[yew]

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/feb2006/2006-02-15-04.asp and http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060210/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_land_sale http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2002798263_landsales11m.html (the best one for you guys) http://www.fs.fed.us/news/2006/releases/02/secure-rural-schools.shtml When these lands are sold, they'll just be logged and/or residentially developed. I saw Jerry Franklin speak in back in 1994, right after the environmentalists won the spotted owl wars. He said the Republicans would try to sell off federal lands once logging levels went down to almost zero ("This proposal underscores the President’s commitment to states and counties which have been impacted by the ongoing reduction in receipts primarily due to lower timber harvest levels on Federal lands" from http://www.fs.fed.us/news/2006/releases/02/secure-rural-schools.shtml ). I'd like to see a little more logging on Northwestern national forests and that money going to local rural schools. They would not have to clearcut or even cut much old growth. There's a lot of merchantable natural and planted second growth in already roaded areas that could be thinned but the environmental groups (e.g. Gifford Pinchot Task Force and BARK) oppose that too (they claim they don't but constant lawsuits and appeals speak for themselves). Zero-cut forest preservation is backfiring a little behind schedule. So what if these lands proposed for sale are "isolated", "hard to manage" and "not crown jewels"? They're important open space. I used to walk my dogs, hunt, target shoot, hike on small isolated sections of federal land when I lived in Oregon and here in Washington. USFS and BLM managers are often unaware of how much use these isolated blocks of land receive. They're "crown jewels" to me specifically because they're close to home and sometimes not overran with people. I went to http://www.fs.fed.us/land/staff/spd.html to look at the tracts proposed for sale. Some of those tracts on Crooked River Grasslands in central Oregon have good quail hunting specifically because they're isolated and surrounded by farm and rangeland. The only "management" they need is to be left alone. This policy won't create jobs either because there's no shortage of private land already available to build on. Land is cheap in these places. If they want to spur development, they should first rezone private land along key transportation corridors. The "transition zone of pines and chaparral" (Seattle Times article) federal land blocks proposed for sale, the areas between timber and high desert in Wenatchee NF often have the greatest biodiversity and best wildlife habitat because it's not extreme cold/wet or hot/dry. When I go hunting in fall, that's often where I go. This policy won't even permanently fund rural schools, roads and other public services yet will do alot of permanent damage. I used to live in Skamania County (80% federal land), lost my job and had to move because of budget cuts. The Bush Administration has proposed zeroeing out payments to rural counties with federal land. That will decimate public services such as schools, roads, EMS, sheriffs, SAR, public works in many rural Northwestern counties that are already poor and barely providing basic public services. That war is a perpetual black hole of money and lives and this is one example of "the chickens coming home to roost". We ought to fund public services with tax money, not land sales.

[Get Out and Go]

In a Cashmere Record newspaper article for March 1, 2006, the Forest Service has listed some lands in the Wenatchee National Forest as "disposable". I am thoroughly disgusted by the government's attitude toward paying off the massive debt it has run up.....But, I will try to stick with the issue here. The lands are considered...."isolated and inefficient to manage due to their location and or other characteristics." Hey, if they are difficult to manage, JUST leave them be. If they are isolated, so much the better. We need pockets of land left. Once they are sold off and gone, they are gone forever. We (the public) will NEVER get them back, of that I am sure. The use of the word disposable if reflective of an attitude that I do not share. The land is sacred and we need to preserve what we have. I don't blame the Forest Service directly. They are only following policy that comes down from the top.

[Snowbrushy]

"I don't blame the Forest Service directly. They are only following policy that comes down from the top." So were the guards at Dachau, Treblinka, etc.. 'Those damn "isolated and inefficient" trees'. "DISPOSABLE".

[Tom]

Wow, 3 posts and Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies is already invoked.

[Snowbrushy]

It must be invoked I suppose. Godwin made the law in 1990. How could anyone here respond to an analogy between the nazi holocaust and continuing attidude and language regarding NW clear cuts?

[greg]

I'm with you Snowbrushy, the bastards...

[Quark]

I find it hard to parallel the human atrocities of Nazi's with the loss of some land, but I won't go into that. I agree with Get out and Go. The forest service is doing what the federal government is telling them to do. First and foremost, the Forest Service manages land for resources. The designation "Disposable," doesn't mean they think it's crappy or they hate it; the technical classification "Dispoable" is probably one of 8 or 9 choices to put on an inventory form, and simply means it's not good for resources. Who among us hasn't had to get a second job, or sell or pawn something, when the kids needed to be fed, or bills had to be paid, or gas put in the car. It's pretty much what the forest service is up against. The federal government is kid that needs to be fed, or the the bill collector looking for his money. It started years ago, this isn't new. So the Forest Service went out & got a second source of income, called the NW Forest Pass. The federal government was appeased for a little while - heck, it even borrowed some of that NWFP money to fight fires down in Oregon a few years ago. But the second job isn't making good enough money anymore, so the federal government is planning to sell off public forest service lands. From what I read, the Forest Service didn't come up with this idea, the federal government did! I don't know why the Forest Service can't or won't kick back and tell the administration, "Hey, f*** you, we're not selling it." But what it boils down to (it always boils down to something) is that the voters chose this administration to run the country, and they're doing it the way they want to. I wonder if what needs to happen is that the federal government re-classify the mission of the Forest Service, from resource to recreation. If the primary mission was recreation, perhaps it wouldn't be as easy to sell...? Dunno. Hopefully people will get off thier butts and get active in government and advocacy at all levels. Might be too late to save the thousands of acres at risk in Washington this time, but perhaps we can get it right next time. I'm about ready for some good, old fashioned civil disobedience. I think this country needs it. I don't have the guts to start something like that. I'm one of those who hasn't got off their butt to do anything about it. Does any of this make sense, or am I all wrong and stupid?

[Thurston Howell III]

[l]

[Quark]

Gwarsh, you make me sound like a hero. Truth told, I like to wear hardhats, carhartts, swing a double-bit & pull a saw. That's pretty much why I got into trailwork. Well, that & the cussin'. I wanted to help with WTA's lobby efforts once, but didn't have the time to do so; I still might, now that I have a job that'll give me time off. I work with a guy who had done some lobbying on behalf of not-for- profits regarding State & Local Tax issues and I've talked at length with J. Guzzo, WTA's lobby specialist. Both say lobbying and advocacy are aggravatingly slow and in order to be heard for longer than 10 seconds, you must be extremely courteous; not regular courteous; you have the be a caricature of courteous. One niggling little show of exasperation with the "system" or the situation, and you're a goner. Plus you lose credibility for future endeavors. I don't know if I can be so cool. You have to lay low for practically your whole goddam career before anyone will listen to you. By the time you're allowed to get all worked up about something and retain credibility, you have to watch your frickin' blood pressure, so you're only too glad to just have a seat in the back. I used to sit in on courtroom procedings when I was in college for paralegal studies; and it took everything I had to not jump up and shout out everything about the case to everyone in my own words, which I was sure would be clearer. I'd get booted out of the lobby arena in about 10 seconds flat - and that includes hang time.

[Eric]

Quark, while I generally agree with your persistent defensiveness for govt employees who are just doing their jobs, I don't think anyone is really blaming those people in this case. The people they are blaming are Rey and politicos at the top of the administration who are making these decisions. The fact that we are seeing opposition from Larry Craig and other rural Western Republicans to this plan shows that the proposed policy doesn't really fit the stated goals. It's not a good way to further rural communities but rather an attempt to further certain goals brought to you by our friends at the AEI.

[Quark]

[Eric]

OK fair enough. I'd already forgotten about that post because it was way too far over the top for anyone to bother with a serious response to it.

[Quark]

Sheesh, now I'm agonizing, thinking I mis-read Snow's intent. Hopefully Nature Conservancy can purchase some land here and there. The Pac NW reps aren't making any freinds in Congress - though we're slated to get a larger portion of the proceeds, less land here is on the block. That could mean further polarization against the cause for the outdoors now and in the future.

[Scrooge]

I was out at my son's place north of Snohomish, today, chatting with him and several neighbors, and the subject of the Sultan land sale came up. It's an odd one. That stretch of the Sultan River Gorge is an esthetic treasure, but it isn't developable, by anyone, for any purpose. The canyon is too expensive to log because it's too hard to get the trees out, The walls are too steep to build on, most places, and there's no possibility of maintained access, in any event. A lot of it is in or adjacent to parts of the Everett watershed, so that even recreational access is limited. It's a pretty good place to hunt or fish (or kayak), when it's allowed, so some outdoor groups might be interested in acquiring the parcels for preservation. ...... But what's the point? Individual parcels will be cheap, probably less than a million dollars for a couple of hundred acres. So for the price of a couple of school busses, once, the government would give up the land, forever, to a variety of groups whose non-involved interests will not necessarily be parallel. Much more sensible to have the government remain as steward and do the job we pay it to do. In the Sultan River Gorge, that's very little work, indeed. ....... And our kids can continue to see that the area is managed sensibly and consistently. David