State Ownership vs Federal

BigHornRam · Oct 29, 2017

There is some benefit to state ownership, at least at this point in time.

http://missoulian.com/news/state-an...cle_58b2a374-9219-5b7d-989a-984bae86673b.html

For those that think thinning is a waste of time and money, pay close attention..........

"The trees on some of the wildlife management area were thick and “really stunted,” he said. “Two years ago, we did a thinning operation there on about 250 acres. That's where we’re finding most of the remaining live trees. I’m really glad we did that thinning project.”"

Hope the Forest Service can get their stuff together sooner than later.

Straight Arrow · Oct 29, 2017

There is some benefit to state ownership, at least at this point in time.

Applying a microcosmic 250 acre example of one state forestry project to USFS forestry management of millions of acres is once again illustration of the adeptness of PLT advocates to compare apples to pumpkins. Undoubtedly it makes complete sense to you; for most you "can't apply logic where logic does not exist". Likely there are examples of USFS thinning projects with similar positive results. Your example is interesting and worthy of replicating in certain specific areas, particularly in the appropriate urban wildland interface forested tracts ... whether private, state or federal lands. To advocate for thinning and proactive logging on the millions and millions of acres of US National Forest public lands and Canadian Forest public lands and to then regularly return to repeat the enormous projects ... thinking it will prevent or mitigate wildland fires is absurd in my opinion.

AND it falls way short of reasonable and rationale arguments making a case for PLT.

BigHornRam · Oct 29, 2017

Straight Arrow said:
Applying a microcosmic 250 acre example of one state forestry project to USFS forestry management of millions of acres is once again illustration of the adeptness of PLT advocates to compare apples to pumpkins. Undoubtedly it makes complete sense to you; for most you "can't apply logic where logic does not exist". Likely there are examples of USFS thinning projects with similar positive results. Your example is interesting and worthy of replicating in certain specific areas, particularly in the appropriate urban wildland interface forested tracts ... whether private, state or federal lands. To advocate for thinning and proactive logging on the millions and millions of acres of US National Forest public lands and Canadian Forest public lands and to then regularly return to repeat the enormous projects ... thinking it will prevent or mitigate wildland fires is absurd in my opinion.

AND it falls way short of reasonable and rationale arguments making a case for PLT.

Thanks for your opinion S A. Besides the thinning aspect, the article also discusses the differences in post fire salvage between state and federal properties. Most people can see the current realities here. Most people.

I'm not arguing for PLT. I'm pointing out that the Forest Service needs to get their stuff together. Which will happen sooner or later. Hopefully sooner.

Oneye · Oct 29, 2017

BHR, there’s thinning that goes on on Forest Service land as well. There’s a large scale aspen regeneration project currently going on right above where I live. The biggest issue is funding and the Forest Service pays the bulk of the money spent every year on wildfires of which comes from their general budget. As you slash budgets, which the current Administration did, and fire costs continue to grow there isn’t enough money for the Forest service to do a lot of things.

BigHornRam · Oct 29, 2017

Oneye said:
BHR, there’s thinning that goes on on Forest Service land as well. There’s a large scale aspen regeneration project currently going on right above where I live. The biggest issue is funding and the Forest Service pays the bulk of the money spent every year on wildfires of which comes from their general budget. As you slash budgets, which the current Administration did, and fire costs continue to grow there isn’t enough money for the Forest service to do a lot of things.

State of Montana is facing some serious budget issues as well. That's not stopping us from rolling up our sleeves and getting to work as the article points out. People are going to have to learn to do more with less. That's the reality we are in right now.

BigHornRam · Nov 10, 2017

Here is a 54,000 acre collaborative thinning project on the Colville N F that is surviving the efforts of the litigation community and moving forward.

http://www.theforestblog.com/atoz/

What do you think of this project S A?

Straight Arrow · Nov 10, 2017

I like it. It appears to be successful due to hard work up front and much collaboration. The project results in a boon to the timber industry and some healthy management of that forest "microcosm". But recognize it was not a wildfire mitigation project. It is a timber industry project to extract natural resources for revenue.

To think that even a hundred projects like that are going to significantly mitigate the risks of wildfires across the northwest forests is absurd. That's my point. I believe most agree with you regarding the stifling litigation and the need to successfully complete these types of projects, but the logic does not connect dots comparing the apples to pumpkins, nor the state vs federal management relating to timber harvest and wildfire mitigation.

Your examples are very interesting and even encouraging, but your conclusions don't necessarily follow logic nor do they really show a state management superiority over federal management. The collaboration resulting in success is the encouragingly healthy story. The laying of blame and alluding to PLT is old and stale.

BigHornRam · Nov 10, 2017

Straight Arrow said:
I like it. It appears to be successful due to hard work up front and much collaboration. The project results in a boon to the timber industry and some healthy management of that forest "microcosm". But recognize it was not a wildfire mitigation project. It is a timber industry project to extract natural resources for revenue.

To think that even a hundred projects like that are going to significantly mitigate the risks of wildfires across the northwest forests is absurd. That's my point. I believe most agree with you regarding the stifling litigation and the need to successfully complete these types of projects, but the logic does not connect dots comparing the apples to pumpkins, nor the state vs federal management relating to timber harvest and wildfire mitigation.

Your examples are very interesting and even encouraging, but your conclusions don't necessarily follow logic nor do they really show a state management superiority over federal management. The collaboration resulting in success is the encouragingly healthy story. The laying of blame and alluding to PLT is old and stale.

I'm only pointing out the litigation inequities between state and federal lands, not a management superiotity by either state or federal. I am curtain the USFS would do a much better job of management if they were allowed to do their job.

Projects like this are a sign of things to come.

Oneye · Nov 10, 2017

State ownership? 1,000+ acres at a time, say goodbye to over 1,000 more acres of SITLA land Utah hunters:

https://trustlands.utah.gov/land-sale-auctions/nov-15-2017/

Dan O · Nov 10, 2017

Montana cannot afford what they have now let alone acquire more land to manage. The Gov is calling a special session to deal with the budget short falls from this years fire season. The Fed's are not perfect by any means but it's the best thing going right now. Sounds like budget cuts and temporary tax increase's for Montana. I can't think of any temporary tax increases that were actually temporary.

Rant over,
Dan

BigHornRam · Nov 12, 2017

Dan O said:
Montana cannot afford what they have now let alone acquire more land to manage. The Gov is calling a special session to deal with the budget short falls from this years fire season. The Fed's are not perfect by any means but it's the best thing going right now. Sounds like budget cuts and temporary tax increase's for Montana. I can't think of any temporary tax increases that were actually temporary.

Rant over,
Dan

The big difference between the state of Montana budget and the federal budget is that Montana's has to balance and the Fed's do not.

Pat gets shot at by both sides, the hard left and the hard right. He had an interesting editorial on our budget woes that is worth reading.

http://www.bitterrootstar.com/2017/11/09/a-budget-solution/

State Ownership vs Federal

BigHornRam

Well-known member

Straight Arrow

Well-known member

BigHornRam

Well-known member

Oneye

Active member

BigHornRam

Well-known member

BigHornRam

Well-known member

Straight Arrow

Well-known member

BigHornRam

Well-known member

Oneye

Active member

Dan O

Well-known member

BigHornRam

Well-known member

Similar threads

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Share this page