U.S. Forest Service ??????
- Thread starter Flat Tire
- Start date
A) in order to be eligible to answer, ya really shouldn't be an urbanite, or from a state with very little Fed land - b/c ya got no clue and no real dog in the fight
B) The land should be returned to the states in which they rest, individual states should be able to make economic use of such lands as they see fit
C) short of this - the entire nation should subsidize the Econ loss of such lands on a prorata basis to each impacted county
B) The land should be returned to the states in which they rest, individual states should be able to make economic use of such lands as they see fit
C) short of this - the entire nation should subsidize the Econ loss of such lands on a prorata basis to each impacted county
Last edited:
The quote you gave is from a song not the constitution . You're funny but way dumb, huh ?
I didn't call anyone dumb, I asked !!!!
I think we should give more money to the Usfs than for track phones and other shit. For the most part I'd rather be in a national forest than national park any day of the week. Rules and regs.
To answer your question fed vs state. It may have something to do with the geographic location of the land in relation to population centers, as well as total land area of each tract ,but around here in se tn the Feds do a better job. Just looks over all nicer. Trash, roads, trails, erosion control, hunting. Not talking about amenities and such state does better with bathrooms.
As far as logging is concerned for profit. I don't think any trees should be cut for sell. Unless it was done with a mule team for selective harvesting in order to grow bigger trees by decreasing the forest density. Real low key shit, but it's been 20 years since I seen that.
To answer your question fed vs state. It may have something to do with the geographic location of the land in relation to population centers, as well as total land area of each tract ,but around here in se tn the Feds do a better job. Just looks over all nicer. Trash, roads, trails, erosion control, hunting. Not talking about amenities and such state does better with bathrooms.
As far as logging is concerned for profit. I don't think any trees should be cut for sell. Unless it was done with a mule team for selective harvesting in order to grow bigger trees by decreasing the forest density. Real low key shit, but it's been 20 years since I seen that.
No, you were calling dumb, and trying to be funny to justify it. Truth be told you are the dumb one because that is exactly what I was saying, that it was/is a Woody Guthrie song,that though you may not like the author, nor his politics, to me the words hold true. Its MY/Our land...the peoples, not the gub'mint's.
And frankly I like it the way it is, but I would like to see it better managed, and this:
"As far as logging is concerned for profit. I don't think any trees should be cut for sell. Unless it was done with a mule team for selective harvesting in order to grow bigger trees by decreasing the forest density. Real low key shit, but it's been 20 years since I seen that."
AND that the wood should be sold only to American mills, for American products, not to Japanese or European buyers.
So think before you post, ok. NO hard feelings.
Last edited:
In my part of NW Colorado, the Feds do a good job managing the Forest. However, they have caved in to resistance from the idiot environmental groups. Here's an example; 10,800-ft peak 3-Miles from my house. Used by many, many local and visiting people in the Winter to Snowmobile, Ski, Snowshoe, and by quite a few Hybrid users (i.e ride a snowmobile into a remote local to ski). One local Liberal Green Peace type lady who ski's, and hates other users, convinced the Local USFS office to make the mountain off limits to snowmobiles, so she and her few friends can have a private area to themselves. Sorry thing is, that area now has very little use.
The other thing I hate that the USFS is doing is turning quite a few areas into "Fee" areas where you must pay to park and use the area.
It's public land, it should be free for "all" Americans to use.
The other thing I hate that the USFS is doing is turning quite a few areas into "Fee" areas where you must pay to park and use the area.
It's public land, it should be free for "all" Americans to use.
Last edited:
So you want to quote lyrics to make a political statement and then say "but I would like to see it better managed," ........
yeah you are dumb ! No hard feelings
Really? So you like the policies that lead to catastrophic fires and then the other policies that say that once burned, the timber shall not be salvaged; which then leads to economic loss and later a diseased forest - which is now even more susceptible to another fire?
Not me.
Last edited:
Maggot - I assume from this statement you've never been on site to see how mechanized logging works? Understand that the propaganda put out by the Sierra Club / Audubon Society / etc is just that. On Gov land thinning is the policy and PissFirWilly walks out into the brush to watch you do it and is happy to fine you if he thinks you're doing it wrong.
Secondly, consider that while large diameter trees sound great in theory - just as American wood, American products, etc; wood is a renewable. A better policy would recognize that board feet are the same regardless of the diameter of the tree. Given the length of time it takes to grow a large diameter tree vs thinning a reproduction forest on a harvest schedule that balances the harvest vs the time to grow creates a lower price point in the wood market for the same # of board feet. In turn this makes US wood more competitive which is esp important since the Canadians can and do dump wood on the market thereby suppressing the price. If US wood could only go to the US markets that means tariffs, which means trade wars that spill over to other industry sectors, which means…well you know the rest of the story.
I think what most don't realize is the disparity in the health and production between private vs public forests - worlds apart.
Last edited:
I like that I can go to other states and shoot in National forest, and most other public lands. For the most part these public lands have the same rules, with some exceptions around populated areas (like Colorado). In Wyoming there are still a lot of state school squares that you can use similar to BLM land if you have access. It seems that though there have been changes to local Nat Forest policies like closing some areas to shooting, by an far the changes are slow. I would worry that State control would cause fast changes - particularly in places like Colorado where the majority of the population is located in and around Denver. With the laws recently passed - I could see the legislature passing public land restrictions on shooting where the Feds have more difficulty doing so. That is my pragmatic view.
From the broader argument of State vs Federal Government, I generally favor State & Local control since they more reflect the constituents.
I think some form of State trust land with strong core terms that guarantee certain usage and access would be a good idea.
I guess the devil would be in the details of how the State got to manage the land.
From the broader argument of State vs Federal Government, I generally favor State & Local control since they more reflect the constituents.
I think some form of State trust land with strong core terms that guarantee certain usage and access would be a good idea.
I guess the devil would be in the details of how the State got to manage the land.
You mean go on site and see how a swath of land is fucked for a 1/4 lifetime . No I'm pretty sure I know how it looks.
I only mentioned some selective harvest since the majority if not all the forest I've ever walked in approx 3000 miles worth seem a little to dense, probably from being logged within the last 150 years.
Maybe if someone selectively cut some wood out there would be less competition, and bigger trees which would provide more shade would keep the damn briars/poison ivy at bay. Making it easier to move about.
As far as the disparity in health of forest, don't you feel the trees would figure it out for the selves and grow accordingly be it on public or private lands if just left the hell alone.
I feel that if private entities want to sell some wood they need to do so on private land. National forest should be left alone and be used for the activities that I enjoy and deem acceptable. But that's only my opinion.
The feds are shutting down public lands all over the country. Using the protected species act to do it. The Bundy situation in Nevada is a prime example.
I vote state.
I vote state.
I was in logging for years,as a faller, Mike, both in Montana, and here in the east. Im quite aware of the problems. As with most problems I dont see an easy answer. On one hand returning them to states could be good, but having them as a national treasure is also has its merit. Ive got a meeting coming up I need to prepare for so I dont have time to go deeper but believe, I am aware of the problems. I appreciate your well thought out presentations. Maggot
There should be no federal land holdings, except that land used for military bases and other constitutionally valid federal government functions.
Find me an article of the constitution that grants the federal government the power to control land on wholesale quantities just because.
Find me an article of the constitution that grants the federal government the power to control land on wholesale quantities just because.
Had a moment so I want to follow up briefly. Ive cu tin old growth forests and even planted Loblolly in plantations, so yes I am aware. Frankly, the price of the wood is far down on my considerations. Primary, is maintaining the vision that Teddy Roosevelt had of preserving some for future generations, more or less, intact. Ever taken a stroll through a scenic pine plantation? Fuck that, let me wander through the National Forests and Parks of western Virgina, or most of the western states. I think that 'properly' managed, the Feds can maintain a better overall vision. Bottom line, as I said above, and had to explain to a numb nut, "This land is OUR land", not the gub'mints.
Whats wrong with pine plantations?
My paps side of the family owns one in southeast Ga. Great-grandpap planted most of those pines, and actually wrote the curriculum that UGA used for a time in their forestry school. Started out a lot bigger, but we still got roughly 2500 acres and a whole bunch of pine ready to be cut. Not sure why but my pap wants to wait until his pap passes away before he chops any.
Personally I like the openness a lot better than the tangling brush, better for business as we can charge folks to come in and scoop up all the straw that they want, or ride around asking folks if they want us to spread some straw down for `em at 100$/truck-bed load when we really want to try our luck.
Not only that, but in that THICK ass brush, my dogs came damn close to being killed by a coyote that decided it had a genius idea in ambushing us. Yessir, that one shook my whole ego/idea of how much prowess I have in the woods. Coyote survived, but only because he moved quicker than we could lead and react. He went from a nasty, brave little animal to a run-for-his-life sprint when the bullets started flying
. That said, if a coyote can get the drop on us AND our dogs, a person could have too. Lot more careful now and do everything I can not to get caught sleeping like that again!
Last edited:
Yeah, fuck the proper role of the federal government according to the documents that spell out its power. We gots to have nice places to recreate.
Thats so full of fail Im just laughing. Do you ever actually have a positive, constructive thought, in your mind, or are you down on everything and everyone but yourself. Get a life.
You know, they do a fairly good job with what they have for a budget, do they make bad decisions, of course. Tell me one Govt. Agency that has a perfect track record?
I'll be the first to admit they make bad policy decisions, and they are influenced way too much by the enviro-nazi groups.
There needs to be some change, and even though I have some good suggestions, like eliminate the USFS, and have the BLM take over our National Forests, as in management improvement, cost cutting, and Govt. downsizing, it still wouldn't be perfect. As far as letting the States run it, some states would do a good job, others like Colorado would immediately ban shooting, snowmobiles, dirt bikes, 4x4's, etc, because of the idiots in our State Capitol.
As far as logging, yes, the Zirkel blowdown that spurred the beetle kill epidemic, and later the wild fires, could have been managed better... if the USFS didn't cave in to the Sierra Club. I guess logging is a whole other topic that needs to be addressed, just like the oil and gas drilling on Federal land, you're never going to make everyone happy.
Just read in today's paper that the USFS is threatening to impose another "Fee Area" because of some popular party locations are getting out of hand (underage drinking and trash left behind). Here we have a few people abusing our public land, and instead of punishing those individuals, they want to punish everyone by charging a fee to use our public lands.
Last edited:
Since we are dreaming, I had the thought of as a national trust, returning the land to the states for management, with Federal oversight. Sit down together and hammer out a plan of the Fed's saying "this is the vision we have, and we want to work together with the states to fulfill it, allowing for strong state input on how that is done." Kind of two hands working together, instead of against one another. But Im dreaming, eh?
Whats wrong with pine plantations?
My paps side of the family owns one in southeast Ga. Great-grandpap planted most of those pines, and actually wrote the curriculum that UGA used for a time in their forestry school. Started out a lot bigger, but we still got roughly 2500 acres and a whole bunch of pine ready to be cut. Not sure why but my pap wants to wait until his pap passes away before he chops any.
Personally I like the openness a lot better than the tangling brush, better for business as we can charge folks to come in and scoop up all the straw that they want, or ride around asking folks if they want us to spread some straw down for `em at 100$/truck-bed load when we really want to try our luck.
Not only that, but in that THICK ass brush, my dogs came damn close to being killed by a coyote that decided it had a genius idea in ambushing us. Yessir, that one shook my whole ego/idea of how much prowess I have in the woods. Coyote survived, but only because he moved quicker than we could lead and react. He went from a nasty, brave little animal to a run-for-his-life sprint when the bullets started flying
Sorry, didnt mean to insult the plantations...I helped plant a few. In most older growth forests there isnt that much brush. The taller tree canopy eliminates a lot of it. Its cut over thats gets nasty. Unfortunately, it would take generations of proper management to restore that.
You are a credit to your username. Statist asswipes like you are the reason we have a federal government that thinks it is omnipotent.
I don't know necessarily who does a better job of controlling these lands but one thing I know for sure is that they definitely need to be protected. Without protection all natural beauty that so many enjoy all over the states would be destroyed. Just look at most of the mountainous regions all over the US. What used to be a great escape is quickly turning into Vegas in the mountains. For most of my vacation time or holiday, whatever you want to call it, I spend time out of the country. However, when I travel within the US I like to go to places where I can escape out in the wilderness. One of these places used to be in TN (those familiar know what I am talking about). Now I avoid it at all costs because it has more or less exploded and turned into freaking Las Vegas in the mountains. Cabins going up everywhere, stores, waterparks, etc. you get the idea. The land is still technically protected but things are quickly closing in on it and because of that it has lost all of its appeal to people like me. Eventually there will be nowhere to escape to. With that in mind I must say, from my experience the feds seem to do a better job maintaining things than the states do.
We should look to our northern neighbors for ideas. From my experience Canada seems to have the right mix of maintaining everything the way it should be.
We should look to our northern neighbors for ideas. From my experience Canada seems to have the right mix of maintaining everything the way it should be.
When I was a kid 35-40 years ago going out into the forest was fun because there wasn't much to get in trouble for. Now I feel like I'm going to do something illegal somehow every time I leave the friggen pavement and indeed a few years ago I got a citation for shooting at our local shooting area which is in the FS, the same place myself and half our cities rifle shooters have gone to shoot long range for 60 years. I absolutely despise the new restrictive laws concerning off road closures as well!!! If the USFS keeps going at this rate they'll continue adding more and more restrictive laws resulting in eventual closures of millions of more acres of what should have been public land. Only a privileged few will even be allowed into the forest at that point.
Another thing. Our Field Target airgun club was forced to lease a area in the FS and are required to have insurance to be eligible to do so. Whereas before back in the good old days we'd just go out into the FS, pick a nice spot, and have fun.
Another thing. Our Field Target airgun club was forced to lease a area in the FS and are required to have insurance to be eligible to do so. Whereas before back in the good old days we'd just go out into the FS, pick a nice spot, and have fun.
It does seem hard to find an expanse of unsettled territory. We got a nice little bit back home I must say, praise the lord. Hopefully its not ever touched.
One thing that made everybody mad for a while was when my paps good friend got a notice that his property was being forcibly taken(at bottom dollar compensation) by the .gov so they could build a road straight through where his house sat. You telling me there was no way that drivers could deal with a slight curve around his place?
FUN!!???you should know by now that we dont allow that. The beating will continue until the morale improves.
Yep, the same thing happened to some family land of ours. They split our property right into with a damn highway and paid next to nothing for it compared to what the acreage was selling for.Pisses me off. They can pretty much do anything they want with any land as long as its under the guise of, "for the public good," under eminent domain.
Simple Answer: No, I think that the USFS is not doing anything useful to the health and preservation of our Forests. That is from 35 years of watching NOTHING done in my state's "National Forests" as old growth, blow-downs and increased user fee's have left the forests environmentally unbalanced. At least in the forests that I tend to run around in.
Simple... they suck.
They cut most all the hardwood mass producing trees and replant in pine. Not good for most of the wildlife. It's all about money! That's in alabama, not sure of the other states.
I think they manage it better than the companies do.
1. Weyerhauser land has no diversity --after clear cutting, they grow one type of tree for 25 years or so then harvest again. There is no wildlife to speak of and the forest is obviously manmade, just like the "bomb trees" (trees in line at an angle) on army bases. This company has already tried to get at the old growth here, what they haven't taken already, because they have this "feel good" PR scheme to make you think they "manage" the land. They make profit off the land and yeah, it has trees, but that's it.
2. Forest fires, huh? They actually help. Not in some places where they are out of control but that's another story. For the most part, a fire clears out the whole area allowing it to repopulate. I've seen areas rebound in my own lifetime. Mt. St. Helens is one notable point --pyroclastic flow and poisoned water, no life, now it's all back and it's almost impossible to tell an eruption on that scale even occurred.
3. I like the idea of states regulating the land, I'm for scaling down the size of govt. But I don't have all the facts to say that my state could do better. Perhaps they could, perhaps they couldn't.
4. From experience, state managed lands have had more rules and regs than federal BLM land.
1. Weyerhauser land has no diversity --after clear cutting, they grow one type of tree for 25 years or so then harvest again. There is no wildlife to speak of and the forest is obviously manmade, just like the "bomb trees" (trees in line at an angle) on army bases. This company has already tried to get at the old growth here, what they haven't taken already, because they have this "feel good" PR scheme to make you think they "manage" the land. They make profit off the land and yeah, it has trees, but that's it.
2. Forest fires, huh? They actually help. Not in some places where they are out of control but that's another story. For the most part, a fire clears out the whole area allowing it to repopulate. I've seen areas rebound in my own lifetime. Mt. St. Helens is one notable point --pyroclastic flow and poisoned water, no life, now it's all back and it's almost impossible to tell an eruption on that scale even occurred.
3. I like the idea of states regulating the land, I'm for scaling down the size of govt. But I don't have all the facts to say that my state could do better. Perhaps they could, perhaps they couldn't.
4. From experience, state managed lands have had more rules and regs than federal BLM land.
^^^^ This. It is the natural life cycle of the forest to burn (okay, maybe not volcano erupt); however, what was the thinking in our lifetime? Smokey Bear... Only You.... I can remember fighting fires in Virginia in 1986 that was started in Kentucky by lightning and what did burn has an abundance of wildlife and habitat. I never saw deer in my part of Virginia until AFTER that fire... amazing isn't it? This world was taking care of itself before we arrived... And after 30 years... USFS still hasn't learned.
This has happened in Idaho and it is not a good plan. Let it burn. When it snows it will put the fire out. THAT IS NOT A PLAN. Thinning is a plan. Clear cutting is a plan with the same results........... it will all grow back. Letting it rot on the vine is not a plan. Driving round in circles in a government vehicle is not a plan.
I aint got nearly the forestry experience that some here do, but I can say that every so often, Ive helped my pap set up a controlled burn in our woods. Mind you the trees dont burn, not really anyway. Everything else gets torched though.
If it isn't serving as a necessity to military function and it doesn't have a federal building or parking lot on it, there should be no such thing as "Federal Land".
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The U.S De-forestation Service is an absolute joke. Management by bug kill, catastrophic fire, fear, and political expediency. They throw tens of millions of dollars at "fire fighting" yearly. Their notion of fire fighting revolves around bringing in "teams" type one, two or three, depending on the size or potential size of the fire to manage the "incident". These supposedly professional people order in fire crews, helicopters, air tankers, pick-ups, water tenders, lighted sign boards,pumper trucks, a contract kitchen, and all the supplies to keep all the aforementioned assets going. Then they gather up look at the maps, make trite observations, then order more maps, computers, powerplants, more equipment,more food, more crews, hourly over-flights to include up to the minute photos and infrared data. This causes them to order more of all of the above, so they can stay a safe distance from the fire.......and....just....watch....it...burn. However, they do continue to throw money at it and bring in the p.r. folk to blow smoke up the locals asses and go in front of the tv cameras with grim and worried faces to declare they are doing all they can.
Piss on them! In this state the Department of State lands does a much better job of protecting our forest land as well as managing the state lands for true multiple use.
Piss on them! In this state the Department of State lands does a much better job of protecting our forest land as well as managing the state lands for true multiple use.
Similar threads
