Forum Index > Public Lands Stewardship > Bill to make fee demo permanent
 Reply to topic
Previous :: Next Topic
Author Message
Allison
Feckless Swooner



Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 12287 | TRs | Pics
Location: putting on my Nikes before the comet comes
Allison
Feckless Swooner
PostWed Oct 22, 2003 10:02 am 
Tc, that chart pretty much backs up everything dad has said. Very simple, just what I was looking for. Caver, the missions of the NPS and the FS are SO different that I think to try and compare the two, well, apples and oranges, so to speak.

www.allisonoutside.com follow me on Twitter! @AllisonLWoods
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Timber Cruiser
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 220 | TRs | Pics
Location: Cosi
Timber Cruiser
Member
PostWed Oct 22, 2003 10:27 am 
MCaver wrote:
Just because that's how the DOI was run a century ago doesn't mean that's how it's run now. Are you saying that's the case? That the DOI and its agencies are just a means for politicians to dole out land to their friends? Maybe their corporation friends, but that's no different than the FS selling timber below cost to logging companies. It seems to me that the NPS is extremely focused on use, and they are under the DOI. Slugman has a good point that the wilderness areas are under the USDA which is focused on agriculture (aka harvesting) rather than protection as the NPS is in the DOI. You can have protection and use (DOI), but I don't think harvesting and use go together well (NFS), unless the use is just while waiting for the harvest. This seems to be the attitude of the NFS to me, at least outside the wilderness areas. Certainly harvesting and protection don't go together at all. Sounds to me like moving the wilderness areas out of the harvest department and into the protection/use department makes sense.
That was just a historical observation but there still is a distinction between how wild areas are managed between the two agencies. The national parks exclude certain types of use that are allowed on FS lands (hunting, in-holder activities, etc.). Only about 20% of the forest land administered by the FS in this state is available for timber harvest. And they only produce about 2% of the annual timber harvest in the state while controling over half of the total forestland. Doesn't seem to me that you could characterize them as a "harvest" department.

"Logging encourages the maintenance of foilage by providing economic alternatives to development."
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
MCaver
Founder



Joined: 14 Dec 2001
Posts: 5124 | TRs | Pics
MCaver
Founder
PostWed Oct 22, 2003 11:34 am 
Point taken about the 20%, but I'm more concerned with attitude. Numbers can change, and quickly. Am I incorrect in thinking that the NFS is concerned more with extraction (harvest wasn't really the best word, I admit) than with recreation? This isn't a rhetorical question, I really want to know. I'm still in the learning phase on this. Trying to get all the facts. On the surface, it seems the DOI would be a better fit for protection, but the BIA reference was a good point as well.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
kiliki
Member
Member


Joined: 07 Apr 2003
Posts: 2310 | TRs | Pics
Location: Seattle
kiliki
Member
PostWed Oct 22, 2003 12:03 pm 
Reposting my last post, as it addresses the question:
Quote:
The DOI's no picnic either-the primary job of most of their agencies deals with resource extraction (USGS, Office of Surface Mining, Minerals Mgmt Service, BuRec, BLM), when it comes down to it. Their director not long ago called the NPS the "world's largest lawn care service."
The NPS is the square peg in the round hole in the DOI. Maybe some lands would be managed better here than in the FS/USDA, but I don't know. If you want to know about the FS emphasis on resource extraction v. recreation, I would read one of the books I mentioned earlier, A Conspiracy of Optimism. One factor that hasn't been mentioned here so far that seems relevant is that HALF the FS budget goes into firefighting. It seems like this should be taken into account when we are talking about why there seems to be so few dollars for recreation.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Timber Cruiser
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 220 | TRs | Pics
Location: Cosi
Timber Cruiser
Member
PostWed Oct 22, 2003 1:11 pm 
The main objectives in creating the National Forests were to prevent their destruction by fire and reckless cutting, "...to save the timber for the use of the people and to hold the mountain forests as great sponges to give out steady flows of water for use in the fertile valleys below". These are Gifford Pinchot's words found in The Use of the National Forests, a "Use Book" from 1907. The use of the NF's was primarily aimed at opening up the west and included building rails, trails, reservoirs, etc. .."wherever they are needed, as long as they do no unnecessary damage to the forest." Recreation was also considered as a benefit but an incidental one. Since the Mulitiple Use Act of 1960, the pendulum has swung towards the other extreme, partly by design, but mainly due to other legislation such as the Endangered Species Act. It (Multiple Use Act)mandates that ..forest purposes shall be the enhancement of recreation, soil, range, timber, watershed, wildlife, fishing, mining - "based on the most judicious use of the land for some or all of these resources."

"Logging encourages the maintenance of foilage by providing economic alternatives to development."
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
troutman
Member
Member


Joined: 27 Jun 2003
Posts: 89 | TRs | Pics
troutman
Member
PostWed Oct 22, 2003 2:39 pm 
Logging state
Not to undermine what anyone has stated but I don't think logging has slowed down that much here in Washington. We don't see much of it because it is under a curtain to keep citizens from being outraged. During his visit to Washington and Oregon, the Bush administration has committed to more than double the amount of logging in public forests west of the Cascades -- including old-growth trees -- to meet the original goals of the 1994 Northwest Forest Plan. Here is a partial list of Bush's environmental rollbacks: Curtailing public participation in public lands management by weakening the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Refusing to defend the Roadless Area Rule in court when sued by timber corporations and the offroad vehicle industry. “Settling” a lawsuit filed by the home building industry and eliminating the designation of critical habitat for dozens of threatened salmon species. Reversing the phase-out of snowmobiles in national parks. Making it easier for companies to mine gold, copper and zinc on public lands. Blocking the reintroduction of grizzly bears in the Northwest. Making it easier for developers to eliminate wetlands. Approving the largest timber salvage operation in the nation's history in the Bitterroot National Forest. This openly avoided a public appeals process, and has since has been halted by the courts. He certainly isn't heping the logging communities either: http://www.registerguard.com/news/20020331/3c.cr.ruralaid.0331.html He will try to help pass the forest thinning act which is a federal policy in Canada already. Conservation isn't going nearly as fast as it should. We need to stop the govenrment spending allowances and double or triple taxation. We are already taxed so why do we need to pay additional taxes to access our public lands? The USFS is already subsidizing the timber industry with our own hard earned dollars. Why give the USFS more money? Please do not support the Fee Demo Program. Thanks

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11992 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
Member
PostWed Oct 22, 2003 3:17 pm 
Quote:
And yes the whole FS budget is a drop in an 87 billion bucket, none the less it shows where their priorities lie.
You mean their priorities follow the constitutional mandate with national defense as one of the primary roles of a govt? Gosh oh golly, what an outrageous priority.

Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Malachai Constant
Member
Member


Joined: 13 Jan 2002
Posts: 16088 | TRs | Pics
Location: Back Again Like A Bad Penny
Malachai Constant
Member
PostWed Oct 22, 2003 3:22 pm 
MtnGoat wrote:
Quote:
And yes the whole FS budget is a drop in an 87 billion bucket, none the less it shows where their priorities lie.
You mean their priorities follow the constitutional mandate with national defense as one of the primary roles of a govt? Gosh oh golly, what an outrageous priority.
Every thing the government does is under constitional mandate if it was not somebody would bring a suit and stop it confused.gif

"You do not laugh when you look at the mountains, or when you look at the sea." Lafcadio Hearn
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Tom
Admin



Joined: 15 Dec 2001
Posts: 17835 | TRs | Pics
Tom
Admin
PostWed Oct 22, 2003 3:39 pm 
Folks, please stay somewhat on topic. Political thread drift belongs in the saloon.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Malachai Constant
Member
Member


Joined: 13 Jan 2002
Posts: 16088 | TRs | Pics
Location: Back Again Like A Bad Penny
Malachai Constant
Member
PostWed Oct 22, 2003 4:35 pm 
It probably should be there anyway as it is and always has been talking about a pending bill. Doesn't get much more political than that.

"You do not laugh when you look at the mountains, or when you look at the sea." Lafcadio Hearn
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Allison
Feckless Swooner



Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 12287 | TRs | Pics
Location: putting on my Nikes before the comet comes
Allison
Feckless Swooner
PostWed Oct 22, 2003 4:58 pm 
troutman wrote:
Not to undermine what anyone has stated but I don't think logging has slowed down that much here in Washington. We don't see much of it because it is under a curtain to keep citizens from being outraged.
TM, this is simply not true. As I said before, my dad is a scaler. EVERY SINGLE TREE that gets cut down gets scaled. Bet you didn't know that a pretty nice stand of old-growth got cut off or 410 a few months back, huh? You know how I found out? THEY HAD TO BE SCALED. Dad called me. I tired to get the news media interested (though this cut was on private land), but the David Braim murder/suicide thing was taking up too much bandwidth. I am going to make an on-topic point here, hang on... In Western Washington, at the peak of cutting in the 80s, there were about 300 scalers in W Wa to scale all (public and private) logs that were cut. Today that number is around 75. That is for ALL logging, and represents about a 75% reduction in workforce in a field that indicates how much overall logging is occurring. I think there is still a perception that there is a lot of cutting taking place on public lands here, and it is simply no longer the case. For a number of reasons, including overcutting, there is nothing that is really ready to cut, and if it is, it is not being cut. Therefore revenue from cutting is way down. If you want a road to the trailhead, and a privy, and a trail and all of that, don't expect the FS to pull massive timber-associated cash out of their massive reserves, because they simply don't have it.

www.allisonoutside.com follow me on Twitter! @AllisonLWoods
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Tom
Admin



Joined: 15 Dec 2001
Posts: 17835 | TRs | Pics
Tom
Admin
PostWed Oct 22, 2003 5:27 pm 
Malachai Constant wrote:
It probably should be there anyway as it is and always has been talking about a pending bill. Doesn't get much more political than that.
Nothing wrong with politics in the TT forum as long as it's hiking related (fee demo, logging connection). When it devolves into R's vs. D's, Iraq, etc. there are topics in the saloon for this and the debate junkies should take it up there.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
troutman
Member
Member


Joined: 27 Jun 2003
Posts: 89 | TRs | Pics
troutman
Member
PostWed Oct 22, 2003 5:35 pm 
Allison, Are you SURE that you know exactly the amount of forests are deforested each year? Are you certain that the figures that you obtained are correct? Please show you evidence. Thank you.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Allison
Feckless Swooner



Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 12287 | TRs | Pics
Location: putting on my Nikes before the comet comes
Allison
Feckless Swooner
PostWed Oct 22, 2003 5:58 pm 
Timber Cruiser has put up a nice graph. Having grown up around the industry, I've seen this taking shape. Also had a conversation today with Jonathon Guzzo at WTA about the same subject, and he said basically the same thing my dad did, though through a different filter. JG is the Advocacy Director for the WTA, AKA "lobbyist", and resident expert, if you will. If you want more information, I encourage you to go out and get it on your own. I think the implication that the FS is somehow secretly logging is spurious. In order to do that, they would have to be breaking about a bazillion laws, and to do so not be in their interest. Just where have you seen this so-called logging taking place? Caver gave an example of some cutting he saw off of 410, but if you pull out your MBSNF map, you will see that there is no public land AT ALL between Enumclaw and Greenwater, and after GW it is checkerboard to the N of the road, and FS to the south. I too have seen some logging activity in that area (from the air, in a small plane, on a clear day, last August) and everything I saw was W of Greenwater. I do not doubt that a lot of people have the perception that there is a lot of cutting going on on FS land, but at least here in W Wa, there is no proof to back up that claim.

www.allisonoutside.com follow me on Twitter! @AllisonLWoods
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Slugman
It’s a Slugfest!



Joined: 27 Mar 2003
Posts: 16874 | TRs | Pics
Slugman
It’s a Slugfest!
PostWed Oct 22, 2003 9:28 pm 
You guys are arguing apples and oranges. ML means NFS harvesting only, but troutman appears to mean all timber cutting. There couldn't be no cutting going on if ML's father is still scaling logs. If private lands are providing timber, then we can afford to give the public lands a rest for a few decades.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
   All times are GMT - 8 Hours
 Reply to topic
Forum Index > Public Lands Stewardship > Bill to make fee demo permanent
  Happy Birthday speyguy, Bandanabraids!
Jump to:   
Search this topic:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum