No More Federal Land?

[baldopepper]

Much ado, never happen.

Couple phrases I've learned in my life to never use- "I'll never do it"  and "It'll never happen". Seems like that last one was commonly used years ago when our newly elected president first declared his intentions to run for president. Not much really surprises me anymore.

[slavenoid]

Don't assume the states will own or manage any of the land. The lawyer on the meat eater podcast pointed out the legal procedure is that the land would go to the highest bidder.

[BIGINNER]

Don't assume the states will own or manage any of the land. The lawyer on the meat eater podcast pointed out the legal procedure is that the land would go to the highest bidder.

That only applies if the last in transering to private ownership. It has to go on public auction, it cannot just be a private market sale. However if the land is being trasnfered from one government entity to another it is exempt from this rule, and can be transered without going to public auction.

[nwmein199]

Much ado, never happen.

According to the state of Utah, they filed this lawsuit based on “Decades of legal analysis”. Those decades started back in the 70s with the Sage Brush Rebellion Movement. This land grab is not new and will continue to happen - similar to how anti-hunting activists will never stop trying to end hunting. On the meat eater podcast it was stated that one reason this lawsuit was put out now is one of the Supreme Court justices mom helped start the sage brush rebellion movement. That’s also why the state of Utah did something out of the ordinary and went straight to the Supreme Court with this lawsuit.

[dwils233]

Much ado, never happen.

one of the Supreme Court justices mom helped start the sage brush rebellion movement.

Is that Gorsuch? I hadn't heard that before about his mom.

In general he is the most interesting of all the SC Judges, particularly his staunch positions on Tribal stuff which don't align with his party or even religious background. I think he is the justice to watch on this one...I could see him saying if it's not federal it needs to go back to the Tribes before it goes to the states

[baldopepper]

I don't suspect Utah would give up ownership if they got the land, they'd just lease or reward the use of it to private interests. Keep in mind this is the state that has given 200 quality hunting permits to a private interest to control. (Some what different subject, but research into it shows a lot of shady involvement typical of Utah)

[Fidelk]

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.............. 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.

After the disastrous and deadly 1910 fire season.......an emphasis was put on fighting forest fires. The USFS pretty much went to a policy of quickly and aggressively battling every fire start. This included the use of aviation. They were very good at stopping fires when they were fairly small. A lot of forest fuels built up as a result of this policy. Fire was largely taken out of it's role in managing forest health. This reduction in fire activity was probably more responsible for wildfire damage today as opposed to banning logging. I think the forests should be heavily logged and the wood used, since it's all going to burn up anyway. 

[CarbonHunter]

Don't assume the states will own or manage any of the land. The lawyer on the meat eater podcast pointed out the legal procedure is that the land would go to the highest bidder.

That only applies if the last in transering to private ownership. It has to go on public auction, it cannot just be a private market sale. However if the land is being trasnfered from one government entity to another it is exempt from this rule, and can be transered without going to public auction.

Federal land must first be offered to the state then the tribes before it can go up for public auction. There is a standing process for transferring of federal land and that is why the cattlemen who think it should be sold to them need to realize they are way down the pecking pole before they could even bid on it.

[baldopepper]

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.............. 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.

After the disastrous and deadly 1910 fire season.......an emphasis was put on fighting forest fires. The USFS pretty much went to a policy of quickly and aggressively battling every fire start. This included the use of aviation. They were very good at stopping fires when they were fairly small. A lot of forest fuels built up as a result of this policy. Fire was largely taken out of it's role in managing forest health. This reduction in fire activity was probably more responsible for wildfire damage today as opposed to banning logging. I think the forests should be heavily logged and the wood used, since it's all going to burn up anyway.

So, what do they do with all.that lumber once it's cut?  No company is going to go in and log it when they can't profitably sale it. Nation wide there are thousands of both public and private timberlands available for logging, but there's no profitable demand for it. Many of our forests need thinning and better control, but there's no easy answer for it.

[LDennis24]

Somebody needs to tell them about the Unlawful Inclosures Act... problem solved

[Fidelk]

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.............. 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.

After the disastrous and deadly 1910 fire season.......an emphasis was put on fighting forest fires. The USFS pretty much went to a policy of quickly and aggressively battling every fire start. This included the use of aviation. They were very good at stopping fires when they were fairly small. A lot of forest fuels built up as a result of this policy. Fire was largely taken out of it's role in managing forest health. This reduction in fire activity was probably more responsible for wildfire damage today as opposed to banning logging. I think the forests should be heavily logged and the wood used, since it's all going to burn up anyway.

So, what do they do with all.that lumber once it's cut?  No company is going to go in and log it when they can't profitably sale it. Nation wide there are thousands of both public and private timberlands available for logging, but there's no profitable demand for it. Many of our forests need thinning and better control, but there's no easy answer for it.

Lumber is a commodity......subject to ups and downs. A housing shortage should create a demand. Or, sell it to Japan. I was thinking that a ban on logging was counter productive in forests that are on fire. Are you saying that lumber prices are depressed and there is no profit to be had from logging federal lands? Didn't know that.

[JimmyHoffa]

Could just make it all military base, then move interior and ag under the Pentagon.  Let MWR control the access and hunting while WDFW goes to hug bunnies elsewhere.
Already see military aircraft training over fed land, seen SF on conditioning hikes in national parks.

[dwils233]

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.............. 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.

After the disastrous and deadly 1910 fire season.......an emphasis was put on fighting forest fires. The USFS pretty much went to a policy of quickly and aggressively battling every fire start. This included the use of aviation. They were very good at stopping fires when they were fairly small. A lot of forest fuels built up as a result of this policy. Fire was largely taken out of it's role in managing forest health. This reduction in fire activity was probably more responsible for wildfire damage today as opposed to banning logging. I think the forests should be heavily logged and the wood used, since it's all going to burn up anyway.

So, what do they do with all.that lumber once it's cut?  No company is going to go in and log it when they can't profitably sale it. Nation wide there are thousands of both public and private timberlands available for logging, but there's no profitable demand for it. Many of our forests need thinning and better control, but there's no easy answer for it.

Lumber is a commodity......subject to ups and downs. A housing shortage should create a demand. Or, sell it to Japan. I was thinking that a ban on logging was counter productive in forests that are on fire. Are you saying that lumber prices are depressed and there is no profit to be had from logging federal lands? Didn't know that.

The one thing I keep learning about logging is the complexity of the industry and financial networks. The distance to a mill has a huge impact on profitability (as does supply and demand), as well as other costs built into the contracts like stewardship work and removing green waste. then there is the secondary markets for chips and sawdust, contractor availability, sunk costs in equipment.... Every time I learn more about the timber industry, the more I'm impressed by the folks that can succeed in it.

When the market drops or supply runs slow, it's the local mills that close down. those mills are the ones that had the potential to make a profitable product with lower overhead and proximity to the forest...once the mills close, there's no one to take the logs coming out of the forest. ...exacerbating the fuels buildup.

That said, plenty of logs still come off the forest from prescriptions that call for the removal of a lots of timber. It's just a very delicate balance that can have catastrophic long-term consequences when it goes a little sideways

[baldopepper]

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.............. 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.

After the disastrous and deadly 1910 fire season.......an emphasis was put on fighting forest fires. The USFS pretty much went to a policy of quickly and aggressively battling every fire start. This included the use of aviation. They were very good at stopping fires when they were fairly small. A lot of forest fuels built up as a result of this policy. Fire was largely taken out of it's role in managing forest health. This reduction in fire activity was probably more responsible for wildfire damage today as opposed to banning logging. I think the forests should be heavily logged and the wood used, since it's all going to burn up anyway.

So, what do they do with all.that lumber once it's cut?  No company is going to go in and log it when they can't profitably sale it. Nation wide there are thousands of both public and private timberlands available for logging, but there's no profitable demand for it. Many of our forests need thinning and better control, but there's no easy answer for it.

Lumber is a commodity......subject to ups and downs. A housing shortage should create a demand. Or, sell it to Japan. I was thinking that a ban on logging was counter productive in forests that are on fire. Are you saying that lumber prices are depressed and there is no profit to be had from logging federal lands? Didn't know that.

Lumber, like most of our natural resources  is controlled by a few large corporations. They are very good at matching supply to profitable (profitable being the key word) demand.  They have no interest in seeing huge tracts of national forests opened to logging and upsetting the supply level they diligently control. They are way more responsible for the demise of small logging and mill operations than anything the forest service did. Kind of the same thing happened to small, independent gas stations.  Big boys keep control of the supply and make sure it's kept at profitable levels.  States like Utah want a piece of that pie.  What we don't comprehend is what a big, profitable business hunting is becoming.  Just look at the prices being paid for special privilege hunts. Very naive to think there aren't some big interests looking to get control of that supply also. Currently mostly controlled on a state level, so give states more to work with as they are easier and cheaper to influence and control than the feds.

[nwmein199]

Good news!

https://www.outdoorlife.com/conservation/supreme-court-declines-utah-public-lands-lawsuit/