I can't get the link to work, but maybe it is just my computer. Either way, does anyone know the most effective, proactive manner to go about voicing my opinion about this? As an active voter, should I contact my Representative? Thanks for the input.

I left my brain at home this morning...the link is working now!

Jason: I'd have to say work with some of these organizations' recommendations we've posted in the various comments & news postings. I realize this site has multiple info posts which can be confusing.

It still wouldn't hurt to send comment to the USFS (there is a link on one of the previous news postings) by March 30; addressing the entire idea, or specific parcels, is up to you.

One good thing, I gather you're registered Dvr, CO - our state legislature has put forth a referendum against this (3/10/06). US Sen Salazar has issued his statement against, US Sen Allard has given a verbal against (hopefully, he follows through as he sits on the Senate Committee dealing with this). So, for being a Coloradan, you're pretty well represented by our elected officials as an against. Not to mention, this land sale is technically not legal & still needs Congress to make statue revisions to allow the sale of these lands to create an authority make this happen.

If you submit comments to the USFS, that's about as good as we can do.

Thanks for the info Mark.

Here's a link to the Rocky Mountain News article:

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,D>>>>>

DenverPost article with slide show showing some of the land around Estes Park for sale.

http://www.denverpost.com/spencer#

The comment period for the USFS could be given a 30 day extension. (May 1st is the new deadline).

The budget committees for both US House & Senate have failed to approve or disapprove this issue as of yet.

These are good signs that this budget ref. is having trouble.


http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/!ut/p/_s.7_0_A/7_0_1OB?conten>>>>>

Comments may be sent by e-mail to SRS_Land_Sales@fs.fed.us. Written comments may be sent to: USDA Forest Service, SRS Comments, Lands 4S, 1400 Independence Ave., SW, Mailstop 1124, Washington, DC, 20250-0003. Send faxed comments to (202) 205-1604.

I have heard of two "deadlines" for submission of public comments. The April edition of Sierra club mag states 30 March. The Boulder Weekly stated April 28th was the deadline. Either way, here are your congressmen's contact info. Drop them a line and tell them how you feel if you get a chance:
Senator Ken Salazar http://salazar.senate.gov ph 202-224-5852
Senator Wayne Allard http://allard.senate.gov ph 202-224-5941
Congressman Mark Udall http://markudall.house.gov ph 202-225-2161

As Mark noted above, the USFS extended the comment period to the end of April. Your comments could be critical if, despite the opposition of many Western legislators (Republicans as well as Democrats), Congress enacts legislation authorizing the sale. The most useful comments are probably those that identify specific sale parcels (e.g., the two parcels that include Dream Canyon) and explain *why* they should remain open to the public. For example, I hiked through Dream Canyon last week, took digital photos of the creek and crags, and e-mailed them to the Forest Service to buttress my argument that the scenic and recreational value of the canyon far outweighed the one-time revenues that would be received if it were sold. Other land-sale critics including naturalists and mountain bikers have adopted the same strategy. So send the USFS your comments about the unique climbing and/or other attractions of Dream Canyon, Bell Buttress, and other parcels you're concerned about.

FYI

The Access Fund submitted the following comment to the Forest Service on behalf of climbers throughout the US.

VIA EMAIL

-hard copy to follow

April 13, 2006


USDA Forest Service

SRS Comments, Lands 4S

1400 Independence Ave., SW, Mailstop 1124

Washington, DC, 20250-0003.

SRS_Land_Sales@fs.fed.us

RE: Proposal to Sell Public Forest Service Land to Fund Federal Obligations Under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self Determination Act

US Forest Service Land Sales Official:

I write today on behalf of the Access Fund and the American climbing community in opposition to the US Forest Service proposal to sell off public land to fund federal obligations under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (SDA). On behalf of the American climbing community The Access

Fund urges the US Forest Service (USFS) to reconsider this ill-advised funding mechanism for the SDA and in particular to remove any recreational rock climbing parcels from the auction list before submission to Congress.

The Access Fund

The Access Fund is a 501(c) 3 non-profit advocacy and conservation organization representing the interests of American rock and mountain climbers. The Access Fund is the nation's largest climber organization with over 15,000 members and affiliates. We advocate on behalf of approximately one million technical rock climbers and mountaineers nation-wide. Many of our members recreate on public US Forest Service land across the country including parcels recently identified as potentially eligible for sale. Our individual members will be writing you to urge removal of these specific parcels from the auction list.

The Access Fund's mission is to keep climbing areas open, and to conserve the climbing environment. Preserving the opportunity to climb and the diversity of the climbing experience are fundamental to our mission. The Access Fund encourages an ethic of personal responsibility, self-regulation, and Leave No Trace practices among climbers; works closely with local climbers, land managers, environmental organizations, and other interest groups to manage and preserve climbing areas throughout the United States; develops and distributes climber education materials; acquires and manages land; and provides funding for conservation and impact-mitigation projects, and for scientific research relevant to the climbing environment. Find out more about us at www.accessfund.org.

The Secure Rural Schools and Community Self Determination Act

The bi-partisan Secure Rural Schools and Community Self Determination Act (SDA) was passed in 2000 to stabilize the level of federal payments to approximately 700 counties nationwide that historically depended on timber revenues from adjacent national forest lands. The law guarantees payments to eligible rural counties for public education and transportation projects. The US Forest Service now proposes to pay for another five-year authorization of the law by selling $800 million-worth of National Forest land, resulting in largest sale of federal public land in decades.

The Proposed Land Sale Fails to Fully Fund Federal Obligations to Counties and Deprives the Public of Valuable Recreational Resources

The administration's 2007 budget plan seeks to raise money from public land sales to pay for schools and roads, and hopes to eventually eliminate their obligation required under the SDA (the new plan would eliminate funding by 2011). However, many counties would rather not trade existing and popular recreation areas (that also provide economic benefits) for a temporary funding system for the SDA. While some small obscure US Forest Service parcels (that are a burden to the agency and adjacent land owners alike) may be appropriate for sale, many public climbing areas could be at risk of private purchase under this proposed system, forever restricting climbing access or otherwise impairing these environments. Many people, including various US Senators, have noted that the US Forest Service rushed its compilation of the auction list, and as a result the public could lose lands they value without ever knowing they were
for sale.

Bipartisan Political Opposition

Congress is overwhelmingly against this new plan - both Republicans and Democrats alike worry that the proposal would sell off valued public lands only fund the rural schools and infrastructure program at 50% of current levels for just five years, and then end the county payments program altogether. The proposal would also pit states against each other, forcing competition for benefits. Last year, the west coast states of Oregon, California and Washington claimed more than two-thirds of the $393 million the program provided to schools, roads and other services in those counties. Under the new proposal, Oregon alone would get $162 million in exchange for 10,581 acres. Washington would get $46.9 million in exchange for 7,516 acres. Many feel that the amount of acres to be sold in each state is not fairly proportionate to the value to be received and individual legislators across the country have spoken out against this disparity.

Unfair Disparity of Benefits and Burden

Although the plan would give the majority of benefits to states that suffered the most by federal policies that restricted logging in the 1990s (a few western states are well over 50% federally-owned, yet saw a 95% timber harvest reduction in their local forests), the regional disparity in state benefits under this proposal are unfair and divisive, and there is no guarantee that money generated by the sales would stay within the states where the land will be sold. Most of the lands proposed to be sold are in states that get little of the money, and very little land is proposed to be sold in the states that get the most money. Even the winners are losers under this proposal:

Only about 10 percent of the proceeds would go toward rural schools in the South and Midwest, the two regions where more than a third of the sales of 300,000-plus acres would occur. California would receive $69 million for selling about 80,000 acres. In Idaho, 26,194 acres of public National Forest land have been targeted for the sale, 1ncluding more than 5,000 acres in the Sawtooth National Forest.
In Colorado, more than 21,000 acres in 11 national forests and grasslands are listed as potential auction candidates, including areas that are currently popular public recreation areas.
21,566 acres in Missouri's Mark Twain National Forest would be sold, with proceeds going to a general fund. Missouri's share of the school-funding is among the lowest at $2.7 million. In Wyoming, 17,619 acres are potentially for sale in the Black Hills, Medicine Bow and Bridger-Teton National Forests and the Thunder Basin National Grassland.
In North Carolina, the Forest Service has proposed selling nearly 10,000 acres, returning disproportionately little financial benefit back to the state. New Mexico would get $2.3 million, just one-fifth of 1 percent of the overall proceeds, in exchange for selling 8,000 acres, or 2 percent of the sales. 4,600 acres in South Carolina would be for sale along with 2,700 acres in Nevada with little financial benefits returned to those states. 870 acres of Indiana's Hoosier National Forest are listed for auction, yet Indiana would get nearly nothing in return.

Additional Problems Related to the Proposed Sale of US Forest Service Lands

Although the US Forest Service defends this controversial proposal by stating that they are only considering selling isolated parcels that no longer meet National Forest System needs. Nonetheless, lands are included on the auction list that previously were proposed as wilderness areas in California.

Moreover, popular recreation areas in Colorado are eligible for sale, apparently ignoring the health benefits for those that recreate there as well as economic benefits to the community where recreationists frequent and spend money. Also consider the following:

The land sales would set a dangerous precedent by relying on the permanent sale of public resources to fund local schools and road projects. This proposal will lead to choosing our valued local natural resources to pay for education needs that may be several states away. Special places in one state may be sold to pay for school kids across the country. These public land sales could undermine important conservation efforts to preserve unique landscapes such as those near Rocky Mountain National Park outside
of Estes Park, Colorado. The USFS has long attempted to consolidate open space by obtaining easements and restraining development and the US Forest Service often land trades for such conservation purposes. However, this new plan could derail many of these longstanding conservation efforts. Short-term gains would be offset by the permanent loss of public lands, and profits from the proposed sales would fall far short of what�s needed to help rural governments pay for schools and other basic services.

Conclusion

County payments are an extremely important funding source for counties with Forest Service land inside their boundaries, but it is irresponsible to sell off public lands that we will lose forever in exchange for a program we can pay for by other more prudent means. Climbers, bikers, boaters, hunters, anglers, campers and other recreational users benefit from and depend on access to public lands. Selling public lands to pay down the deficit would be a shortsighted and ill-advised shift in federal land-management policy.

The Access Fund has alerted over 15,000 of its members, regional coordinators and affiliate organizations regarding the problems of this proposal in general as well as the fact that specific local climbing resources may be at risk. Many of these local climbing advocates will be writing the US Forest Service to urge you to take their specific climbing areas off the auction list. Please protect these valuable local climbing areas by removing their eligibility from the land sale proposal.

Sincerely,

Jason Keith
Policy Director
The Access Fund

Cc: US Senator Larry Craig

US Senator Ron Wyden

US Representative Greg Walden

US Representative Tom Udall

Steve Matous, Access Fund Executive Director