HomeNewsOpinion

Selling public land poor idea

Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Supporters of the Bush administration's plan to sell hundreds of thousands of acres of Forest Service and other federal lands in 41 states -- including 13,900 acres in Montana, 336 from the Helena National Forest -- scoff at those who object to such a sell off.

Not only would the proceeds go to maintain roads and help rural school children, they say, but the land proposed for sale is isolated from other federal property and, because of its size, location or configuration, is not efficient to manage. "These are not the crown jewels we are talking about," said Agricultural Undersecretary Mark Rey.

But that argument doesn't address the main reasons why selling off such federal land is a bad idea.

To begin with, those same "inefficient" parcels of land often are highly desirable pieces of real estate. For instance, one Helena Forest parcel proposed for sale is bisected by U.S. Highway 12 near the foot of Deep Creek Canyon. One has to presume it would fetch a pretty price. Yet these are the very kind of properties the Forest Service can use to make land swap deals to acquire private inholdings within the National Forest or for other purposes. Once these pieces of land are gone, the Forest Service will be left with a diminished capacity to make land swaps that benefit everybody involved.

But there's a more basic problem with the land sales: selling permanent assets to raise one-time funds to meet annual budget needs is a lousy business practice. And talking about rural school children isn't much help. There's got to be a better way to raise that money.

One way has been proposed in a bill co-sponsored by Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont. The measure, also sponsored by Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, a staunch supporter of logging, would reauthorize and fully fund the Secure Rural Schools program without selling off public lands. "Public lands are an asset that needs to be managed and conserved," Craig has said.

We elect our politicians to manage and safeguard our public resources, not cut them up and sell them off like some corporate raider after a hostile takeover. This is one part of the administration's budget plan that deserves to fail.

Print Email

/news/opinion
 
Sponsored by:

Connect with Us