They are trying to sell off our public lands again

[sbschindler]

> The Bush administration has once again included two proposals to sell both
> BLM and USFS lands in the President's proposed budget.  The Forest Service
> budget has a plan to sell up to $800 million in federal lands to pay for
> the Secure Rural Schools Act.  The BLM budget includes a proposal to sell
> $334 million of BLM lands over ten years.  This year's BLM proposal is
> essentially the same as last year's which would have ammened the Federal
> Land Transaction Facilitation Act of 2000 to require that 70% of the money
> raised from sales of BLM lands would be deposited in the Treasury to
> reduce the federal deficit, rather than allocated for purchase of
> inholdings within National Parks, National Forests, and BLM conservation
> areas as is now the case

 Sen.
> Max Baucus:  "We're going to find a way to fund the Secure Schools program
> without selling even one acre of public land," he said in a press release
> Monday. "Auctioning off our outdoor heritage is not the way to do this.
> Our public lands in the West are sacrosanct. The President can count on a
> fight in Congress."  Kudos to Sen. Baucus for this strong denouncement.
>
> We need to rally sportsmen and other activists to call their Members of
> Congress and tell them to reject these shortsighted and misguided
> proposals to sell off our public lands and natural heritage!

[Old Ways]

The say they need more money yet they waste millions of dollars a day on things like military, space research, etc. and justify it. Protecting land and the environment should be a governmental priority.

[Brian Krebs]

If the money we are about to spend in Iraq was given to the states - it would be enough for 700 new elementary schools in each state.
 Selling the prime habitat of game species so that developers can make millions and toss a percent back to their favorite party- is not in the interest of anyone: but one particular political party.
 If you think that only residents of the United States will be buying this land: you should not be trying to think anymore; its not working for you.
 The money you spent at the gas pumps will be buying this land!
  If you doubt that; your probably still looking for the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq......

[Old Ways]

Another good reason to avoid the need to buy gas. Can't wait till I have my biodiesel rig finished.     Then I can boycott every gas station.  

[UK Bowman]

On a similar note, the Republican majority in the VA senate just voted to cut $14 mil earmarked for wilderness preservation in VA.

Adam

[Sawtooth]

I agree that we're losing valuable public lands.  And I know firsthand that there is waste in many government sectors, including the military.

BUT, providing for the common defense of our nation is laid out in the Preamble to the Constitution.  Let's not forget that, whether or not we agree with the current war.

[Paul J.]

THANK YOU SAWTOOTH!

                  Paul

[Old Ways]

Seems like they (the government) always have that part ("provide for the common defence") covered but don't worry too much about the "promote the general Welfare" or the "Posterity" part of it. If they were a little more concerned with the well-being of our future generations perhaps the importance of safeguarding the natural world would rank higher. Maybe they would find some balance. Right now it just looks like a runaway train headed for a broken bridge.

[wapiti]

Thank you Old Ways

[Sawtooth]

"They (the government)" is WE the people.  I agree that concern for natural resources should rank higher.  That's why I vote.  That's why I'm an activist.  That's the "we" in we the people.  If enough of us get involved, reform can occur.  I'm probably preaching to the choir here.  I'm sure all of you vote green, become active members in organizations that protect natural resources, write and call your elected representatives on important issues, publish important, balanced views in your newspapers, and do all of this on a consistent basis.  Too bad everyone isn't doing the same.

I prefer to be an optimist, and strive for positive change.

[Old Ways]

Hi Sawtooth, It is just frustrating when you have to watch so much land being destroyed everyday. You can scream and protest and plead but it seems that it is hard to be heard. I too am an optimist and I continue to get involved in saving what little land is left but sometimes I have to vent.

Just in my lifetime I have seen huge pieces of forest lands developed into urban sprawl. Areas I hunted as a teen are now under concrete. Each year I see the growth of civilization consuming more land, making more noise and polluting more air and water.

When you take a look at the government's track record it isn't very impressive. In a little over 200 years they have taken a land of great natural beauty and reduced it to an industrial park with neighborhoods.

Personally I don't care to equate myself with the government. I don't like to be connected with all the coruption, greed and murder that any government has been responsable for. As a subject of the government though I do share your view that we have to get involved to voice our concerns for protecting the natural reasources.

Keep up the good work.  

[matt schuster]

My understanding, at least in Georgia where I live, is that most of the land for sale is in small parcels that are not really usable in any recreational or economic sense.  I have no problem with the government selling parcels like that.  I also don't see government responsible for the huge amount of development in our country, that is mostly done by private folks and if you live in a house it was done by you too.   I am no fan of government.  It is inherently corrupt and wasteful, especially when pursuing obtuse goals like "the general welfare."   I will look out for my own general welfare, thank you very much.   I am thankful that there are big public wilderness areas and do agree that these should be protected, but many folks just make blanket statements against the selling of all government land and that doesn't make a lot of sense to me when our gov't is in as big a financial hole as it is.              If the land has no real use, sell it and put it back on the tax roles.

[vermonster13]

You would be correct Matt on the parcels to be sold. Also if we can get the no net loss hunting land bill passed, this could be a good thing for us because accesible land would need to be opened to hunting to replace these areas.

[Talondale]

I have spoken on this before and although we share the same mistrust for powerful governments we seem to have a disconnect when it comes to allowing the government to have large controlling monopolies of available land.  I love that States have land set aside for general use/hunting and applaud private groups (ducks unlimited) banding together and buying land and conservation easements.  What I don't see as necessary is the large land grab the Federal government has made of practically the whole West.  I understand that there is some historical precident for that, in that most was gained through Federal purchases (Louisiana Purchase, Alaska Purchase, etc) and from Treaties with Indian tribes.  But I see no healthy need for a Federal government, whom we all seem to agree is not completely accountable to it's constituents, owning upwards of 80% of all land in a given State.  The amount of land proposed for sale is probably less than 1% of all Federal holdings!  I view it as an opportunity for private organizations and citizens to own their own piece of American soil.

[Billy]

Okay, can someone point out a place to find the lands that are intended for the sale barn?
 I'd be curious to know where, how much, and what are the restrictions for use, if purchased.
 If, it's gonna be sold; it should be bought by Americans! Too many foreign interests own too much of US now.
 Doesn't matter which party is in charge, how high/low they say their spending is; WE pay the bills. I'd say it's time we get something for all they take.
 And as a side thought; better hunters and outdoors folks than PETA or some of those types....JMO

[Old Ways]

Personally I like the fact that so much land has been protected from developement through the years. Urban sprawl is taking it's toll on the natural world. There is little zoning to protect it when they open an area for private ownership. It just seems to become an area littered with poorly planned housing and industry.

If they do open land for private ownership it should be zoned to only allow for sustainable housing/farming. Wildlife easement would need to be maintained and ecosystems protected. IMO there is enough industry already and no more land should go to that. Land use in this country has been abused for too long already. It would be nice to see more "Ecovilliages" and protected natural areas and not more subdivisions, malls, industry, huge private estates, large commercial farms or any thing else that hordes, destroys and abuses the land.

[Billy]

Old Ways, I'll agree to the point that we can still use the land/space.
I don't think that setting up a wildlife PRESERVE is inherently better than a CONSERVE.
The most important thing here, IMHO though, is that we agree the government should listen to the PEOPLE.
In a Republic such as ours, they (pols) are suppose to serve US. Which is the underlying genius of the Founding Fathers system. WE are in charge of them, and they represent the deires of the majority.
Although;
'if ya wanna screw something up, let mankind get ahold of it'- Bud Gibson(rancher,horsetrainer,businessman)

[Old Ways]

Hey Billy, by "protected natural areas" I should have specified that they would be open to hunting and other natural outdoor uses. I meant protected from developers, sprawl and industry.

Although I think some wilderness areas should be set aside as preserves I think in most areas hunting can serve as a means to regulate wildlife populations and provide a natural/sustainable way to obtain meat for personal/family consumption.

I agree the government should listen to the people but I also think it should protect us from ourselves. "We the people" are subject to the commercial propaganda and influence and have been brainwashed to think we need a bunch of material things. This includes the impractical houses with multi stall garages, subdivisions, too many vehicles, power everything, utilities, paved everthing, internal combustion recreation, etc, etc, etc. The government needs to protect the environment and the resources from we (the people) too. The way things are going now the "majority" will soon be after the remaining natural areas for selfish use and gain. Unless we(conservationists) can convince the majority of their real value.

Unfortunately Bud Gibson sounds like a wise man.

[Dryrot]

Old Ways-
Anytime I hear the words "its for your own good" coming from the government I have an instinctive urge to put my back to something very solid and arm myself. We don't need protection from ourselves legislated, as those of us in the motorcycle rights movement say "Educate, don't Legislate", I think that term could be well applied to the hunting(and 2nd amendment)/land use issue as well.

[Old Ways]

I agree Larry. "Educate, don't Legislate" is the best long term plan but shouldn't there be some guide lines to prevent further permanant damage? It's one of those damned if you do, damned if you don't situations. The government "should" be looking out for the best interests of the land and those who live there. Unfortunately they also see things with a dollar sign mentality.