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