Sale of Public Lands is Real

[JDH]

Short sighted people would think this law is good, or "not too bad". Well it is.

But, there is wayyy too much ambiguity to this law. Just because a parcel is "isolated" or "lost their NF characteristics".

I can show you places where small isolated parcels are absolutely necessary for access to large public land holdings. Many have lost their "NF characteristics" (whatever the hell that means) and would be prime for the plucking. The right ACRE of land could cause a nightmare scenario for public access, let alone 40 acres. Also, smaller acreages near lakes, rivers, reservoirs, etc. that we use for things like fishing access sites, campgrounds, boat launches etc. would certainly qualify as "isolated" or having again lost "National Forest Characteristics".

Also, I would like to hear their definition of "inaccessible" because that definition is thrown around a lot in land exchanges. One persons view may be if you cant drive your grandma's oldsmobuick there its "inaccessible".

I know this law would be abused...100% certain of it.

Another thing I cant find anywhere is the process that will identify the parcels. Even more troubling is what about the public process once the parcels are identified?

From the sounds of it, the discretion will be up to the USDA secretary, which IMO, is troubling. The public should have a very big seat at the table in any of this process, its PUBLIC LAND.

Also saw nothing about PILT compensation either.

Sounds like a throw together law to dispose of MY public lands.

I think Buzz hit the nail on the head. What happens to river access when an access site washes out and loses its "NF characteristics"? This is way too ambiguous to give me any warm fuzzies.

 

[quarterhorse]

The USFS has been around for 111 years. Are we to believe that they have no mechanism to deal with small tracts, encroachments and boundary disputes? At best this is adding unnecessarily to existing policy or at worst a smoke screen to sell some public land. I'm going with the latter.

 

[Shotgun1]

Short sighted people would think this law is good, or "not too bad". Well it is.

But, there is wayyy too much ambiguity to this law. Just because a parcel is "isolated" or "lost their NF characteristics".

I can show you places where small isolated parcels are absolutely necessary for access to large public land holdings. Many have lost their "NF characteristics" (whatever the hell that means) and would be prime for the plucking. The right ACRE of land could cause a nightmare scenario for public access, let alone 40 acres. Also, smaller acreages near lakes, rivers, reservoirs, etc. that we use for things like fishing access sites, campgrounds, boat launches etc. would certainly qualify as "isolated" or having again lost "National Forest Characteristics".

Also, I would like to hear their definition of "inaccessible" because that definition is thrown around a lot in land exchanges. One persons view may be if you cant drive your grandma's oldsmobuick there its "inaccessible".

I know this law would be abused...100% certain of it.

Another thing I cant find anywhere is the process that will identify the parcels. Even more troubling is what about the public process once the parcels are identified?

From the sounds of it, the discretion will be up to the USDA secretary, which IMO, is troubling. The public should have a very big seat at the table in any of this process, its PUBLIC LAND.

Also saw nothing about PILT compensation either.

Sounds like a throw together law to dispose of MY public lands.

YUP...Its a small door that will be abused and ultimately lead to the bigger door of selling it off. Its kind of the death by a 1000 cuts theory.