US Forest Service Land Sales - Moving in the Wrong Direction
Here are talking points, scroll down for a sample letter.
Selling public land is a move in the wrong direction. Our public lands are an American birthright, something that makes our homeland unique. Those lands deserve protection, defense, and thoughtful stewardship. They are not commodities to be used in a short-sighted scramble for a few dollars. We should be looking in the other direction and trying to complete the original plans for national forest acquisitions, especially in the Southern Appalachians . The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) is the most valuable source of funding to increase the acres of protected land and it is experiencing record low levels of funding. The original intent of LWCF, which is funded from proceeds from off-shore oil leases was to fund acquisitions of land and, if fully funded by the Administration and Congress, would provide up to $900 million to protect the unique public resources of our country. This land sales initiative adds salt to the wounded LWCF program. Even when viewed independent of the LWCF issue, selling off public land opens a door by setting a precedent that these lands are for sale to the highest bidder. What's next?
This proposal is a short-term solution for a long-term need. The administration is justifying this public land sell-off as a way to fund the Secure Rural School and Community Self-Determination program. This program was established in 2000 (a budget surplus year) to compensate counties containing National Forest land to make up for the lack of property tax income. Participation in the program is optional and payments are based on each National Forests' historical timber receipts. See, the Forest Service has shared money with communities since 1908 by giving local governments 25 percent of the funds made from timber sales on public land. The Secure Rural School and Community Self-Determination program was set up because local governments in counties with a high percentage of public land were getting less money due to declining timber sales. So, yes we believe the government should compensate these counties, but selling public land to fund this program is a short-term solution. This land sale is expected to fund the program for five years. What happens after those five years are up? The money will be gone, but so will the public's land. While we agree that funding our nation's education system should be a priority, selling off public land isn't an appropriate solution.
The parcels that are up for sale ARE valuable. The administration claims that many of these lands are isolated from other contiguous National Forest System lands, and because of their location, size or configuration are not efficient to manage as a component of the National Forest system. We are not finding that to be the truth. In fact, now that we are able to identify these parcels and their relation to other public land, it is clear that many of these parcels are important pieces of the conservation puzzle but also prime for development. The issue boils down to whether we hold on to a conservation toehold in these critical areas of the wildland-urban interface or give these areas over to development. No amount of money is worth the permanent loss of public lands.
The East carries an inordinate burden in this land sale proposal. The proposed acres for sale in the east are comparable to the acreage proposed for sale in the west, however, it's western counties that will get the bulk of the payments from these sales. Montana has 14,000 acres proposed for sale and Oregon has about 10,500 acres. These acreages are comparable to what we're seeing in the East - North Carolina - 9,828; Virginia - 5,717; South Carolina - 4,665; Georgia - 4,522; Alabama - 3,220; Tennessee 2,996. Oregon currently gets about $136.5 million about 1/3 of the entire $405 million dollar 2006 program. The highest amount received by an eastern state was $8.5 million in Mississippi , which is less than many counties in the West. Many of the Eastern states receive less than a $1 million. Yet the East has the least national forest ownership and the greatest need to build on current ownership rather than liquidate these lands. There is a ridiculous aspect to asking citizens in the East to willingly assent to sell off our scarce parcels of public lands in order to make payments to counties in Oregon .
Selling public land encourages "sprawl". As populations and cities continue to grow, and more and more open lands disappear under asphalt and concrete, the value of our public forests and all they provide grows ever greater. Our bequest to future generations can and must be a vigorous and well-conceived effort to provide a landscape of sustainable forests that are healthy, diverse and resilient. In parts of the Southeast, urban areas are expanding as fast and aggressively as anywhere in the United States . Increasing development is of special concern in such a heavily populated region; close to 50 percent of the national population lives within a half-day drive of the Southern Appalachians . The alteration of natural habitats by human encroachment threatens the quality of the air, land, and water on which all of us depend. These parcels that are proposed for sale in the wildland-urban interface are a line of defense against this creeping sprawl in our region. In no way will selling our public land help us ensure our sustainable future, in fact, it will only exacerbate and encourage sprawl.
Opportunities to address habitat fragmentation are already shrinking. Many of the building blocks for a regional network of conservation areas already exist in public ownership. However, work needs to continue to build on the current conservation network to establish more secure habitat and provide more linkages between our flagship conservation holdings. Many states and private land conservancies are going to great lengths to purchase lands and establish conservation easements in the wildland-urban interface and to fill in some of these missing pieces. The "ragged edges" of our public lands provide the opportunity to preserve or establish some of these conservation linkages. - NOT by selling off pieces. Our region is home to biological diversity found in only a few places on Earth. Yet this rich tapestry of life is frayed and in danger of unraveling as roads, timbering, urban development, acid rain, and other encroachments take their toll. The current network of public lands should be built upon not torn down. Our National Forest tapestry needs more connections, not further fragmentation.
Selling public lands is contrary to citizens' desires. Late last year, Rep. Richard Pombo proposed, and the House approved in the budget reconciliation bill, a scheme to sell millions of acres out of public ownership and into the hands of mining companies and other developers. The resultant outcry from anglers, hunters and other conservationists, from western governmental leaders, from ranchers and business people, was such that the provision was scrapped before the budget resolution was approved. The President's land disposal scheme is equally objectionable and warrants the same end.
Our public lands deserve better than to be treated as a budgetary slush fund. While we understand that development is inevitable and that progress in the form of economic development enables us to fund our schools and social services, a conscious decision was made to set aside some places as our heritage. The government should not take that heritage lightly. It is w idely believed that our public lands are to be held in trust by the government for use and enjoyment by future generations. Forest Service Chief Dale Bosworth has identified "loss of open space" as one of the four threats facing the health of our Nation's forests and grasslands. The mission of the USDA Forest Service is to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the Nation's forests and grasslands to meet the needs of present and future generations. How does "sustain the health, diversity, and productivity" translate into "sell"? We need to keep the public in "public lands".
SAMPLE LETTER
Please feel free to use the letter as a guide and to personalize the letter with your own information and comments.
****Don't forget to send a copy of your letter to your Congressional reps! And copy SAFC too, it inspires us to know that you're out there writing these letters!
Your name
- Address
- City, State, Zip
- Date
Dear USDA Forest Service:
I am writing because I am extremely concerned about one particular provision in President Bush's proposed budget for FY 2007 that proposes to sacrifice treasured areas of our nation's public lands. If this proposal goes forward, nearly 300,000 acres of our public forest lands could be sold off and lost forever. The short-term gains would be offset by the permanent loss of public lands and the profits from the proposed sales would fall far short of what's needed to help rural governments pay for schools and other basic services. This proposal flies in the face of the Forest Service's mission to "sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the Nation's forests and grasslands to meet the needs of present and future generations."
[Insert key information about you or your organization and why Public Lands are important to you.]
Our public lands are a national treasure that all Americans value. That each of us individually has a claim to ownership of the publicly held national land base is of intrinsic importance to our being Americans - genuine stakeholders in our magnificent landscape. Please do everything in your power to ensure that next year's budget does not include this shortsighted and misguided land sale proposal. Thank you for your support and help in this urgent matter. {YOU OR YOUR ORGANIZATION} is concerned the proposal would: {Incorporate talking points here.}
County payments are an extremely important funding source for counties with forest land inside their boundaries. To propose selling off public lands we will lose forever, in exchange for a program we can pay for by other more prudent means, is simply irresponsible. This proposal is contrary to citizens' desires that the Forest Service continue to hold protection and preservation as its highest goals. Sincerely,
Your name
cc: Congressional reps
SAFC