Public Lands SOLD to pay for Katrina?

B

BANNOCK1877

Guest
Avail yourself of the following:

HR 3855 proposes to sell off PUBLIC LAND (Forest Service and BLM,---YOUR LAND)to pay for Hurricane Katrina! The info is readily available from a google search.

The sale is proposed to begin in 2006! Not Good!

Here's those responsible:

Sponsor: Rep. Thomas Tancredo [R-CO]
Cosponsors:
Rep. W. Todd Akin [R-MO]
Rep. Roscoe Bartlett [R-MD]
Rep. Rob Bishop [R-UT]
Rep. Barbara Cubin [R-WY]
Rep. Tom Feeney [R-FL]
Rep. Jeff Flake [R-AZ]
Rep. Walter Herger [R-CA]
Rep. Sue Myrick [R-NC]
Rep. C.L. Otter [R-ID]
Rep. Joseph Pitts [R-PA]
Rep. Ted Poe [R-TX]
Rep. Dana Rohrabacher [R-CA]
Rep. David Weldon [R-FL]

Don't let your hunting spot get sold to the highest bidder. Public Lands are for EVERYONE!
 
The reason I voted for Cubin years ago is because she has always been a strong advocate for hunters and gun rights here in Wyoming and always had an A+ rating from the NRA. Guess I won't be voting for her again in the next election. I will be sending her a letter telling her this.
 
man that sucks. i went and read some of the stuff that i could fiin on google and pretty much got that wyoming would be screwed too, because well over 15% of it is owned by the government.
 
So let me get this right. People who for the most part can't even fend for themselves, build and live in a city below sea level where hurricanes are highly probable. And now want to sell our public land out West so they can live in hotels for free until they rebuild in the same exact place. That makes a lot of sense.
 
Get ready--- cause it's going to get worse.

Basically, the great reserves of public lands in the West are veiwed as a big piggy bank.

Rather than work in a fiscally responsible manner, or develop alternate forms of energy, politics is gonna prevail and they'll carve things up as a "quick fix" --and ignore the long term effect.

ANWR is one thing, but the prime deer range in Wyoming and Montana are getting plundered as we speak--- for natural gas. Roads everywhere...and worse. And still more plans in the works..

This is the most blatant yet, tho. Arguments about fees and such are a moot point if you can't get onto the land in the first place.

I'm sure someone is licking their chops, planning their next land grab and smoozing a politician with some hefty kickbacks.
 
we must be active in letting our elected officials know that is their job to save our publkic lands for future generations or they will be fired come election day.....is the remedy for solving the challenges of one disaster to create another disaster ? /
 
go to upper green river valley coalition.com for current events regarding side effects of oil and gas exploration up in pinedale wyoming...mule deer herd is down 63 per cent due to corporate and political activity..smog is being predicted for the least populated cdunty in wyoming if you know of anyone who is an anti-hunter you can alert them to the tragic impacts on wildlife caused by the present energy policies in our country...
 
http://www.greateryellowstone.org/press/article.php?article_id=949

"HR 3855, introduced Sept. 21 by 13 congressmen and -women, calls for a national land sale to pay for the costs of Hurricane Katrina and "future disasters." It proposes to auction off 15 percent of the national forests and lands (other than national parks) administered by the Department of the Interior. The sales would begin Oct. 1, 2006, and all proceeds would be spent on disaster relief."

Nothing but a freakin' land grab--- There's gotta be more to this than just paying off a Hurricane.

This will dead-end any efforts to acquire more land for inclusion into the public domain. Kiss it good bye.

I bet the land will go extremely cheap, and the energy business will remember their political cronies for this. Cha-ching$!
 
A NICE LITTLE BONUS.

NO MORE ACQUIRING OF PULIC LAND-- this will include historical properties or property bought or traded to "block up" tracts of public land for enhanced public use (HUNTING, etc.)-- like what the BLM does in Montana and other states.


?(h) Moratorium on Federal Land Acquisition- Until the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior comply with the duties imposed on the Secretaries by this section, an interest in land may not be acquired by the Forest Service or an agency of the Department of the Interior unless the acquisition of that land is specifically authorized by an Act of Congress enacted after the date of the enactment of this Act.?

--Just TRY getting the CONGRESS to act on your little parcel of paradise...GOOD LUCK.
 
Sorry chaps--I meant PUBLIC LAND not PULIC land...gotta keep this "g" rated--
 
Maybe If the Forest Service did their job and managaed Our timber across the country correctly they wouldn't have to be looking at this option!
Here in Michigan, I know of millions of dollars of timber just in my county alone. Instead they classify 80 year old hardwood trees as old-growth,and CCC red pine as old-growth. I bet the men that planted that as timber for the future would roll over in their graves if they knew about that.
Out west they have put thousands out of work and caused millions of acres to burn, by not being managed properly.Instead they do controlled burns during our hunting seasons, Happened in unit 8 Arizona Nov. '05'.
Our Federal Gov. Dems&Reps alike have become to concerned with the minority. Tree-Hugging Greenies are not the Maority opinion in this country.
 
GET INVOLVED:

Send an email or write a letter to your representative, especially if they're on the list of sponsors and tell them why this idea sucks. Be specific and lay out your gripes. Make an alternative proposal. These guys will read your letter, but it does no good to just copy a form letter that says the same thing as everyone else. Make your case. Demand a reply from your rep as well ---so they are accountable.

Here's a link from another www site that lists names and contact numbers for use:

http://www.greateryellowstone.org/involved/government.html

H.R. 3855 needs to be slapped down quick and hard. Shame on these supporting Western politicals for even giving thought to the idea...

If you are an out-of-stater a non-westerner or just a regular joe-resident that uses public lands, act now before your honey-hole winds up on the auction block.
 
What a freaking joke. This needs to be slammed down quick! Thanks for the heads up!
 
Bannock: Thanks for the alert. I love this forum and sharing on info like this. It's scary that so much ridiculous business gets carried on behind our backs and with so little accountability.

I hope everyone on MM sends a letter or email to their representatives to shoot this down. It's time sportsmen band together and become a unified force both in state matters and at the federal level.

BTW: Colorado is getting hammered by the gas drills too; be glad to share some aerial photos I took this summer of some prime deer habitat being plundered. Send me your email if anyone is interested.
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-26-05 AT 12:39PM (MST)[p]incase these idiots in gov. prevail shouldn't people like Mule deer foundation and rocky Mt. Elk get involved and purchase some of the land...?...

if we join together we can do something, just like a mega church buys a huge multi-million $ building like ole Joel olstein in Texas paid 29 mil for the dome...all donation money, gotta join together on this one....
 
Wow, who'd of thought that hunters and greenies would be on the same side with an issue like this?
 
travelingrifle, you're absolutely correct in my opinion. With the correct logging methods and the proper oversite, there is no reason the Federal government couldn't have a sustainable income from harvesting and managing our forest lands. Not to mention all the benefits to wildlife. Many private land owners have been doing it correctly for a long time.

Steve
 
IMO it won't happen, they might sell of some garbage public lands like FS cabins and small lots that are useless to 99.99% of us, actually the FS is doing that as we speak. Its hard for them to keep going when the government spends all our money fighting the war... Something has to give.

If it does get passed for some reason it will probably be tacked on to an appropriations bill for the war like some other BS law that was passed not to long ago...

Send your letters and let your voices be heard!
 
> Maybe If the Forest
>Service did their job and
>managaed Our timber across the
>country correctly they wouldn't have
>to be looking at this
>option!
> Here in Michigan, I
>know of millions of dollars
>of timber just in my
>county alone. Instead they classify
>80 year old hardwood trees
>as old-growth,and CCC red pine
>as old-growth. I bet the
>men that planted that as
>timber for the future would
>roll over in their graves
>if they knew about that.
>>Out west they have
>put thousands out of work
>and caused millions of acres
>to burn, by not being
>managed properly.Instead they do controlled
>burns during our hunting seasons,
>Happened in unit 8 Arizona
>Nov. '05'.
> Our Federal Gov. Dems&Reps
>alike have become to concerned
>with the minority. Tree-Hugging Greenies
>are not the Maority opinion
>in this country.

travelingrifle, The Forest Service is not supposed to manage our public lands for the sole purpose of selling timber, like private timber companies do. By law they are required to manage for "multiple use." Also, the Forest Service did not "cause millions of acres to burn." Fires are a natural phenomenon, and just as necessary as rain and snow. It really boggles my mind that you could think the Forest Service is responsible for forest fires. Where did you come up with that idea???
 
The USFS is basically being dismantled. The greeny groups have made it impossible for them manage the land properly. They are losing money faster than they can make it in law suits filed by the greenies. Every time they submit a timber sale they have to do an enviromental impact study. Then they will have to fight a law suit in court to defend the timber sale. The only answer from the govornment is to cut jobs to cut expenses. The USFS, at least in my neck of the woods has been reduced to basically managing mtn bike and hiking trails and catering to user groups like this.

-Lowedog
 
Lowedog is right every time the forest service wants to make a timber sale they are always in court and have to pay tons of money. because of this they have no money and cant do their jobs corectly. so nobody should be mad at the forest servise, they do the best they can.
Muley Man!
 
I have got to respond to this. Everyone blames the forest service for the state of our public lands. I work for the forest service and so does my whole family. We are so tied down by what we can and can't do anymore. Its not our fault, like someone pointed out, its all of the enviromental groups and legislative crap that has our hands tied. Those groups see it as saving the land and the trees when all that they are doing is setting us up to fail. Because we can't do any kind of selective cutting due to the enviromentals we have forests out there that are way overgrown and are a terrible fire hazard, we are seeing more and more catastrophic wildfires year after year. This is due to not being able to remove any timber or being under smoke management and air quality restrictions so that we can't do any prescribe fire. As for prescribe burning during hunting season, I can feel for you as I am an avid hunter but get over it. The game is usually back in the burned areas within days and it only makes the hunting better for the next year. Now enough ranting. I agree that we shouldn't be selling our land off to pay for someones dumb choice to live in a place that was set up to fail from the begining. I think they should just clean up everything and then flood it. They can then build a city above the water and use boats to get around like they do in Venice. There are better place to get the money from than selling our public lands. We (Forest Service) are under so many cuts to our own people right now there probably won't be a forest service for long and your lands will be taking care of by contracters who are just doing it for the money where I like to think that the people that work for the Forest Service do it for the love of the land because theres nobody getting rich working here.
 
Muleylover,

Thank you for your input. Very well stated. I totally understand your plight, and have for years. I certainly don't blame the FS. The direction you are taking comes from higher up. I agree, it's pretty sad.

Steve
 
What a mis-guided proposal by Mr. Tancredo. Another case of robbing Peter to pay Paul, this won't help anyone, ultimately the public still loses. What ought to happen is the oil companies who did not freeze prices at the time of the hurricane should pay in to a fund what the House deems appropriate to the victims of Katrina. Also, on the US Forest Service, look up their budget cuts for next year, you will see that the current administration has cut every major fund for forest and natural resource management for 2006 to put money in to other things. I agree, the USFS is in no way to blame.
 
BOBD
by not managing our forest lands properly they have definately contributed to the massive distruction the recent fires in the west have caused. Yes they are suppose to manage the forests for all purposes, this does include the cutting of timber that occurs much to infrequantly anymore. Proper timber management goes along way to benefitting all not just timber companies!!
 
I guess I just don't see the "massive destruction" that you say has been caused by recent fires. All I see from these fires is healthier forests and much improved wildlife habitat.
 
The destruction comes in the form of lost timber that could have otherwise been utilized or money made (how about using a sustainable resource to provide money for Katrina instead of selling off our public lands) and from hotter fires that sterilize the soil that otherwise would not have had the area been logged or had a normal fire regime. These stand replacing fires that blitz entire drainages rarely improve habitat the way a properly managed forest could.
 
I agree with you that more timber could be selctively harvested in some areas of the NW, but that would be a drop in the bucket for Katrina relief. Also, on the "destruction" that fires cause, that simply is not the case, except with regard to homes and developed areas. We have taken away the only source of new nutrients to the soil in a lot of areas where fires are not permitted to burn for many years. This costs the US Forest Service and us as tax payers more money, because they then end up having to drop fertilizer by airplane/ helicopter on these deficient areas to boost habitat productivity, one such program here has been in the Colockum and Quilomene areas in recent years.
 
>I guess I just don't see
>the "massive destruction" that you
>say has been caused by
>recent fires. All I see
>from these fires is healthier
>forests and much improved wildlife
>habitat.


your not worth the effort to try and educate
 
I believe fires and logging can both be useful tools in managing a healthy forest, as Dman said. I'm even for salvage logging after a fire, as long as the fragile top soil is left undisturbed. (usually helicoptor logging or rubber tired skidders in the right places). I'm all for erosion control and re-planting too. I am not for turning our National Forests into "tree farms" though. I want a healthy forest that is a good home for wildlife and beneficial to man. A place we can all enjoy. Some of it does need to be set aside as wilderness or parks also. If you've ever ventured into a pristine wilderness then you probably know why.

I don't pretend to know all the answers. I do know that as the human population grows, it's going to be harder, and more important too.

Steve
 
Timber sales don't generate much in the way of measureable revenue for the govt. enuf to make much of a difference in the disaster fund. The sales and logging is so incremental it would be just a slow drip in a big thirsty bucket. They want all the money NOW.

You'd probably see more activity from energy and development interests as they need more real estate and reclamation requirements for extraction activities would be non-existant on privately owned property. You can do what you want on your own land and when you're done, liquidate it.

On federal lands- energy/mining interests have to take wildlife issues and destructive activities into account and implement a plan to midigate their impacts. On private land--do as you please. It makes more sense to buy the land outright rather than have to spend money on reclaiming the land and pay for surveying for archaeological sites or mule deer winter range or sage grouse leks, etc.

There's nothing in this bill that says its just related to the sale of mining claims. It's broader than that.

Quote:

"A BILL
To raise funds necessary to respond to Hurricane Katrina and future disasters by selling a portion of the lands administered by the Forest Service and the Department of the Interior, and for other purposes."

And here's where they are looking:(Heads up Mule Deer hunters!)

" (a) SALE NATIONAL FOREST LANDS.--The Secretary of Agriculture shall select 15 percent of the lands included in the National Forest System (as defined in sec-tion 11(a) of the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 U.S.C.609(a))) and convey all right, title, and interest of the United States in and to the selected lands by public sale.

(b) SALE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR LANDS.--The Secretary of the Interior shall identify 15 percent of the lands managed by agencies of the Department of the Interior (excluding lands in units of the National Park System established by Act of Congress and lands held for the benefit of an Indian tribe) and convey all right, title, and interest of the United States in and to the identified lands by public sale.

(c) PRIORITY LOCATIONS.--The Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior shall place an emphasis on identifying lands for sale under this section in those States where the United States owns more than 15 percent of the total land area."

A mining bill for selling mining claims has been confused with this bill. Call your organization and congressional rep and kill HR 3855 before it sneaks past and gets approved.

The implications are huge: CWD study and mitigation, habitat fragmentation, private property rights vs public wildlife, development, road building, sagebrush destruction, fencing...the list goes on.

Silence is Consent.
 
I'm kinda surprised that there is a bill out there like this. I mean, since when has our congress tried to pay for anything? Just run up the national debt some more.
 
Pristine Wilderness? They may look nice to someone who doesn't know what to look for but our wilderness's are some of the worst managed becuase there has been no management at all. I wish I could find some pictures to post on what our forests looked like 100 years ago, 50 years ago and what they look like today. You would be shocked how overgrown they are.We will continue to have massive fires that totally decimate those areas for many, many years. Now those fires are not all bad but like someone above said when those fires burn that hot they sterilize the soil and nothing can grow there at all for years to come and this leads to more soil erosion and because its wilderness there is nothing that we can do to go in and try to help it. eg seeding or planting. I might stir the pot here but people who oppose logging in some circumstances don't really know anything about forest health and wildlife management. As for generating money, there is money out there in timber if we shut down importing our lumber from other countrys, in Oregon for instance, timber dollars were a way to fund the school systems back 15 years ago Oregon schools had lots of money. Now that the greenies have shut down all logging Oregon schools are cutting alot of programs such as sports and other extracurricular activities. Teachers are having to pay for supplies for there classes out of there own pockets because there budgets are so bad. I admit that in the past the Forest Service did not do a good job with the way that we did things but that can be said about alot of things. We are know more educated and know what needs to be done and how to do it in a more enviromentally friendly way, but we are handtied and can only stand by and watch as our forests get worse and worse. The only thing that can help all of us and the wildlife is to make sure we get the right people in the Government to do this for us. This is also a longshot as most states Oregon being one of them is controlled by the urban side of the state that has no clue.
 
It always continues to amaze me that there are hunters out there against logging.
I have my Forest Resources degree and have worked in the industry, and am a hunting fool so don't have a bias one way or the other.
What you people not so in favor of logging need to know is that logging is not only extremely beneficial for mule deer in opening areas for food and setting back natural succession, but it is the one of the only ways we have left to restore mule deer habitat. Whoever it is that said pristine wilderness is the way to go doesn't know their ass from a hole in the ground. We have suppressed fires for 100 years, creating overgrown canopies that choke the life and habitat right out of the forest. Look at what is happening to elk in Idaho's Clearwater country. Anti-logging bogus lawsuits that have tied up those timber sales, coupled with fire suppression, have damned near elimated elk in the region. Lots of cover but no feed.
Eventually, massive fires will rape the place, but there will be so much fuel on the ground from fire suppression and lack of logging that the fires burn too intensely. This can sterilize the soil, basically allowing nothing more than noxious weeds to come in and fill the gap. We have changed the fire intervals from 5-15 year intervals in the low areas and 60-80 year intervals in the alpine areas to now no interval whatsoever. So instead of fire coming in and reinvigorating the soil, plant growth, and the whole ecosystem, we wait until the fuel level is significantly higher, which makes the fires burn hotter and longer. Ask your soil scientists what they think of these pristine forests. Logging is your friend, the only friend you have, to fill the niche left by suppressing fires. We are wasting the resource, choking out the game, but gosh we have some pristine forests out there that are sure gosh darn pretty to look at, at least from a vehicle- God knows you can't walk through them.
In the mean time, the wasted timber that rots to the ground or goes up in smoke could have been used to fund our schools, pay for disasters, and fund economies.
But hey, letting them rot is better than looking at a stump, right?
 
Maybe I missed something but I don't think anybody here has said anything against logging. If for some reason what I said about "mulitple use" was taken as being anti-logging, then I was misunderstood. I am all for logging, and also letting the fires burn, when possible. idahonative, I couldn't agree more with your post. I just don't like to see the Forest Service blamed for everything. As others have said the forests in the past have not been managed very well, mostly because of the idea that fires are evil and must be put out no matter the cost. Now that the damage has been done and lessons learned, the Forest Service is doing what they can to correct the problem, but it will take decades to see much improvement.
 
Bob, my post wasn't just in regard to your comments. IT was more in regard to pristine wilderness (which in many cases is an oxymoron). People without detailed knowledge love wilderness. I love wilderness too, for its untouched and undeveloped qualities. But, wilderness areas are also typically our most unhealthy forests, almost across the board, due to fire suppression and nothing to take fire's role in the scheme of things. We sort of got off on a tangent, but when the alternative is to sell off our public lands permanently, coming up with ways to use our renewable resources sure seems like a better alternative, no? I'll bet taking that timber down there at cost would be a way better alternative than paying the Canadians to import it at retail.
 
Forest management is complex. It should not be reduced to pro-logging and anti-logging, pro-fire and anti-fire. There are places where fires have hurt mule deer habitat. Mostly these places are dry areas like northern Nevada where there isn't commercially valuable timber to log. In these areas valuable shrubs have burned and been replaced by cheatgrass. In Colorado where I live, almost all fires have been beneficial to deer.

There are places where logging is very beneficial. Here in Colorado low-elevation lodgepole and ponderosa forests can often benefit from logging. However, there can be a spruce/fir forest higher up on the same mountain at 11,000 feet that has 300 year old trees. These high elevation forests in Colorado almost never burn due to climactic conditions. If they are logged, it takes more than 300 years for the forest to recover to their current condition. These forests contain very valuable timber and these are forests the logging industry often complains about not having access too. These forest should not be logged. They are in little or no danger of burning. They are not dying from insect infestations. They are mature forests with little understory and are not overgrown or impenetrable. Increased forage from logging isn't helpful up there because there is already more than enough summer forage at that elevation.

On the other hand there are vast areas of overgrown fire and insect prone lodgepole and ponderosa forest. There has been little opposition to logging these forests from environmentalists but also little interest in logging from timber companies.

Please try to look at forest management as a complex issue. Not an all or nothing battle of right and wrong.

I have many beautiful trophies on my walls. Most are from pristine wilderness areas. I know that wilderness is rarely a disaster for wildlife or hunting. That doesn't mean everywhere should be off limits to logging. Some of my trophies are from areas where wildlife have unquestionably benefited from logging. that doesn't mean everywhere should be logged.
 
Cowkiller, you make good points. I don't believe, however, I am saying all or nothing. Just a state of mind on the general state of the issue.

I do have rebuttal to a couple of your points though. You said "However, there can be a spruce/fir forest higher up on the same mountain at 11,000 feet that has 300 year old trees. These high elevation forests in Colorado almost never burn due to climactic conditions. If they are logged, it takes more than 300 years for the forest to recover to their current condition. These forests contain very valuable timber and these are forests the logging industry often complains about not having access too. These forest should not be logged."
This is not true. Those stands do have a fire regime, usually stand replacing fires on about a 60-100 year interval. If our objective is to manage in any way for historical accuracy and natural regimes, we actually should be logging those areas (or at least allowing them to burn) every 60-100 years.

You also stated "On the other hand there are vast areas of overgrown fire and insect prone lodgepole and ponderosa forest. There has been little opposition to logging these forests from environmentalists but also little interest in logging from timber companies." This is very untrue, maybe not where you are, but for most of the west for sure. Environmentalists have already stated publicly that they will automatically sue any timber sale proposed on federal land, regardless of reason for the logging, and regardless of where it is. They have made public statements that they would rather see catastrophic wildfire than a well-shaped stump. This has already been shown by their actions in the Bitterroot in Montana, where they were protesting and suing even any attempt to salvage burned timber.
I know of districts in Idaho that are supposed to be commercial timber producing designations that have not seen a logging job in over ten years. The only exception to that was about two years ago when Bush's Categorical Exclusion rule allowed them to go in a remove some salvage. In the mean time, the logging died, which shut down the mill, which shut down the local hospital, and bankrupted the local economy. Maybe the locals can benefit from the new private sale of our public lands instead (tongue in cheek).

I do agree with you that they are very complex issues that don't always have one right and one wrong. It's just very frustrating to see our assets go up in smoke and choke out habitat, just because the newest tree hugger thinks it's more serene.
 
This proposed legislation should come as no surprise given the fact that we have a whole contingent in Congress who essentially believe as a matter of principle that the government should not own public lands. I'm not going to hold my breath, but I remain hopeful that one of these days hunters will wake up to the fact that many of the politicians we support and vote for because of a percieved threat to our Second Amendment rights also happen to be those that pose the greatest threat to our public lands. Hate to say it, but those politicians have played us hunters and shooters like violins - and we've willingly let them do so. It's about time we learn to be not just single issue voters, but instead speak with our own voices on a range of issues important to us. Thankfully, we have the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership which is one small step in that direction.
 
I emailed Sue Myrick. As well as posted it on the NCDeer.com website. What in the world she is doing I have no idea. Local contractors wife that got to be mayor of Charlotte, NC and rode it in to the house of representives. I am a sponsor member of the RMEF and also member of the Mule Deer foundation. I'd hate to see alot of good work go down the drain.
 
I have been reading this thread for a couple of days now, and I have to put my two cents worth in here now.
I was originally incensed by Bob D.'s comments, but now I see that he may not be quite so anti as I thought.
I also think cowkiller is off base with his 300 year bs up in the higher elevation spruce forests.
I come from a family of loggers that started logging the Dixie National forest in So. Utah back in the late 1800's, and every one of us has been in the business until just recently.
In the late 80's and early 90's we started to have lawsuits brought up against the timber sales we were trying to buy, and from then on it has been one right after another until there is no more logging of live timber on the forest.
I remember as a teenager my Dad was a logging contractor and one of my uncles worked for the forest service, and my uncle would come and find my Dad and show him where a beetle strike was happening in the forest. They would cut the tree down and take all the precautions to prevent the spread of beetles. As the years passed and the forest service was more and more tied by lawsuits and "treehuggers" my family and several other logging families were forced out of the business because of the lack of active timber sales.
The Cedar Mtn area was one of the most beautiful forests in the west up until around the turn of the century when the logging activities had been ceased for 5 or 6 years. The beetles came out in full force and the entire forest is DEAD! If you don't believe me you should take a look from highway 14. This forest is engleman spruce, and a mixture of douglas fir, white fir, and poderosa pine, and it is completely brown and dead.
The trees have been dead for several years now and still the logs are standing, waiting to rot and fall over in a pile on the forest floor.
I am disgusted because of the waste of a natural resource. Not only have the forest service let it die without doing a thing, they are now watching it rot instead of logging it out and cleaning it up so the new growth can start.
Forestry is not an art, it is a science, and unfortunately we have let the enviro's sue, whine, #####, and politic the forest service into an agency that can't practice science any more.
Cowkiller, you might want to take a look at the stretch of 30 miles or so in the Dixie Natl forest, because Colorado will look the same way if it can't be managed properly. I hunted some country this year in Colorado near Gunnison that looked a lot like Cedar Mtn used to, and it made me sick when I returned home and saw what our forest has turned into.
Travis Roundy
 
Travis, me anti-logging? LOL, Not even close. I work for a state agency whose main reason for existence is to sell state timber. It would be hypocritical of me to be against logging. All I was trying to say in the beginning is that fires are not necessarily a bad thing, and in many cases greatly benefit wildlife.
 
I've got to get this off my chest, my father was also a logger here in Wa., but the Forest Service is an agency governed by mandates from who else but #1 himself. For those of you that don't know, GW came here around two years ago to "sell" his new timber proposal and frankly alarmed Washington. The Eastern Washington Communities that were visited such as Cle Elum and Roslyn could not understand this proposal. in essence, the proposal was to clear thousands of acres of forest to "eliminate" the danger of fire threat to these communities. The only problem was that the areas of proposed logging were no where near the communities and everyone saw right away that it was just an excuse to exploit our marketable timber and even the communities that had originally been open to the idea backed away from it. Howling at the USFS is just barking up the wrong tree, when their funding is out of their control, is continually being reduced and proposals like this are crammed down their throat that don't focus on the real issues.
 
Well put Madmike--

I can't for the life of me figure what these dopes are thinking. You just don't start selling off land to pay for disasters-- like there's just an endless supply out west. Pretty short sighted.

So what's their plan gonna be with the next hurricane, next earthquake, next flood...
 
I guess I'm the guilty one who mentioned the pristine wilderness thing.

For the record, I'm a sawfiler in one of the only remaining sawmills in Northern California. I am proudly responsible for sawing about two million board feet of lumber per week. At least my saws are responsible. I've been doing it for 23 years now. I worked for 5 years before that in logging operations. I love clear cuts, my favorite hunting ground. Sadly there are very few clear cuts these days!

There are also designated wilderness areas here in Northern California, specifically the Marble Mountain Wilderness and the Trinity Alps Wilderness. These wilderness areas are largely pristine, having been set aside many years ago.There are no roads, and never have been. They both contain many natural lakes left when the last ice age receeded. Some of both are above tree line. Both are open to hunting. The Marble Mountains has a herd of transplanted elk (they were there historically) that now has limited tags available.

Some of the biggest blacktail bucks are taken every year from these wilderness areas. The Yolla Bolly Wilderness, south of here, is THE best big buck hunting on the West coast. It has never seen a chain saw!

I invite any of my MM friends to hike back in one of the wilderness areas and spend a week fishing the streams and camping in the quiet solitude that is largly un-touched by man. If you don't then agree that it should be left as is, well then I guess we disagree. But you will never convince me! In the last 40 years that I've been visiting there, there have been numerous fires in the wilderness too!

Steve
 
Good post Steve. I have to agree. The wilderness areas we have should remain wilderness, and most, if not all, of the "unofficial" wilderness (also known as roadless areas) should remain roadless, in my opinion. We sure don't need more roads built into our National Forests when the roads already present cannot be maintained.
 
Amen boys, Amen. Let's keep a diversity of areas so we can all work and play somewhere that we love.
 
Good bunch of comments, Steve, Bob, deerbedead.. The only thing I would add is that the gentleman who wrote Sue Myrick is on the right track. Good luck!
 
Steve... I am familiar with Yollo Bolly. As for deer range it is good(should have seen it the 40's/50's). But it is summer range. Deer migrate to lower elevations in late fall/winter. These areas(lower elevations) have been negatively impacted from lack of logging. My family started hunting the area in '29. Didn't even own a vehicle, went by wagon and spent 4-6 weeks each August....LOL.

from the "Heartland of Wyoming"
 
This bill is BAD - I think it may have gone by the wayside in the budget and defense bill debates (along with the mining public lands selloff provision) before Christmas. Don't know for sure - I'll find out and have a post tomorrow with the status. Whether it's dead or not, hope many of you gave your reps input on it - they need to know that folks won't stand by and see their public lands sold off.
mark
 
Kilbuc....I hear you. Both the Trinity Alps and Yolla Bolly are summer time habitat. The last few years I've heard that deer in the Alps have been migrating down earlier because of hunting pressure. Don't know how true it is.

You're right, the lower elevations are pretty much off limits to logging except for private property. What a tragic waste.

To be able to spend 4-6 weeks in wild country like it was back then......what an adventure that must have been! Now that's what I call livin! Do you have any old pictures?

Thanks to the rest of you also for the kind words. We really are all brothers!

Steve
 
On HR3855:
Talked to some trusted folks today - they felt the bill, though still alive, had no chance of passing and that it was introduced as a gesture to what the sponsors and cosponsors considered to be their 'base'. If you live in the districts of any of these reps (see Bannock's first post). Let them know that, as part of their 'base', you think selling off 15% of our public lands is a lousy idea.

I'll be letting Cubin know.
mark
 
Mark: I confirmed the same from National Wildlife Federation (NWF), the bill not being viewed as ever having any legs, in Committee since late September. NWF continues though to monitor this bill, if for no other reason it is technically alive. Tancredo comes from my district in Colorado and I have never voted for him and never will. I will however write him now over sportsmen's ire over the agenda to sell off public lands for any reason. Tancredo comes as a buddy to another off base U.S. Representative Pombo from California whom recently buried language in the Budget Reconciliation Bill (passed by the U.S. House of Representatives yet forced out by Senators in the reconciliation process to sort out differences between the House and Senate versions of the Bill). Make no mistake sportsmen, we have legislators out there whether in California or Colorado whom want to pay back their special interest (mostly ultra conservative)bases of support, and they want to limit federal agencies like FS and BLM, and believe the world is better off with less public lands. They will be back, like the flu virus, looking for the next way to insert and impose their agendas. Do something these ill directed legislators fear most... get active and organize with other hunting / fishing / environmental organizations to vote these turkeys out of office. In American the power of the vote may be our best recourse.
 
This is one of the most important posts I have seen - thanks for those of you who brought it and monitor it. As has already been stated this isn't about Hurricaine relief just as drilling for oil in the arctic isn't about an oil shortage. It's about MONEY and let me tell you boys and girls we ain't gonna get any of it.The sponsors need to pay and pay dearly.
 
Barbara Cubin, our Wyoming Rep in the US House, backed off big time in today's paper - she says: 1. it was a 'mistake' that she was listed as a cosponsor, and 2. is asking that her name be removed as cosponsor of the bill. Not that I believe point #1 at all (she was also a supporter and defender of the mining public lands giveaway bill). I think she got enough of an earful from sportsmen on that bill that she figured she'd better go back and fix this little indiscretion too. Glad she did it. Still don't trust her to work for sportsmen.

The more we keep on top of our elected officials, the better job they'll do for us - get or stay involved!
mark
 
CL "Butch" Otter from Idaho also withdrew his support of the bill. He said it was a mistake to co-sponsor it and that he supports preservation of public land for multiple use.
 
Everyone can pat themselves on the back for getting on the horn about this screw-up by our elected reps. Nevertheless, they bear watching--- this won't be the last time that some one comes up with a bright idea to rob the piggy bank.

If your rep is (was?) on the list of sponsors, give 'em a call and a good kick anyway so they'll be looking over their shoulders from now on. Shame on 'em.
 

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

146EFA95-8A90-4AA8-AF79-E4B2290B9C4F.png
20230122_180411.jpg
89AC7398-880B-4CCA-BE7C-C95284E9248D.jpeg
elk1.jpg
20210402_130608.jpg
IMG_0145.jpeg
6 pt bull 7-21.JPG
1D80FBFB-2C36-4E22-9C16-CF3A8AC5D989.jpeg
CAE46B20-F929-4EBA-B0A8-60CDD9AEC28B.png
0C172FF5-5B1D-489A-A06D-DF7B695C809F.png
E5C9F739-1B84-4B3A-8012-B3C70C99973B.jpeg
F092C433-FC25-4040-BEA5-42F9FCCB7CED.jpeg
Back
Top Bottom