 |
RE: [RC] National Forest Lands - Jim HollandBasically, I'm opposed to ANY use of National Forest monies for ANY purpose other than the purchase of land and maintenance of the National Forests. However, I will humor you here for a moment and give you a historical perspective. <grin> If you want to discuss this at the convention, let's get together. I'll buy the beer. By the way, I live in a county that is mostly National Forest. This all started back around 1908 right after the establishment of the National Forests. At that time, the government felt that the residents of those counties with a lot of NF land would be "deprived" of revenue because those lands were not in public hands. They decreed that 25% of the revenue from National Forests lands would go to those counties. Around 1937, that was changed to 75% of the those revenues. Back in those days, the FS was heavily logging timber, especially in the Northwest, and the result was lots of revenue to those counties from that activity. Keep in mind this is a "revenue sharing" program, not a subsidy....no cost to the public except a reduced income from NF revenues. Then the "environmental" movement happened. It started when people (like me) who regularly recreated in the National Forests got really annoyed at some of the FS "timber management" practices, such as spraying the deciduous tree sprouts with herbicide (which was toxic to animals) in order to grow pines (they grew faster)and clear cutting parcels without regard to the runoff impact on the watersheds. We weren't concerned about the logging...just the methods they used and the resulting impact on the forests and the wildlife therin. Then to our dismay, the radical "environmentalists", without a clue about how forest ecosystems work, deemed that cuttting ANY tree was heresy. This are the same type of folks that don't understand that if you want to eat pork chops, a pig has gotta die! Then we went to extremes the other way, leading to things like the Clinton Roadless Initiative, idiots putting spikes in trees, etc. FS revenues declined severely as timber harvesting was impacted by lawsuits, issues over "endangered species", environmental impact statements, etc. Along about 2000, there were projections of a balanced budget, even a surplus, and Congress was looking for a way to spend it. They passed an inocuous little bill called the "Secure Rural Schools and Community Self Determination Act of 2000", which would expire in 6 years. What this did was provide a government subsidy to mitigate the impact of the reduced funds from FS revenues, ostensibly to give these counties time to "adjust" to life without these funds, basically directed at transportation and schools. It expires in September, 2006. I think six years is adequate time to adjust. We can no longer afford such projects with our current deficit, which is going to be with us a LOONNNG time. There is a law of diminishing returns. If we sell off our heritage of National Forests lands to raise a relatively paltry 800 million to continue a subsidy that the beneficiaries KNEW was going to expire, what do we sell off next time? It's a scary precedent. If it's THAT important, then include it in the budget. If not, drop it. You CHOOSE to live where you are. You also "benefit" from the proximity of the National Forests, and perhaps the seclusion and quality of life it provides. IMHO, you are reimbursed adequately. I see no reason why the government should reward you for living there, especially at the expense of the National Forests. Jim, Sun of Dimanche+, and Mahada Magic Richard T. "Jim" Holland Three Creeks Farm 175 Hells Hollow Drive Blue Ridge, Ga 30513 (706) 258-2830 www.threecreeksarabians.com Callsign KI4BEN -----Original Message----- From: Bob Morris [mailto:bobmorris@xxxxxxxx] Sent: Monday, February 13, 2006 11:47 AM To: 'Jim Holland'; 'Ridecamp' Subject: RE: [RC] National Forest Lands Jim: To some extent you are correct. But, here in the west, Idaho in particular, these small parcels of land do not add to the tax base of the local counties. They do, in fact, detract form the tax base and are an expense to the local population. The Feds used to pay an "in lieu" fund to the counties based on the logging production on federal lands. That has all but ceased. The counties therefore get little or no "in lieu" tax funds and are going broke. Realize, the federal lands in some counties are up to 80% of the land in some cases. These rural counties were logging, mining and like industry areas. These counties are trying to boost tourism but that does not pay the same nor furnish the revenues to the county governments as in the past. Every one states Te public lands belong to all citizens of the country, then all of them should contribute to some form of support to those counties with a small tax base? Bob Morris Morris Endurance Enterprises Boise, ID =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Ridecamp is a service of Endurance Net, http://www.endurance.net. Information, Policy, Disclaimer: http://www.endurance.net/Ridecamp Subscribe/Unsubscribe http://www.endurance.net/ridecamp/logon.asp Ride Long and Ride Safe!! =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
|