Managing the National Forest?

[WyoJim]

Seems as though creating jobs and cheaper 2X4's would be better than burning them down along with peoples houses.

 

[Champane Flight]

Pesky forests

You forgot the third choice " Just let them clearcut all the forests, then we don't have to worry about them anymore"... .

 

[illflem]

I didn't vote, there should be a middle ground that has nothing to do with political parties.

 

[WyoJim]

Champane Flight... Back in the North East where I did my logging, clearcuts were a useful tool and regrew hardwood timber at an incredible pace. They didn't need seeded and within a few years you would have a hard time finding it. Even at that they were usually not very large. Maybe 50 acres or so on the average.

Out here in the west they are huge and scar the landscape for years. Around Kalispell, MT they have clearcut entire mountains and it is enough to make a person sick. You might say they ***** in their own nest in the long run.



illflem... Oh if it were only that easy. . No politics. But you know it is all politics. The Forest Service is a beurocracy to be controled by our elected representatives or in court. In court involves Liberal Democratic Judges or Conservative Republican Judges.

 

[baby.driver]

Ditto illflem

 

[mdlowry]

The government has repeatedly shown by their actions that they are not capable of managing a forest no matter who is in charge. I'd vote for getting the government out of the forests, and return these to the people.

 

[merryman]

At times it seems anything gov't can do, gov't can screw up!!

I have spent lots of time in the woods for many years and the most obvious thing I have noticed is that years ago, forest service people were a pleasant bunch to run into when out in or around the forest, now they generally act like a bunch of jackasses with chips on their shoulders.

Twenty years ago, I enjoyed meeting them in the back country;Now when I run into them they act like I owed them money.

An ability to hire real people would help them tremendously.



Vaughn

 

[illflem]

Vaughn, I think the problem is that there aren't many real people around to hire nowadays.

 

[Sled Puller]

The Northeast has been managed well over the last 200 years-we have more marketable hardwoods than the pilgrims did.



Man can manage the forests better than Mother Nature. They are a renewable resource.



Use it or lose it.

 

[Champane Flight]

Over everything

The Forest service has become just like all the rest of the bureacreacys in the USA . They are over educated, over thinking, and a NO common sense group. They will not hire anyone unless you have a degree in ecology. The first thing they do to most people who go through with the degree process is destroy any common sense you may have. The real people are all gone, and the egos have taken over... ...



In the case of the fires we have now, the real problem is that people are now in the path of the fire. Most do not know how to manage the forest, they just wanted to live in the mountains cause it is "pretty". Fire is natural, it cleans the forest out and brings new growth. That being said, when you put 500 to 1000 homes in front of it, someone has to fight it! Now to blame one or the other political group for the fire and the cost is a little like saying the sky is falling (unless Dashell, or Bush came out and set them). These fires were a combination of weather, ignorance, and idiocy by the firestarters. Not to mention the layback attitude of the people in charge of fighting them.



Clear cutting is not the way either. It takes too long for a new growth to take hold. There used to be logging that thinned forest. It is not cost effective according to the big logging companys. I say instead of spending big bucks on fighting fire (in National forest) we give incentives to logging companys to clean instead of clearcut. The non-maintaining of roads (by the Dems) in the National forests can then be maintained by the logging companys. I don't like that many roads in the forest, but that is just me. I still have two feet or a horse/mule.



These forests have been here hundred of thousands of years before man ever showed up on the scene. To say we can do a better job than nature is just a tad full of our puny selves. When you stand on a peak and look down the Continental divide you realize how small you really are! The area that has burn't this summer is about the size of a postage stamp compared to the overall scheme of things.

 

[FATCAT]

Privet Property

Why are the Fed or State Gov't even in the "land owning" business period. All that federal/state land should be sold to the public. If the owners of the land distroy it and cause harm to other land owners, then he and his family should be hung ... simple as that. (Kind of like what should be done to the Enron, Worldcom, Global Crossing, etc... head honchos ... dancing at the end of a rope on pay-per-view).



Would you pollute, destroy, or clear cut your land? I would say the vast majority of people would not. Those who would and in doing so harm others would & should pay the ultimate price.



One of the ways that I see privet land kept undeveloped is through the property tax laws. In NH cheap tax rates for keeping land in "current use" (undeveloped), keep much of the state green. If you want to subdivide/develop it, well then the tax rate skyrockets due to the future towns services that will be required.

(No state income or sales taxes in NH so property tax pays most of everything ... makes for great knock-down drag out fights at the annual town meetings if you want to spend and extra buck or two. )

 

[ISBPilot]

Change in management practices.........

... ... ... ... . I can only speak of the area I am familiar with and am not sure why these changs have occured. They might be because of new regulations or just economic reasons. But the local forest companies around here used to do "control burns", which kept the underbrush lower and provided less fuel for fires to start. Land also used to be open to graze cattle on (this also helped with the underbrush problem), now it is leased to hunting clubs and kept behind locked gates year round. Firelanes also used to be plowed on a regular basis, now the only plowing done is after a fire starts!



Todd

 

[illflem]

Todd, from what I understand grazing cows in the forest makes things worse and many now blame the severity of the current fires in the west to it. What happens is the cows eat the grasses and tromp the understory of the forest forcing it to grow taller, this eliminates fuel close to the ground for controlled burns and the taller brush brings fuel closer to the tree canopy encouraging the fire to crown. As far as fire breaks, I've watched fires jump two miles over a lake several times... the only way a fire gets put out is by the weather.

 

[ISBPilot]

This was several years ago but seemed the grazing and burning were used together in a rotation. To keep what you mentioned from happening. It just seems more intensive management would help reduce the available fuel when fire does breakout. Like I said, I am only speaking about the area I am familiar with. That being mostly pine woods (some hardwood bottoms left but not many) of central Louisiana.



Todd

 

[JLinder]

I got two words for ya,

CLEAR-CUT AMERICA!



Seriously, I am favor of utilizing our natural resources. However, I do not believe that the government should be making the rules. Large private land owners (out here we've got several) seem to do a much better job than the government, and much more profitable to boot.

 

[Sled Puller]

Overgrazing of cows caused the Grand Canyon to happen also, if you listen to the do-gooders long enough.

If cows were a problem, perhaps the thousands of Elk roaming around are a problem to.

It is just a ploy to get the ranchers off the land, right along with the rest of private land ownership.



Champane Flight, you had me right with you, then you lost me!



Mother Nature can survive just fine, but her methods of management are rather violent. Fires, Tornados, drought, volcanos, etc.

Man can manage the forest better for all involved. (if it is done properly)



Pennsylvania has a grape vine problem. If let go, they kill everything. I have been cutting grapevines and thinning our woods since I was a kid. Bordering propertys were let go.



The neighbor asked once, "How come all the nice trees stop at the line?"

Can anybody answer?

 

[Champane Flight]

Overkill?

Private land is sometimes more atractive than our natural landscape. That is just our natural instinct to make things purty to our eye. Now would our pretty manicured lawns be purty to a Bobcat or Badger? No probably not. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, is it not? That is the reason we like our CTDs, some of us would like nothing better than to park em in our living rooms (I know I would). So when we say that wilderness, swampland, desert, or in my case, citys are ugly and not cared for, remember that is just our opinion. Some people love the city. Go figure.



If we sell all our public lands, some will never see them. How would you like to never see the likes of the Grand Canyon or the geysers of Yellowstone? How about your grandchildren? No private ownership is not the answer either. The answer is better managment of what we have. The controlled burns and cleanup of our NF have to be timed and thought out. Not just set because the workers have to make a deadline. It goes on and on, the Yellowstone fires were managed fairly well, until they would not let anyone take the burned timber out. We have to hire people that love the land, not the money.



Our local National grasslands are severely overgrazed, nobody wants to tell the ranchers, no. There own land is almost desert at this time. Sometimes you have to take the loss and let the land recover. We all have opinions on how to handle things. It is probably a good thing we don't have the power to change them.