USFS proposed sale details - NC

“From todays local paper:

Nantahala - 3835 acres
Pisgah - 2780 acres (including 568 acres in my county of residence)
Uwharrie - 2317 acres (5% of that forest)
Croatan - 895 acres

Who are they trying to kid?

If this is allowed, you can bet, larger sales will follow and we will become a country where only the wealthy and elite have access to hunting and fishing, like in the feudal days of Old Europe.

I say again, if the federal government has budget problems, maybe they should give even more large tax cuts to the rich!
last edited: 2/15/06 2:13:52 PM”

“lonesurveyor, meet Fuego.
Fuego, meet lonesurveyor.

Sorry, the class warfare comment made it Fuego.”

“My question is why are there not several large greeny groups lining up to take first bids? Many of them have the pull and cash to do such. Why is only DU and other associations affiliated with hunters interested in buying and independently preserving habit for long term? Help me out here, is there more issues at hand or are they unwilling to put their money where their mouth is? Most certainly one of the biggest reasons I don't support any of them.
last edited: 2/15/06 2:27:28 PM”

“That's a good question, trailhound.
The Left has been trained to put their money into Dem politics instead of groups that might actually do something, like buy land like Ducks Unlimited.”

“There are several active private conservation land buying programs in NC

but their monies are best spent protecting lands in addition to what we thought was already public property.”

“http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11028977/

In Tenn. Bowater a large paper company is looking to sell off 300,000 acres of its land. The State is looking to buy the land and use it for parks, greenways, wilderness etc. I feel some of it will be used for other ventures but at least some or most it could be saved.
last edited: 2/15/06 2:38:32 PM”

“International Paper is attempting to sell about 600,000 acres the last I heard here in NC.

Which begs the question, how does the federal government think that any profit can be had from the cumbersome attempt at a sale of so much land? Land sales take marketing, effort and time and the way the federal government conducts such activities, the admininstrative costs would likely be greater than any revenue received.
last edited: 2/15/06 2:46:57 PM”

“but their monies are best spent protecting lands in addition to what we thought was already public property.”

Sorry, I'm not buying it. I always have to ask the question when it comes to so many of these stupid greeny groups, what directly have you done for me other than take my money? DU can directly tell you the number of ducks that have been released and estimated number of ducks born on X amount of acres they bought strictly for that purpose and sport. Yeah, SC talks about how many thousands of acres they have protected but directly they haven't. Would it not make more sense to outright purchase the land with all the 100s of billions that continues to line pockets over the years. I would love to go to a trailhead and see a sign saying this Wilderness area owned and managed by whatever club. I would be willing to even pay a premium price to use it if the product was good. Would go much farther than #&%!$in about what someone else does in their own backyard.
last edited: 2/15/06 3:01:06 PM”

““My question is why are there not several large greeny groups lining up to take first bids? Many of them have the pull and cash to do such. Why is only DU and other associations affiliated with hunters interested in buying and independently preserving habit for long term? Help me out here, is there more issues at hand or are they unwilling to put their money where their mouth is? Most certainly one of the biggest reasons I don't support any of them.
last edited: 2/15/06 3:27:28 PM”
trailhound57
3:25:50 PM
2/15/06
ignore this user

Here's one group that does buy lands.

http://www.osiny.org/home.asp”

“Most of the 'greenie groups' are not actively involved in conservation land acquisition and I agree The Sierra Club and The Wilderness Society should be actively in conservation land acquisition, of course they feel they are merely lobby groups.

The Nature Conservancy obviously has purchased a considerable amount of land, much of which is then sold to public agencies for public access, some of the Nature Consevancy properties are held as private reserves.

Here is another:

http://www.ctnc.org/images/layout/whats_new.gif
last edited: 2/15/06 3:19:55 PM”

“BUWHAHHAHAHAHAH.....strip mine the basketball stadium at Duke!!!!!”

“BTW, I just checked out the webpage for the properties for the proposed sale in this area

and many of the properties are landlocked meaning no roads or access, and so would be of no value to anyone except the adjoining owners

and when an attempt is made to sell such properties, the only potential buyer (the adjoiner) has got the seller (thats us) by the, uhmmm, 'short-ones (that short hairs in the crotch area)'.
last edited: 2/15/06 4:54:42 PM”

“http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/mld/myrtlebeachonline/13843756.htm?template=contentModules

Lands formerly remote are now abutting metro areas. That is certainly the case in New Mexico, Arizona and Utah," she said.

Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., said that is precisely the reason the land should not be sold.

"Our hunters, anglers, campers and other recreational users benefit from - and depend on - access to public lands," Bingaman said. "In my view, selling public lands to pay down the deficit would be a shortsighted, ill-advised and irresponsible shift in federal land-management policy."

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., called the plan "a terrible idea based on a misguided sense of priorities."

Not only is the administration proposing to sell off public lands to help finance the president's budget, the move also won't sufficiently fund the rural schools program, which has helped California and other states, Feinstein said. "I will do everything I can to defeat this effort," she said.

Nearly 500 parcels totaling more than 85,000 acres in California are identified for possible sale.

The proposal follows a failed move last year to allow the sale of public lands for mining. Western senators had criticized the idea, as well as a plan by Rep. Richard Pombo, R-Calif., to sell off 15 national parks.

---

Such a discussion, while maybe fuego to many I think warrants 'general chatter' at trailtalk.
last edited: 2/16/06 7:13:03 PM”

“http://www.fs.fed.us/land/staff/spd.html#TOP OF NORTH CAROLINA TABLE”

“lonesurveyor,

which NC paper is that from. is the paper online/have a website. i'd be very interested in reading the article. i'm in NC too.”

“The Charlotte Observer had a fairly detailed article about the National Forest giveaway this week.

Instead of buying and adding more forests, the current bozos are giving it away.”

“The bozos are proposing to give some public lands away, but I doubt it will happen.”

“Oddly, the report of this sale on the Asheville TV station the other evening was joyfully received by the anchors who were pleased at the prospects of additional housing developments in those poor stagnated remote hollars.

The fact is most of the tracts proposed for sale are small with limited or no access but our benevolent planners locally here have included a few gems of several hundred acres of prime land.

So, what, a several hundred acre tract remote from other Forest Service lands is not worthy of keeping?
last edited: 2/18/06 5:56:45 AM”

“Such a discussion, while maybe fuego to many I think warrants 'general chatter' at trailtalk.

Then don't complain when you get "chatter" from opposing views.

How would you feel, lonesurveyor, if somebody who had different views on an important issue to you that you started a "chatter" thread that was obviously political in nature, and only put out their side of the story. But, out of respect for people who don't want to read the political debates, you decide to not put your side of the story into the thread?

By not making it fuego you are being rude to those who disagree with you, and those who don't want to read political debates.



To a great many on here, the safety of this country and national defense is much more important than land management. Shall we put our discussions on "general chatter" because we think it's important? Without good national defense, none of us will have the chance to go hiking. Think about it next time you start one of these threads.


last edited: 2/18/06 6:16:31 AM”

“I welcome opposing views and I agree this issue is not as important as national defense

but what is the purpose of defense, to defend our homes, land and way of life?

The issue of public land management is not going away anytime soon and if I have a further post on this issue it will be in a new feugo thread.”

“glad to see you've reconsidered
last edited: 2/18/06 8:51:47 AM”

“uh, i don't think you managed to sway his view or make him "reconsider"

the majority on here will argue that (and provide ample example) of all the money we've spent defending this country from the DANGEROUS Iraqis that were no doubt planning to blow the US up with their boatloads of weapons of mass destruction.

glad to see you've reconsidered.”

“Well shucks there Sarge can't you believe in both of those issues? Don't pick on Lonesurveyor or it might turn from National Defense into Self Defense!LOL!”

“pjbarr - What in the world are you talking about? Maybe you could make a sentence. "Of all the money" what?

if I have a further post on this issue it will be in a new feugo thread.

That is all I need to hear that he reconsidered. I didn't say I convinced him to do anything.
last edited: 2/18/06 12:40:20 PM”

“Lots of campaign donors for that list.”

“Map of Potential Tracts for Nantahala National Forest (1.7 MB PDF)*
Map of Potential Tracts for Pisgah National Forest (1.3 MB PDF)*
Map of Potential Tracts for Uwharrie National Forest (410 KB PDF)*
Map of Potential Tracts for Croatan National Forest (561 KB PDF)*

http://www.cs.unca.edu/nfsnc/lands/lands.htm

I expect maps are or soon will be available for other states.

Note: Here in McDowell County, 4 of the proposed sale tracts adjoin a 2,000 acre tract of CSX railroad property fronting on several miles of Blue Ridge Parkway property acquired by the Conservation Trust of North Carolina just a few months ago.
last edited: 3/02/06 6:12:03 AM”

“Edit to the ambiguous sentence in the previous post.

The Conservation Trust of NC recently acquired a 2,000 acre tract of CSX land which adjoins several miles on Blue Ridge Parkway property here in McDowell Co. and 4 of the USFS tracts proposed to be sold adjoin the 2,000 acres, so the USFS tracts are not necassarily isolated, small, irrelevent conservation properties, not to mention that CTNC is attempting to acquire additional lands in that area which might essentially encompass the USFS tracts proposed to be sold.
last edited: 3/02/06 8:02:55 AM”

“Whats wrong with the small tracts? Those are not useless pieces of property. In fact they are probably even more valueable to the ecology as a whole. They are bufferzone from urban development and small havens for wildlife. Keep every singe acre and add more.”

“isnt that why you have state, county, and city parks and forests. they are much more cost effective in managing small tracts of land such as these”

“The Conservation Trust of NC is not a public agency but acquires land with monies from various sources including the state.

The acquired land is often then transferred to public agencies. CTNC in this area has transferred several tracts to the Blue Ridge Parkway with others being taken over by the NC Wildlife Commission. Note - There is or has been some weird prohibition against the Blue Ridge Parkway directing purchasing adjoining land and each month that goes by has more and more vacation homes being built within a couple hundred feet of the narrow corridor typical of the Blue Ridge Parkway.

Interagency transfers of properties to tidy up boundaries would be fine but likely would not be a money maker for anyone, in fact would cost a lot with all the paperwork.
last edited: 3/02/06 4:39:20 PM”

“i assume the price would be too high with bidding developers for the nature conservancy or CTNC or other groups to buy these from the USFS?”

“pjbarr,

If you examine the maps and are familiar with the area, at least around here, you will see many of these proposed for sale tracts are landlocked and so would be of little value to anyone except the adjoining owners.

Why should conservation dollars of one agency be committed to tidy up boundaries or to change matters merely on paper for another agency? The isolated USFS tracts really cost nothing just to leave as they are.

And no, generally, the USFS is expecting no more money for these lands than CTNC typically pays for acquisitions.

Funny, I saw a link yesterday which stated the USFS and BLM have received an average of only $320/acre for their sales the last few years but now think these isolated, nearly worthless tracts will bring an average of over 10 times $320/acre. Dreaming?

There is even a tract in the Wilson Creek watershed proposed for sale?
last edited: 3/03/06 6:04:50 AM”

“www.cs.unca.edu/nfsnc/recreation/wilson_creek.pdf

The state of NC is in the process of acquiring 12,000 or so acres, utility owned - site of former planned reservoir, just below the confluence of Wilson Creek and Johns River with most of the land upstream of this 12,000 acres already in public ownership, yet 6 tracts (actually 2 in the Wilson Creek watershed) totalling hundreds of acres are proposed for sale in those 2 watersheds.

Why? Better to acquire additional lands and save every acre currently owned. The famous Lost Cove is up in there.

One trick the USFS is using is to identify adjoining parcels as 2 or more tracts in many cases, tracts being based upon original acquisition boundaries, so a composite 110 acre tract might appear as separate 20, 60 and 30 acre tracts on their list.
last edited: 3/03/06 6:29:48 AM”

“Further, one fact to recognize:

100 years ago there was almost no public land in WNC!

Now, there is about 1.6 million acres (85% or more federal, the remainder state, county and municpal) of public land, with the acquisition commencing in 1911 with an average annual acquisition since 1911 of over 16,000 acres. Were this trend to continue (the current state administration and it seems the general consensus of the people of this state are committed to substantial additional acquisition particularly for the Wildlife Commission, hunting and fishing lands), then many of these isolated USFS parcels proposed for sale will become contained within contiguous public holdings.

Unlike the state of New York, which has set the standard for conservation land acquisition starting back about 1880 or before, the state of NC got into the game late but now is progressing rapidly.
last edited: 3/03/06 6:57:20 AM”

“A devious example of what is going on:

Form the list of Nantahala Forest proposed lands for sale can be found -

Tracts -
N-144 27 acres, N-974 224 acres, N-76a 37 acres, N-975,1 6 acres, N-976 105 acres, N-1035 30 acres.

A bunch of fairly small fragmented tracts, yes? NO!

Check the map, these tracts form a tight contiguous block of 429 acres sitting on the ridge line of the Cowee Mountains in the vicinity of a couple more similarly sized tracts (them also comprized of multiple smaller tracts) and a place worth keeping or do we want 400 more houses in the Cowees at that location. The forest is not as fragmented as our 'benevolent' leaders would have us think.

Mark Rey and his buddies are really stretching the truth here! You know, there was something very telling in the body language of Mark Rey when he was attempting to justify this proposal during the TV interview, he mumbled and would not look at the camera and seemed to keep losing his train of thought.
last edited: 3/04/06 7:17:14 AM”

“How do we protest?”

“The Forest Service and the BLM are taking online comments

and of course Representatives and Senators are easily contacted thru their websites.”

“bat.driver has it right.we need to add more acres- once this land is sold off it will be forever. the damage that bush has done to this country on so many levels is simply astounding.”

“Comments on the proposed list must be received by March 30 and may be sent by e-mail to SRS_Land_Sales@fs.fed.us. Written comments may be sent to: USDA Forest Service, SRS Comments, Lands 4S, 1400 Independence Ave., SW, Mailstop 1124, Washington, DC, 20250-0003. Send faxed comments to (202) 205-1604.

SRS_Land_Sales@fs.fed.us.”