HOUSE votes to end public land

One of the most disturbing votes in U.S. history has officialy ended national forest lands in the United States.

Fer gawd's sake, post a link.

and voted it through.

Was it just on C-Span?
Do you know how the votes went - strictly by party?

Once votes go through there, it will come out for floor vote (Congress) and than to Senate.

BOSWELL & TOWNS voting NAY.

That's it for the national forest gang.

They are over.

I truly feel nauseated as I hear their cheers of greedy glee. It's like being in the last throes and getting kicked. Goodbye beautiful forests, goodbye college for the middle class, goodbye food for the poor.

... signs?

The forests are for sale.

The Congress is for sale.

I own a sign company that specializes in ripping out signs that read "National Forest." Where do I apply?

They'll be giving it all back to them, right?

These monsters never fail to amaze me in the extent of their frost-bitten hearts.

That gets you in the front door. The magnitude of your contribution determines your place in line.

BTW, recycling is for sissies.

they had to retreak the bill just few weeks ago.

If I read it right fourteen republicans voted with the dems and two dems didn't vote. I am going to check the web to see if the roll call is out yet.

3 total didn't vote, the third is either a Repug or independent and I think Bernied would have voted.

Contact your Senators and fight like hell.

We lose control of the national forests and there won't be a tree left standing and Old Faithful will be owned by a filthy rich Bush oilman that demands $30 bucks before we can view it.

Believe when the last tree is cut down Jesus comes back.

they have to retrack the bill... Just like they did with Alaska Oil drilling Bill.

You can take money out of my pocket, but when you start messing with the forests, I get CRAZY.

I don't think it'll pass the Senate.

The Repukes in the House are KILLING their party and the way the country is starting to feel about it. (That's okay by me.)

Senate will NOT pass this bill!

the video clip speaks of 300,000 to 20 million acres possible affected. the Nat'l Forest website claims 190 million acres total. it is nonetheless a huge shame that boils my blood... but the reality is it is a land giveaway of SOME nat'l forests, not an abolition of the entire system.

Senators need to be contacted ASAP. Which states do you choose to deny a national forest to? You're happy the GOP are only giving away part of our national forest. Please post your info.

:cry:

in this thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5372231
thread title (11/16 GD): PUBLIC LAND GRAB ALERT! LATimes:millions of acres at stake in House bill

It is a massive giveaway of OUR public lands, sold for a pittance for development or any damn thing - with as much as a quarter of a BILLION acres at stake, including precious national forests and even areas like the Black Hills. Condos on the Grand Canyon? Oh yes.

So far, it's almost completely under the radar, though some Senators have vowed to fight it. The LA Times has carried a couple of articles about it, but it's been mostly blacked out in the media.

The massive House budget bill with this poisonous rider has just passed.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1933081
thread title (11/18 LBN): House passes Sweeping Budget Cut Bill (in wee hours after initial defeat)
The Seattle Post-Intelligencer article that discusses this DOESN'T EVEN MENTION THE CATASTROPHIC POMBO AMENDMENT TO THIS BILL:

Are you talking about something DIFFERENT from the Pombo rider on the budget bill? This is hard to make any worse.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1933081
thread title (11/18 LBN): House passes Sweeping Budget Cut Bill (in wee hours after initial defeat)

The last-minute rider, added without public hearings, wirtten in quietly by corrupt Repub Rep Pombo (California), is virtually unknown, not being discussed.

THIS MUST CHANGE. READ THIS THREAD AND ACT:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5372231
thread title (11/16 GD): PUBLIC LAND GRAB ALERT! LATimes:millions of acres at stake in House bill

nm

When a large piece of land is declared a National Forest, local schools lose their tax base. The government doesn't pay property tax.

I'm familiar with rural districts in Ohio that can't provide a real education to their students because national forests constitute 90% of the land in their districts. Presumably a private entity would have to pay property tax on these lands, giving these kids a chance at a reasonably funded education.

So that's the upside to cutting back the acreage that's considered National Forest.

education.

It's not the only strike against the property tax, but that method of funding education is really antiquated and unfair.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Is it because I support well-funded public schools that I should be ashamed to call myself a Democrat? Or is it that I disagree with you on one issue that has you thinking I should leave the party?

Should we have a public lands litmus test for membership?

and quite a number of other ways that public lands provide revenues to local communities- probably in excess of anything you'd get by property taxes- even for the one lowly national forest in Ohio.

So how are school districts supposed to make up for the lack of property tax revenues? Have bake sales?

And you're going to have to provide more than speculation if you want me to believe that there are "quite a number of other ways that public lands provide revenues to local communities- probably in excess of anything you'd get by property taxes"

I'll believe it if you can say something even slightly quantitative.

Recreation = Revenue

Approximately 85 percent of the revenue generated from national forests comes from recreational activities--more than five times the amount generated by logging. Currently, U.S. parks and forestws, including the 58.5 million acres affected by the roadless policy, provide an estimated $100 billion in recreational benefits and nearly 333,000 jobs each year.
(U.S. Department of the Interior and U.S. Department of Commerce).

http://www.census.gov/prod/3/97pubs/fhw96nat.pdf

Revenue Sharing and the Future of The Monongahela National Forest

Although federal lands are exempt from local property taxes, the federal government compensates local governments (counties) for this loss of potential revenue by making two types of payments. The first, known as 25 Percent Funds, consists of 25 percent of the proceeds from the sale of commodities and services in the Forest that occur within that county (16 U.S.C. 500). About 72 percent of these proceeds result from the sale of timber, 20 percent from oil and gas receipts (the only minerals currently sold from the Forest) and the remainder from grazing fees, recreation user fees, and other miscellaneous receipts.

The second payment, known as a payment in lieu of taxes (PILT), amounted to about 75 cents per acre in 1994 and is scheduled to increase to $1.65 per acre by 1999. Collectively, these payments compensate counties for the loss of property tax revenue and for any other losses or disadvantages suffered as a result of federal ownership of the land.

http://www.polsci.wvu.edu/ipa/par/report_12_3.html

Like I said- this is just for starters- I haven't even touched the ecological services or the externalities sides of the equations....

I'll look over this. I'm not convinced all forest land is best left in the hands of the feds, but it appears this land does get more use than I had imagined.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

they will be more responsible. Maine has some of the best forested wilderness in the lower 48, and it isn't due to shitty-ass federal 'stewardship'. Our forests are lumber company owned (mostly) and managed by the state, and dammit, our woods kick your woods ass.

:P

They don't believe in public property, or the concept of "the commons". We will have a high-rise on Washington's head at Mr. Rushmore - Condos at Yellowstone - a "Theme Park" Grand Canyon.

Goddamnit!

This must fail in the Senate. Calling my Senators...

:grr:

That most of the public land is located within the RED States

that is no silver lining...

:grr:

As if all nature lovers live outside out of the red states. Some of us choose to live in the country because we prefer forests over cities.