Community > Advocacy, Agencies, Access
No More Federal Land?
Fidelk:
--- Quote from: nwmein199 on December 19, 2024, 10:53:28 AM ---
States that currently ban target shooting on public lands: California, Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico. Those 4 states currently have 130,000,000 acres of federal land. If this were to go through, you would lose to ability to target shoot on over 130,000,000 acres of public land. You would loose access to camping on 23,500,000 acres in Colorado if this were to go through. You would loose access to camping on 30,000,000 acres in Wyoming.
--- End quote ---
I don't think that any State can impose its rules on "federal land". The federal government has Supremacy.
dwils233:
--- Quote from: pianoman9701 on December 19, 2024, 02:21:40 PM ---A solid argument could be made that the USDA and FS's banning of logging on federal lands since the 1980s is responsible for the intense damage caused by wildfires today...all supposedly done to protect the spotted owl, among other excuses, an owl that we know doesn't need old growth to survive and is in fact being killed off...by another owl. This clearly demonstrates the inability of the federal government to manage anything other than the military and maybe, the Treasury. With a return to responsible forestry, it's quite possible that the states could successfully manage those lands more efficiently and wouldn't have the disastrous wildfires to deal with.
--- End quote ---
USFS doesn't have a ban on logging federal lands. I was literally in an active logging unit today watching some work get done. It absolutely changed in the late 80's/early 90's but even the most hardened forester I know these days will concede that our forestry practices for much of the 20th century were unsustainable and ecologically unsound. The pendulum swung from one extreme to the other, but logging has never full-stopped. It needs to be efficient and effective, and balanced for intentional outcomes....you can't do those things fast or at the scale needed right now, but plenty of folks are trying (and it only takes a few to slow things down).
Millions upon millions of board feet come off FS lands in WA each year. We just have 10's of millions that constantly need treatment
baldopepper:
There are several factors involved with Utah wanting control of federal lands and logging really plays no part in it. Locals are more interested in expanding cheap grazing rights, expansion of tourism development and, in some cases, gaining control of hunting access. Using the mandate to maximize profit that state will turn everything it can over to private interests. Free camping, hiking, hunting etc will be relegated to those areas that are not generally desirable. If this lawsuit becomes successful we will see changes in the western states that the majority of us won't like.
bigtex:
--- Quote from: pianoman9701 on December 19, 2024, 03:18:34 PM ---
--- Quote from: bigtex on December 19, 2024, 03:11:29 PM ---
--- Quote from: pianoman9701 on December 19, 2024, 02:21:40 PM ---A solid argument could be made that the USDA and FS's banning of logging on federal lands since the 1980s is responsible for the intense damage caused by wildfires today...all supposedly done to protect the spotted owl, among other excuses, an owl that we know doesn't need old growth to survive and is in fact being killed off...by another owl. This clearly demonstrates the inability of the federal government to manage anything other than the military and maybe, the Treasury. With a return to responsible forestry, it's quite possible that the states could successfully manage those lands more efficiently and wouldn't have the disastrous wildfires to deal with.
--- End quote ---
You want the incoming DNR Public Lands Commisisoner who wants to see less logging on DNR lands to take over all fed lands in WA? It'd be a disaster.
USFS has cut more timber in the past decade then the past 30 years. It'll never be like it used to be, but things are slowly improving.
Some states don't even allow public access to state land, or severely restrict it. We're lucky here in WA where we really have unfettered access to state lands, people in other states aren't so lucky.
Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk
--- End quote ---
I'm confused by your first comment and your last comment. Are we lucky or unlucky? Those two comments are seemingly contradictory. Is the incoming commissioner going to take away our access or not?
--- End quote ---
Well im confused on how you're confused.
You appear to say that states may do more logging if they controlled the land. May be true for most states but not in WA where the incoming DNR Commissioner wants to cut back on logging.
My only comment on access is in the last paragraph where I say we have unfettered access to state lands in WA as compared to many other states.
Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk
Humptulips:
Much ado, never happen.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version