|
Proposed sale of USFS land would ‘sacrifice permanent asset for fleeting benefit’
To the Editor:
This letter is in regard to the proposed sale of U.S. Forest Service lands for the purpose of funding school projects in states where reduced timber sales have decreased funding for schools.
While the proposal may have some merits, and support of education is usually popular, I find the idea extremely short-sighted.
It seems to me this proposal sacrifices a permanent public asset for a fleeting benefit. There will always exist the need to fund public schools, but this proposal gives up these parcels of land forever. Our public forests need to appreciate in capital value and size, and I would only support the sale of these lands for the purpose of buying other parcels to add to the public domain, perhaps to protect special habitat or increase acreage or increase contiguous areas. This sale proposal is akin to living off the principal rather than just the interest of one’s life savings. You can’t do it very long.
Timber sales have become increasingly unpopular with the public, and this land sale proposal could be seen as retribution towards those who have worked to protect lands by fighting against harvesting. I support the place of forests as an agricultural asset, but timber sales need to be managed by professional foresters and not politicians. The sales need to reflect true market value of timber by being unsubsidized by the public, by letting the cost of road access be borne by the harvester. And because the public wants less harvesting, more forest land, public and private, needs to be available if the same production is desired with less frequent harvesting.
If funds are needed for school construction, work to enact a school voucher system, which will bring market forces into providing schools as schools compete for students. There may be other answers, but the answer is not to sell Grandmother’s jewelry so Junior can go to school. Think about Junior’s children, too.
Reuben Moore
Cullowhee
Agrees with editorial that selling USFS land would be bad idea
To the Editor:
I wholeheartedly agree with your March 2 editorial and readers’ letters that are against the selling of our public lands. There are so many places off limits to the general public now that we do not need anymore private domains.
I have written my congressman and urge each and everyone of you to do the same.
I was mad in 2000 when this administration was voted in and was sad and bewildered in 2004 that people could be so duped by someone who calls himself a conpassonate conserative.
Now I just sometimes cry and ask why and where its all going to end.
Ruth Kozlowski
Sylva and St. Petersburg, Fla.
|
