Thursday, March 02, 2006
Selling our birthright for a bowl of porridge
From the RoundTable blog
Read the latest entries
Scott Nelson
Nelson is a resident of Blacksburg.
The Bush administration's plan to sell 300,000 acres of national forest and other public lands -- some 5,700 acres of that in Virginia -- is bad conservation policy and a raw deal for those who love the outdoors.
The administration wants to siphon off over $1 billion that might be made from the public land sales to fund shortfalls in other, non-conservation budget priorities, such as schools and roads.
Selling off our public lands to cover short-term budget deficits is akin to "selling our birthright for a bowl of porridge," a practice known since biblical days to be a foolish squandering of wealth.
The Roanoke Times Feb. 12th article ("Virginia's forest land part of plan") quotes administration sources as saying that the lands proposed for sale are not important because they are "often small and are surrounded by privately held properties," and are not "wilderness areas or recreation areas."
Such a statement by our leaders is disappointing, since it is intended to beguile us into thinking that we won't lose anything in this proposal.
The truth is far from that, and the men and women who actually work in the Forest Service know it. It's too bad that the Washington appointees in the Forest Service aren't listening to them.
The pattern of public ownership in the national forest is much like a jigsaw puzzle that was never finished. Some of the pieces that belong in the middle are instead off to the side or over on the edge of the table.
So there are big areas of public land surrounding a small tract of private land. Some small public tracts on the outside are "land-locked" by the surrounding private land. And some large tracts of public land are almost inaccessible to the public because a narrow strip of private land lies between the public land and a public road.
Therein lies the value of the land the administration proposes to sell out from under us. That land provides the potential to trade -- or sell -- the land-locked tracts that we can't make much use of, to fill in the missing pieces of the jigsaw puzzle of public lands that we could really use.
Private in-holdings within the national forest occasionally come up for sale, and make very worthwhile public acquisitions.
Adding these tracts to the national forest often eliminates expense and conflicting land uses, like the maintenance and environmental intrusion of the roads across public land needed to get into the private tract.
If you've ever hiked all day to get into some quiet backcountry only to find some noisy activity taking place on a private in-holding, you know what I mean.
Occasionally, a small private tract that separates a big tract of public land from a public road will come up for sale.
Acquisition of these tracts represents a very good public investment, since they can open up a large amount of land we really can't use now.
But the Forest Service must have a ready fund in order to jump in and buy such tracts when they are on the market.
I remember clearly such a missed opportunity.
Some years ago, a generous private landowner next to the Jefferson National Forest in Bland County allowed the Forest Service to use a road across the private property for trout stocking in Wolf Creek, as well as for hunter and hiker access to a huge, remote tract of land along Garden Mountain.
When the land came up for sale, the Forest Service couldn't buy it; the new owner posted it, and Virginians lost a beautiful stretch of public trout stream and access to a wonderful wild area.
A truly responsible public land stewardship program would leverage our valuable landlocked Forest lands to help us enhance the rest of the national forests.
Identifying non-essential national forest lands, and placing proceeds from land sales into a trust to be ready to purchase strategic lands that make the rest of the forest more valuable, is good public land policy. The administration's proposed outright raid of these lands for short-term political expediency is a slap in the face of every outdoors lover in the country.
Fortunately, this proposal cannot be implemented unless approved by Congress.
I therefore urge you to ask your elected representatives to vigorously oppose this measure- and instead work with the career men and women of the Forest Service to develop a land stewardship program that will enhance, not rob, our priceless national forests.
