[lit-ideas] Re: enviornoment

  • From: eternitytime1@xxxxxxx
  • To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 15:17:18 -0500

 Hi,
I'm not sure if the land being sold is your forest or if it is the land that 
you see as you drive. I'll try to find out...All I know, so far is "The Forest 
Service has earmarked more than 300,000 acres for sale in 32 states, including 
tracts in California national forests, ranging in size from 90 acres in Angeles 
National Forest to 32,921 acres in the Klamath National Forest. Most of the 
California land slated for the auction block would be scattered across six 
national forests in the Sierra Nevada." (from abstract of article in LA Times)
 
*I* have a vested interest in this, though, as part of what is being sold in 
Missouri is the Mark Twain National Forest--which is absolutely stunning.  When 
we went canoeing last Spring, we drove over to it to walk around--as my parents 
used to do with us when I was growing up.
 
In spite of having grown up on a farm, I will tell you that there is simply no 
comparison to walking around on a farm to walking in a National Forest. 
 
Even in Missouri.
 
It's awe-inspiring.
 
(Is Kit Bond being 'punished' again for standing up to Bush?  Makes you 
wonder...it happened with a number of the bills he was proposing and being 
threated by Bush and CO last year because of his stance on a number of 
things...)
 
It would not surpise me, though, if next year it was part of your forest--esp 
if it is relatively close to a housing project. That is ONE of the arguments 
being made for this sale. (Missouri has lots surrounding the Mark Twain 
National Forest--it's true. But--it's partly because of the wonder and being 
close to the forest as well as the increasing population that makes that 
happen. For me, an argument to keep it safe for succeeding generations IS 
because there is little left...)  But, Bush and Co do not, I think, have the 
foresight to see the future--only the immediate gratification for their own 
uses (or a way to pay off some of the deficit...?)  
 
I know you don't really care about MY child and his being able to visit a REAL 
forest--and I imagine your grandkids won't ever make it to Missouri.  
 
We don't have that much total natural wonder left in Missouri. But, that forest 
is simply splendid. The big joke any more is how soon the housing will 
completely spread fairly tightly straight across and up and down the state. 
 
We will really miss this forest when it is gone. 
 
Oh, well, they won't get to see as much of the Black Hills (some on the 
chopping block) or  the Columbia River Gorge (some on the chopping block in 
Washington and Oregon), either. 
 
When you look at your forest--imagine it not being there--then, maybe, maybe -- 
you can imagine how I feel. I love to go sit in the middle of nowhere--it 
restores my soul and reconnects me with myself and the Universe. 
But, it may be what we call, in our house, an 'oh, well' situation. (when you 
cannot do something about something and it bothers you, you say 'oh, well' long 
enough and hard enough that your subconscious is able to stop spinning and 
reach out and settle down the conscious mind...which is the one saying the 
words...)
 
Oh, well. Oh, well. Oh, well.
Best,
Marlena
 
 
"President Bush?s budget for FY07, ignoring the recent defeat of similar 
proposals in Congress, is proposing to sell off nearly $1 billion worth of 
Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management lands to raise money for the 
federal treasury.
The Administration has set its sights on selling over 300,000 acres of Forest 
Service land in 41 states and possibly as many as 500,000 acres of Bureau of 
Land Management lands in the West.
The state hit hardest by the Forest Service proposal is California, where the 
Forest Service is considering selling more than 85,000 acres."  
 
From http://www.wilderness.org/Library/Documents/ProposedLandSalesFY2007.cfm
 you can see the number of acres per state ready to be sold ...
 
What is also interesting is that 70$ of the money generated from the sales is 
to go towards the deficit rather than for upkeep of the rest of what is owned, 
even. 
 
More from the Wilderness Society:
 
In the News: Proposed Forest Service and BLM Land Sales Spark
Vocal Opposition

Proposals in the President's FY 07 budget to sell off a billion
dollars worth of public lands have drawn opposition from the
East to the West, from hunters and anglers to conservationists,
from Republicans to Democrats. Lawmakers are already pledging to
fight the Forest Service's proposal to sell $800 million worth
of land and are looking to find alternative funding sources to
assist rural counties that do not include selling off America's
natural heritage. In addition to proposing to sell Forest
Service lands, the budget also called for the liquidation of up
to 500, 000 acres of BLM land. There have been no details given
on this provision except a revenue target of $182 million.

For a PDF fact sheet about the Forest Service and BLM sales:
http://wilderness.org/Library/Documents/upload/Factsheet-LandSellOff.pdf
 
To see the Wilderness Society's e-mail action alert:
http://action.wilderness.org/wilderness/notice-description.tcl?newsletter_id=2118396

The story has already generated more than 300 newspaper stories
and many editorials. Here are two examples:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/wire/sns-ap-bush-land-sale ,
1, 1070898.story?coll=sns-ap-politics-headlines
http://www.roanoke.com/editorials/letters/wb/wb/xp-53007

List of lands to be sold on a state by state basis from the National Forestry 
Service:
 
http://www.fs.fed.us/land/staff/spd.html
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Lawrence Helm <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 07:34:19 -0800  
As to public land going to private use, I would need to see what the land is 
being used for now.  Some states get by with very little public land.  As one 
drives from Southern California to Arizona, one drives through mile upon mile 
of land that is being used for nothing.  If someone wanted to build some 
restaurants, fast food places, gas stations, stores along the way, I don?t 
care.  I just can?t tell what land they are talking about.  If they wanted to 
take some of my San Jacinto Forest and turn them into housing projects, I would 
be very unhappy about it.
 
Lawrence
 

Other related posts: