board77

This just breaks my heart. http://www.fs.fed.us/land/staff/spd.html

21,000 acres of forest in Missouri alone could get sold off. I love that Mark Twain National forest. I used to ride my horse all over the place for hours and never see another person when I was a kid. It's beautiful!


They shouldn't sell pieces of it, just because they don't want to raise taxes!
That land is supposed to be there forever, for our kids and grand kids, not sold off at first hint of financial trouble.

This is just awful. I hope Congress doesn't let the Bush administration get away with this.

Maria
I join you in your feelings about this. Sadly, there are those in power, and here, who feel that government owned lands in the name of the American people are simply a waste of resources. They want to sell to developers in the name of the almighty dollar. A legacy of green forests for our grandchildren means nothing to them. Instead, its all about the power of money. That is the green they care about.

I've never approved of National Parks as they currently exist. Still, I'm wary of pretty much anything the government does, so I'm not inclined to feel good about this either.

What does that mean Meril 36?

I have no idea if you support keeping lands in the name of the people owned by the government or if you favor getting rid of the public land idea altogether. Could you please elaborate on your short statement?

National Parks aren't the same as National Forests. Parks are developed tourist attractions. Forests are just a sign on the edge of the highway with a small dirt access road and sometimes not even that. People can go in and camp (primitively) or hunt or hike or whatever. The point is, the place stays wild. At least for the most part.

The lands are managed and firewood is allowed to be cut and things like that. Once the parcel of National Forest land that abuts my parent's place came up for firewood cutting. My father bought the rights and then *didn't* cut the trees down. It's been 15 or 20 years since then, and the trees he saved are huge and beautiful... much nicer than the scrubby stuff that is so prevalent in that part of Missouri.

I just fear that when people buy up these parcels, they'll build on it and tame it and civilize it ... and our heritage will be that much poorer. We should be increasing the public land acreage, not decreasing it. Save it for everyone who can't afford to buy acreage of their own as land prices go up, up, up. How else are people going to be able to get out and see how the wild things live? They sure can't come walking on MY place!

I do indeed favor the idea of getting rid of the public land idea altogether. I thought I'd already mentioned it elsewhere. I guess not.

And do you have a reason for this stance against public lands Meril?

And what would you do with all the millions of acres of land now owned by the government in the name of the American people?

Depends on the piece of land.

The reason for my stance? I could go into it, I suppose, but I'm afraid it would turn into another argument, and I'd rather not.

I should have been a dentist.

Knock it off!


As to this topic, it makes me very sad. I always hate to see land developed, particularly a nice forest like this. Very sad.

And I don't care about the politics behind it either. Stuff like this happens whether George W. Bush is the president or not.

Lali

I think that blue ducks should be fried in peanut butter.

It's not just one forest, Lali. If you look at the forest service link, you can click on YOUR state, and see what might be going up on the auction block.

Thousands and thousands of acres. All over the country. I hope they don't get approval for this.

Just because it's for sale doesn't mean it's not gonna be taken care of. Maybe some private land owners will hire foresters.

Hi, I'm a logger.

Lego,

True it might be bought by someone who has the money and who is an environmentalist. I have my doubts though.

If it is bought by anybody, they have money...the question is whether they're commercial minded or conservation/preservation minded. I have my doubts too...chances are they'll want to develop buildings...but surely not all 21,000 acres will be destroyed.

And also, we are humans, we're a part of this earth, and we're on the food chain. Our use of the earth is not evil. I try not to get too far out on a limb being a perservationist. I believe in conservation(wise use), but not widescale preservation. I understand this land is special to some, if I were them I'd want to preserve, too...but generally speaking, conservation is reality....too much preservation expectations is fantasy. Smart forestry practice is the key. If foresters were employed more often(if the government would fund this, in other words:P) I'd be less disturbed by land use. With growing populations, I think this is becoming more and more important.

from Meril36

Quote:

I do indeed favor the idea of getting rid of the public land idea altogether

Quote:

I've never approved of National Parks as they currently exist.

Tear them down... tear them all down.
Saurman of Insengard.


The Saurman quote seems to fit to a tee someone who both is against National Parks and wants to rid us of all public lands.

That was a nasty thing to say.

Indeed.


I support conversation and preservation both, as both have their place in the wise use of land.

I belong to Ducks Unlimited (mostly by proxy because the dh hunts), but, to sum up their purpose, they buy land with the intent of preserving habitat for waterfowl (and other animals as well). (I have jokingly dubbed their unofficial motto as: We buy land, so we can kill more ducks! But they really do perform a neat service for the greater good.)


Lali

It depends on who it gets sold to, really. It rests entirely on that. If I bought it, I'd keep it. I'd maintain it better than the government ever did that's for sure. I dunno about fees and rules and whatnot, but I'm sure I could come up with reasonable arrangements for everybody.

Slightly unrelated: most if not all land and property problems can be solved by privatization. Wealth of Nations - it's a life-changing book if you take the time to read it.

SF, how do get from what I said that I want to raze all forests to the ground? How does that logically follow from wanting private ownership?