465 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 17, 2004
Posts: 257
|
"Rey said the sales are necessary because it was impossible to find enough funds elsewhere in a declining Forest Service budget to make up for the loss of the school and road subsidies."
Wow, I didn't realize that the Forest Service was responsible for roads and education. It's kind of annoying that whenever there are new taxes or sales like this they seem to always be for "the kids" or the future or roads, which isn't true. Money in the budget is just that, so from the proceeds of this sale, 86% will go into Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and Offense/Defence.
I'd like to see the maps before I make a judgement. (in a related matter, wouldn't it be cool if they used Google Earth for the maps?)
|
|
|
|
|
mistajman
Feb 12, 2006, 6:43 PM
Post #28 of 72
(8465 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 15, 2005
Posts: 136
|
This is fucking ridiculous. I can't believe what our country is coming to. Now is the time we all have to fight to keep our national forests.
|
|
|
|
|
scrapedape
Feb 12, 2006, 6:52 PM
Post #29 of 72
(8465 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 24, 2004
Posts: 2392
|
In the greater scheme of things, 85,000 acres of land is not that much - about 0.004% of the total land area of the US (2.3 billion acres). Think about taking 25 gallons out of an olympic sized swimming pool.
The population of the country continues to grow and people need space to live and resources to build with. It is unreasonable, in my view, to take a dogmatic anti-development, or anti-logging view. Managed forestry can be a sustainable business proposition, providing jobs, profits, and resources for years and years.
Personally, I believe that forest lands are best left in the hands of government, with harvest licenses distributed to logging companies in return for royalties. But private ownership of forest lands may encourage owners to take a greater responsibility for sustainable harvesting, since they stand to gain more from responsible forest practices.
The proposal-comment-final rule structure used in these sorts of situations provides a real avenue for the public to express concerns about such proposals. If the lands have a high recreation or conservation/biodiversity value, the public may have a legitmate opportunity to influence the process for the better. Many (most) of the people in government agencies are career public servants who are not bogeymen and want to take a balanced approach that satisfies as many people as possible. If the land in question just another 85,000 acres of run of the mill forest, maybe the best use for it is to be harvested.
|
|
|
|
|
glyrocks
Feb 12, 2006, 7:25 PM
Post #30 of 72
(8465 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 614
|
In reply to: But private ownership of forest lands may encourage owners to take a greater responsibility for sustainable harvesting, since they stand to gain more from responsible forest practices.
There is a bit in The Corporation (a documentary on, you guessed it, corporations) where some CEO advocates private ownership of everything- including things like streams, tress, water, and the air. His point was the same as yours: private ownership will encourage better management and care. We would have cleaner air, cleaner water, and more tress because someone is making money off those things. Now, perhaps that is true, perhaps something will create a market and that market will drive greater responsibility and sustainability. But do we really want to fuel this overwhelming drive for profit? Even if a capitalistic market would preserve forested land- of which there is no guarantee--shouldn't we be capable of accomplishing that without resorting to money-making schemes? Do we really want more profits to be our baseline reason to preserve places?
I know, I'm young, idealistic, don't understand the world and the government and economics. But think about it: Do we want to strengthen the trend toward a society where everything profit-driven?
|
|
|
|
|
mistajman
Feb 12, 2006, 7:35 PM
Post #31 of 72
(8465 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 15, 2005
Posts: 136
|
In reply to: In the greater scheme of things, 85,000 acres of land is not that much - about 0.004% of the total land area of the US (2.3 billion acres). Think about taking 25 gallons out of an olympic sized swimming pool. The population of the country continues to grow and people need space to live and resources to build with. It is unreasonable, in my view, to take a dogmatic anti-development, or anti-logging view. Managed forestry can be a sustainable business proposition, providing jobs, profits, and resources for years and years. Personally, I believe that forest lands are best left in the hands of government, with harvest licenses distributed to logging companies in return for royalties. But private ownership of forest lands may encourage owners to take a greater responsibility for sustainable harvesting, since they stand to gain more from responsible forest practices. The proposal-comment-final rule structure used in these sorts of situations provides a real avenue for the public to express concerns about such proposals. If the lands have a high recreation or conservation/biodiversity value, the public may have a legitimate opportunity to influence the process for the better. Many (most) of the people in government agencies are career public servants who are not bogeymen and want to take a balanced approach that satisfies as many people as possible. If the land in question just another 85,000 acres of run of the mill forest, maybe the best use for it is to be harvested.
Scrapedape,
I Agree that sustainably managed forests are the answer. But lets sustainably manage what we already have, not sell our public lands to the highest bidding logging company. Most of the time the logging companies that are able to bid the highest are not those that practice sustainable forestry. Is this hitting in your backyard? Maybe you would feel differently if your favorite crag was in part of the parcel being sold. Your comparison of taking 25 gallons out of an olypmic size swimming pool is stupid. If everyone took out 25 gallons it would be gone real quick. If this act passes, being its the biggest in recent years, it will open the doors for filthy politicians to log wherever they want. Who knows whats next, national parks? Start thinking with more than just money as your guide. Take into consideration all the natural beauty that will be lost, and all the people who love those areas. They say that they are giving public the chance to comment. Have you ever been involved in a process like this, do you think they really care about the average citizens opinion?
|
|
|
|
|
braaaaaaaadley
Feb 12, 2006, 7:38 PM
Post #32 of 72
(8465 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 9, 2002
Posts: 576
|
In reply to: In the greater scheme of things, 85,000 acres of land is not that much - about 0.004% of the total land area of the US (2.3 billion acres). Think about taking 25 gallons out of an olympic sized swimming pool.
Yes, but the point is is that these lands are not his lands to take... this should not be his decision.
|
|
|
|
|
mistymountainhop
Feb 12, 2006, 8:08 PM
Post #33 of 72
(8465 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 14, 2003
Posts: 410
|
[quote="glyrocks"]In reply to: Now, perhaps that is true, perhaps something will create a market and that market will drive greater responsibility and sustainability. But do we really want to fuel this overwhelming drive for profit? Even if a capitalistic market would preserve forested land- of which there is no guarantee--shouldn't we be capable of accomplishing that without resorting to money-making schemes? Do we really want more profits to be our baseline reason to preserve places? I know, I'm young, idealistic, don't understand the world and the government and economics. But think about it: Do we want to strengthen the trend toward a society where everything profit-driven?
It has been proven time and time again, that while democrats are criticized for giving handouts to those who dont deserve it, republicans are complete whores to corporations. Look at G. Dubya's extensive record of pleasing the biggest money maker- doing sh-t about global warming b/c oil companies donate so much to his campaign, Katrina rebuilding, Haliburton, and among others, GDUb is a whore to currency.
We are in this pathetic situation in Iraq that is costing the US billions of dollars........ without raising taxes the money has to be derived from somewhere........ depleting NATURAL RESOURCES! thank God drilling in ANWR got voted down, which Bush sponsored. So YES, Bush has strengthed a nation that is profit driven, and contrary to what the Republican party believes, NOt everything should be profit driven.
|
|
|
|
|
scrapedape
Feb 12, 2006, 8:10 PM
Post #34 of 72
(8465 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 24, 2004
Posts: 2392
|
To clarify:
In reply to: Personally, I believe that forest lands are best left in the hands of government, with harvest licenses distributed to logging companies in return for royalties. But private ownership of forest lands may encourage owners to take a greater responsibility for sustainable harvesting, since they stand to gain more from responsible forest practices.
In reply to: Scrapedape, I Agree that sustainably managed forests are the answer. But lets sustainably manage what we already have, not sell our public lands to the highest bidding logging company. Most of the time the logging companies that are able to bid the highest are not those that practice sustainable forestry.
Are you sure about this? What evidence do you have? Not that I necessarily disagree (see my quote above).
In reply to: Is this hitting in your backyard? Maybe you would feel differently if your favorite crag was in part of the parcel being sold.
Of course I would. Is there evidence that the lands in question have a high recreation value? Do they include any crags? Mountain bike / hiking / equestrian trails? How much use do they get?
In reply to: Your comparison of taking 25 gallons out of an olypmic size swimming pool is stupid. If everyone took out 25 gallons it would be gone real quick.
I don't think it's necessary to question my intelligence. We're not talking about everyone taking 25 gallons. We're talking about 25 gallons being taken in total. The next 25 gallons can be debated when the time comes.
In reply to: If this act passes, being its the biggest in recent years, it will open the doors for filthy politicians to log wherever they want. Who knows whats next, national parks? Start thinking with more than just money as your guide. Take into consideration all the natural beauty that will be lost, and all the people who love those areas.
Who said anything about National Parks? National Parks have been set aside for their exceptional qualities. They sit considerably higher on the protected area "pyramid" than National Forests do. National Forest land belongs to the public and can be used for a variety of purposes.
I always think with more than profit as my guide. I just think it's unreasonable to have a knee-jerk reaction (which is what I perceive in the current discussion, forgive me if I'm wrong) against the idea of developing or harvesting National Forest land. Of course we should think of the people who care about these areas. But we should look for more details on what these particular parcels contain, and where they're located. Do people use them? Do people even look at them? Maybe the guy who lives down the road depends on logging to pay the mortgage.
In reply to: They say that they are giving public the chance to comment. Have you ever been involved in a process like this, do you think they really care about the average citizens opinion?
Indeed I have. The NPS has been looking to restrict access at one of my local crags. After learning of some significant concerns from the climbing community, they held a public forum where we were able to meet with the Park Superintendent and a number of other officials. The dialogue continues.
I work with the public comment process as part of my job. Yes, they care what the public thinks. If it's one guy, they'll read his comment and evaluate it in the appropriate context. If it's 500, or 10,000 people saying the same thing, they'll weigh it a little differently. Things can still get rammed through, but I don't think the comment process should be dismissed out of hand.
In reply to: In reply to: In the greater scheme of things, 85,000 acres of land is not that much - about 0.004% of the total land area of the US (2.3 billion acres). Think about taking 25 gallons out of an olympic sized swimming pool. Yes, but the point is is that these lands are not his lands to take... this should not be his decision.
Why not? The government is there to serve to public. They are well within their rights to manage public assets as they see fit. Where is it written that the government cannot sell public assets?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
rgbscan
Feb 12, 2006, 9:09 PM
Post #36 of 72
(8465 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 8, 2003
Posts: 106
|
In reply to: I'd like to invite President Bush to go climbing with me. Just a shame I can't afford safe gear for the both of us. Edited to say: This really bites, better get in touch with our Senators and Congressman.
That's ok, better than hunting with Dick Cheney!
Chris
|
|
|
|
|
mistajman
Feb 12, 2006, 9:10 PM
Post #37 of 72
(8465 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 15, 2005
Posts: 136
|
Scrapedape,
I can't prove that the exact company that buys that land will not be sustainable. But, I can prove that many of the industries biggest DO NOT use these practices. If you have a question about the recreation values of these areas look at this link and decide for yourself (http://www.fs.fed.us/land/staff/rural_schools.shtml). I believe many of them have very high recreation value. I'm sorry that the NPS wanted to close your local crag. Think about how all the different recreation users whose areas are in danger of being sold feel now and try to sympathize with them. People need to stop thinking about what benifits the short term and start to realize the effects of destroying out environment will add up. I'm going to stop wasting my time writing about this on message boards and start writing and calling politicians. I hope you will do the same.
|
|
|
|
|
spoon
Feb 12, 2006, 10:13 PM
Post #38 of 72
(8465 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 26, 2002
Posts: 312
|
An economist with too much time on his hands once calculated the monetary gain from sustainable harvesting of whale populations throughout the world vs. killing all the whales as quickly as possible and putting the profits in a medium risk investment plan. It turns out that the investment plan made a whole lot more money. The point is, private ownership and financial incentive aren't always enough to protect the national best interest. That's the government's job, and that's why they are national forests.
|
|
|
|
|
scrapedape
Feb 12, 2006, 10:24 PM
Post #39 of 72
(8465 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 24, 2004
Posts: 2392
|
In reply to: An economist with too much time on his hands once calculated the monetary gain from sustainable harvesting of whale populations throughout the world vs. killing all the whales as quickly as possible and putting the profits in a medium risk investment plan. It turns out that the investment plan made a whole lot more money. The point is, private ownership and financial incentive aren't always enough to protect the national best interest. That's the government's job, and that's why they are national forests.
Biodiversity and the preservation of species are important goals, in my opinion. That's why the idea of hunting whales to extinction is anathema to me, as is the wholesale destruction of forests, or for that matter the notion of selling off public lands indiscriminately.
But I do not see how the proposal we're discussing here relates to any of the above discussions. This isn't about selling, logging, or paving over all of the public lands in the country. It's about selling off a number of very small parcels of land, which may or may not be especially important from a recreational, aesthetic, or ecological point of view. So far, no one has really offered any evidence that these bits of land are anything special.
Indeed, financial incentives should not be the sole determinant of what the best interest is, but so far little evidence has been presented to show the value of these lands for anything other than private development or timber harvesting.
Should the "national interest" be limited to maximizing the holdings of the government? Or can we accept that certain holdings would be better utilized by selling or leasing them to the private sector?
|
|
|
|
|
lewisiarediviva
Feb 24, 2006, 5:00 AM
Post #40 of 72
(8465 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 1, 2004
Posts: 527
|
Should we let our communities spread out or should we let grow skyward? I think it would be pretty cool to go skyward with massive forest, range land, and oceans surrounding us.
But then their is the question of timber based buildings or mining based buildings. Either way we use the National Forest. I venture to say that I am in agreement with many here that the more populated we become the more important our natural environment will be to us, and the harder it will be to hang on to it.
Maybe we should all go back to living on the shoreline and climb the cliff's to retrieve muscles for dinner and dive for squid to roast over the campfire.
You can all just ignore me if you would like. I am somewhat serious- but obviously my thoughts will not help with the issue at hand.
|
|
|
|
|
paganmonkeyboy
Feb 24, 2006, 5:28 AM
Post #41 of 72
(8465 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 30, 2003
Posts: 663
|
In reply to: Maybe we should all go back to living on the shoreline and climb the cliff's to retrieve muscles for dinner and dive for squid to roast over the campfire.
i'm in...sounds like a lot of fun, actually...but i think its mussels...
|
|
|
|
|
moose_droppings
Feb 24, 2006, 6:04 AM
Post #42 of 72
(8465 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 7, 2005
Posts: 3371
|
In reply to: But private ownership of forest lands may encourage owners to take a greater responsibility for sustainable harvesting, since they stand to gain more from responsible forest practices.
Gee, I hope that works a little better that Reagan's trickle down theory.
And as for, just 25 gallons this once and we can debate the next 25, it doesn't work that way. Its called the get your foot in the door theory, once the foot is in, its wedged open.
|
|
|
|
|
kricir
Feb 24, 2006, 8:41 AM
Post #43 of 72
(8465 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 15, 2005
Posts: 434
|
We need to get some petitions going, Im sure some one on this site can come up with a way. Obviously we don’t want to lose any climbing areas, but this issue is more than that. It will set a dangerous precedent if it comes to pass, I think most of us agree that selling national forest land to make a dent in Bush’s financial f--- ups is just plain wrong.
Whether or not we would like to admit it, we are a special interest group, but we are not alone. Im sure there are many others out there who would fight for the preservation of current national forest lands. What about the outdoor recreation industry? certainly there are corporations who would be hurt by closing off the woods. We can argue about whether or not this is ok, and over if trying to do something will help or not, or we can pull together and fight anyway.
Oh, and if any of my crags are sold, to hell with them, im going climbing, think some angry land owner or a rent a cop can catch me on my terrain? It wouldn't be the first time Iv out maneuvered law enforcement.
|
|
|
|
|
azrockclimber
Feb 24, 2006, 1:28 PM
Post #44 of 72
(8465 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 28, 2005
Posts: 666
|
whine, whine, whine....Do something about it and then say what you have done to remedy the situation.
This is like a forum for little, frustrated kids who aren't going to put their money, or thier time, where their mouth is.
If you don't like it, what exactly are you going to do about it? I love the trend of bashing the president... it is the biggest bandwagon jump I have ever seen.
I certainly don't agree with everything but I am also not going to whine about it without proposing a solution or some course of action. What is yours??
Kricir...good for you...a course of action proposed....
Good Luck with it, and I mean it.
|
|
|
|
|
kyote321
Feb 24, 2006, 2:05 PM
Post #45 of 72
(8465 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 24, 2005
Posts: 636
|
Scrape,
although i agree with you on some ponts, i have to take issue with some others:
'Man, I might as well just have my senators on speed dial. Something like this seems to happen every day. '
if you haven't noticed, the bush aristocracy own all branches of government now. democracy as we knew it is an afterthought.
'National Parks have been set aside for their exceptional qualities. '
yeah, for now. wait till they find oil or natural gas in yosemite. i've heard rigs are good for tying off on for rapping.
'Why not? The government is there to serve to public. '
what decade r u living in? the governemnt is there to serve private interests and to improve the top 5%! that is pre-911 talk mister. patriots build and buy overseas now.
'So far, no one has really offered any evidence that these bits of land are anything special. '
the Navajo lands weren't speical until they discovered natural gas and uranium under them. now they a e very special indeed. but it is still easy to steal from the red man, take and give Walmat-wampum cheap plastic crap.
'Should the "national interest" be limited to maximizing the holdings of the government? Or can we accept that certain holdings would be better utilized by selling or leasing them to the private sector? '
well, since the line between the government, private, and religious sectors have been blurred like frog in a blender by this administration, i don't think it makes a difference at this point.
everyone visualize this billboard along I-80 with me:
Yosemite, a recreational division of Hallibuton. :twisted:
|
|
|
|
|
corpse
Feb 24, 2006, 2:10 PM
Post #46 of 72
(8465 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 17, 2003
Posts: 822
|
In reply to: If you don't like it, what exactly are you going to do about it? I love the trend of bashing the president... it is the biggest bandwagon jump I have ever seen.
Perhaps there's a reason so many people are on the "bandwagon" bashing the president - and maybe that reason is that he simply sucks. If I met dubya in person, I would give him the time of day. So no, I don't think it's a bandwagon, as it's not a trend (well, it's a trend while he's in office) - I think dubya has done so much wrong on so many levels, that people in general don't like him.
|
|
|
|
|
tenesmus
Feb 24, 2006, 2:41 PM
Post #47 of 72
(8465 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 27, 2004
Posts: 263
|
He's a douchebag.
|
|
|
|
|
lewisiarediviva
Feb 24, 2006, 2:46 PM
Post #48 of 72
(8465 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 1, 2004
Posts: 527
|
In reply to: if you haven't noticed, the bush aristocracy own all branches of government now. democracy as we knew it is an afterthought.
Did anybody see that Bush was surprised at the public response to the port deal? I'm personally not against that one except I feel that concerns have not been addressed, but surprised? Bush should know us by now.
|
|
|
|
|
t-dog
Deleted
Feb 24, 2006, 2:54 PM
Post #49 of 72
(8465 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
In reply to: In the greater scheme of things, 85,000 acres of land is not that much - about 0.004% of the total land area of the US (2.3 billion acres).
uhm, not sure where you got your number of 85,000 acres for the US, but from the website (http://www.fs.fed.us/.../spd.html#CALIFORNIA), the tally seems to be up to 79K for CA alone, add another 21K for CO, etc... Funny how Texas only has 4K tagged for sale....
|
|
|
|
|
tim
Mar 5, 2006, 5:54 AM
Post #50 of 72
(8465 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 4, 2002
Posts: 4861
|
In reply to: This is like a forum for little, frustrated kids who aren't going to put their money, or thier time, where their mouth is.
I'm sure the new owners of Laurel Knob are surprised to discover this.
Personally, I am not certain how a petition will stop this monster. If Abramoff, the NSA illegal spying investigation, Cheney's drunken assault on a trial lawyer, and an illegal, fraudulent, preemptive war on a sovereign state are not enough to bring this administration down, a putsch may be all that's left.
The recently ratified extension to the Patriot Act contains a provision for extrajudicial actions against a category of citizens called 'Disruptor'. As in, disagree with the government, go to jail. Cindy Sheehan was arrested for exercising her freedom of expression in the halls of Congress. Under the recently ratified Patriot (expatriate?) Act, this would not need to be excused as a "mistake" by the Capitol police.
The man in the White House right now is nothing less than a traitor, to the men in the military which he commands (I just had dinner with a guy who is an 08 in one of the armed forces, and if it were not insubordinate for him to publicly question the actions of BushCo, I got the feeling that he would), to the people he supposedly represents (though Diebold falsified records verifiably in Florida, and probably in Ohio as well), and to the country he is sworn to serve. His administration stinks. The men who were loyal to this country (Powell, O'Neil) resigned in disgust; their loyalty conflicted with that demanded by the Bush administration, to the almighty dollar, and to their rapacious oligarchic buddies.
Why does this Administration classify absolutely everything they can get their hands on? Because sunshine is the best disinfectant, and the White House is currently being turned into an open sewer. The rats that are their callow foot soldiers are doing their best to obediently spread the disease.
I would be astounded if anything short of regime change stalls this. But I'll be happy to do my part in privatizing the lands I hold dearest, because yes, there is always a way to turn the system against itself. The Southeastern Climbers' Coalition and the Carolina Climbers Coalition have demonstrated the single most effective means of doing so -- put your fucking money where your mouth is. Even when you already paid your taxes to buy the land the first time. Until we are rid of these crooks, it's the best we're going to be able to do. Keep an eye on what parcels are being considered, right up until the bitter end. And for fuck's sake, find out who your local climbers' advocacy group is, and whether they're effective.
I encourage everyone to settle for nothing less than the best. If this goes through, gang up and buy the most valuable (to us, as climbers) parcels. It stinks, but it's better than losing the lands. I don't really need to write to my Senators; I'm from California, for fuck's sake -- but I'll do it anyways. My Congressional representative is Adam Schiff. He'll be getting a letter in the mail opposing this initiative. And if none of that is enough, I'll do my part to preserve what I care about as a private citizen.
Contact your Senators, and your Congress(wo)man, and hope for the best.
Tgreene, you're an ass.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
