SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Neeka who wrote (482934)4/16/2012 12:55:46 PM
From: ManyMoose3 Recommendations  Read Replies (2) of 794024
 
I am opposed to wholesale takeovers of private land by the government BUT, and it's a big BUT:

Some of the old railroad lands which were granted 'in lieu' of lands granted either side of railroad routes in the nineteenth century that were unavailable because they were otherwise encumbered (like towns, other private lands, etc.). These railroad land grants were necessary to encourage railroad development. Some people think it was a big rip off, but actually without this encouragement only one transcontinental rail line was built (The Great Northern). Like it or not, railroads were major contributors to the development of the West, and to the strength and security of our country.

Several of these 'lieu' land grants are surrounded by national forest, and resemble a checkerboard when viewd from Google Earth, or a map. Alternating sections (640 acres) of the lands are separated by alternating sections of national forest land.

This situation is totally unmanageable and has resulted in a terrible-looking layout of forest lands. Plum Creek Corporation, for example, inherited a huge grant of 'lieu' lands in the Lochsa River drainage in Idaho. They logged it off. Some of this land has reverted to forest, but it still looks terrible on Google Earth.

There is a proposal to transfer ownership of these logged off lands back to national forest, because there is no practical reason to keep them in corporate ownership any more, but there is a huge benefit to be had by consolidating them into the national forest. This benefit makes management of the national forest vastly more efficient, and also has major habitat benefits for plant and wildlife.

The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation supports this transfer. Other conservation organizations like the Nature Conservancy probably do too. I believe Plum Creek and other grant holders are also supportive.

I'm not knowledgeable about funding, but I think grants from these conservation organizations are possible, so it won't all be taxpayer financed.

This is one government function that is worthy of support from all of us.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext