# This really ticks me off !!!!!!



## Jody Hawk (Mar 7, 2006)

Have any of y'all read in GON where the Bush administration has proposed the sale of 4000 acres of national forest lands in Georgia? Some of it right here in Putnam and Greene counties and some of this land makes up Redlands WMA. One thing that I could always count on was my government land to turkey hunt but I guess not anymore.


----------



## drenalin08 (Mar 7, 2006)

Yeah once its gone its gone


----------



## Dub (Mar 7, 2006)

switchback said:
			
		

> Yeah once its gone its gone



No doubt about that statement!!!!


----------



## Goat (Mar 7, 2006)

very sad


----------



## Minner (Mar 7, 2006)

I've heard about it as well. I don't know which tracts, but some of it counties that I hunt. I'm like you, always thought national forest land would be "public" longer than I'll be around.


----------



## GeauxLSU (Mar 7, 2006)

Is this honestly a surprise???  
Talk about zero population growth and you get looked at like you have two heads.  This exploding population, and the disgusting amount of services everyone insists the federal government provides for each citizen (and NON citizen) and just where do you think it will come from?  Bulk land ownership will be a thing of history books.  It's non revenue generating and in fact is an expense.  It's a luxury this pig of a government can't afford.  It's our own fault.  
Buy your own land.  Oh wait a minute, oops, eminent domain.


----------



## shadow2 (Mar 7, 2006)

very sad state of affairs...Teddy Rosevelt will roll over in his grave.


----------



## HMwolfpup (Mar 7, 2006)

I saw this in the Rome news a couple of weeks ago and had it sent out as District News in the GONetwork 

http://www.georgiaoutdoornetwork.org/district/newsitem.php?id=215

A proposal by President Bush to sell national forest land would also affect Walker and Chattooga. 
02/14/06
By Alan Riquelmy/Rome News-Tribune Staff Writer 
Respond to this story
Email this story to a friend


Close to 1,000 acres of national forest in Floyd County would be sold under a recent proposal by President George W. Bush — a plan some conservationists oppose. 

“As you can imagine, we think it’s a terrible idea,” said Wayne Jenkins, executive director of Georgia ForestWatch, of Bush’s plan to sell more than 300,000 acres of national forests and other public land. “It’s very upsetting. I don’t really think it’s got legs, but we’re very concerned about it.” 

The sale of the land would help pay for rural schools in 41 states. Sales could generate more than $1 billion and would be the largest sale of forest land in decades. 

Floyd County holds 6,620 acres of the Chattahoochee National Forest. About 14 percent of that, or 926.22 acres, would be sold under the plan. 

In Chattooga County, 103.77 acres out of 19,390 — 0.5 percent — would be sold. Walker County would lose 644.82 acres out of 18,844 — 3.4 percent. 

“Thousands of Georgians bike and canoe,” Jenkins said. “Once these lands go away, there’s no getting them back.” 

Forest Service officials say the sales are needed to raise $800 million during the next five years to pay for schools and roads in rural counties hurt by logging cutbacks on federal land. 

Agriculture Undersecretary Mark Rey, who directs forest policy, said the parcels identified by Bush on Friday are isolated, expensive to manage or no longer meet the needs of the national forest system. 

The proposed sell-off would total less than half of 1 percent of the 193 million-acre national forest system. 

The money would be used for roads, schools and other needs in rural counties hurt by sharp declines in timber sales. 

Some Democrats have already come out in opposition to the plan. Jenkins said his group has already contacted a few federal representatives about the issue. 

“They don’t seem very supportive of the president’s proposal at this point,” he added. 

Jenkins noted that a similar proposal was made in the 1990s about Corps of Engineer property. “It never made it through Congress,” he said. 

The Associated Press contributed to this report. 

ON THE BLOCK 

Of the more than 300,000 acres of national forest land that President Bush has targeted, close to 1,000 lie in Northwest Georgia and Northeast Alabama. Here’s how the plan would affect the region: 

Floyd County 926.22 acres Chattooga County 103.77 Walker County 644.82


----------



## Fishin & Hunting (Mar 7, 2006)

*It needs to be stopped*

Once it is gone, it will never be replaced.


----------



## Jody Hawk (Mar 7, 2006)

Who should I contact on this? I want my voice heard.


----------



## gacowboy (Mar 7, 2006)

I sure hate to see this land sold off. We need the forests more than developments! We better get busy writing our congressmen and senators!


----------



## Greg Tench (Mar 7, 2006)

Its rediculous, Jody, Contact your Senator and State Represenative and let them know how you feel!!!!


----------



## discounthunter (Mar 7, 2006)

im not surprised.although it sucks to loose public land.i know in one of the forums it was discussed about the sale of federal land(public?).did you honestly think they would sell barren fields in south dakota or prime potential realestate ?this is the feds we are talking about,is all about money .


----------



## Buckerama (Mar 7, 2006)

Start a petition and get enough votes and they could get it to pass thats what they did with the Ocmulgee petition but never could get enough signitures its just a thought?


----------



## raghorn (Mar 7, 2006)

It's another nail in the coffin for our hunting heritage.


----------



## WSB (Mar 7, 2006)

It's sad, but you know this is just the start. When it's sold they will just sell more and more. We are having to deal with our leases going up and one day soon the average hunter like me won't be able to afford to lease and now they are going to start selling our public land. We can contact our congressmen and senators but I figure they are going to do what they want anyway, when have they ever listened to what us hunters want?


----------



## Jody Hawk (Mar 7, 2006)

I don't even think that I'll ever introduce another child to hunting. Why introduce them to something and then have it taken from them in their lifetime because the price to hunt made it unaffordable to them. It's gonna be over and done for the "common man" anyway in less than hundred years or so in these parts. This government land was something that I took for granted that would always be there. I never realized that our government was in the realstate business.


----------



## General Lee (Mar 7, 2006)

I think it's a good thing.It generates revenue for the Government and puts the land on the tax registers where whoever buys it will be paying taxes.The Government shouldn't be in the land business......


----------



## Vapor 300 (Mar 7, 2006)

This is the same thing they did in Florida 10 years ago. They buy up property ,Then call it a National Forest . Then it goes for years and all is OK . Then they cut it off to you and the only folks that will be able to use it will be them. Check it out in the Everglades . They burn us out of our camp and brought up all around us . We still own one acres but it is land locked . They win.........


----------



## Son (Mar 7, 2006)

*Sell the public land?*

I'm not surprised. Because I remember when social security began. Our government promised SS would never be used to to keep track of anybody. Let them go sell some of those large private Texas ranches if they need money. I'm sure the donation would be well received in the general fund.


----------



## Augie (Mar 7, 2006)

I used to love hunting some of the Fl WMA's, I knew a lot of them them by heart. Then the state won't put up what the private clubs offer the owners and the state loses it.
I've seen so many nice wma's go to private clubs, it's all about the money.
I'm all for fighting state and federal public lands being sold, because even if it generates money for the state, it's liquid and will dissappear.


----------



## raghorn (Mar 7, 2006)

Jody Hawk said:
			
		

> I don't even think that I'll ever introduce another child to hunting. Why introduce them to something and then have it taken from them in their lifetime because the price to hunt made it unaffordable to them. It's gonna be over and done for the "common man" anyway in less than hundred years or so in these parts. This government land was something that I took for granted that would always be there. I never realized that our government was in the realstate business.


That's the way I've felt for a while now, Jody. By my way of thinking and my gut feeling it would be unfair for me to encourage someone to take up the sport in the sad condition things are getting to be in. It depresses me to no end to see how things have changed in the last 15 years, or even 10 years. I personally will look for other things to do with my sons and grandsons for their sake even though I would love to hunt big game with them. We will probably hunt small game and fish for enjoyment in the near future.


----------



## deerslayer1988 (Mar 7, 2006)

Should have voted for Kerry, maybe the demorcrats wouldn't be trying to sell off all the federal land to help pay for some war we have know bussiness in anymore. Don't get me wrong I was there the first go around and didn't mind it but now it's time for a change. The goverment needs to put all these low life people that's on welfare that can work to work I don't mind paying for the elderly and the handycap but if you can work get your lazy self up off the couch and on your feet and get a job and help pay your own way.


----------



## discounthunter (Mar 7, 2006)

theres other ways to generate money other than selling wma's.the woods are also full of loud mouths.


----------



## General Lee (Mar 7, 2006)

I guess our different views on this can be traced to how we were raised.I was raised with no gov.owned land around us and 1 WMA not too far away.My folks owned 300 acres,grandpas on both sides owned land as well and we just never hunted gov land.The locals all hunted their own land or leased some and noone ever looked to the gov to furnish them hunting land.As far as introducing my son to hunting,if all I had was the sorry gov land hunting with all of it's red tape,I would just buy him golf clubs instead.......


----------



## raghorn (Mar 7, 2006)

THunter said:
			
		

> Please don't. The woods are too crowded as it is.
> 
> THunter


I surely hope that is an attempt at humor...........and to say sell it all  ( I assume because you are fortunate enough to own your own) would certainly not say much for character.


----------



## General Lee (Mar 7, 2006)

raghorn said:
			
		

> I surely hope that is an attempt at humor...........and to say sell it all  ( I assume because you are fortunate enough to own your own) would certainly not say much for character.


 I wouldn't bash the man because he took control of his own hunting destiny by purchasing land instead of waiting on the gov........


----------



## Jody Hawk (Mar 7, 2006)

Some folks here may have been fortunate enough to have family that owned land or had good jobs that provided them with means to pay for land. I'm just a common man working in a plant trying to put my daughter through private school and I don't have the money to travel out of state on these pay hunts. I do pay a $500 due to hunt 700 acres in Morgan County but alot of my hunting depends on having this public land to hunt.


----------



## General Lee (Mar 7, 2006)

Jody Hawk said:
			
		

> Some folks here may have been fortunate enough to have family that owned land or had good jobs that provided them with means to pay for land. I'm just a common man working in a plant trying to put my daughter through private school and I don't have the money to travel out of state on these pay hunts. I do pay a $500 due to hunt 700 acres in Morgan County but alot of my hunting depends on having this public land to hunt.


  That's commendable Jody, putting your daughter through private school and I too am a common man working in a plant and don't have access to 700 acres,and my kids go to public schools,but I still don't think it's the government's responsibility to furnish me hunting land no more than it is for them to provide golfers a place to play golf........


----------



## raghorn (Mar 7, 2006)

General Lee said:
			
		

> I wouldn't bash the man because he took control of his own hunting destiny by purchasing land instead of waiting on the gov........


You are exactly right sir, that would be as bad as looking down upon the ones that are not in the position to do the same. It has nothing to do with work and determination, sometimes people get dealt some blows that can't be overcame. They are the ones that may have no choice or options other than public land, and to sit in a crystal cathedral and down someone for not owning their own private paradise without knowing their situation is wrong, I don't care who or how well connected you are.


----------



## General Lee (Mar 7, 2006)

raghorn said:
			
		

> You are exactly right sir, that would be as bad as looking down upon the ones that are not in the position to do the same. It has nothing to do with work and determination, sometimes people get dealt some blows that can't be overcame. They are the ones that may have no choice or options other than public land, and to sit in a crystal cathedral and down someone for not owning their own private paradise without knowing their situation is wrong, I don't care who or how well connected you are.


 I equate it with the folks living in the FEMA sponsored housing after Katrina.Sure they were "dealt some blows"as you say but there comes a time when it's time to stand on your own feet.And I'm not saying everyone should go out and buy a "private paradise"but there are hunting clubs everywhere and some pretty cheap.........


----------



## OconeeJim (Mar 7, 2006)

*Unfortunately politics will (or has) taken over*

in land sale/swap deals like these.  It happened on Lake Oconee when the State gave up the most prime peninsula (sp) you will ever see....in trade for a rocky hillside near the dam.  Amazing how those values balanced out too.  Reynolds Plantation was the recipient of a huge gift as a result.  I just read where a 5 acre parcel of US Forest Svc. land .... that just happened to be at the base of a ski slope at Vail CO, was appraised for a million bucks an acre....and traded for several hundred acres of more remote Rocky Mtn. land.  Thats all well and good I suppose...but then they discovered a potential error in the evaluation...the five acres was probably worth....ready?....are you sure??... *Fifty Million dollars*.  That would have bought a really nice chunk of wild land.

You mark my words...some developer types are pressing for these sales of Chattahoochee and Oconee Nat'l Forest tracts.


----------



## raghorn (Mar 7, 2006)

General Lee said:
			
		

> I equate it with the folks living in the FEMA sponsored housing after Katrina.Sure they were "dealt some blows"as you say but there comes a time when it's time to stand on your own feet.And I'm not saying everyone should go out and buy a "private paradise"but there are hunting clubs everywhere and some pretty cheap.........


I can see your point in some ways, Katrina for instance is a temporary set back, but some people are faced with situations that are not as temporary. In my own personal life which I will use for an example, I have twin sons that were born deaf. I have spent tens of thousands of dollars on specialists, surgeries, and experimental treatments to try to provide them with a normal life to no avail. They are now 25 years old and living their own lives, but if a new avenue opens up that could be of help to them I will gladly give up everything I have or ever will have to better their lives. In the process of all this I have spent a lot of time in hospitals and clinics around the country and have witnessed situations that no family should ever have to endure , and it is people like this that depend on public holdings, whether state or federally owned for what little chance of recreation they have and to look down on them for not "buying" their own is insensitive and repulsive. I can now afford to lease hunting rights but at my age buying is no longer really an option and I'm sure there are a lot of others in the same boat. A lot , if not most, of the members of this message board are financially secure enough to make their own way and I think thats fantastic, I don't begrudge them one thing. Just be a little more sensitive and understanding towards the ones not as fortunate is all I ask.


----------



## General Lee (Mar 7, 2006)

raghorn said:
			
		

> I can see your point in some ways, Katrina for instance is a temporary set back, but some people are faced with situations that are not as temporary. In my own personal life which I will use for an example, I have twin sons that were born deaf. I have spent tens of thousands of dollars on specialists, surgeries, and experimental treatments to try to provide them with a normal life to no avail. They are now 25 years old and living their own lives, but if a new avenue opens up that could be of help to them I will gladly give up everything I have or ever will have to better their lives. In the process of all this I have spent a lot of time in hospitals and clinics around the country and have witnessed situations that no family should ever have to endure , and it is people like this that depend on public holdings, whether state or federally owned for what little chance of recreation they have and to look down on them for not "buying" their own is insensitive and repulsive. I can now afford to lease hunting rights but at my age buying is no longer really an option and I'm sure there are a lot of others in the same boat. A lot , if not most, of the members of this message board are financially secure enough to make their own way and I think thats fantastic, I don't begrudge them one thing. Just be a little more sensitive and understanding towards the ones not as fortunate is all I ask.


I don't "begrudge" anyone for not buying their land.But as I said before there are clubs available very reasonable.I was surfing the net a couple of days ago and ran across a tract of land I have been leasing for 4 years and have leased now.It is for sale and the owner hadn't told me yet.I just laughed.I didn't get on here and complain about it and all like I have seen some do,because I know unless I own it,I have no control.....


----------



## raghorn (Mar 7, 2006)

Again, what is very reasonable for you or me may be totally  out of reach of some. There was a time that I had to sell all my guns and equipment to just keep my househld afloat, so I know very well what I speak of. Maybe you will never have an event like that in your life, and I pray you don't, but whether you choose to believe it or not, it happens to honest hard working men and women every day. Good night to you sir.


----------



## Jody Hawk (Mar 8, 2006)

General Lee said:
			
		

> That's commendable Jody, putting your daughter through private school and I too am a common man working in a plant and don't have access to 700 acres,and my kids go to public schools,but I still don't think it's the government's responsibility to furnish me hunting land no more than it is for them to provide golfers a place to play golf........



I don't think it's the government's responsiblility to provide me hunting land but since they own this land I don't think it should be sold either. If we sale the government land in Georgia then let's sale Yellow Stone, let's sale all this land that the counties buy to build ball fields for the children's recreation, let's sale all the state parks as well. I can't believe that any man that half way calls himself an outdoorsman would be for this, selling this beautiful land for what will eventually lead to development. I'm done.


----------



## Jasper (Mar 8, 2006)

Jody Hawk said:
			
		

> Who should I contact on this? I want my voice heard.



Contact your Senator and Congressman at the state and local level. Also Governor Perdue and the White House.

Phone calls and e-mails are OK, but I think a good, to the point letter works best. It really doesn't take that long. Don't give up on an issue you care about Jody. You can make a difference. If the powers that be get enought feedback, sometimes they actually listen. Remember, they want your vote!


----------



## Lthomas (Mar 8, 2006)

The same thing is happening here in Fl. From what I have learned, the land that is being sold is not accessable. It is small pockets of land that is landlocked by private land owners.


----------



## raghorn (Mar 8, 2006)

THunter said:
			
		

> Rag,
> I don't know if some of this is directed at my point or not, but I assume it is. I have no reason to look down on anyone for not owning their own land. What would that profit me? I just don't believe the government should be allowed to take money I earned for my family to support a land owning program that is costing the citizens money. The Federal land ownership program COSTS the government, it does not produce income. So I say sell it to get rid of the costs and quit taking MY money to provide hunting opportunities (or other recreational opportunities) for somebody else. Maybe I'm selfish, but if it comes down to my money going to my kids or to help someone else, no matter how bad off, that I don't even know, sorry, my kids come first. Now, if it's someone I do know, and I can, I will help them out, but I don't need the government to decide that for me.
> 
> THunter


Not you personally Tommy, just saying there are people that are not fortunate enough to own their own acreage , some because of things beyond their control. They depend on public areas for recreation and I for one believe it should be preserved. The portion of our taxes that it takes to preserve it is a tiny fraction of Goverment spending anyway, and I can think of a lot of other things I would rather see cut.


----------



## shaggybill (Mar 8, 2006)

I agree with Jody. If this land is sold, a lot of it will probably go to developers. I hate developers.


----------



## HOGDOG76 (Mar 8, 2006)

Dont Forget To Thank Everybody You Know Who Voted For The Idiot.


----------



## OconeeJim (Mar 8, 2006)

*Which Idiot HogDog ?*

The one with the silly grin on his face in the Blue Room, with Monica looking on ?


----------



## camo93 (Mar 9, 2006)

HOGDOG76 said:
			
		

> Dont Forget To Thank Everybody You Know Who Voted For The Idiot.




You are saying Kerry would be a better choice... That is funny, hotdog.. 

So, Bush doesn't make all the correct decisions ...Has any President...


----------



## Jody Hawk (Mar 9, 2006)

HOGDOG76 said:
			
		

> Dont Forget To Thank Everybody You Know Who Voted For The Idiot.



I voted for him twice but I'm beginning to think that he is gonna be one of the sorriest presidents that this country has ever had. I definitely wouldn't do it again.


----------



## Buckerama (Mar 9, 2006)

Yall keep saying yall are gald they are selling it? why glad this is a horrible thing. If they keep selling before long there is not going to be none left


----------



## bayoudawg (Mar 9, 2006)

Just pitiful ... I don't undertand selling off land that is already paid for and can't be replaced. Sounds like a way to hedge poor fiscal management.


----------



## GeauxLSU (Mar 9, 2006)

bayoudawg said:
			
		

> Sounds like a way to hedge poor fiscal management.


Addicts don't make good fiscal decisions.  The country is chock full of social service addicts and they vote.


----------



## HOGDOG76 (Mar 9, 2006)

I Am A Registered Republican Who Voted For Kerry. Not B/c I Think Kerry Would Have Made A Good President But He Would Have Been A Sight Better Than A Clueless Dictator.


----------



## tcoker (Mar 9, 2006)

General Lee said:
			
		

> The Government shouldn't be in the land business......


  I agree, but land bought by the citizens (or hunters or bikers or birdwatchers)with their money should be preserved.


----------



## tcoker (Mar 9, 2006)

Son said:
			
		

> ... Let them go sell some of those large private Texas ranches if they need money...


I have a huge problem with that statement... I understand the principle but PLEASE try and help me understand how taking PRIVATE property and selling it for government revenue is even remotely a good idea.  It's the same as imminent domain. If a municpality can raise their tax base by creating business centers or housing developments, they can and have taken PRIVATE land and seized it to be resold to developers. I promise you it happens everyday.


----------



## tcoker (Mar 9, 2006)

General Lee said:
			
		

> I still don't think it's the government's responsibility to furnish me hunting land no more than it is for them to provide golfers a place to play golf........


I agree 100%


----------



## tcoker (Mar 9, 2006)

HOGDOG76 said:
			
		

> Dont Forget To Thank Everybody You Know Who Voted For The Idiot.


I voted for "the idiot" and I'd do it again in a hot minute... your welcome.  We would have been so much better off with the outdoorsman Kerry, or Slick willy would have been wonderful if he could have 3 terms... It's all Bush's fault, Katrina, 911, global warming, illegal immigration, bird flu, crabgrass,allergies...


----------



## camo93 (Mar 10, 2006)

tcoker said:
			
		

> I voted for "the idiot" and I'd do it again in a hot minute... your welcome.  We would have been so much better off with the outdoorsman Kerry, or Slick willy would have been wonderful if he could have 3 terms... It's all Bush's fault, Katrina, 911, global warming, illegal immigration, bird flu, crabgrass,allergies...




Nice post tcoker... I agree with ya..


----------



## Jody Hawk (Mar 10, 2006)

tcoker said:
			
		

> I voted for "the idiot" and I'd do it again in a hot minute... your welcome.  We would have been so much better off with the outdoorsman Kerry, or Slick willy would have been wonderful if he could have 3 terms... It's all Bush's fault, Katrina, 911, global warming, illegal immigration, bird flu, crabgrass,allergies...



I'll tell you the same thing I told a co-worker last night. My family was alot better off when Bill Clinton was in office.


----------



## HOGDOG76 (Mar 10, 2006)

I WOULDNT BRING UP ECONOMICS BOYS CONSIDERING BUSH INHERITED A SURPLUS AND HAS TURNED IT INTO THE LARGEST DEFICIT IN HISTORY. BUT WHAT WOULD YOU EXPECT FROM A MAN WHO NEVER RAN A SUCCESSFUL BUSINESS, GOT BAILED OUT BY DADDY AND THE ARABS WHEN HE BANKRUPTED IT AND HID OUT IN THE GUARD.CHENEY AVOIDED THE DRAFT 5 TIMES DUE TO OTHER COMMITMENTS.  THEY SURE ARE BRAVE WHEN IT COMES TO SENDING OTHERS TO FIGHT THOUGH.


----------



## camo93 (Mar 10, 2006)

Economics has never been better since Clinton was in office his first term and let me remind you that Bush didn’t have much to work with when Clinton left the office.. I think with what Bush had to deal with: 9/11, the war, Katrina, the economy is doing very well… 

I’m just glad you liberals (Kerry Fans) didn’t get a chance to vote in John Kerry (the guy Hollywood loves) into office, Because I would hate to know were we would be today…


----------



## Son (Mar 10, 2006)

*ticking off*



> Originally Posted by Son
> ... Let them go sell some of those large private Texas ranches if they need money...
> 
> I have a huge problem with that statement... I understand the principle but PLEASE try and help me understand how taking PRIVATE property and selling it for government revenue is even remotely a good idea. It's the same as imminent domain. If a municpality can raise their tax base by creating business centers or housing developments, they can and have taken PRIVATE land and seized it to be resold to developers. I promise you it happens everyday.




Like armchair quarterbacks, We've been beating a dead horse and all our comments wont fix a thing. So don't take my post too serious, just squeezed a little joke in there.


----------



## HOGDOG76 (Mar 11, 2006)

What Part Of Deficit Do You Not Understand? In Case You Didnt Know China Is Holding A Good Bit Of Those Notes Too.


----------



## HOGDOG76 (Mar 11, 2006)

Would Those Be The Same Ones Bush Just Traded To India For Mangos


----------



## Timberman (Mar 12, 2006)

> Forest Service officials say the sales are needed to raise $800 million during the next five years to pay for schools and roads in rural counties hurt by logging cutbacks on federal land.



Yall missed the real reason for the land sales. Rural counties got the majority of timber sale money for their school systems as public land is no tax base thus on national forest the counties in which it lies gets no money unless wood is cut. The cutback in logging is the responsibility of Clinton and a vocal minority who have dictated the management of all our lands. If the gov't could let some timber go this would be a non issue...but Clinton's got Bush's hands tied...and it'll take a couple administrations to get it straightened out....don't yall remember Clinton signing the "largest roadless initiative"?... it was carefully concealed in that...so with one pen swipe he broke a bunch of rural school districts ...my county over here included...no  politics here folks...just facts. 

I much prefer properly managed forestland over no land... and country folks deserve good schools just like city folks....


----------



## Jody Hawk (Mar 12, 2006)

I'd rather see them log the properties than sell them.


----------



## SWbowhunter (Mar 12, 2006)

Timberman said:
			
		

> Yall missed the real reason for the land sales. Rural counties got the majority of timber sale money for their school systems as public land is no tax base thus on national forest the counties in which it lies gets no money unless wood is cut. The cutback in logging is the responsibility of Clinton and a vocal minority who have dictated the management of all our lands. If the gov't could let some timber go this would be a non issue...but Clinton's got Bush's hands tied...and it'll take a couple administrations to get it straightened out....don't yall remember Clinton signing the "largest roadless initiative"?... it was carefully concealed in that...so with one pen swipe he broke a bunch of rural school districts ...my county over here included...no  politics here folks...just facts.
> 
> I much prefer properly managed forestland over no land... and country folks deserve good schools just like city folks....


This is the key point. You never sell your assets you MANAGE them. If they would just cut a little they would make the money for these schools and then some. And it would be interesting to see how the Forest Watch folks would repsond then. Cut or sell? Which would Forest Watch pick?


----------



## GT-40 GUY (Mar 12, 2006)

Probably have to raise money to pay for all the medical bills of the illegal alians. If it is $100 per acre or less I'll buy a bunch.


----------



## HOGDOG76 (Mar 12, 2006)

Timberman said:
			
		

> Yall missed the real reason for the land sales. Rural counties got the majority of timber sale money for their school systems as public land is no tax base thus on national forest the counties in which it lies gets no money unless wood is cut. The cutback in logging is the responsibility of Clinton and a vocal minority who have dictated the management of all our lands. If the gov't could let some timber go this would be a non issue...but Clinton's got Bush's hands tied...and it'll take a couple administrations to get it straightened out....don't yall remember Clinton signing the "largest roadless initiative"?... it was carefully concealed in that...so with one pen swipe he broke a bunch of rural school districts ...my county over here included...no  politics here folks...just facts.
> 
> I much prefer properly managed forestland over no land... and country folks deserve good schools just like city folks....


SORRY BUT YOU ARE WRONG!! THE MAJORITY OF THE MONEY WILL GO TO OREGON 162.9 MILLION WHILE THEY WOULD ONLY RELINQUISH 10,581 ACRES.WASHINGTON STATE WILL RECIEVE 46.9 MILLION FOR 7,516 ACRES.GEORGIA WILL GET 1.3 MILLION FOR 4,522 ACRES, ABOUT 287 DOLLARS AN ACRE. BASICALLY THE US IS STICKING TO THE SOUTH AGAIN. AS FAR AS TIMBER SALES GO ,COUNTIES USED TO RECIEVE 25% NOT THE MAJORITY.THAT 1.3 MILLION WOULD BE SPLIT B/N COUNTIES CONTAINING THE NATIONAL FORESTLANDS. THIS SMALL ONE TIMELUMP SUM PAYMENT WILL NOT CORRECT SCHOOL DISTRICTS MONEY PROBLEMS.MAYBE TRIMMING SOME OF GOVERMENT WOULD? I GOT THIS INFO FROM THE B SECTION OF TODAYS ALBANY HERALD IF YALL ARE WONDERING.


----------



## Coastie (Mar 12, 2006)

HOGDOG76 said:
			
		

> SORRY BUT YOU ARE WRONG!! THE MAJORITY OF THE MONEY WILL GO TO OREGON 162.9 MILLION WHILE THEY WOULD ONLY RELINQUISH 10,581 ACRES.WASHINGTON STATE WILL RECIEVE 46.9 MILLION FOR 7,516 ACRES.GEORGIA WILL GET 1.3 MILLION FOR 4,522 ACRES, ABOUT 287 DOLLARS AN ACRE. BASICALLY THE US IS STICKING TO THE SOUTH AGAIN. AS FAR AS TIMBER SALES GO ,COUNTIES USED TO RECIEVE 25% NOT THE MAJORITY.THAT 1.3 MILLION WOULD BE SPLIT B/N COUNTIES CONTAINING THE NATIONAL FORESTLANDS. THIS SMALL ONE TIMELUMP SUM PAYMENT WILL NOT CORRECT SCHOOL DISTRICTS MONEY PROBLEMS.MAYBE TRIMMING SOME OF GOVERMENT WOULD? I GOT THIS INFO FROM THE B SECTION OF TODAYS ALBANY HERALD IF YALL ARE WONDERING.



If that is true, the DNR should be able to afford to purchase the entire acerage without too much trouble or get the nature conservancy to foot the bill initially and pay them back.


----------



## dslary (Mar 12, 2006)

*National Forrest Land Sale*

 My, my;
How most of you do carry on.  I hope it's enough to get you off your sofa and writing your congressmen.  The thread has gotten fairly long so I might have missed a applicable comment so I apologize to those of you who are with it.  
Lest you forget, that "National Forrest Land" was purchased with money from taxes on Sporting Goods.  That's right, taxes on Sporting Goods!  Some years ago, our fathers and grandfathers voted for those taxes to insure a place to hunt for all coming generations!  Some of you mentioned that you don't like having to support the national forrest land with your tax dollars.  The fact is that throught timber sales, use fees, etc., the national forrests are costing little or no income tax money.  If we allow this sale, we are allowing the government to "STEAL" what we have already paid for.   One other parting thought for those of you who think there should not be any national forrest land:  If everyone is competing for "private" places to hunt, soon, only the very wealthy will be able to hunt.  If you think that the land you already own is your and safely in your family, talk to the people who used to own land that WalMart now occupies!  Your just fooling yourself!

Wake up guys, quick whining and contact your representatives BEFORE it is too late.


----------



## bayoudawg (Mar 13, 2006)

GeauxLSU said:
			
		

> Addicts don't make good fiscal decisions.  The country is chock full of social service addicts and they vote.



Exactly, so why are we subsidizing developers with bought-and-payed-for public land? Next they'll want to use my taxes to build a road and to entend power, water, and sewer.

On second thought, your right, _they_ voted for this.


----------



## bayoudawg (Mar 13, 2006)

THunter said:
			
		

> And just exactly how is that being done?  I wish someone would subsidize my developments.
> 
> THunter



The govenment creates a situation to benefit a narrow group of people at the general public's expense. 

Another example, when the government builds a road and extends services it subsizes developers who otherwise would not be able to afford the cost burdon of the development without government action. Not always, but almost always. The government and the taxpayer bear the burdon of the benefit to the developer.

My point is that we all receive some benefit from the govenemernt action, but we're often pretty quick to cheapen the benefit it provides to others as a useless entitlement.


----------



## OconeeJim (Mar 13, 2006)

*Right On THunter*



			
				THunter said:
			
		

> I think National Forest land was here before the Pittman-Robertson Act.
> 
> THunter



Long before taxes on fishing and hunting equipment !  Teddy Roosevelt was the prime mover for the acquisition of lands for federal reserves...both National Parks and Nat'l Forests....

"The founding of the National Forest System and the Forest Service, an agency of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, has its roots in the last quarter of the 19th century. The national forests (at first called forest reserves) began with the Forest Reserve Act of 1891, which allowed the president to establish forest reserves from timber covered public domain land. Several early leaders and visionaries, along with willing presidents (especially Teddy Roosevelt), scientific and conservation organizations, and newly trained forestry professionals, led the successful effort in retaining millions of acres of Federal forest land for future generations."

from USDA, The Forest Service Website


----------



## bayoudawg (Mar 14, 2006)

THunter said:
			
		

> So basically, what you're saying, is if the government extends a road and development follows, then no one receives a benefit from that except the developers.  The folks that may live in those new houses for years never gains any benefit from said road?  You lost me with that logic.
> 
> BTW, water and sewer lines are generally built by water and sewerage authorities that act as for-profit entities.  They aren't for-profits, but act like them in that rates paid by customers are reinvested into the system generally by extending water and sewer lines or upsizing those already in place.  It is the intent of those w&sa's to encourage development to generate more capital through rates.
> 
> THunter



Never said there couldn't be a public benefit, you’re putting words in my mouth.

Ole' Mr. Wester says :

c : a grant by a government to a private person or company to assist an enterprise deemed advantageous to the public​
I'm in construction, I know the game, and I benefit from it. I'm OK with that. Again, I'm just saying that many people benefit in many different ways from government action, but when they don't see a direct correlation to their own benefit it becomes deemed useless entitlement. 

Authorities are quazi-governmental and for-profit rates equate to taxation. Eventually the general public is handed the cost of supporting additional and sometime unncessary development that in the end increase their taxes.


----------



## GeauxLSU (Mar 14, 2006)

THunter said:
			
		

> Define, please.
> 
> THunter


The next retail place to open in Gwinnett county!


----------



## spraggins (Mar 17, 2006)

it is plain simple why the national forests should remain. they are the last remaining large tracts of unspoiled lands. i don't think that they should be exploited, or sold...much less developed! anyone that would want to sell off all of our public lands is  sorry  period.end.


----------



## spraggins (Mar 19, 2006)

i wouldn't expect any other response from a realtor/ developer. i guess you would just love to develop what's left of our unspoiled wild places. why, you've got some land...why should you care about anyone else, right? i'm completely failing to see the reasons why our n.f. land should be sold. i think it is preposterous!


----------



## spraggins (Mar 19, 2006)

i bet you used to hold your breath 'til you turned blue, didn't you?


----------



## JBowers (Mar 19, 2006)

Like it or not Tommy, local taxpayers bear the burden of development and because they do it is a de facto subsudiy to developers.  There are economic studies that bear this out.  Of course, these we don't hear anything about.  Those that lobby for continued growth and development consistently spout the big myths and those of us that critically question them and their numbers are labelled NIMBYs and shouted down.

For one example of that cost, Big Boy Developing moves in a builds a 750 unit development of mostly 3 BD, 2 BA single family units.  Assuming a 0.67 school age children per unit returns 2 school-aged children for every three houses.  That returns 500 new students.  THus, a new school is required.  It will be built to house 600 students.  The cost of that school is $13.2 million ($22,500 per student).  The cost per house is $15,075.  It don't take a rocket scientist to see that this new development is heavily subsidized by the rest of us; each home in that new development does not pay property taxes of $15,075 per year, which would be required to cover that COST of this development.  I use the examples of schools b/c they are the most expensive item associated with new development.  Of course, costs like these aren't included in the developers pitch to planning boards, county commissions, city councils, or school boards.  All we ever hear is how much better the economy is going to be, how much better off we all be, and all the new taxes that this will generate.  At least the last one is absolutely true because I've yet to see my taxes go down after all this beneficial development.

There are other infrastructure needs including roads & increased road maintenance (more cars, more traffic=increased maintenance; $4,193 per house; impact usually cover less than 25% of that cost), providing sewer service ($5,100 per house; Most taxpayers are already paying for increased developement up front in some instances and not growing could reduce your sewer rates up to 42%), providing water service ($2,066 per house), and many others.  These growth cost are not payed by developers and impact fees are nothing more than Fido treats that fail to cover the costs.  The burden of development is shifted to the taxpayers, thus it becomes a subsidy.

The figures above represent a burden of $26,434 per house ($19,825,500 for a 750 unit development) that will have to be borne by all taxpayers.  That is why your taxes don't go down b/c by design we are required to subsidize development in our communities.  They like to call this design Capitalism, but it is more appropriately called socializing costs and privatizing profits.

Tommy, you don't realize we subsidize your developing because you aren't required to pay for it.  I prefer that all those cost be borne by the developer and he pay them up front into special accounts to cover these costs, then he can pass those expenses on in the cost of new housing.  It's a better alternative than the present Socializing Costs and Privatizing Profits model.


----------



## spraggins (Mar 19, 2006)

mr bowers, as always, you have shed new light on this for me, thanks. i realize we are all entitled to our opinions, good natured ribbing aside. i have been accused of being insensitive more than once, i don't intend to offend...only to provide a different point of view. i am saddened every time that i see a new development, because we are losing green space at an astronomical rate. i just haven't heard a good reason to sell off our nat'l forest lands yet, and don't expect that i will. i grew up hunting on n.f. lands, and still do quite a bit. i do belong to a club, several leases, and have access to multiple farms. but, when i want to go deep into the woods for a true ''wilderness experience '', i must use forest service property. no other landholders in the southeast have tracts large or remote enough to do this. w/ out f.s. property , we would lose the chance to truly go deep in the woods and get away from this rat race. this is a birthright ,as far as i'm concerned. one that was earned by our fathers and forefathers...and one i am willing to make a stand for. there is plenty of places to develop and build on, as it is. hopefully this will be nipped in the bud.


----------



## LJay (Mar 19, 2006)

THunter said:
			
		

> John,
> Man you've bought into the anti-development mantra hook, line, and sinker!  Surely you realize someone with my background, my past experiences, and my current position realizes full well the development/current residents relationship.  Taxpayers do not "subsidize" development, they subsidize lack of development.  I pay more in taxes in Madison County than I do in Gwinnett and we don't even have paved roads up there, much less water.  I guarantee you that when one of these anti-developer "homeowners" (what the crap is that anyway?  we're all homeowners) starts to have a heart attack after getting overheated about the newest development coming in is darn glad that fire station and its EMT's is just around the corner.  You don't get that without development and the prosperity it brings.  All you've just spent a whole page talking about is hogwash.  Having done both, I can guarantee you I'd rather live in an area that is growing than one that is not.
> 
> One thing to think of, is why should new residents pay more money for things all will use while those that arrived before them do not?  Are all things currently in place the property of those that currently live there while the new folks have to pay for their own or more to support what's already there?  If you want Privitizing Costs, as you call it, then all things built by new taxpayers through Impact Fees should be open to their use ONLY, not to those already there.
> ...


It is apparent that with your outlook, that you have been mesmerized by the green of the dollar. If all the National Forest is sold to be developed, and all counties are developed, Where are all the good people going to hunt or fish?


----------



## Nicodemus (Mar 19, 2006)

Looks like to me developement is movin` to fast for it`s own good. Concrete and asphalt is not a good soil type to grow food on either, and it`s hard on the knees and feet. Maybe I`m just an anachronism, but I don`t like progress much, especially if it destroys woods and the country side of life.


----------



## GeauxLSU (Mar 19, 2006)

Zero population growth.  
Went fishing at Tribble Mill Saturday.  Hadn't been since last year.  In that short time, it appears every tract between my house and there has been cleared and developed, or is in the process.  Not sure what percentage of this country is developed, but considering the ever growing population, no more land being made.... hmmmm..... what is the end result?


----------



## LJay (Mar 19, 2006)

If we all move to Nebraska, You won't have a place to hunt!!


----------



## Duck (Mar 19, 2006)

HOGDOG76 said:
			
		

> Dont Forget To Thank Everybody You Know Who Voted For The Idiot.



I'll drink to that!!!!!!!!


----------



## LJay (Mar 19, 2006)

THunter said:
			
		

> Yeah I would.  I'd have all the land around here to hunt.
> 
> THunter


Nooo, you're gonna sell all the National Forests and develope all of Georgia. Remember?


----------



## discounthunter (Mar 19, 2006)

why dont people want to live in east-central ga,last time i checked a few hundred thousand did.


----------



## discounthunter (Mar 19, 2006)

GLASCOCK     2631 according to the US censuc bureau


hancock      10000
washington 22000
baldwin        45000
jefferson      17000
wilkinson      11000
greene         16000
putnam        20000
johnson         10000

or were you just refering to the one county?


----------



## Duck (Mar 20, 2006)

*Real American*

Would a real american want to sell  National Forest Land???? I just don't understand how anyone could say sell it.


----------



## Elkhntr (Mar 20, 2006)

Check the map. These are small parcels not contiguous to the whole of the National Forest. Theses are lil islands surrounded by private land. Would be difficult to manage as part of a National Forest. It's not like they're going to just lop off 200 ac. an sell it. Or, there going to sell prime mountiantop real estate to developers. 
Check the map, it'll might make sense to ya.


----------



## discounthunter (Mar 20, 2006)

i love to live there or anywhere else that i dont have neighbors closer than a quarter of a mile.thats why its called living in the country.problem is developers see this as prime land and inturn OVERDEVELOPE it causing it to be just another over populated subdivision.who needs county sewers and water,i got a well and a septic and i can target shoot in my front yard.


----------



## shadow2 (Mar 20, 2006)

I just hope that i can find some land when it is time for me to retire 14 years from now..at the rate that we are going here in ga that might be easer said than done...The memories I have of growing up on are farm will be with me forever i just hope that i can share some of those with my kids and grandkids


----------



## HOGDOG76 (Mar 20, 2006)

Elkhntr said:
			
		

> Check the map. These are small parcels not contiguous to the whole of the National Forest. Theses are lil islands surrounded by private land. Would be difficult to manage as part of a National Forest. It's not like they're going to just lop off 200 ac. an sell it. Or, there going to sell prime mountiantop real estate to developers.
> Check the map, it'll might make sense to ya.


YES THESE ARE ISOLATED PARCELS AND THEY ARE USUALLY USED TO TRADE FOR PRIVATE TRACTS WITHIN THE NATIONAL FOREST TO MAKE FOR MORE CONTIGUOUS TRACTS! SO YOU ARE COMPLETELY HALF RIGHT. YOU MUST BE REPUBLICAN!


----------



## camo93 (Mar 20, 2006)

I hate to see the growth and development but the growth is here in GA an only getting bigger.. Look at how many times you see Georgia in the growth chart. I just wish the politician would find another way then selling our green space, but I’m not qualified to make those decisions.


100 Fastest-Growing U.S. Counties by Percentage Growth, July 1, 2004 to July 1, 2005
County
State
Population
(July 1, 2005)	Numerical
change
Percent
change
Flagler	Florida
76,410	7,394	10.7
Lyon County	Nevada
47,515	4,179	9.6
Kendall County	Illinois
79,514	6,810	9.4
Rockwall County	Texas
62,944	4,522	7.7
Washington County	Utah
118,885	8,460	7.7
Nye County	Nevada
40,477	2,791	7.4
Pinal County	Arizona
229,549	14,845	6.9
Loudoun County	Virginia
255,518	16,193	6.8
King George County	Virginia
20,637	1,295	6.7
Caroline County	Virginia
25,563	1,563	6.5
Grundy County	Illinois
43,838	2,660	6.5
Forsyth County	Georgia
140,393	8,443	6.4
St. Lucie County	Florida
241,305	14,195	6.3
Newton County	Georgia
86,713	5,089	6.2
Paulding County	Georgia
112,411	6,376	6.0
Union County	North Carolina
162,929	9,209	6.0
Sumter County	Florida
64,182	3,613	6.0
Culpeper County	Virginia
42,530	2,379	5.9
Lincoln County	South Dakota
33,381	1,857	5.9
Barrow County	Georgia
59,954	3,298	5.8
Lake County	Florida
277,035	15,190	5.8
Lee County	Florida
544,758	29,835	5.8
St. Johns County	Florida
161,525	8,801	5.8
Franklin County	Washington
63,011	3,360	5.6
Henry County	Georgia
167,848	8,909	5.6
Jackson County	Georgia
52,292	2,728	5.5
Spencer County	Kentucky
15,651	811	5.5
Effingham County	Georgia
46,924	2,409	5.4
Brunswick County	North Carolina
89,162	4,572	5.4
Cherokee County	Georgia
184,211	9,360	5.4
Matanuska-Susitna Borough	Alaska
76,006	3,840	5.3
Douglas County	Georgia
112,760	5,676	5.3
Dorchester County	South Carolina
112,858	5,654	5.3
Delaware County	Ohio
150,268	7,521	5.3
Hernando County	Florida
158,409	7,869	5.2
Osceola County	Florida
231,578	11,451	5.2
Iron County	Utah
38,311	1,889	5.2
Pasco County	Florida
429,065	21,019	5.2
Deschutes County	Oregon
141,382	6,764	5.0
Walton County	Georgia
75,647	3,603	5.0
Douglas County	Colorado
249,416	11,865	5.0
Collin County	Texas
659,457	31,031	4.9
Juneau County	Wisconsin
26,725	1,251	4.9
Orange County	Virginia
30,246	1,408	4.9
DeSoto County	Mississippi
137,004	6,300	4.8
Williamson County	Texas
333,457	15,308	4.8
Fort Bend County	Texas
463,650	21,261	4.8
Currituck County	North Carolina
23,112	1,057	4.8
Boone County	Kentucky
106,272	4,841	4.8
Christian County	Missouri
67,266	3,044	4.7
Hamilton County	Indiana
240,685	10,845	4.7
Dallas County	Iowa
51,762	2,307	4.7
Hoke County	North Carolina
41,016	1,823	4.7
Wasatch County	Utah
18,974	840	4.6
Kendall County	Texas
28,607	1,265	4.6
Berkeley County	West Virginia
93,394	4,127	4.6
Sandoval County	New Mexico
107,460	4,735	4.6
Comal County	Texas
96,018	4,179	4.6
Williamson County	Tennessee
153,595	6,603	4.5
Tuolumne County	California
59,380	2,537	4.5
Denton County	Texas
554,642	23,660	4.5
Scott County	Minnesota
119,825	5,060	4.4
Montgomery County	Texas
378,033	15,841	4.4
Lincoln County	Missouri
47,727	1,994	4.4
Hays County	Texas
124,432	5,158	4.3
Kaufman County	Texas
89,129	3,682	4.3
Horry County	South Carolina
226,992	9,357	4.3
Coweta County	Georgia
109,903	4,508	4.3
Kootenai County	Idaho
127,668	5,221	4.3
Mohave County	Arizona
187,200	7,637	4.3
Canyon County	Idaho
164,593	6,710	4.2
Pike County	Pennsylvania
56,337	2,296	4.2
Louisa County	Virginia
30,020	1,223	4.2
Spotsylvania County	Virginia
116,549	4,744	4.2
Wakulla County	Florida
28,212	1,138	4.2
Yavapai County	Arizona
198,701	7,964	4.2
Yuba County	California
67,153	2,683	4.2
Boone County	Illinois
50,483	2,012	4.2
Riverside County	California
1,946,419	76,954	4.1
Will County	Illinois
642,813	25,319	4.1
Weld County	Colorado
228,943	8,982	4.1
Clay County	Florida
171,095	6,708	4.1
Benton County	Arkansas
186,938	7,329	4.1
Rutherford County	Tennessee
218,292	8,553	4.1
Walton County	Florida
50,324	1,956	4.0
Wake County	North Carolina
748,815	29,082	4.0
Ascension Parish	Louisiana
90,501	3,482	4.0
Marion County	Florida
303,442	11,674	4.0
Sherburne County	Minnesota
81,752	3,131	4.0
St. Croix County	Wisconsin
77,144	2,910	3.9
Bryan County	Georgia
28,549	1,076	3.9
New Kent County	Virginia
16,107	607	3.9
Maricopa County	Arizona
3,635,528	136,941	3.9
Scott County	Kentucky
39,380	1,479	3.9
Fluvanna County	Virginia
24,751	916	3.8
Montgomery County	Tennessee
147,202	5,396	3.8
Hendry County	Florida
39,561	1,448	3.8
Columbia County	Florida
64,040	2,330	3.8
Ellis County	Texas
133,474	4,843	3.8
Baldwin County	Alabama
162,586	5,898	3.8


----------



## camo93 (Mar 20, 2006)

The chart didn't come over like I wanted... Sorry


----------



## JBowers (Mar 20, 2006)

THunter said:
			
		

> John,
> Man you've bought into the anti-development mantra hook, line, and sinker! Surely you realize someone with my background, my past experiences, and my current position realizes full well the development/current residents relationship. Taxpayers do not "subsidize" development, they subsidize lack of development. I pay more in taxes in Madison County than I do in Gwinnett and we don't even have paved roads up there, much less water. I guarantee you that when one of these anti-developer "homeowners" (what the crap is that anyway? we're all homeowners) starts to have a heart attack after getting overheated about the newest development coming in is darn glad that fire station and its EMT's is just around the corner. You don't get that without development and the prosperity it brings. All you've just spent a whole page talking about is hogwash. Having done both, I can guarantee you I'd rather live in an area that is growing than one that is not.
> 
> One thing to think of, is why should new residents pay more money for things all will use while those that arrived before them do not? Are all things currently in place the property of those that currently live there while the new folks have to pay for their own or more to support what's already there? If you want Privitizing Costs, as you call it, then all things built by new taxpayers through Impact Fees should be open to their use ONLY, not to those already there.
> ...


 
Tommy,

I didn't get my information from Veda and I don't subscribe to that religion.  Anyhow, thanks for proving at least one of my facts.  As for your questions, you missed the point.

So, daddy what did a forest look like?  Well son, it looked like this picture until the Tommy Hunters paved over all of it on the backs of us taxpayers!!!!!!!!

Like it or not Tommy, taxpayers DO subsidize development.  IMO, your statement that they don't is like saying we don't subsidize oil companies and farmers either.  There is a hook, line and sinker, but I can't nibble on what you've already swallowed.

G'day T!


----------



## spraggins (Mar 20, 2006)

bowers, you are my hero!


----------



## raghorn (Mar 20, 2006)

spraggins said:
			
		

> bowers, you are my hero!


I've been trying to avoid this to keep from making anymore enemies on here, but I have to agree with you. Developers could not care less about the land as long as they make a dollar. I'm with you too John!


----------



## Jody Hawk (Mar 21, 2006)

Let's leave some blue up above us.
Let's leave some green on the ground.
It's only ours to borrow.
Let's save some for tomorrow.
Leave it and pass it on down !!!!!


----------



## Elkhntr (Mar 21, 2006)

I was completely right in what I said. The Forest Service has been open to land swap and its used regularily out west. So I would imagine that option has not been productive for these parcels. This solution provides revenue in three ways. Easier management for the Forest Service. Money for those rural school districts thru the sale and the increase property tax base.
Yup..I tend to vote republican, you must be a democrat. Doesn't make either opinion right or wrong We have different views which creates debate.


----------



## camo93 (Mar 21, 2006)

Elkhntr said:
			
		

> Yup..I tend to vote republican, you must be a democrat. Doesn't make either opinion right or wrong We have different views which creates debate.



   

Corndog76- is obvious democrat with his proud statement..


----------



## Nicodemus (Mar 21, 2006)

That`s why I`m glad I own a little high spot in a river swamp that can and does flood every year around it. Ain`t no development goin` on around there. If it does, everything will wash down into Altamaha Sound.


----------



## LJay (Mar 21, 2006)

THunter said:
			
		

> Not only that, folks can continue to fuss and fuss about it, and we'll continue to develop and make money that we use to go out in the rural counties and preserve as much open space and hunting property as God will allow.  And, we'll hunt it, and let those that complain about development hunt the public land.
> 
> THunter


Sir, you need to go back to the beginning of this thread. That's what the topic was, SELLING THE PUBIC LAND. 

How do you expect most of the people on here to "take the risk" and buy enough land to hunt on? Banks won't just lend people a couple or so Million dollars on a $40,000.00 per year income. So, I wouldn't be so quick to call people hypocrites if I were you. Only the "big" developers and speculators can run to the bank and get a loan and only pay the interest until the land is "developed" or Sold.


----------



## bayoudawg (Mar 21, 2006)

Wow, this thread is still going?


----------



## thecovey (Mar 21, 2006)

Everybody seems to have a tad bit of truth in their viewpoints, but I would like for developments to go upward instead of outward - but it does take more money to do this than simply buying dirt.  The incentive structure will have to be radically changed before developers stop buying dirt and instead decide to redevelop property.    

    I grew up in Marietta and the sprawl and traffic equals poor urban planning.  My father is a developer and buying green areas has always been cheaper for him than to redevelop, and until green areas aren't as affordable or the government gives tax breaks/credits/grants for redevelopments then things will not change.  Unfortunately the developers strongest incentive is to buy cheap & raw land because it makes the most economic sense.

     Push your legislatures for more public hunting land too!


----------



## discounthunter (Mar 21, 2006)

th you sir sound like the hypocrite.you keep saying "we"in your statements about rural developement.so to me it sounds like you have no care what so ever in public hunting and fishing land.yes people can by land and if everybody bought it there would still be no public land because people would fence it off,hence high fence shooting preserves(which i do beleive you are against.so keep up your personal vandeta to destroy rural america but just remember the goverment at any time and point it chooses may came and seize YOUR own personal land i do believe you are knowleded in the word and terms i talk about(eminent domain).


----------



## spraggins (Mar 21, 2006)

i thought that ''we'' ,as a nation , had already ''bought'' our national forest lands...through taxation. i really like our public land system, it gives people the opportunity to do things they otherwise might not be able to...such as some of the out of state hunts i've been on. if a man from california wants to hunt eastern turkeys, the n. f. lands are a fine option for him. if i want to hunt elk in colorado, n.f. lands are my first choice. for someone to say that i must buy a parcel to hunt it, that just confirms my suspicions that the ''upper echelon'' of society... the developers and fat-cat politicians, really don't care about common folks, traditions, or anything else but themselves...and what their financial status is. sad.


----------



## whitworth (Mar 21, 2006)

*Timbering*

What this country needs is some good timbering on the National Forest Lands.    Lots of wilderness areas is a poor get for any good deer hunting.


----------



## JBowers (Mar 22, 2006)

THunter said:
			
		

> You guys want to preserve open space from development, then by all means--buy it. Until you're ready to take that risk, you're just gums flapping in the wind.


 
Glory is that we don't have to buy it; power to the people.



> John, based on your analogy, I'm subsidizing you and every other person at DNR. Reckon' how many of you guys live in a house that at some point was someone else's open land. Until you're ready to give that up, you're sounding brass and hypocites.


 
I am sure you feel that way Tommy.  However, my analogy doesnb't support your statement because in my analogy the subsidy is in the form of property tax required to be paid by all regardless.  In your attempted application, it doesn't work because you have a choice.  Don't want to subsidize DNR then choose to not hunt.  No hunt = no pay.  With respect to your feelings, maybe you made a bad choice.

As for the hypocrite statement, I never claimed that I am not.  In fact, more than once I have claimed guilt.  I am not ashamed of it, either.  Of course, your statement is once again proving at least one of my points!  Thanks again!

In Rockdale County, we recently just got poled again with such a subsidy in a non-cash form.


----------



## Hogtown (Mar 22, 2006)

Not to throw gas on the fire, but there is a well accepted concept amoung land theorist that the government actually owns all the land - even here in America. The theory is based on the fact that you must pay real estate taxes (rent) to the government. If you do not pay the rent (tax) the property reverts to its rightful owner (the governement). All land was orginally owned by the government (or the King of Spain/England etc). All land is sold subject to the four powers of government (taxation, eminent domain, police power, and escheat).  I don't subscribe to this theory, but it is the basis for taxation in quite a few countries in the world. It is also the basis for heavily taxing unearned benefits mentioned in an earlier post re: developers.  These unearned benefits would be a property owner benefiting from government expenditures to a greater extent than the general public. Example: if an Interstate interchange is put on your cow pasture, then your land has gone from $2,500/Acre in value to $653,400/Acre ($15/SF).  This disproportional benefit was achieved through no improvement, expenditure, risk or foresight by the property owner - rather it was "given" to the owner at the expense of "the people" and thus is taxed very heavily because it is considered unearned.  There are multiple facets the many arguements being made here.


----------



## GeauxLSU (Mar 22, 2006)

Hogtown said:
			
		

> I don't subscribe to this theory


How can you not?  Have you tested it?  If ever there was a time when it should be clear private citizens do NOT actually own the land it would be today.


----------



## Hogtown (Mar 22, 2006)

Briefly, I don't subscribe to it because in my opinion the theory is too convoluted. I personally think of land ownership as being exactly as the definition of fee simple is written, that is, absolute ownership but subject to certain restrictions.  To me a similar situation occurs with vehicle ownership. I own my truck; however, if I am smuggling drugs with it, the state will confiscate it... so I own it subject to the condition I don't smuggle drugs.  In my view the citizen owns land subject to the four powers of government.


----------



## Cypress94 (Mar 28, 2006)

The sad truth is, as previously stated in this thread, that you can blame government all you want, but urban sprawl is as much to blame for the dissappearance of land as anything.  I came to middle Georgia from Cobb county, and have seen first hand growing up the construction of a county from the ground up.  It startled me when I first came to Macon, just how MANY empty buildings sit in the city limits, while Home Depot, for example, leaves one building behind to move and build a stand alone building on a raw piece of land.  The balance point rests on whether or not we are going to let these built-up, deserted parcels of land sit and go to waste, or whether people can find a way to make a better use of what land we have.  It's like the public schools; these counties are so afraid to build a 2 story school...I guess they are afraid of what MIGHT happen, but then we end up having to build another school right down the road 2 years later....it just dosen't make any sense!


----------

