digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

Bush Administration Moves to Sell National Forest Land

commondreams.org — The Bush administration will unveil a proposal Friday to sell up to 200,000 acres of national forest land in "isolated parcels" ranging from a quarter of an acre to 200 acres, much of it in California.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • allaboutdatiki, on 10/12/2007, -5/+46" The president's new fiscal 2007 federal budget calls for the bureau to raise $1 million in 2007 land sales, $28 million in 2008, $40 million in 2009, $42 million in 2010 and $71 million in 2011."

    "Dave Alberswerth, a Wilderness Society senior policy adviser, said that would be "way more than they have been selling in recent years." From 2000 to 2004, the bureau sold 13,160 acres for an average price of $320 an acre, he said. At that rate, the government would have to sell more than half a million acres to garner $182 million."

    Is the average Joe allowed to buy this land or just big corporations?

    I'd love a nice 40 acre spread for chump change!
    • retral, on 10/12/2007, -17/+127Wouldn't it just be better to withdraw from Iraq, cut the losses, and use the money that they'd otherwise be spending on the war?
    • Charlotte_Web, on 10/12/2007, -67/+17Oh, right, because the War on Terror is over and because all radical Muslim groups have decided that they love the US after all and have agreed to play nice and not kill anybody with acts of terror any more... :-P
    • TheOther1, on 10/12/2007, -5/+17Maybe you can get a mule too...
    • erkokite, on 10/12/2007, -8/+31Nobody expects the US to be loved around the world, especially after what they did in Iraq. Let alone radical Muslim groups who hated us anyway. The question is, is the War on Terror really effective? Certainly the war in Iraq is not helping. A government study found that the war in Iraq was actually putting America in more danger. Should we combat terrorism? Of course. Is the war in Iraq helping? Of course not.

      And on a note more related to the story, I'm not surprised at all at this proposal. The Bush administration has an awful environmental record. Just one more reason to get him and his buddies out.
    • Charlotte_Web, on 10/12/2007, -14/+29It bears worth noting that one of Clinton's final acts before leaving office was to expand the national forest protection plan on 58.5 MILLION acres, an area roughly the size of Oregon:

      http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/11/14/forestprotection.ap/index.html

      Bush is only proposing the sale of 200,000 acres.
    • mateo60, on 10/12/2007, -6/+28Can't we save money in Iraq instead of giving up forest? Is our strategy in Iraq "Once we kill them all, they'll start loving us"? Forest can't easily be "un-ruined". Soldiers can't be un-killed. Start slowly withdrawing. The longer we're in Iraq, the more likely it is that we're going to go to war with Iran. All of that money gained from the land sale can be made up for in one day of the Iraq war. There are more terrorists there now than when we started, if we leave now maybe we won't make more. I have to admit, I was 100% for the war when it started, until I realized that we were lied to.

      All that to say, don't sell the damn forest. Save money elsewhere.
    • Tippis, on 10/12/2007, -2/+18@ charlotte_web
      "Oh, right, because the War on Terror is over ..."
      Exactly - it isn't. So why not stop wasting money on Iraq, and spend some of that money on _actually fighting terrorism_, rather than mucking about in an area that is completely unrelated, thereby improving the terrorists' recruitment ground?
    • doctechnical, on 10/12/2007, -12/+5@TheOther1: "Maybe you can get a mule too..."

      That is bloody genius. Yes, I think Bush should propose federal land give-aways as reparations to African-Americans.

      The lib's heads would explode.
    • Charlotte_Web, on 10/12/2007, -11/+3"The question is, is the War on Terror really effective? Certainly the war in Iraq is not helping."

      The measure of effectiveness is gained by looking at the result. How many acts of terror have there been on American soil since 9/11?

      Actually, the war in Iraq has been very effective. Radical Muslims are flocking to Iraq in great numbers for the opportunity to fight Americans, and we've killed lots of them. Whether or not Iraq was the front line in the War on Terror when the Iraq War started may be open for debate, but Iraq is unquestionably the front line today.

      It is important, however, that we stabilize Iraq before we leave, lest we allow Iraq to become yet another terrorist state in the Middle East.
    • pitlord, on 10/12/2007, -15/+2Do you environmentalist feel all warm and fuzzy when the forest you think you're saving goes up in flames because of overgrowth killing Bambi's mom?

      Responsible forest management includes planting and HARVESTING. So, we sell small portions of forests to companies that will make useful goods like, houses, pencils, toilet paper and the friggin poster board you use for your picket signs!

      Then the U.S. government even pays a staff of law enforcement professionals to protect your hippie asses while you put your dogs and babies in front of the tires of 20 ton log trucks (true story I've seen it) and carry your pickets signs made from the trees harvested by the loggers you're protesting to try and stop them from clearing out an overgrown fire hazard!

      The overwhelming stupidity of the average person continually sinks to new heights.

      >.>



    • leobaby, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10No need to worry, it's only 312.5 square miles of untouched forest and the access roads needed to get to it. And don't get and ideas, no one is going to get rich from this deal. Nothing to see here.
    • pitlord, on 10/12/2007, -12/+0@doctechnical

      LOL!

      The problem for the libs is most of them would end up selling the forest land to some logging company so they could go buy some more crack.
    • masamunecyrus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8For comparison reasons, 200 000 acres is roughly equal to about one 17mi x 17mi (27km x 27km, for everyone not in the US) patch of land.
    • dylanrush, on 10/12/2007, -10/+3I disagree with EVERYTHING George Bush does!! In fact, if I were to run the country, I would just do everything he does, but COMPLETELY THE OPPOSITE.

      /sarcasm
      Some people are just ***** ignorant.
    • miken32, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8"Responsible forest management includes planting and HARVESTING. So, we sell small portions of forests to companies that will make useful goods like, houses, pencils, toilet paper and the friggin poster board you use for your picket signs!"

      Nobody's complaining about responsible resource usage here, rather about the potentially unrestricted sale of the resource to anyone with the money to buy it.
    • broomett, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2erkokite...and leaving and letting an all out civil war (and Iran) take hold in Iraq would make everyone worse off.
    • AngryPenguin47, on 10/12/2007, -9/+2Give it a ***** rest, you ***** Bush trolls. I am not standing up for the man's past actions but this article has nothing to do with the war in Iraq. Take your conspiracy theories somewhere else. Nowhere in the article does it state that george bush is selling our forests to pay for the war in Iraq.

      RTFA:
      "The sale is part of a National Forest Service plan to raise $800 million over the next five years to pay for rural schools in 41 states, offsetting shrinking revenues from sale of timber from national forests."

    • designer, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3The Federal Government should own NO land.
    • Cyphase, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1I agree with "Jerry Taylor of the Cato Institute." Selling the land to private owners is the best thing to do. I know there's a big environmental group that buys up land to protect it.

      My only problem is that they want to use the money to pay for schools, and the government shouldn't be running the schools.
    • andyrobo60, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Why would they sell it? Its not like they need the money for a war or something.

      Opps never mind maybe they do.
    • diggduggjoe, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1First, the environmentalist may bid on the land also. They should put their money where their mouths are.

      Why should Americans live with a 9 trillion dollar debt (and growing) when we could sell off millions of acres to investors AND environmentalists. We could dump the debt and with proper Constitutional based government in the future have unlimited potential.
    • cklol, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Bush has oficially good gamed the entire world.
      Don't just sit here and think about it, write a letter to your congressman!!!
    • DigiRaven, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Someone needs to get this mother F'er out of the office. He is the dumbest piece of ***** I have ever known. Wants to destroy a forest that has lasted 1000s of years to help to build more schools that will ONLY benefit 5 years worth? Apparently science and social development were not on his school schedules.

      Do you think the democrats will stop this? Probably not. They are just as worthless as the president.
    • bitcloud, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1You know, I hate to be the guy who mentions Alex Jones because I'd much prefer if he was just a crackpot madman, but he spoke about this EXACT scenario a number of years ago... I can't remember where I saw it, but I watched a little bit of video from him and when he started talking about this I literally thought "this guy is full of *****" and closed the video... Now I'm not so sure...
    • bitcloud, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3And make no mistake about this - the article says this is "to pay for rural schools"

      I'll say this once, very loud and clear for those in the back (perhaps we can stop this doublespeak once and for all)
      THIS IS TO PAY FOR *The War Effort*

      This is to pay for the atrocious mistakes, misgovernment and corruption that can be attributed to George W Bush and Dick Cheney. They are selling the national parks because they have spent all the education funding on killing innocent people in a violent aggressive act of war. Lets not mince our words any longer.
    • biotch, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@ charlotte_webb

      "How many acts of terror have there been on American soil since 9/11?"
      That was only 6 years ago.

      How many acts of terror were there on American soil before 9/11 when we WERENT in Iraq fighting the so called "war on terror".
      The previous world trade bombing was in 1993!
      ...btw that was only a couple months into Clinton's term and I never hear anyone blaming Bush Sr. for that.
  • allaboutdatiki, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Here's the "Lands Potentially Eligible for Sale by State and National Forest" ...

    http://www.fs.fed.us/land/staff/spd.html

    Google Maps mashup, anyone?
    • flimbabulous, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0Good thing US citizens don't stand for anything any longer otherwise this brilliant plan would go nowhere.
    • grumpasaurusrex, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Thanks for the link. 2,800 acres are in Alabama. I'd guess it's a good idea to sell off these parcels, at least the ones in AL and GA. Can anybody bid on this land, or is it a payola scheme....and don't anybody think it will only reward GOP donors. Harry Reid is king of the dirty land deal, as are a whole lot of the scum in politics.
  • hilbertspaceboy, on 10/12/2007, -11/+8Bush and Jeff Gannon want to build a love shack out in the woods.
  • iomegaboy, on 10/12/2007, -50/+6This is just slightly worse than Clinton closing down road access to 60% of National Forest lands durning his presidency.
    • ima9rd, on 10/12/2007, -8/+52Selling our national forests for destruction is only slightly worse than closing road access? It seems to me that closing the roads in national forests would help preserve the habitats for the animals, while this plan aims to destroy them.
    • iomegaboy, on 10/12/2007, -46/+1Sarcasm dumbass.
    • diggityiggity, on 10/12/2007, -1/+42Your sarcasm needs work then. I missed it too.
    • Lyph4, on 10/12/2007, -15/+3@ ima9rd

      Who says the land is going to be destroyed and developed? Seriously, there are groups who pool money and resources to purchase land from the government to protect and preserve it.
    • ima9rd, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16@Lyph4
      Because lumber corporations have a much larger resource pool than small environmental conservation groups.
    • seanny19, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7@ Lyph 4
      Except that big corporations are willing to pay top dollar for good land.
    • diggduggjoe, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1And what is wrong with that? Most paper comes from managed lands. The only forests that are raped are those under federal control. When you may have only one chance to cut down a tree you will take it. When you own the land, you tend to manage it properly.
  • doctechnical, on 10/12/2007, -14/+2Did anyone else notice the date on this story was a year old?

    Didn't think so.
    • Cloned, on 10/12/2007, -5/+36In this case, it doesn't matter that it's a year old. This plan is coming into effect NOW, so it's relevant.


      Here in Flagstaff, Arizona, we are surrounded by one the largest pine forests in the US. This forest is home to many species of animals such as elk, mountain lion, some species of deer, coyote, wolf, fox, rabbit, and many many species of birds. The forest is also enjoyed by the locals, many of which moved to Flagstaff because of the natural serenity that it offers.

      But now Bush wants to sell off our forest. I agree that the schools could use some more money, but destroying our forests is NOT the way to go about it.
    • Tmacman, on 10/12/2007, -6/+10This might be a year old, but this year the miserable bastard wants to try it again:

      Bush again proposes selling national forest land

      Source: Copyright 2007, Associated Press
      Date: February 6, 2007
      Byline: Matthew Daly

      http://forests.org/articles/reader.asp?linkid=68848
    • 13B1303, on 10/12/2007, -14/+3@cloned
      it's not YOUR forest, but now that it is for sale it can be.
      Quit bitching, get your neighbors together and buy it.
      Who is destroying the forests anyway? Just because it can be sold doesn't mean it will be destroyed. I bet all the Sierra Club and a bunch of other preservation groups will buy up as much land as they can and have full control over it's use. Did they have this option before it was for sale?
    • 13B1303, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1I find it comical that I am getting dug down with no attempt to contradict the validity of my comment. I think it just backs my case. No one wants to do anything for themselves, gotta leave it to the taxpayers to foot the bill. Why should the government have any of this land anyway? If they don't need it to support the function of necessary government then it is a waste of resources. I challenge any of the tools on here bitching to donate a single dollar to any group that will buy some of that land. Come on put your money where your mouth is.
    • renzien, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@13B
      We pay taxes too, dumbass.
      It should be preserved because the people with the money are irresponsible, and at this point "just don't buy from them" is damn-near impossible.
      ***** get real about it. No one replied to you because you just weren't worth it, if you'll excuse me as well.
  • doctormalaka, on 10/12/2007, -15/+3What a joke, the article has a picture of a Sequoia tree and tries to give the impression that those are the things that are going to be sold and chopped down. If their point is so solid why do they have to try to deceive the reader to believe something that is not true?
    • 98percentcogdis, on 03/25/2008, -0/+3He might not be selling the Giant Redwoods in the Sierras but he is selling land in the Sierras, and in Humboldt, and Shasta, and in the Sequoia's and Tahoe. All pristine Forrest. Are you in the mood to argue, or are you just an *****!
    • grumpasaurusrex, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0How can I bid on this prime California land for $320 an acre? Wow...and to think I can afford 10 acres of prime forest land in CA!!! America really is the land of opportunity.
  • jetsetgo, on 10/12/2007, -11/+45Why does Bush hate America?
    • brishchik, on 10/12/2007, -8/+33Because Jesus told him so
    • yournamehere, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5but James Cameron found Jesus. he said he never told Bush to do anything
  • eboy, on 10/12/2007, -37/+9G. BUSH JR IS our greatest president...ever.
    • kakwakas, on 10/12/2007, -5/+19Going for a new negative digg record...?
    • uberdesigner, on 10/12/2007, -19/+4I dugg you up just to make you feel good
    • pintomp3, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3uberdesigner: judging by your post history, you dugg him to make yourself feel good, not him.
  • uberdesigner, on 10/12/2007, -11/+4it would be good to be rich
  • anon48654, on 11/15/2007, -10/+2Was it Spain that deforested all the land in its reach to built the Armada?
  • NukkChorris, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6One word. Ridiculous
  • GreasedMonkey, on 10/12/2007, -18/+1The treehuggers are gonna be PISSED.
    • brishchik, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10And the ignorants will be pleased, so what's the point.
  • munen123, on 10/12/2007, -3/+25I am the Lorax, I speak for the trees....

    BUSH SUCKS!!!
    • nofxjunkee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Damn man, I had forgotten about the Lorax! Very appropriate...
  • RatTrap, on 10/12/2007, -5/+18NO, BAD BUSH go away no one likes you.
  • bcasper1, on 10/12/2007, -3/+36Is it me or does anyone get the feeling that bush is like a sick joke, everyday its something else that tops the previous ridiculousness of this administration. He keeps pushing the American people, I'm just waiting for someone to pop out from behind the curtain laughing and slapping his knee at the shenanigans of the last seven years.
    • kerryhall, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4It's a really sick ***** joke. Every day I am almost afraid to go on digg and see the new ***** that this administration has come up with.
    • cockaroachie, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Agreed! The country has never been in worse shape in its history. Also, because of Bush there has never been a worse time in the history of the world to be alive, ever.
  • ithon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8if the Californian forest would be sold, I hope that the Californian state government would somehow buy the land.
    • Lyph4, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3Because Government handles everything so smoothly. Be it federal or state, governments suck at everything they do.

      And, even though it's mostly unrelated to the topic at hand, that's why national healthcare is suck a dumb idea.
  • aptmunich, on 10/12/2007, -4/+56Is it :
    - unpopular?
    - environmentally devestating?
    - Irreversible?
    - Destroying a national treasure?
    - Good for a quick buck?

    Great - let's do it!
    • ccrook, on 10/12/2007, -11/+1The act of selling land is not environmentally devastating in and of itself. You and your dirty tree hugger friends could come up with the money and buy a plot or 2 but you're probably too busy making burgers with your liberal arts and philosophy degrees to be able to coherently organize or educate yourself on the areas of land that are being sold.

      You're so ignorant you don't even realize that Forest Service land is routinely harvested for lumber and drilled for oil on, and has been since the Forest Service was created. This isn't National Park land. How many times does it need to be said?

      And it's funding education - I fail to see a problem here.
  • Dustin00, on 10/12/2007, -2/+23While they're cutting the trees, can they cut down the bushes?
  • brishchik, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Yes GWB you go girl! Sell everything you can to make some bucks, only 2 years left
  • yaro83, on 10/12/2007, -14/+4Just because the land is sold, DOES NOT mean that the forests and wildlife on it will be devastated. I am not privy to the specific administration plans, but in principle, the forest land can be sold with all sorts of restrictions on it. More specifically, there are environmental programs already developed which allow development on the land only if such development is offset by conservation measures elsewhere (similar to pollution permit trading) - and this would be very consistent with Bush's economic policies. If properly implemented that sort of a system would a) be more efficient; b) raise money for federal government; c) be no worse for the environment than keeping the land in Federal hands.

    Keep in mind also, that just because the land is retained by the Feds, it does not mean that it's safe: logging permits are sold by the government routinely.
    • calvmari, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12Don't kid yourself. The Bush administration is proposing to sell it. What do you think they intend this land to be used for hrmmm...?
    • yournamehere, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5yeah, they are going to sell the land with the stipulation of the buyer not being able to do anything with it.
    • grumpasaurusrex, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0That's a good point, actually. My in-laws bought 35 acres of national forest land in VA a while back. They can only develop one home and can only disturb 1 of the 35 acres. They haven't done a thing with the land except camp and hike on it.
  • Lyph4, on 10/12/2007, -10/+7Why do you people associate being sold to private people/companies/groups/associations/whatever with destruction?

    There already exist groups who purchase property like this for the sole purpose of protecting it from development and destruction.

    You're so obsessed with the image of an evil corporation bulldozing the trees to build a strip mall that you're not thinking clearly.

    If you buy property next to mine, and you dump ***** on your property that messes with the plants/animals/what have you on mine, I can take you to court and make you clean up both sides. That's how it would work in a Libertarian world, and that's how it can work today. It happened to GE around where I live. They dumped PCBs into the river, it contaminated private property, the people sued, and GE is cleaning it up. It's costing them more to clean it up than it would have cost them to dispose of the waste properly in the first place.

    So, yeah. Just because a corporation makes money, doesn't make it evil. And just because it's a corporation doesn't mean it wants to dump ***** in your back yard. And if they do, you can sue to get them to clean it up.
  • Buckeye70, on 10/12/2007, -12/+3 Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., attacked the plan as "crazy," saying: "Here the administration wants to pass more tax cuts for the rich, and to pay the bill, they want to sell off public land - our nation's natural heritage."

    Thanks Dianne, you said in one sentence why I do not not vote democratic ever. The story has nothing to do with taxes, yet once again retort the democratic party line "Tax cuts for the rich". Guess what the rich pay all of the taxes. Who should get the tax cuts, people who do not pay taxes? Families in the bottom 40% typically pay no federal taxes and receive money pack from the government. If she does not like tax cuts, feel free to pay more.
    • renzien, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Great job missing her point, methinks.
  • headzoo, on 10/12/2007, -4/+15This administration holds nothing sacred (except money). Not our constitution, our environment, or our lives. Everything is fair game to them in the pursuit of money and power. It's sickening.
    • mike17032, on 10/12/2007, -15/+2Shut up already. Its some trees. We have plenty more where they came from. This is just a very small portion of the protected forests in the US. Trees ARE a renewable resource anyway. There is a good chance some trees or wildlife were destroyed to build whatever you live in, so unless you are living in some tent in a field just shut the ***** up.
    • ccrook, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1God forbid they fund rural schools with the money the gov't takes in.

      Into the pockets of the rich AGAIN!

      /sarcasm
    • cockaroachie, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Clinton has made 40 million though speaking tours these last couple of years. Since he is a caring Democrat I'm sure he will give up that money for the environment, unlike the sickening Republicans!
  • mike17032, on 10/12/2007, -11/+3God forbid we allow people to buy land to live on, or for companies to expand with.

    Not sure what kind of detached world some of you live in, but as our population grows its gonna need some place to grow to. Unless you wanna let people bunk up with you, shut up.
    • sansalvation, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9The problem is that it will go to logging companies that will clear-cut it, then developers, then ultimately to the "people" for outrageous prices. Guess who will benefit from this. Not the people that need housing. There is already plenty of housing in CA for people that can afford it.
  • Niteryder, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Bush and the assholes around him are not welcome in California nor are they welcome to our woods.
  • Dhalsim007, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2Ummm....Clinton did this too. In fact, this is less than a fraction of a percent of all the forest the gov't owns.
    And besides, did you read where the money is going??? To fund rural schools!

    "The sale is part of a National Forest Service plan to raise $800 million over the next five years to pay for rural schools in 41 states, offsetting shrinking revenues from sale of timber from national forests. The Bureau of Land Management also plans to sell federal lands to raise an estimated $182 million over five years."

    • Buckeye70, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1Of course they did not see that. It would get in the way of the Bush Bashing.
    • ccrook, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1This is true but you'll get dug down from digg group-think.

      National Forest land is routinely harvested for lumber and it is also frequently drilled on for oil. This isn't National Park land which I believe is why people are getting upset: because they're ignorant.
    • BGFeltenink, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2You fund rural schools by getting rid of the "zip code privilege" of public schools. You take all the taxes for schools collected for the entire state and award as necessarily and as equally as possible. Now there might be one or two less amazing schools with all the latest tech out there, but these are supposed to be public schools not fortresses for the wealthy that do not wish to pay extra for private school.
  • badbox, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2I hope they build some condos or something. This world is getting over populated and I'd like more space for other people to live so there's less traffic in my city.
    • kerryhall, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Yes, building more housing is an effective solution for overpopulation. Until there is no more land to build on.
  • Starflyer59, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Where is Treebeard and the Ents when you need them?
  • aclements, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9Or we could raise several times that amount of money by say, not sending an additional 20000 troops to a war that is illegal anyway.
    • cockaroachie, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I agree with you wholeheartedly. We should only destroy other countries when it is totally legal. It's a shame when the US fights illegally. Shame on you Bush!
  • zeeboo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3When oh when are these ass-hats getting kicked out? Could it come any sooner?
  • eggins, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4While some are arguing there is plenty of land and this is a small portion, it's not very reassuring that the Bush administration can't think of a better, more sustainable revenue source? After all they are billions on cash to destroy Iraq, but can't even find a few million for some local schools. How the hell did people vote this retard into power? While it isn't going to be the end of the world if this does happen, it's not exactly encouraging based on the fact that if they get away this time with selling this land, theres a fair chance it could happen again. Likewise it's not going to do the US any favors when you see that most other nations are struggling to improve their environmental policy. This just spits in the face of that.
    • ptsd, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17"How the hell did people vote this retard into power?"

      they didnt...
  • ccrook, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2ppppsssstttt: National Forest Service land is routinely logged and drilled for oil on by private firms. It's not like he's selling Yosemite.
  • brishchik, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4May be GWB wouldn't need to sell out and destroy forests to raise money for schools if he hadn't given tax credits to his oil ceo buddies in the time of their dire situation of over-stretched pockets due to record profits. But then again, what are friends for?
  • pedalwrench, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Wow! There is a lot of land in Colorado going up for sale if this goes through.

    I guess i need to set my uber non-profit land deal company. i wouldn't mind 40 acres.

    They did this last year on the western side of the state (Grand junction Area). The land (Prime Mountain Biking Land) went to some gas/shale oil company with a "promise" not to destroy everything. I am glad I got out there last year to experience it before they wreck it.

    Also, to the questions of why not trust a private company to do good when they buy the land...one word walmart.

    Short story:
    Walmart bought some land in east Boulder county last year. There was a huge prairie dog community on the land. The locals or some enviro group offered to move the community at no cost to Walmart. What did wally-world do? Gas the lot of them!!
  • jdmCrush, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5As if the Bush Administration wasn't doing enough already to screw up our country...

    Who the hell is letting him sell "protected federal land" just to fule things like, oh, say, "The War Against Terrorism."
    • ccrook, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2It's actually to fund rural school to teach people like you how to spell "fuel".
    • jdmCrush, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Oh you got me..a tyop, erm, typo...

      Maybe if we weren't spending so much money on the war, we wouldn't have to sell land to build schools and whatnot.
  • funkspiel, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Going out of business sale?
    • Cyphase, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I wish. Ooooh, how I wish that were true..
  • ValleyBoy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3How about all those millionaire celebrities who love to speak out on these issues just buy up the land and donate it to the public? Bush gets his money, the people get the land, the celebs look good (which is all they really want anyways, right?)... it's a win-win.
    • kerryhall, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1That is looking like an attractive solution at the moment, but it's ***** ***** that it has come to this.
  • archfiend001, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I agree with eggins; America is literally BLEEDING money due to the "war on terror," and the only solution he can come up with for funding america's schools is by selling off our nation's natural treasure. What a weak cop-out. SOMEONE THIS EGOCENTRIC SHOULD NOT BE IN OFFICE. He is NOT fulfilling the nation's best interest. Take a look at his popularity rate; only 30% of Americans agree with his actions in office. Does this not mean anything?? I cannot wait for the day when this ass's term is over.

    bababooey.
  • ekoshyun, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2A completely irreversible action, and is completely unacceptable. Bush = worst president in the history of the world.
  • thadiusdean, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Holy hell we're going backwards...
  • Rocketmac, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2President Theodore Roosevelt is rolling in his grave right now. Think the 182mill is to support some odd crack addiction or some plot Bush has to gut the country and make off like a bandit after he leaves office? It would be interesting if any of the land purchased from this proposal ends up being owned by anyone or any company that has a political, social, economic or biological connection to Bush, Chenney or anyone else previously and currently in the administration. (sorry for that long disjointed sentence).
  • Paqza, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3The Department of Defense budget for 2007? $400+ billion. Now, honestly, I think we would be better off spending 1 or 2 or 50 billion of those dollars on American education and all-around domestic well-being.
    • kerryhall, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2What a concept!! Couldn't agree more.
  • counterstriker, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5ah yes the Bush administration selling national forest land to corporate america. Is anyone suprised?
  • itrichs, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2***** that *****
  • necromancerr, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7I really ***** hate this man.
  • vipersxt10, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Bush is an idiot...impeach! bring our troops home and save the little wildlife and forest's we have left in this country, dont let an idiot take away our land and the lives of our people. www.impeachforpeace.com
  • kennyboy019, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3As someone who actually lives between two of the largest areas for sale (Shasta Trinity / Lassen in California) I don't think most people here realize how small the amount of land their selling is. Most of this is most likely within city limits or in rural populated areas.
    The total amount of land in the area Shasta Trinity is 2,099,200 acres, while there are 106,000 acres in the Lassen park. Their selling off more of Lassen then I would like to see, but Lassen does have the most accessible land of the 2. Shasta Trinity is mostly alpine country.

    But we do need to be realistic. Most of our forests are grossly overgrown.
    See link:
    http://www.nationalcenter.org/TSR62102.html

    I have friends who own 50 acres in the Santa Cruz mountains who thinned the trees that had been allowed to over grow. They have owned it for about 15 years now, and the first 5 or 6 they didn't do anything with it. We could walk through and not see any wildlife. No deer, a few birds and no reptiles or anything like that. They they thinned the land. Within a year shrubs and bushes that had been tiny were growing to 5 or 6 times their size before. Their are more birds and allot more deer. The over grown forest was choking itself to death.

    While I don't agree with the amount of land coming out of Lassen, its not like its going to pay for Iraq or something. Its going to the rural schools, which around here let me tell you NEED IT.
    • Urusai, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2The problem with schools isn't money; teachers make plenty good money. The problem is the retarded curriculum and an academic culture which actively punishes teaching/learning.
    • kennyboy019, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"The problem with schools isn't money; teachers make plenty good money. The problem is the retarded curriculum and an academic culture which actively punishes teaching/learning."

      Not sure where that came from, but let me tell you that teachers most places dont even make a living income, at least here in Ca.
      And dont even get me started on that NCLB Bush-*****.

      Schools are given money based on how many students they have, and they only get money for the days the kids show up. In rual areas where there may only be 10-20 kids at a school, that barely pays for upkeep, let alone the teachers and staffs pay. Selling land like this is how they have been paying for the teachers and whatnot for years. As the cost of living goes up, expect to see more of this.
    • geronimo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I have hiked in Lassen(Nice volcanoes), and I can guarantee that the proceeds of these sales will no make it to anywhere near Lassen. It will go to Washington then get mixed into the budget. I agree that rural schools need the money, but you can't trust this "no child left behind" administration to actually not leave children behind. It is interesting that the federal government is selling off assets to get more revenue. With this approach to bringing down the deficit, eventually we'll try to pawn off the whitehouse.. I wonder how much that will go for on the open market.
    • reiner15, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This is why wildfires are SUPPOSED to occur... to burn through the trees and start a new growth cycle. But no one lets nature do its thing anymore. So of course all the forests are "grossly overgrown".
  • ScottoGato, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1No proposals to give the land to Native Americans? Maybe sell it to them at a discount price, like the Louisiana Purchase.
  • dralezero, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1He is probably looking to build detention camps hidden in the middle of the forests in the areas cut away.
  • jimbabb, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Getting land away from the government is the best way to protect it. The US government is the biggest polluter in the world.

    This is a great opportunity for environmentalists to put their money where their mouth is.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 78 of 78 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.