Our public land rights could be in peril

[haus]

The meeting dates and locations are on the first page of the website.

This could be a good thing and might help protect our public land from mismanagement and from development or poorly managed resource extraction.   It doesn't appear to be a threat to hunting.

Oh absolutely I agree, this initiative is totally genuine! I mean obviously because it says nothing about hunting. and your damn right about the mismanagement of extracting our natural resources and protecting our lands from development. I'm glad someone has taken the lead on protecting our public lands and has drawn up an initiative to get America's youth interested in the outdoors again...talk about genuine!!!






















  sarcasm off....
I think I just threw up in my mouth a lil' bit. 
Someone get the koolaid out of WC's hands before he finishes the glass off

[WAcoyotehunter]

Park the sarcasm and tell me how mining, poor logging practices, oil well leases, and overgrazing on public land helping our hunting heritage? 

Here is the opening line from the Video on the website posted by BBarnes.

Each one of us seeks the outdoors for many reasons; to relax, to play, to hunt and fish, to exercise, to learn; to spend time with our family, to be refreshed and even inspired

[haus]

Park the sarcasm and tell me how mining, poor logging practices, oil well leases, and overgrazing on public land helping our hunting heritage?  

Here is the opening line from the Video on the website posted by BBarnes.

Each one of us seeks the outdoors for many reasons; to relax, to play, to hunt and fish, to exercise, to learn; to spend time with our family, to be refreshed and even inspired

Tell me how crushing natural resource activity on our public lands in the mid 90's worked out for our rural communittee's? Do you know what happened to communittee's like Morton or Aberdeen? Did you witness any of this? Do you feel any of it was justified? Do you recall what our national forests looked like and how wildlife populations were doing prior to the mid 1990s during these 'poor logging practice' years? Yes I previously saw the words you so clearly highlighted in red, but thanks again for pointing them out, and again I'll say 'because it says nothing about hunting!' Because it says nothing about everything! WC this is political fluff, it warms the heart and speaks volumes to liberal minds. I applaud the president for his tactics, he knows his supporters thats for sure.


Regardless, I'll be at the meeting, but I wont be thirsty  

[WAcoyotehunter]

I'm glad to hear that you'll be there.  Hopefully this will turn into something beneficial to wildlife and the places we enjoy and will be a step towards the stated goal of getting people out and enjoying nature and the outdoors.

I can see what is happening in the forests now, with degraded stream conditions/water quality due to overgrazing, poor logging practices and roads.  I can also see horrible weed infestations caused by increased traffic and logging.  It's plain to see that we're taking a toll on the resource.  I don't mind logging, and I love beef; but that land belongs to all of us and we should take better care of it.   

[CastleRocker]

  And after it's all said and done you learn that the sierra club, wilderness society, and defenders of wildlife are the same people. That's right.... USFWS and DOW  share a common leader. Lead one before the other after.
 Do you have any examples of USFS, BLM etc. land  being developed into anything other than ski areas? or mismanaged resources?

And after the miners, loggers, and developers have their way we will have no wildlife to worry about, or habitat to enjoy.  I tend to lean towards more regulation on our public land because a few people getting rich at our expense (or that of our lands) does not interest me. 

Did you just put "loggers" in the same category as "miners, and developers"?  Please tell me you didn't!  Oh brother!  I could spend the rest of my afternoon typing to explain how it was the loggers who INVENTED reforestation!  Why did they come up with such a thing?  Oh, I guess it was only to make more money from the use of the same land.  (That's why trees are called a "renewable resource"). 

However, once a parcel is mined, there is NO WAY to replant the land and have it grow new minerals. 

I'm done typing.  Too many years humped over a chainsaw have diminished my typing skills, and my hands are now asleep.  Next time you can wipe your ass with a Spotted Owl, or better yet; save the planet by using "virtual toilet paper".  I read about it on the internet; it must be true.
Also, once the land is chopped up and there is a housing development on it, there is no way to undo it, undeveloped it and do it again.  Do you live in a housing development by any chance?

It sounds like "we" should really show up.  If for no other reason, than to educate away some ignorance.

Please don't combine all the different user groups into one.  They are NOT the same.  The problem starts when people who don't know any better, read the "loggers, miners, and developers" all lumped into one and believe it.  It's comes under that "I saw it on the internet; it must be real"!

[WAcoyotehunter]

You have a pretty good point, there is a difference in mining and logging.  Hopefully you'll notice that I mention "poor logging practices" which, to me, means building roads all over hell and gone (major contributor to erosion, traffic, weed spreading...) and exposing mineral soils on slopes, which causes much of the same problems.  I didn't intend to offend the loggers, but let's face it- much of our timberlands have been beat up pretty bad.   

Reforestation plantings are well and good.  It would be better if they would require reseeding grasses and forbes as well to help encourage native plant establishment after a harvest. 

[haus]

I'm glad to hear that you'll be there.  Hopefully this will turn into something beneficial to wildlife and the places we enjoy and will be a step towards the stated goal of getting people out and enjoying nature and the outdoors.

I can see what is happening in the forests now, with degraded stream conditions/water quality due to overgrazing, poor logging practices and roads.  I can also see horrible weed infestations caused by increased traffic and logging.  It's plain to see that we're taking a toll on the resource.  I don't mind logging, and I love beef; but that land belongs to all of us and we should take better care of it.   

Yes when you are logging, driving a vehicle, grazing cattle, and maintaining roads there is a noticeable footprint left behind. So? Whats wrong with that? It sounds like your saying we shouldn't do these at all because of the negative results? Now instead of profitable land that sustains local economies we replace it with land that debts taxpayers?  How do we diversify the habitat without profitable natural resource businesses like logging and ranching? Well the government is going to hire people to care for the habitat!  So we're going rob Peter in order to pay Paul? Nice solution.   

just as a reference, this is the current timber harvest. So I don't know where all of this evil logging is being conducted on federal land, I don't see it in the stats and I haven't seen it when I've been in our NF's.

Gifford Pinchot National Forest
Total Size - 1.37 million acres
fiscal year 2009. October 1, 2008 - September 30, 2009:
Total Timber Harvest: 21.2 mbf

Mt. Baker - Snoqualmie National Forest
Total Size - 1.72 million acres
Fiscal Year 2007
Total Timber Harvest: 12.7 mbf

What we need is moderation where all forms of outdoor recreation and natural resource harvest share the land at managed levels of use that limits the negative aspects and maximizes the positive aspects of our activities. Our presence doesn't cause the environment to automatically suffer, there are rewards. It seems your solely focused on the negative impact, much like environmentalists. Man isn't bad you know, there is nothing wrong with harvesting from our land. It's a matter of how we conduct that harvest.

[WAcoyotehunter]

I agree that we can make a sustainable harvest without destroying our wildlands, that's kind of what I've been saying.  We need to do things better, and efforts like the one BBarnes posted here are not necessarily bad things.  they might actually make a difference for the better... I guess I am willing to pay a little more for lumber to have healthy forests and cover the costs of weed control, road obliteration, proper road construction, gates...whatever.

IMO- what we should do is reseed and obliterate unnecessary roads, reseed and 'fix up' logged areas, not put roads adjacent to streams, fence stream banks and allow cattle only in hardened water areas, spray weeds and encourage weed free hay/feed.  Things could be different without them being worse.

Ranchers and loggers should be welcome on public land, as long as they pay the true cost of business.  That will likely include some habitat work.  Just like mines should reclaim the land when they leave a site...

[logger]

Loggers do pay the true cost, when dealing with the gov. you can't help but pay.The forest service dosen't manage anything anymore. Your right it does need to be wise manegement but also wise multiple use.I live eat and breath this stuff everyday and what is reported in the media is not always acurate.

[wolfbait]

I think in order to get any responsible management there needs to be some people in those departments who haven't leaned everything they know out of a book! Take the USFS who dictate how you will log and apply the restrictions written up by someone who has never logged, knows zippo. Example: clear cuts to manage for diseases while leaving a wildlife area in the middle that is full of what they are logging to get rid of. Logging the same area every two or three years. Logging using the selective cut prescriptions instead of clear cuts with special areas for treatment of diseases would be a great improvement. I have seen areas we logged this way thirty years ago and you would never know it was logged, no eye sore what so ever. Before the Spotted owl, logging was used to thin the forest now the so called "controlled burns" leave waste and more fuel in many areas than before they tried to treat it. Jobs lost, school money lost, all of it going up in flame. New management is needed!

Range Management now has come along way since the old days, now springs are fenced off, cattle are moved on schedule. Cattle actually improve wildlife habitat, take deer, cows will eat on the old bitter brush which promotes new growth for the deer herds. Cows that are ranged in elk country will eat the old grass which in turn promote new grass, in a study conducted in Montana it showed the elk were following the cattle. Ranchers own a lot of land in the valleys where they raise hay for their cattle, much of their land is teaming with deer and elk. If the Ranchers loose their grazing permits, then they no longer can raise cows, therefore they will have to sell the home place, breaking it up into more development.

Think of all the jobs lost with the public lands closed. The carrot that tourism will make up the loss is total BS.

[WAcoyotehunter]

Range Management now has come along way since the old days, now springs are fenced off, cattle are moved on schedule. Cattle actually improve wildlife habitat, take deer, cows will eat on the old bitter brush which promotes new growth for the deer herds. Cows that are ranged in elk country will eat the old grass which in turn promote new grass, in a study conducted in Montana it showed the elk were following the cattle. Ranchers own a lot of land in the valleys where they raise hay for their cattle, much of their land is teaming with deer and elk. If the Ranchers loose their grazing permits, then they no longer can raise cows, therefore they will have to sell the home place, breaking it up into more development.

Think of all the jobs lost with the public lands closed. The carrot that tourism will make up the loss is total BS.

That's a good point, and I agree- cattle can be used as a tool.  Proper use is the key to all of the management decisions. 

I also agree that the tourism stuff is a joke....

[haus]

I agree that we can make a sustainable harvest without destroying our wildlands, that's kind of what I've been saying.  We need to do things better, and efforts like the one BBarnes posted here are not necessarily bad things.  they might actually make a difference for the better... I guess I am willing to pay a little more for lumber to have healthy forests and cover the costs of weed control, road obliteration, proper road construction, gates...whatever.

IMO- what we should do is reseed and obliterate unnecessary roads, reseed and 'fix up' logged areas, not put roads adjacent to streams, fence stream banks and allow cattle only in hardened water areas, spray weeds and encourage weed free hay/feed.  Things could be different without them being worse.

Ranchers and loggers should be welcome on public land, as long as they pay the true cost of business.  That will likely include some habitat work.  Just like mines should reclaim the land when they leave a site...

While the idea is promising, when applied to the political realities of our society it is a risky proposition for loggers and ranchers to embrace, though it's better than nothing at all. The establishment of these expenses could easily be used to push ranchers and loggers off of public land by forcing up the cost of doing business. It all comes down to who's controlling and deciding what the 'true cost of business' really is. Environmentalists and liberals could lobby to increase the taxation, they've used such methods in the past. Specifically against forms of outdoor recreation they're opposed to, such as atv'ing/motorcycling and snowmobiling. Their well aware that working class American's are easily deterred from these activities when facing rising federal/state fee's and greater restrictions. Though concurrently it has bit them in the ass at times when government agencies become dependent upon the income being generated from the fee's, which causes the agencies to ensure no actions are taken that would deter participation.

This scenario plays out in our WDFW too. We generate a massive amount of income that flows through our  through enjoying our tradition to hunt. I realize that we often belly ache about the increasing fee's we have to pay to the WDFW, but we need to remind ourselves that money talks. When we pay more we are also increasing the governments dependency upon us, we are increasing our value. All that is left to do is for us to capitalize on our value.

It really isn't too complex or difficult to protect our tradition because of the value we bring by enjoying it, the hard part is getting us all lumped together so that we become one voice. 







....Bearpaw should add 'Professional Cat Herder' to his resume 

[Special T]

Often time business reacts as a direct result of government interference... Take the spottel owl issue for example... At the time many acres that were unaffected by the spotted owls were logged prematurely before the complete cycle of clearcut to mature timber was compleated.... Why was it done? Because private landowners and loggers are evil? No because many people decided it was better to have half a loaf than none at all... Many felt that if they didn't log off early they might never get the chance.... I think it is much easier to steer private industry than most think... Take for example all the tax breaks that end in December.... Many business will try extra hard to maximize their taxable revenue this year... Why would a business want to pay more taxes this year? Because taxes are taking a huge jump next year.....   If you follow the money and who gets what why you normally get the proper answer.... We seldom get the intended outcome from our state Gov because they are not rational/understand basic business and economics... 

[Elkaholic daWg]

Environmentalists and liberals could lobby to increase the taxation, they've used such methods in the past. Specifically against forms of outdoor recreation they're opposed to, such as atv'ing/motorcycling and snowmobiling.

....Bearpaw should add 'Professional Cat Herder' to his resume  

 Sorry, forgot this part





 Yes they do! and as I before stated, they (DOW, wilderness society, sierra club) all are basically the same people.  They will use you when they need you, until they don't  (need you)and you are their next target. Still haven't seen a comment about how their types would love to increase the size of NCNP, locking hunters out of more area WC. Also remember bbarnes starting a thread about stopping Mount St Helens
from becoming a National Park which would do the same if it happened.

[wolfbait]

Lets not forget about the American Alps Legacy Project envisions a bigger, better national park,The American Alps project would protect critical watershed landscape features; extend wildlife corridors and non-motorized recreation opportunities. The environmentalists pick these wolves to gain control of the land with rulings through the ESA. They have done it with the spotted owl, the salmon, and the list goes on. NOTE: The area being studied for more protection includes land on both sides of Highway 20 just a few miles past Mazama.
 


http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/706/Its_time_to_reclaim_our_rights.html

It's time to reclaim our rights - by Dean Finch - Environment & Climate News

Environment & Climate News > January 2002
Email a Friend
Written By: Dean Finch
Published In: Environment & Climate News > January 2002
Publication date: 01/01/2002
Publisher: The Heartland Institute

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Once again, the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has proven itself to be subservient to radical environmental groups, stopping the salvage of dead and dying trees in northern Idaho and eastern Washington.

Bark beetle and tussock moth infestations, in epidemic proportions, have invaded prime timber. It would be logical to salvage those valuable trees, but radicals have sued the U.S. Forest Service preventing that from happening--preferring, apparently, to allow a valuable resource to rot in the forest.

By the time the Forest Service can get the court stay lifted, the trees will likely be useless.

Time after time, the anti-logging environmentalists act in ways that guarantee a valuable resource--one that would provide jobs and stability to a local economy--goes unused, eventually contributing to the long-term fire hazard in our forests. They have one goal in mind: to stop all human use of the Earth's natural resources.

For the most part, the media swallow the environmentalists' line without checking the facts. More often than not, there are few to be found. Scare tactics, half-truths, biased computer models, and "feel good" statements for the public are the tools of the environmentalists' trade.


Managing resources makes sense

The Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, and state forestry and range personnel try to make some sense of managing our valuable forest and range resources. But they have little hope of success until the Endangered Species Act and EPA regulations can be rewritten to permit sensible, professional management of forests, rangelands, and waterways.

The radical environmentalists use the spotted owl to stop timber harvests, and bull trout and salmon to close down entire forest regions. Salmon and suckers are now being used to take away long-established water rights. Wolves and grizzly bears can shut down ranching and close remote areas to use by man. When challenged, the radical environmentalists appeal to the federal appellate court most likely to respond in their favor.

In southern Oregon, the radical environmentalists are about to succeed in their goal of removing farmers and ranchers from the Klamath Basin. In the name of suckers and salmon, the environmentalists succeeded in diverting much-needed irrigation water away from the Klamath Basin humans. If the environmentalists hold true to past patterns of behavior, their next step will be to ask the government to buy out hundreds of farmers and ranchers: the beginning of the end of farming and ranching in the Klamath Basin.


Private property under siege

Ownership of private property--and the right to use that property--has been essential to the American way of life since the country's founding. Now socialists, under the guise of environmentalism, are using ESA and EPA regulations to drive private property owners from their land.

The Conservation and Reinvestment Act (CARA) is a key part of the socialist-environmentalist agenda in the U.S. CARA would give the radical environmentalists hundreds of millions of dollars with which to drive private landholders from their property. Passage of CARA in its present form, granting condemnation powers to the environmentalists and to out-of-control federal agencies, would be a disaster to landholders in the West.

The large dams on the Snake and Boise rivers are next on their hit list. The environmentalists have the ability, through the federal courts, to shut down Snake River transportation, irrigation, and electrical projects, just as they have shut down most of the area's logging and mining.

These dams all come up for re-licensing in the next 10 years. The radical environmentalists have already begun their attack, by demanding major changes in the dams' operation and, in some cases, demanding their total removal from the rivers. Even the mighty Columbia River power dams are not safe from environmentalist lawsuits and the Ninth Circuit appellate court.

It's high time elected officials revise and make some sense of the ESA and EPA rules and regulations. Science, not rhetoric, should guide our management of rivers, forests, and rangeland. Man should have equal status with fish, birds, animals, and plants. Time is running out.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dean Finch is a retired professional forester.