RE: [RC] selling off national forest lands - Jim Holland
Title: Message
Barbara, with all due respect this has
NOTHING to do with the Bush’s administration current plan to sell
National Forest land. First, I totally agree
with you with regard to timber harvesting. Anyone who has “done
their homework” understands your argument. However, I would be very
interested in knowing how you feel this is related to selling public lands for
the purpose of providing a subsidy to schools in counties who have National
Forests within their boundaries. There might be some long term relativity from
the fact that the school subsidy was ORIGINALLY intended to soften the impact
when logging was reduced in the National Forests under some previous
administrations. If you will read the current FS plans, you will see that
this is no longer the case. The Bush administration has opened thousands
of acres to selective logging. In the Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forests
alone, 462,000 acres are available. (At the same time, they only feel 144 acres
of trails are acceptable for horse use) You could justifiably argue that the
subsidy is no longer necessary, since the severe restrictions on logging no
longer exist. Dealing responsibly with the public and fiscal responsibility would
dictate that they would make that point, let the subsidy expire, and move
on. However, it appears the current administration; to avoid any semblance
of reducing funds to schools is willing to sacrifice the heritage of our
National Forests for their own political gains.
From: Barbara McCrary
[mailto:bigcreekranch@xxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Sunday, February 12, 2006
8:17 PM To: Jim Holland; 'Sky Ranch'; 'Bob
Morris'; 'Ridecamp' Subject: Re: [RC] selling off
national forest lands
If the government, through the USFS, had
allowed continuing timber harvests, done in a careful manner, the forests would
not have suffered but would probably be healthier for a bit of selective
harvesting. The shutdown of the federal forests has done enormous damage
to the forests themselves, communities that were dependent on timber
harvesting, and the tax base. Had selective harvesting been allowed, the
land would still be in government ownership, whole communities would not have
been destroyed, and the government would not have to be selling FS land to make
up the deficit. But many people who do not understand forest
management demanded the forests be off limits to harvesting, thinking that
everything was going to be more beautiful if the trees were left alone.
They didn't stop to think how this shutdown was going to affect other
people, the economy and the tax base. There is a huge domino effect set
in motion by shutting down the federally-owned forests. If anyone wants
to discuss this further, e-mail me privately.
