Budget Cuts and National Forest

[tcaarabians]

I'm not sure where to put this..so I chose here.

I've been reading the early news on the Trump budget. It contains a lot of proposed cuts. I've yet to figure out its impact on our National Forests or National Monuments. I'm betting there will not be more money and there may well be less. This is to be determined.

In the meantime, I'm thinking we may want to consider lobbying for fire fighting to be transferred to the defense budget. Just a thought.
cheryl o7o

[Joe Schmoe]

America.  Great.  Again.   

[Cheapskate]

Repeating myself, President Obama using executive powers to elevate our region to a national monument had the effect of...changing the signs.  It never seemed too many federal $$$ came into the Big Pines ranger station and Grassy Hollow before or after monument status.  Thus, there's not much room to cut.  Status quo.  I doubt the patrons of the forest will notice a thing one way or the other.

[Wrightwood]

[Joe Schmoe]

such as major new Federal land acquisition

I'm going to give an example of how this may impact us based what I recall of a news article I read a few months ago.  A certain land owner has owned a large piece of land that abuts a National Park/National Forest.  He was the original landowner and has been there many decades.  He unfortunately passes away and his heirs have no interest in the ranch so it goes up for sale.  Since the rancher never got around to clearing much of the land it contains many acres of pristine forest and bridges a divide between two other very large parcels of land already owned by the Forest Service.  The heirs could sell the property to a developer and it could become a development of any configuration you can imagine.  Instead the Forest Service and the heirs come to an agreement, the parcel is purchased by them and it then falls under the care and protection of the Forest Service - a once in a generation opportunity.  Had it gone to a developer that opportunity would have been lost.

[AvocadoFlyer]

I may be missing something but it seems that the scenario you just wrote would/could/may happen whether there are cuts or not in the budget.  I'm afraid I just don't understand what you wrote and how it pertains to the budget cuts. 

apologies if I am completely missing something here.  I have a cold...LOL

[tcaarabians]

I think that Joe is saying that the monies for land acquisition have been reduced - not eliminated. And, it does state "major new land acquisitions." I don't know what the definition of "major" would be. He was positing a potential impact.

Cheapskate:  I don't know if you're right or not regarding no new changes in the area now designated as a National Monument.  I believe there was hope that the Monument status would free up additional funds for preservation, clean-up, visitor serving amenities, etc. Perhaps those in this group that work with USFS can shed some light on that.

The budget must now wind its way through the Congressional process. That should prove interesting. Happy St.Pats Day everyone. cheryl o7o 

[AvocadoFlyer]

AH, gotcha.  So what he is saying is that if the reduction in budget changes the funding for "major" (whatever "major" may be) land acquisitions that in the example provided...developers would buy the land vs the Forest Service.  I understand now!  Thanks.