[Vision2020] HR 3855

Sun Jan 8 09:12:45 PST 2006

Phil,

Granted the FS has had some awful timber 
management that is now largely in the past. Not 
completely as the fight over roadless lands 
indicates, but still the FS at least learned 
something from their actions. I wish I could say 
the same about state timber management. Just last 
year the Idaho Land Board at the request of IDL 
staff voted to liquidate any tree over 24" 
diameter on state ownership within ten years.

Then you take the simple fact that $$ received 
from a state timber sale no longer goes directly 
to the trust funds but now goes into an endowment 
investment fund, aka stocks and bonds, and the 
connection in revenue distribution from trees to 
textbooks becomes very tenuous at best. I'll 
admit my knowledge is a few years out of date but 
the last time I looked, the money going to 
schools from timber sales was about 3% of state 
funding (no property tax $$ included) on a cut of 
about 200 million board foot which is about 2/3 
of the amount needed to run the Potlatch sawmill 
in Lewiston at full capacity where 
coincidentally, much of the timber goes.

Mark

>Mark
>
>For every acre of State management failure you 
>can cite, I can list ten acres of Forest Service 
>mismanagement.  Trashing either agency seems 
>like a waste of time to me.
>
>I am not suggesting as some did in the days gone 
>by that we turn all Forest and BLM land over to 
>state management, I am suggesting that some of 
>the Federal lands should be transfered to State 
>ownership to allow us to have better education 
>funding.
>
>Hey, tell you what, earmark the resulting funds 
>for purchase of lands East of the Mississippi 
>and let them get representation of that 
>ecosystem type into the National Inventory. 
>Because if having National ownership is so very 
>important, than the folks who want to preserve 
>nature back easst should be ready and willing to 
>give up some of their tax base to what should be 
>a National goal rather than simply one shoulder 
>by people here.
>
>Phil
>
>>From: Mark Solomon <msolomon at moscow.com>
>>To: "Phil Nisbet" <pcnisbet1 at hotmail.com>, mushroom at moscow.com
>>CC: vision2020 at moscow.com
>>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] HR 3855
>>Date: Sat, 7 Jan 2006 22:15:27 -0800
>>
>>Phil,
>>
>>Here's a link to a satellite image of the 
>>Floodwood State "Forest", fifty scant air miles 
>>from Moscow. Forest is in quotes because as is 
>>seen in the image: there are no trees. And 
>>don't even think about trying the line "the 
>>trees are regenerating/replanting and just 
>>aren't visible yet". A tree farm is not a 
>>forest.
>>
>>Oh yeah.. the ground just to the west that has 
>>also been hammered is Potlatch land. All used 
>>to be part of the public domain.
>>
>>http://maps.google.com/?t=h&ll=46.916503,-115.922241&spn=0.118428,0.225563&t=h
>>
>>This next link is a closeup of the remains of 
>>the "Land Board State Park" in the middle of 
>>the Floodwood. Once a sanctuary of ancient 
>>cedars it is now a doomed island in a clearcut 
>>sea.
>>
>>http://maps.google.com/?t=h&ll=46.902255,-115.899067&spn=0.007404,0.014098&t=h
>>
>>Mark Solomon
>>
>>At 7:49 PM -0800 1/7/06, Phil Nisbet wrote:
>>>Don
>>>
>>>Can you sing?  I am thinking of a Ren and 
>>>Stimpy tune that my boys taught me.
>>>
>>>The IDL has managed less than 10% of the 
>>>public lands in the state of Idaho and you 
>>>make the BS claim that IDL is responsible for 
>>>the most egerious errors in Land Management? 
>>>Care to back up your claim with anything other 
>>>than hot air?
>>>
>>>Phil Nisbet
>>>
>>>>From: Don Coombs <mushroom at moscow.com>
>>>>Reply-To: mushroom at moscow.com
>>>>To: "'Moscow Vision 2020'" <vision2020 at moscow.com>
>>>>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] HR 3855
>>>>Date: Sat, 07 Jan 2006 15:25:45 -0800
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Tom Hansen wrote:
>>>>  I am all in favor of keeping public lands public.
>>>>>
>>>>>Once these forest lands are auctioned off to private interests, a mortal
>>>>>person's imagination will not even be able 
>>>>>to conceive the size of the next
>>>>>WalMart Super Center in Idaho.
>>>>>
>>>>>I strongly support Idaho BLM acquiring these lands.  The lands will remain
>>>>>environmentally managed and Idaho realizes revenue in the process.
>>>>
>>>>I assume you mean IDL (Idaho Department of 
>>>>Lands) rather than Idaho BLM. (The Bureau of 
>>>>Land Management is, of course, a federal 
>>>>agency.)
>>>>
>>>>Under IDL, the lands will not exactly be 
>>>>environmentally managed. The state 
>>>>consitution requires IDL to manage with only 
>>>>timber revenue in mind, and yes, that revenue 
>>>>does go to schools. But there is a huge 
>>>>difference between managing for multi-use 
>>>>(including recreation) and just cutting 
>>>>everything cuttable.
>>>>
>>>>Some of the most egregious land management in 
>>>>the past century is a result of IDL decisions.
>>>>
>>>>Don Coombs
>>>>
>>>>_____________________________________________________
>>>>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
>>>>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>>>
>>>_________________________________________________________________
>>>Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN 
>>>Search! 
>>>http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
>>
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! 
>Download today - it's FREE! 
>http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/