[Vision2020] HR 3855

[Mark Solomon]

I'll reply in more detail at a later date when I 
have time to dig for the details on how much $$ 
IDL lands are actually returning to their trusts 
but there are at least a couple of things I can 
say right now that Phil left out of the equation:

Productivity: The lands most likely to be sold if 
this should ever come to pass are the lands on 
the roaded front of the forest, not the 
back-country. Why? They are accessible to 
markets, more productive (for timber ground that 
usually means lower elevation) and, as Phil 
points out, either adjacent to or intermingled 
with other ownerships. Let me stress it again: 
they are the most productive grounds. Strip them 
away and the balance sheet of the FS tips way 
over into the red. In fact, these lands are not 
the most productive ground in Idaho: those lands 
were already stolen from the public domain by 
Weyerhauser and company under the supposed 
largesse of the 1864 Northern Pacific Land Grant.

Payroll: USFS has a significant workforce earning 
good wages in some of the most rural parts of our 
state. It is extremely unlikely that many of 
these jobs would be replaced. As an example, IDL 
employs one, I say one, hydrologist for the 
entire state. IDL employs no biologists, no 
recreation specialists, no soil scientists,  etc.

Multiple use: See above. If you want a timber 
program and nothing else, IDL is your kind of 
agency.

Counties as public landowner/managers? Are you kidding? See above.

Mark Solomon



At 12:15 PM -0800 1/7/06, Phil Nisbet wrote:
>Dan
>
>The bill is flawed, which is of course why Otter pulled out on it.
>
>Back when we discussed similar things years ago, 
>the obvious change to this kind of legislation 
>would have been and still should be to sell some 
>of that land to the State and local governments.
>
>A big portion of the Forest and BLM lands in 
>Idaho are not Wilderness and do not possess 
>quality to be Wilderness.  They are working 
>lands and in many cases we have problems seeing 
>them properly administered.  This in many cases 
>is because the property positions of Federal and 
>State and Private Entities are a patchwork of 
>ownerships.
>
>That patchwork is supposed to be cleaned up by 
>land exchanges and other such devices, but as 
>those who have experienced the process of it, 
>the time and effort required to transfer lands 
>takes decades and more money than a lot of that 
>land is worth.
>
>We all know that the 66.4% of Idaho owned by the 
>absentee landlords in Washington DC is not 
>generating revenues for our states tax 
>requirements.  We also know that the program of 
>Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) does not come 
>anywhere near to covering the Feds portion of 
>the costs to the State or its community for the 
>ownership they have.  Allowing the Idaho 
>Department of Lands to purchase 15% of the USDA 
>Forest Service and BLM lands in Idaho would be a 
>very good thing in terms of helping to pay for 
>education in our state.
>
>The Feds own over 35 million acres of Idaho and 
>selling 5,250,000 acres to IDL that could be 
>added to the University and School trust land 
>base would add over a Billion dollars in value 
>to our educational institutions here.  IDL 
>currently manages 3,650,000 acres of land that 
>return $65,000,000 a year to the States 
>educational endowments every year, so adding 
>more than double to that would be a great way of 
>helping to improve education here in the state.
>
>So lets say we carve a mortgage deal with the 
>Federal Government on five and a quarter million 
>acres of ground and pay them $15 an acre per 
>year for the next thirty years.  The land would 
>still generate an extra $25,000,000 for Idaho 
>Schools in that first 30 years and over a 
>hundred million dollars a year thereafter.
>
>And if it were Idaho Department of Lands 
>property, it would still be public lands 
>accessible to the general public.
>
>Phil Nisbet
>
>>From: "AreaMan (DanC)" <areaman at moscow.com>
>>To: "'Moscow Vision 2020'" <vision2020 at moscow.com>
>>Subject: RE: [Vision2020] HR 3855
>>Date: Sat, 7 Jan 2006 10:22:33 -0800
>>
>>Amazingly, Tom Hansen and I agree on something.
>>
>>I am opposed to selling our public lands to private interests.  It
>>doesn't matter if you are a hiker, hunter, dirt biker, snowmobiler, or
>>even just a couch potato.  Everyone benefits from the harvest of timber
>>on federal lands, and many reap the benefits of being able to recreate
>>in our public lands/national forests.  I am especially wary of Section
>>1(c), which would be most detrimental to my way of life here in Idaho.
>>It would be *slightly* more amenable if this bill took an equal
>>percentage of lands from each state, but I'm still against the sale of
>>public lands to private interests.  It's not that I'm against all
>>private interests.  The biggest landowner in Latah County does a pretty
>>good job of taking care of their holdings, and they are also pretty good
>>about letting people "use" their land for recreational purposes and
>>allowing access for hunting and fishing, just as long as the users are
>>responsible (that's a whole 'nother barrel of monkeys there, maybe it'll
>>come up some other time).
>>
>>On the other hand, why couldn't timber sales be made on these lands and
>>earmarked for disaster relief?  No matter what, timber is going to be
>>harvested because that is a part of responsible stewardship and the
>>management of forest health.  Of course we'd have to see where timber
>>dollars would be taken from before it could meet full approval.
>>
>>Hoping for a good summer of trail riding in the St. Joe and Clearwater
>>Nat'l forests (and hopefully on some private ground *with permission*),
>>
>>DC
>>
>>_____________________________________________________
>>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>                http://www.fsr.net
>>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! 
>Download today - it's FREE! 
>http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/