RMEF opposes transfer of federal lands

[stuckalot]

KF &Tex you're leaving out the potential revenue and fire risk reduction if those lands were to be properly managed, which currently they're not.

Sorry I can't figure out how to post the links but here are a couple graphs.

Good story in the Yakima herald about the Snag Creek fire and the role logging played in stopping it. And different agencies approaches to management. 

[bearpaw]

The DNR manages our forests by logging that benefits our economy, makes healthier forests, funds our schools, plus that logging results in better forage and ultimately better hunting. I see better access and opportunities for all types of recreation on state land than on USFS which is increasingly locked up from citizen use. I see the USFS as a bloated agency controlled by environmental extremists that does exactly the opposite of DNR. The forests are unhealthy and the USFS eats up more and more taxpayer money. I would like to see states assume management of federal lands, our citizens and economies would benefit, forests would benefit, and our herds would benefit.

If there was better management I would not feel this way but the situation is pretty self explanatory. State lands benefit us all while federal lands cost us all. 

[turbo]

Yah, the feds do a better job... Riiiiiighhht. 

Another reason I don't support the RMEF!

[bigtex]

I see better access and opportunities for all types of recreation on state land than on USFS which is increasingly locked up from citizen use.

Really? There is more acreage of DNR land that is inaccessible (landlocked, etc) then there is USFS land in WA. There is more DNR land in WA closed to target shooting in WA then there is USFS. There are DNR lands in WA completely closed to hunting, there is no USFS land in WA closed to hunting. Should I go on?

[idahohuntr]

I see better access and opportunities for all types of recreation on state land than on USFS which is increasingly locked up from citizen use.

Really? There is more acreage of DNR land that is inaccessible (landlocked, etc) then there is USFS land in WA. There is more DNR land in WA closed to target shooting in WA then there is USFS. There are DNR lands in WA completely closed to hunting, there is no USFS land in WA closed to hunting. Should I go on?

I would also add that even the most aggressive state logging plans would not produce many board feet on many millions of acres of BLM ground...where there are no trees!! 

Overall, it would be a disaster if these states got what they asked for...thankfully it will never happen.  RMEF was just taking a stand on the rhetoric.

[Elkaholic daWg]

I see better access and opportunities for all types of recreation on state land than on USFS which is increasingly locked up from citizen use.

Really? There is more acreage of DNR land that is inaccessible (landlocked, etc) then there is USFS land in WA. There is more DNR land in WA closed to target shooting in WA then there is USFS. There are DNR lands in WA completely closed to hunting, there is no USFS land in WA closed to hunting. Should I go on?

 

there are other types of access  besides foot bigtex

[bigtex]

I see better access and opportunities for all types of recreation on state land than on USFS which is increasingly locked up from citizen use.

Really? There is more acreage of DNR land that is inaccessible (landlocked, etc) then there is USFS land in WA. There is more DNR land in WA closed to target shooting in WA then there is USFS. There are DNR lands in WA completely closed to hunting, there is no USFS land in WA closed to hunting. Should I go on?

 
there are other types of access  besides foot bigtex

So we should be okay with inaccessible DNR land because hey, we can all go rent a helicopter/plane to drop us off?

[bigtex]

I see better access and opportunities for all types of recreation on state land than on USFS which is increasingly locked up from citizen use.

Really? There is more acreage of DNR land that is inaccessible (landlocked, etc) then there is USFS land in WA. There is more DNR land in WA closed to target shooting in WA then there is USFS. There are DNR lands in WA completely closed to hunting, there is no USFS land in WA closed to hunting. Should I go on?

I would also add that even the most aggressive state logging plans would not produce many board feet on many millions of acres of BLM ground...where there are no trees!! 

Overall, it would be a disaster if these states got what they asked for...thankfully it will never happen.  RMEF was just taking a stand on the rhetoric.

Don't you know there's a lot of timber value in sagebrush? 

[Elkaholic daWg]

  You got it backwards tex......... I'm talking motorized access where the feds (Forest circus) are trying to decommission as much as they can while creating defacto wildernesses through their  policies also. 

[fireweed]

Do not believe it will happen en masse, but a few areas transferred to state ownership might make sense as a pilot project:  Areas intermixed with existing state land, areas that have been intensely logged in the past, areas close to towns that need expedited thinning/fire prevention.  The State should be banned from selling these lands and should take multi-use seriously on anything they get from the feds.  It could also be a "management" transfer, where technically the feds still own it, but the state practices manage it.

Clearly, the feds are trapped in a cycle of paperwork, litigation, study to get a single tree cut.  They lose money logging because of all the administrative/enviro/red tape costs.  The debate about transferring land to states is valuable because it might spur Congress to fix analysis paralysis on Fed lands (wishful thinking??).   Access problems exist in both: the feds want access but don't have the $ for easements, the state doesn't care as much about public access and doesn't want the extra costs even if it could afford it. 

[bearpaw]

I see better access and opportunities for all types of recreation on state land than on USFS which is increasingly locked up from citizen use.

Really? There is more acreage of DNR land that is inaccessible (landlocked, etc) then there is USFS land in WA. There is more DNR land in WA closed to target shooting in WA then there is USFS. There are DNR lands in WA completely closed to hunting, there is no USFS land in WA closed to hunting. Should I go on?

I would also add that even the most aggressive state logging plans would not produce many board feet on many millions of acres of BLM ground...where there are no trees!! 

Overall, it would be a disaster if these states got what they asked for...thankfully it will never happen.  RMEF was just taking a stand on the rhetoric.

There are also very large tracks of USFS being proposed as parks that will be closed to hunting if approved. 

There is more acreage of DNR land that is inaccessible (landlocked, etc) then there is USFS land in WA.

So has DNR actually closed those lands or are they simply landlocked? Big difference! Apples and Oranges

I see better access and opportunities for all types of recreation on state land than on USFS which is increasingly locked up from citizen use.

Really? There is more acreage of DNR land that is inaccessible (landlocked, etc) then there is USFS land in WA. There is more DNR land in WA closed to target shooting in WA then there is USFS. There are DNR lands in WA completely closed to hunting, there is no USFS land in WA closed to hunting. Should I go on?

I would also add that even the most aggressive state logging plans would not produce many board feet on many millions of acres of BLM ground...where there are no trees!! 

Overall, it would be a disaster if these states got what they asked for...thankfully it will never happen.  RMEF was just taking a stand on the rhetoric.

BLM is usually more grazing type land.     But aren't they trying to shut that down too! 

Much of the USFS used to be logged and was productive land. Now the USFS land has become nothing more than unhealthy forests full of wildfires that cost taxpayers (you and I) money due to the enviro extremists who mismanage it and want to turn it into wilderness and parks. If turned over to the states that land could become productive land again that contributes to America's economy and no longer costs taxpayers money to keep in a state of little or no use with increasing wildfire hazards. You may be right that USFS land will never become state land, but you cannot dispute the fact that the USFS is costing taxpayers millions while at the same time state forests are allowing multiple use and making money for states and contributing to economies.

If any land exchange did happen I would of course agree that the net acreage could not be sold off. Trades might be good for making management easier, but I don't think any of us want our public lands sold off, we just want better management. 

[KFhunter]

They do need better management that's for sure.

My fear is the unknown, what the state would do with it 10, 20, 100 years or more down the road?  Will my great grand-kids have unfettered access to the CNF? 


timber prices would fall out the bottom if all fed lands were turned over all at once and states forced to log it for revenue

[bearpaw]

They do need better management that's for sure.

My fear is the unknown, what the state would do with it 10, 20, 100 years or more down the road?  Will my great grand-kids have unfettered access to the CNF? 


timber prices would fall out the bottom if all fed lands were turned over all at once and states forced to log it for revenue

I also share some of your concerns. I don't think we will see a sudden land exchange in all the states so I doubt we need to worry about timber prices.

[Special T]

I think states Like WA it would be a bad Idea mostly because the state would attack our ability to use the land in a different way than the USFS. I think in other states say ID, MT UT it would likely be really good.

It should be obvious to anyone  is the REASON why certain states want control. They see how the USFS does NOT manage the lands in the best interests of the citizens of that state. I think the Cost of management stated for USFS lands is bloated with inefficiency and political workings instead of boots on the ground management.

Here is the Kicker. Since a wave of the magic wand won't prevent Nazi Green groups from suing and getting injunctions THAT portion of the cost wont go away, OR make it any easier to Log or keep roads open. I am NO fan of the USFS, but if you don't take away some/all of the frivolous BS they have to deal with your trading the devil you know for the one you don't. 

[bigtex]

There is more acreage of DNR land that is inaccessible (landlocked, etc) then there is USFS land in WA.

So has DNR actually closed those lands or are they simply landlocked? Big difference! Apples and Oranges

There is no land in WA that the USFS has flat out said "No Entry." DNR has a ton of land in WA that you can't even get into without some type of helicopter/airplane.

DNR owns a good portion of the Green River watershed. Illegal to access per the City of Tacoma, illegal to hunt without a very few special permits, etc.