NEED YOUR HELP - Protect our National Forest Lands, send an e-mail!!

[cruiser4life]

Regardless of political affiliation and social perspective, I think we would all collectively agree (given the common ties that bring us together) that this is an opportunity to be heard and implore those in power to impede the sale of our national forest lands.

We've all seen and lamented our natural resources and land being taken and closed for years. Usually it happens without any chance for our voices to be heard and we come to find out by greetings from "Posted" and "No Trespassing" signs at areas we used to enjoy as tax paying citizens.

At the end of the day, our e-mails and messages to thwart these efforts may not help, but they most certainly can't hurt. I've already sent e-mails and will continue until Thursday's deadline.

I am not usually one for recruiting folks for grass roots style resistance efforts but this is an issue extremely important to me as a life long individual pursuing recreation in the great outdoors.

I am vehemently opposed to losing our lands as much for the obvious loss of access as the precedent it sets for the future. I want my children and future generations to have the opportunity to explore, learn, grow and enjoy these invaluable natural areas as I have.

I have been following this proposal for some time and would appreciate anyone who takes the time to send a note if you share similar sentiments.

Thanks!

http://www.charlotte.com/mld/charlotte/news/14195050.htm

 

[cruiser4life]

Maybe just posting the link will provide more visibility:

Posted on Mon, Mar. 27, 2006
HOT TOPIC | SALE OF NATIONAL FOREST LAND

Ready to trade forest for funds?

THE ISSUE: The U.S. Forest Service has proposed selling more than 300,000 acres of national forest, including nearly 15,000 acres in the Carolinas. A public comment period on a controversial plan to sell nearly 15,000 acres of national forests in the Carolinas ends Thursday.
The U.S. Forest Service proposed the sales, its largest in decades, last month. The money from sales of more than 300,000 acres nationwide would extend a program that pays for rural schools in areas where timber revenues have dropped.
A storm of protest greeted the proposal.
Gov. Mike Easley, a Democrat, said the plan "violates all tenets of good public policy." U.S. Rep. Charles Taylor, a Brevard Republican who represents the N.C. mountains, says the plan is "not going to happen."
Both noted that a disproportionate amount of the revenues raised by the sales would go to Western states.
The Forest Service's N.C. office said state staff members didn't get a chance to review the sale tracts, which were selected by national and regional offices, and will recommend that some tracts be withdrawn.
Land trusts and other conservation groups say the sales would reverse their efforts to knit together the fragmented outer edges of the state's forests.
Proposed Sales in Carolinas National Forests
Nantahala 3,835 acresPisgah 2,780 acres
Uwharrie 2,317 acres
Croatan 895 acres
Sumter (S.C.) 3,558 acres
Francis Marion (S.C.) 1,095 acres
To see maps showing proposed sale locations: www.fs.fed.us/ land/staff/rural-pdf.shtml
To Comment
Comments must be received by Thursday. Send e-mail to: SRS_Land_Sales@fs.fed.us. By postal mail, write: USDA Forest Service, SRS Comments, Lands 4S, 1400 Independence Ave., SW, Mailstop 1124, Washington, D.C., 20250-0003. Or fax comments to: (202) 205-1604.

 

[ALEXGAR]

Nice post, Andy! I will back you 100% and I hope the members of the club will as well.

Please, friends, write a short note and make your voice heard!

 

[cruiser4life]

Thanks for the support, Alex. Worthy few minutes of anyone's time IMO.

 

[slick621]

E-mail sent! Thanks for the heads up, Andy.

 

[ClemsonCruiser]

ok if everyone else is doing I might as well to

 

[koncat]

Done!!!

Thanks for the info/heads up. This is the kind of bad stuff that gets passed and people wonder how it happened. We HAVE to act and we CAN make a difference.

"was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?" -Sen. Blutarski

 

[89s rule]

Sending the email now. thanks for the heads up.

 

[concretejungle]

Thank you for sharing the information and the link with us. I just sent a message and hope everyone else does also.

Guys, this means the cullowhee trip. If you remember seeing the flagging marking a large portion of the entrance into the forest and some of the entrace trails for those who went? I talked to my grandmother who has lived in sylva for 30 years. She told me that part of those lands that were flagged were up for purchase and probably a local developer will develop that area into a gated community. THere is a big stink up there about it.

Please let your opinions be heard.

 

[cruiser4life]

Thanks everyone for the support. Glad others realize the importance of these resources and are unwilling to let them go without a fight!!!

 

[cruiser4life]

Thank you for sharing the information and the link with us. I just sent a message and hope everyone else does also.

Guys, this means the cullowhee trip. If you remember seeing the flagging marking a large portion of the entrance into the forest and some of the entrace trails for those who went? I talked to my grandmother who has lived in sylva for 30 years. She told me that part of those lands that were flagged were up for purchase and probably a local developer will develop that area into a gated community. THere is a big stink up there about it.

Please let your opinions be heard.

You're right. They won't be there for long, which is why I am going again this weekend - 3rd time in 5 weeks.

Just left you a v/m man.

 

[CruisinTiger]

Hey David D. does your wife have any info on this? Just wonderin if she hears anything thru the grapevine before it goes public?

Chuck

 

[CruisinTiger]

Devil's Advocate

Well I majored in Forestry and Love the outdoors and I'm undecided on how I feel on this sale. I looked at some of the maps around our area and the proposed conveyances. It looks to me that most of the property for sale is land that is surrounded by already sold land....there are a few places surrounded in Blue but most is surrounded in white. Now all this land is in the forest boundry...do the buyers have to follow any guidelines for the use of this land when they buy it(David D does your wife know) I'm sure I could find out but figured I'd ask. I'd also like to see what some of these plots are surrounded by...If it's a 5 acre lot surrounded by subdivisions then I can see it being sold a lot easier. Look at it this way too....think of the trails we've been on and look at all the blue in these maps...we haven;t even begun to explore a 1/10 of what is out there. Like I say I'm not sure how I feel about this and not arguin with anyone here just makin some points.

 

[concretejungle]

Look at it this way too....think of the trails we've been on and look at all the blue in these maps...we haven;t even begun to explore a 1/10 of what is out there. Like I say I'm not sure how I feel about this and not arguin with anyone here just makin some points.

I don't know man, look at what all is there, and it's just right. Kinda like the three bears and their pourage, not to hot, not too cold, just right. I would feel that if any of it changed for a use other than undeveloped, wooded land, then that is a step in the wrong direction. Physics tells us that a body in motion stays in motion unless acted upon.

 

[cruiser4life]

Well I majored in Forestry and Love the outdoors and I'm undecided on how I feel on this sale. I looked at some of the maps around our area and the proposed conveyances. It looks to me that most of the property for sale is land that is surrounded by already sold land....there are a few places surrounded in Blue but most is surrounded in white. Now all this land is in the forest boundry...do the buyers have to follow any guidelines for the use of this land when they buy it(David D does your wife know) I'm sure I could find out but figured I'd ask. I'd also like to see what some of these plots are surrounded by...If it's a 5 acre lot surrounded by subdivisions then I can see it being sold a lot easier. Look at it this way too....think of the trails we've been on and look at all the blue in these maps...we haven;t even begun to explore a 1/10 of what is out there. Like I say I'm not sure how I feel about this and not arguin with anyone here just makin some points.

No worries Chuck, you're certainly entitled to your opinion, like everyone else. You know what they say about opinions...

I summed up mine in the first post. This is a multi-faceted proposal that is flawed in other ways beyond taking away access to public lands that we as taxpayers should continue to be allowed to access with our friends and families to enjoy in healthy and responsible ways.

As a lifetime resident of North Carolinia, I am also opposed to the imbalance of the distribution of profits from the sale of these lands. Additionally, while I support assisting rural communities and their schools, I believe there are better ways to address this fiscal need with long term, responsible solutions; not a knee-jerk, short term fix that would raise capital by forfeiting some of what makes this state and our country such a great place to live.

Consider this:

[FONT=&quot]In North Carolina, the land is spread over 19 counties and all four national forests in the state. A half-dozen tracts are included in the Uwharrie National Forest in nearby Randolph and Montgomery counties. Most of it is in the Pisgah and Nantahala preserves in western counties and Croatan National Forest on the coast.

If Congress should go along with the land for the school-funding plan, North Carolina and other Southern states would be shortchanged. A complicated reimbursement formula would allocate more money to Western states. According to Easley, North Carolina would receive about $1 million compared with $162 million for Oregon. [/FONT]

 

[Turkeypen]

CRUISERTIGER SAID:

"Now all this land is in the forest boundry...do the buyers have to follow any guidelines for the use of this land when they buy it(David D does your wife know)"

The answer is "no," unless convenants and restrictions are included in the deed to the private land owner who buys it. Most likely, there would be no restrictions.

The feeling in the Forest Service rank and file is very much against this proposal, inasmuch as the employees feel this land is held in public trust for future generations to enjoy. Despite popular belief, government employees are fervent about their jobs and zealously work to protect the land from multiple threats.

Selling land to improve education, while "sounding" good, really is a bad idea. Sort of like the "Education Lottery," which has done little to improve education - - buying used school buses from Kentucky? Oh come on!

In my work with the forest service, I have seen maps projecting future population growth, especially in the Eastern States. Very soon the only open spaces left will be the National Parks and Forests.

Selling land off for some other reason may be a good idea, such as a valid environmental or cost concern ( i.e., a disconnected parcel in the middle of no where), but to simply raise money does not seem to be a good idea to me personally. For years, the forest service has been able to "swap" land with developers, a method that has allowed land that has become more commercial in character to be exchanged for land of similar value that has little commercial value (but more acreage) and that has more significant environmental or historical value.

Perhaps they could sell timber at market value instead of pretty much giving it away, but this would upset the timber industry. I don't mind one bit paying user fees for my mountain biking, camping, fishing, hunting, and now off-road use on National Forest lands.

OK, I've vented.

By the way, these are my own views and not those of my employers or of major league baseball.

 

[concretejungle]

I also majored in forestry, and developing land is not "forest management" like the forest service is supposed to do. I think what it comes down to is the same principle of property taxes. The government reviews their budget and if they spend more money than they have, they raise property taxes or some other tax. So our great government has spent more money than they have in the bank so they decided to sell some forest land to make up for some of that money.

 

[concretejungle]

Perhaps they could sell timber at market value instead of pretty much giving it away, but this would upset the timber industry. I don't mind one bit paying user fees for my mountain biking, camping, fishing, hunting, and now off-road use on National Forest lands.

.

Bingo! I couldn't agree more.

But, i will only pay if i see that the payment is being used for it's intended purpose. Example, the roy taylor atv park right out the back of WCU campus practically, was charging $5 a day to ride. I asked what the fee was paying for and they said trail maintenance. I had no problem paying until after 2 years not one single water berm, erosion control measure, fallen tree cut out of the trail, ect.. had happened. I stopped paying after that.

 

[CruisinTiger]

Aside from the reason for the sale..education...my question is - What is around these red areas for sale? Are they already sold pieces of the National Forest? Are they Developed? Is it Farm land? That's what I am confused about. Why is the gov't selling these certain sections...is it cause the acreage right next to it is developed, etc.? And now that David mentioned the trading of land I remember that from school...you have to do the same thing with developing wet lands. I mean we can send billions of dollars overseas...what we can't write a check for our own schools. Sounds like a bunch of horse hockey to me. The whole education thing is just front folks, they aint gonna use this money for schools I guarantee it. I love to hike down the trail and see nothing....I'd hate to be hiking and see a subdivision in my view. All I'm doin is comin up with more things to think about so don't get the impression I'm for this. Before I was educated I was undecided but now that I'm educated on this more I've made up my mind. I wanna find out what makes these particular chunks of land so important. Here is another thing to think about...remember when they wanted to drill in the artic refuge in Alaska...well they put in an Iraqi money bill to try and get it passed. Luckily we have some smarter people in congress who didn't pass that part of the bill. And what the hell does Alaska have to do with Iraq. I tell you if it had passed my ass would of been on a plane and been sittin there waitin on the first dump truck to pull in...it wouldn't of been pretty. Absolutley freakin rediculous to wanna destroy the last natural habitats left in america and one of the last ones on earth. I mean I'm not a tree hugger but s*** it seems like all people wanna do is destroy everything and put up freakin sprawl marts...mother fxxxers. There needs to be more regulation on land...i.e. strip mining and reforestatin. There is more money to be made in reforestation of strip mines than the actual mining itself...kinda funny. Are they having "hearings" or meetings on this...if I could fit it...it would be good to go directly there and voice my opinions...wanna go Andy and David?

 

[concretejungle]

Easy trigger.

IMHO, and have drilled monitoring wells, drinking wells, probing for deep rock and working along side x-oil geologist, it's not really the drilling that would "destroy" the arctic. It's the transporting of the product. The actual drilling would only impact about 1,000 square feet. But that's a whole nother' ball game.