Bowsite.com

Oregon to sell off state Forest

This don't sound good for Oregon hunters Oregon State Land Board Votes to Sell Elliott State Forest OREGON STATE LAND BOARD VOTES TO SELL ELLIOTT STATE FOREST Posted by Oregon BHA Chapter | February 15, 2017 82,000-plus acres of prized fish and wildlife habitat to be privatized; public access a question mark under future ownership SALEM, Ore. – Despite widespread support from sportsmen, conservationists and the public at large to work cooperatively on options to keep the Elliott State Forest publicly accessible, the state of Oregon moved forward on Tuesday with a plan to privatize the Elliott, Oregon’s oldest state forest and a destination for generations of hunters, anglers and other outdoor recreationists. The Oregon state land board voted 2-1 on Tuesday afternoon to accept a bid from Lone Rock Timber Management Company and the Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe of Indians to purchase the 82,500-acre property, home to species ranging from Roosevelt elk and black-tailed deer to wild salmon, steelhead and coastal cutthroat trout. Backcountry Hunters & Anglers has strongly opposed the Elliott’s sale, urging the land board to decline the Lone Rock-Umpqua bid and work with stakeholders to pursue alternative solutions. One possibility could involve transferring the forest’s ownership to a state agency with differing mandates, as Washington has successfully done with more than 116,000 acres of state trust lands. The land board will meet again on April 4 to seal the Elliott’s fate. Today, BHA criticized Oregon’s decision to sell the Elliott State Forest while continuing to push for adoption of a public option. The national sportsmen’s group, which works to keep public lands in public hands, cited the Elliott as an example of what likely would happen should public lands and waters be transferred to state ownership: “For years the Elliott stood for public hunting and fishing opportunity and, more recently, a fight by sportsmen and others to keep these lands accessible to citizens,” said BHA Northwest Outreach Coordinator Jesse Salsberry. “We remain committed to working with Gov. Brown and the Department of State Lands to find a solution that will satisfy the Common School Fund and keep the Elliott publicly accessible. Regardless of the outcome, however, the Elliott serves as a shocking reminder of how susceptible state lands are to fiduciary and political pressures – and how quickly we can lose our traditional public access when states are faced with such pressure.” Established in 1930, the Elliott State Forest was given to the state of Oregon by the federal government to provide a sustainable source of school funding through timber harvest. Over time, divergent public interests led to a net loss of revenue on the land and resulted in a state proposal to sell the high-quality hunting and fishing destination and valuable fish and wildlife habitat. Under Lone Rock-Umpqua ownership the following will occur on the Elliott State Forest: • The Elliott will be privatized, resulting in a direct loss of public hunting and fishing access on at least half of the forest acreage. • Unrestricted access fees could be charged on the remainder of the forest, opening the door to an access model that could eliminate much traditional use by sportsmen and others. “The privatization of Oregon’s oldest state forest is a tremendous loss for all Oregonians,” said Ian Isaacson, chairman of BHA’s Oregon chapter and a resident of Bend. “The fragility of our public lands and waters is not that of a fictitious tale. It is reality, and it is why sportsmen and women must continue to work together to fight for the wild places we love.”

Who has the last word on this. It's bad news even if you never hunt of go there. Just another step in stopping the average guy from hunting.

Yep, well there's a lot more to this than the story tells. This link from a pro-hunting website tells the real story. Edit: This is what happens when activist judges decide land-use policy based upon their political affiliation.

"the Elliott State Forest was given to the state of Oregon by the federal government to provide a sustainable source of school funding through timber harvest. Over time, divergent public interests led to a net loss of revenue on the land " Those "divergent" public interests were whack-job tree-hugging enviros who supposedly love public land, and anarchic eco-terrorists who effectively shut down logging beginning in 2009. Between the blockades and lawsuits, they ended the revenue generating timber harvest the land was tasked with providing. It has actually been losing money for the past few years.

Losing that revenue is forcing the state to sell it. This sucks for hunters and outdoorsmen, but our enviro friends on the left are primarily to blame for this mess.

+1 Jaq. To bad we can't force these enviro-wacko's to pay the financial loss differences out of their own pockets, maybe then they'd keep their mouths shut! I've always supported good logging management, it actually helps the Eco systems.

So we cant call it miss management by the state because that doenst fit the current defining of the narrative here. Got it. Blame the environmental wack jobs, yea that works better. Spin it anyway way you want however the fact remains that state miss management is leading to sale and the loss of public land and public access. Get used to seeing this if the wholesale transfer of public lands takes place. This is will be the new baseline.

Trial - read the link. All you have to do is click and read. This is a pro-hunting website from Oregon that broke it down. No spin there. When the state was managing it according to the federal requirements, they were making money and it stayed public. Lawsuits filed by enviros shut the state down. They have no choice but to sell it because it isn't making revenue per the requirement. That's a fact. You can see it all for yourself if you open the link.

However, it doesn't fit your narrative, so facts don't matter.

I read the article throughly before your condescension. The state is still ultimately accountable for the miss management. You even admit in your above statement that the federal requirements were allowing it to remain solvent with public access. The State's inapt management and poor legal representation allowed to fringe group to destroy a public resource, giving privatization a toe hold in the door it was looking for.

This world is not a fairy tale. Economics dictate everything we as individuals and, as a group does. The sooner everyone realizes that in order to pay for the management of these lands, the owner has to have the ability to generate revenue from them, the better. People that work on managing them require paydays, vehicles, benefits, etc... and, the only way to pay for it commonsense wise is to utilize the resources these lands produce.

The left is both so dumb and, concerted purposely on stopping it though. Here's the deal. The reason you or I as individuals don't own 82,000 acres is the cost it would take to buy and maintain it. Yet the left thinks that a state or federal government should be able to do that? This is the same left that wants the middle class working American to front the Bill for 20 million illegal aliens, pay for the sorry to set at home instead of work, and subsidize every thing that sounds "fairy tale". That doesn't work and this is an example of the results of such dangerous thought

You want to stop this, tell your congress man to put responsible resource management in play on these federal and state lands. We can have it both ways. However, this is something lefties don't want. By design and ignorance. Which causes these finacial problems. Take the piece of advice to heart that you are left leaning liberal "hunters" preach by understanding MULTIPLE USE management means just that. Not fairy tale ideas of how it should work just for the eco loving, radical left environmentalists.

It is so common for many of you to say this is all about greed and money. That is where you are not only ignorant but, plain being stupid. This has nothing to do with greed. But, it is financially driven. Simple math say something has to give in order for these states to meet budget criteria. and as long as the democrats and liberal idiots keep fighting common sense management, it is the public land user that is going to loose and, loose big before it is over.

Plain and simple, no one but the liberal left is to blame for this. No one. Had the state been able to generate a sustainable and continual rotation of revenue that timber resources provide, instead of being sued to preserve the current trees for the liberal bunny huggers, this wouldn't be happening. So, you are right about one thing, this is the new baseline if something doesn't change.

Call it what you want. The state's management was just fine until the enviros started shutting it down. No matter if they have F. Lee Bailey representing them, when enviros can go judge shopping and find an activist judge, this happens.

As I've said before, I'm not for state management of federal land or sale of public land. But in this case the state did what they could do to keep it public. Sorry it doesn't fit your narrative.

Maybe pictures will explain it better. 2012 is when the enviros shut down logging.

The fine stewards of the land who are responsible for the lawsuit

Hope they are happy, now some private timber company will log the crap out of it. Stupid smelly hippies

Lou, Lou, Lou..... Why do you fight ignorance with reality. You know that the lefty's don't like that when you express common sense. It's not "Fairy Tale" enough.

82,000 acres will keep a couple logging crews busy for about 40 years. That's called timber rotation for you lefty's. A rotation that will see a very diverse forest. Diversity is good for al living things in the forest. Stinky hippies aren't

Inadvertently your making a great argument for federal management and public ownership vs state transfers. Above are excellent examples of the States ineptitude at managing public land. If they can loss a case to likes the above malcontents pictured then they are either grossly incompetent or corrupt maybe both. This is an easy fix. Keep it public and enact a more responsive efficient management program to benefit the public good .

States that lean to the right do just fine managing their state forest land. Oregon is not one of those states.

Justin your just a simpleton that can't make a concise argument with out reverting to useless labels. Step back and take a deep breath then rejoin us when you could offer up something of substance rather than name-calling or ranting Incoherently. If all you could see this as a left versus right argument then your part of the problem.

"Keep it public and enact a more responsive efficient management program to benefit the public good" Ummm, Yes. Exactly what hasn't been happening the past 8 years (actually longer than that but it's gotten way worse). The O Administration has been using agencies to invent laws (regulations) to prevent efficient multiple-use, revenue-generating management of Federal land.

" If they can loss a case to likes the above malcontents pictured then they are either grossly incompetent or corrupt maybe both." Do you have any idea how the legal system works? That's why every enviro land-use lawsuit gets filed in WA, OR, or CA, because the courts in those states are stacked with lefty activist judges. It's called "judge-shopping". This case was over before it started.

As you're from New York, you have no idea of the level of Federal mismanagement of public lands in the West. In our part of Colorado, the prohibition on logging has created disastrous consequences, and it's only starting. In this case (Elliot SF) they have no choice since Oregon is tasked with generating money from that forest from timber production. If they can't log it, what are they going to do, charge hippies for nature hikes?

But being a natural resource management expert, you probably already know that.

Well, I might be a simpleton but, at least I didn't link this thread as proof of my stance. I'll try and go slow just for you. Life is cause and effect. That is as simple as it gets. If you are too ignorant and arrogant to understand that economics are dictating this potential sell, then all the debate in the world will be useless.

I blame the mindless left for a lot of things. Because at the root of the problem, they are the cause. It's as simple as 1+2=3. If a state was given this land and, depended on timber harvest to boast or maintain budget requirements for an allocated budget but, were forced to abandon that action due to a left leaning agenda, then who is to blame? The state? Honestly, What is to debate is beyond me. This is as black and white as a Dalmatian. If I'm not mistaken, you seem to imply differently. So, please educate this dumb hillybilly.

Now, you take a breath. Gather your thoughts. Compose your communication. And, link the right info if you want to continue. I'm happy to be civil or, I can continue to be a condescending prick just like you.

Gotta love the Anarchy sign on the bottom of the upturned vehicle. 10 years from now, 3/4 of those kids will be ashamed of their actions and 1/2 of them will be voting on the other side. Many of them will have kids and revere our system that avoids anarchy - which throughout history, has been the bane women and children. If we lived to be 1000 years old, we wouldn't even let people under 30 vote and we'd chuckle and wouldn't listen when they gave an opinion. Because they're stupid kids.

Ike, I admit it, I was one of them when I was in college (except never to the point of causing destruction). I even had a stupid little Ecology flag sewn onto my army jacket - which is what all of us wannabe eco-anarchists wore back then. Edward Abbey ruled!

Then I got a job and entered the real world. I started to see what "my people" were doing. The army coat went away, as did the liberal idealistic ideas I was being taught in college. Reality hit and I became an adult.

Ike and Lou, I was the dumb, ranting, incoherent conservative guy in college too. I reckon life's never allowed me the grace to be dumb for very long. I'm proud of that too. :^)

Abbey is still a good read but so is Leopold. Wise use comes to mind. Sometimes I think it's something only a hunter/conservationist can understand. We understand both sides of the argument. There is a middle ground stance that can be good for everyone. Allow sustainable harvest and the land would stay public and productive for timber and wildlife. Seems like a no brainer, but that's not how the extremists work.

why couldn't the state have added $5 to each license to make sure there was a profit ?

They are so proud of what they did they are showing off their favorite bandana.

Well, it may be the hippie greenies fault, but the fact remains that:

1) federal government transferred land ownership to the state

2) the state was unable to properly maintain ownership of the land (reason largely irrelevant)

3) public land is now being sold to private ownership

Isn't this exactly what Steve Rinella and others are concerned about? What factors exist that suggest this a is unique situation that would not be happening all over the west if federal lands are transferred to the states?

Even with the the environmentalist lawsuits, would this land be up for sale if the Feds were still exercising ownership of it?

I'm not trying to argue; these are genuine questions. To me, it just very likely this would happen over and over again if these lands get passed to the states. Am I wrong?

Do you think the federal government is going to keep fighting these losses with no acknowledgement of the alternative of not having to endlessly fight them?

Those are legitimate questions but, consider this. What do these lands and, the rights for us to enjoy them mean to the senate when all they are is a loss in the revenue department. So, what incentive is there for either government entity, be it local or federal to hold on to it as a dead net cost?

Party pusher's try and tell you the republicans are after "YOUR" land to sell to their corporate buddy's. Maybe some are. But, I'm willing to bet that the vast majority of the republicans elected to these senate seats and governor's offices are more concerned with balancing their state's budget. Which was the reason they were hired. And, the local economies that have been killed by these eco driven lawsuits are expecting it to be fixed. So, with no recourse to utilize the value the land provides, sooner or later the anchor comes up to sail on. So, this is what is left. Sale out and get something to fix the budgets or, utilize the resources and receive a sustainable revenue income. Which is the sustainable, long term management scheme that allows things to stay in public ownership?

It really is so simple as to say that left leaning democrat hunters had better get their head out of the sand. Because if they continue to fight every common sense effort these local governments exhaust to try and justify keeping it public access, by backing political nominations that say they want to "preserve" our wild lands from corporate industry, they are going to ensure these things continue to happen.

Sale it or utilize the resources on it is all that is left for either government entity responsible for the constituents that have elected them to fix this financial crisis. I hate to talk political party's and what is best but, this had to be said. That's the meat and potatoes of it and, the only issue worth discussing. Because everything else being spewed off is just propaganda. It is simply economics and, It is only common sense to realize that in order to keep these lands, both federal and state on the table for our use, we have to be willing to compromise. We have to be willing to allow these lands to pay for themselves. It is a no brain'er guys. Get out of your party mode and use your heads.

In the long term, that's our choice fellas. It really is that simple. So, what do you propose?

God Bless

How many members does BHA have nationally? Seems they have their own media outlet too eh? Not bad for a group with 5000 members (2 yrs ago)

Tradi-doerr, you cant get money from the lefty whackos' pockets. They dont work, they mooch off the system, sit around stoned planning protests while eating Govt cheese and then go do the protests. They dont have money, they use yours to achieve their misguided goals. There are more of them than us, but fortunately they are concentrated in the coastal states where there werent enohgh electoral votes for them to win this past election. But dont let your guard down for one minute. We need to fight to keep Fed. lands and keeping the right in power is the only way to do it. Hopefully that will be enough. YOU (WE) ALL ARE THE RIGHT.. So FIGHT.....

And yeah, use the,resources,on the land to pay FOR keeping the land. Just use your head when doing it so you dont destroy it in the process. Thats why you have environmental planning. Not all environmentalists are whackos. There are alot of old school resource planners who know how and care enough to extract the resources and still keep it,sustainable for hunting and fishing. But we are becoming fewer and farther between, so get busy and learn how to do it, join these kinds of preservation/use groups and do it. Ask biologists and govt leaders to get together with loggers and miners and formulate plans to keep lands Fed. And market the resources effectively without ruining the natural ecosystems we rely on for hunting and fishing, it can be done.

And yeah, use the,resources,on the land to pay FOR keeping the land. Just use your head when doing it so you dont destroy it in the process. Thats why you have environmental planning. Not all environmentalists are whackos. There are alot of old school resource planners who know how and care enough to extract the resources and still keep it,sustainable for hunting and fishing. But we are becoming fewer and farther between, so get busy and learn how to do it, join these kinds of preservation/use groups and do it. Ask biologists and govt leaders to get together with loggers and miners and formulate plans to keep lands Fed. And market the resources effectively without ruining the natural ecosystems we rely on for hunting and fishing, it can be done.

This my friends is the tip of the iceberg. Once the reality of our national debt soaks in and interest rises we are really going to be in a pickle. Soon the payments on the national debt will consume the national budget and all national (federal lands) will be on the selling block. Obama said before he got into office that the debt then (9 trillion dollars) was un American about George Bush then he got in office and more than doubled it! Hopefully we have a business man in there now that can do something towards a balanced budget. It is a daunting chore but we have to get spending under control and even start to pay down the debt. Ben

Death by a thousand cuts. The hacking has already begun.

WV Mountaineer, so you want to admit defeat to the enviro lawyers that prevent sound and financially sustainable management and sell it off? Use some common sense. Government will piss away the sales proceeds and they'll still be broke, this is not a long term solution it's an easy cop out. We'll be without our public lands and still broke. Nowhere to hunt, don't need guns anymore. At least I wouldn't. I'd rather work within the democracy our founding fathers gave us to fix the system that got us to this point than just piss away these invaluable assets.

+TrapperKayak. God forbid you advocate for proper sensible environment management and be labeled a "lefty". Friggin bass ackwards reactionaries accuse you of being leftist anytime an idea doesn't jive with their half baked concepts of governance. Those kind of people need to look in the mirror and realize they have a lot in common with their extremist compadres on the far left. It's like whoever shouts the loudest thinks they win the argument these days. What insane time we live in, the 95% of us in the sensible middle sit here and wonder how the hell we got here.

How did you come up with me wanting to sell it off? I never said that. Since you didn't understand from my very clear post what I was saying, selling it is the last thing I want. I'm pissed because we have boneheaded sportsmen who are blind to the actions of making selling a only option by their choice of political candidates.

I want it kept in public use. I want the Feds to keep theirs, us to keep ours, and the states keep theirs. There is only one way that is going to happen in the long term. And, that is by putting the resources of those lands on the market. For reasons Ben said. It's that simple.

Pick a side. Either keep voting liberal and watch it go or vote conservative and watch it earn its keep.

Pretty simple really. God Bless men

"Pick a side. Either keep voting liberal and watch it go or vote conservative and watch it earn its keep. "

That's a gross oversimplification of a very complex issue is all. Don't need to resort to calling people the boogeyman L-word just because they are suggesting that some Republicans potentially don't have their best interests in mind. It's not a binary blue/red issue, it's a very complicated purple one.

Elk, its also a commn sense issue, an asset so few seem to have these days. There is a ton of useful science out there that goes unread and unheeded that would help sustainable land management become reality. Timber and mineral harvest can be done while protecting the natural resources, coupled with effective marketing of the products to sources WITHIN OUR OWN NATION, for OUR purchase, we can have it all. But logic is rare and most people dont bother to read and heed science. Theyd rather spout offonline, indulge in rap, videogames or learn the latest celebrjty romance and remain in left field. No, that wont work. We need to wise up people, get the word out at the risk of being labeled lefty, and take the chance. Trump beat the odds. So can all of us if we really want to. Better not worry about PC. Just get on the stick and join the movement. Its all one big tug of war and the reality needs to beat the fantasy, bottom line. We need,to extract our resources, sustainably, and sell and use them here or we are in deep doo doo. Let them protest the pipeline under Lake Oyhee. Then build it and let the product flow. Keep it,in the pipe until the end, and hunt,along the right of way. Ya know???? Not so tuff to achieve.

Once again the whacko environmentalists have made it worse for us by the land use restrictions they have promoted. The renewable timber was suppose to fund public schools. But with all the restrictions it is not possible. So all those families and their kids should vote out all those state reps that allowed this to happen. The land was valued at over $800 mill. Because of all the restrictions in land use it is selling for $200 mill. The state has taken an asset and ruined it.

We also need to sell some of our products outside of our nation but at a rate of TRADE BENEFIT, not deficit which is what we have been doing for at least eight year, much more actually. Dont ship all our raw materials to some 3rd world nation and then buy back the finished product while our own workers sit around with no job sucking on the Fed budget in order to fulfill their drug habits out of sheer boredom. Dont sell off our Fed. lands that contain the potential income to create these markets. Holy crap have we been misled by these liberal bastards. Thank the GOOD LORD ABOVE that crooked beotch was not,elected... I thank him every day. Now,we have alot of fixing to do. And Im done with my political and logic rant. But I had to say it. Thanks for letting me vent. We need to wise up and beat the leftist mindset or those dopes Watters interviews will remain a threat.

Folks can spin it anyway they like - the bottom line is the State sold fine public land that was used by the public to a private interest that will now limit or eliminate public access to that land. We can get into the why's until the cows come home, but the what is the State had it and they sold it. How in god's name is this an argument for States getting public land from the Feds if you care about public access? I get that lousy politics in Oregon ultimately led to this outcome, but the outcome is the key and uderscores the point - TRANSFERRING FEDERAL LAND TO STATES IS A BAD IDEA.

What about when the Feds sell public land instead of transferring it to the states to manage. That ok?

The feds sold both my elk spots to wealthy ranchers. Now one is locked up and the other costs $6000 a week to bowhunt. So enough with the "Feds good, states bad" BS.

How about we just put an end to paying lawyers from all sides out of the public coffers for anything that can be tangentially connected to the ESA and tie any suits to jurisdictions to limit judge shopping?

Jaq,

The Feds selling off public lands is also bad. I don't really hear too many guys saying "Feds good, states bad."

I think most guys are just saying the system we've had for decades has been relatively good (who else has public lands like the US?), the results of handing ownership to the states is guess work at best, so why don't we keep what we have that works and strive for better management and improvement in areas that need it?

At least, that's how I feel about it. I might be wrong; maybe the states would do great. But that seems like a big role of the dice.

As I've said on another thread, you and several other guys here have way more direct knowledge of land management than I do, so a respectful conversation and airing ideas is good for everybody.

I'm in favor of the current system took so long as the USFS and BLM stop kowtowing to libs and ecos and start managing based upon multiple use and sustained yield, using sound science instead of the current policies. But some states will never be satisfied with not getting any revenue from huge amounts of the land mass where they believe they have a management stake (roads, infrastructure, law enforcement, etc..), so should share in revenues. Accurate or not, That's the perception.

Orionsbrother, great idea. We're screwed in the West after Reid used the nuclear option so Obama could stack the federal judiciary with activist judges who legislate from the bench. Any appeal to the 9th Circuit is rubber stamped in favor of the libs. Enviros know all about this and use it to stop wolf management, forest management, whatever fits their warped agenda. Sad deal.

One other thing and then I'll shut up. To the guys who blame the sale of the Elliot on state mismanagement, here's an analogy: You're a sales guy with a huge $50 million annual quota and you are assigned to one major customer. Your company decides not to do business anymore with that customer because of legal complications. You have to change companies because you're not making any money since you can't reach your quota. Is that the fault of poor management on your part?

This actually happened to me.

Elk Yinzer, how bout you educate me on how that is a gross over simplification. I'm not being a wise guy either. However, before you explain the complex situation, consider this. Had the state been able to sell timber off these lands to generate revenue yearly, do you think it would likely be on the selling block now?

God Bless men

Doesn't get to many more shades of red then Idaho over the years.

www.idahostatesman.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article75569547.html

The one positive thing the 9th has done is to deny the injunction to stop wolf hunting in Idaho and Montana. They had an uncharacteristic moment of lucidity that day.

"Inadvertently your making a great argument for federal management and public ownership vs state transfers. Above are excellent examples of the States ineptitude at managing public land. If they can loss a case to likes the above malcontents pictured then they are either grossly incompetent or corrupt maybe both. This is an easy fix. Keep it public and enact a more responsive efficient management program to benefit the public good . "

Is this before or after the President snaps his fingers and all illegal immigrants voluntarily leave for their country of citizenship? They are both equally unrealistic.

Trial, how many of those lands in Idaho were state forests? State trust lands are not state forest lands. Surely you know that.

God Bless men

This stuff is brutal. Privatization of state/fed lands stinks. Partly due to likely loss of access for outdoor activities from camping to hunting, partly due to the increased potential for significant habitat destruction, partly due to the precedent being set.

The story above, to me, is another example of extreme views messing things up, significantly. Some logging or other similar activity clearly helped pay for the forest listed here, but doing it to excess could cause major environmental issues as well. In attempting to stop logging which was likely state managed to keep in line with whatever environmental reg's were in place in the state, those extremists have succeeded in, what may be, a massive increase in timber harvest and environmental degradation, or at the least, significant changes in land access, should the land be owned by the timber company.

It's the extreme's of both parties that make each look idiotic (Alt Right any one... GreenPeace any one...). Frustrating. It's possible to have some level of sensible environmental stewardship so there is land for our kids kids to use and enjoy, and to keep all of us healthy... While also having economics be a sound aspect of said environmental stewardship plan. It's not one or the other. Frustrating.

Will, I'm not trying to argue. Only understand what part of your post means. I was wandering How do you excessively log an area? There has to be a growth time?

The way I see it is this is part of the problem with these situations. If timber resources are the bounty that pays the bills, there is ZERO financial incentive to practice any harvest methods that do not guarantee a sustainable timber rotation. Excessive logging is not only a false label, generating incorrect insinuations of timber management strategies, it is ecologically and, economically impossible to over log an area.

Timber is a renewable resource. You cannot over log a stand of timber. You might cut to big an area based on rotations times, due to ecological factors yet to come that negatively affect growing stands. But, you cannot over log any one area. Because it comes back. And once cut, it takes it a while to reach harvest age again. Over logging is a mis-nomenclature of the issue that I interpret as simply misleading and incorrect.

While logging can have a bad environmental impact, those are the nightmares of old. There is ZERO reasons to destroy what one depends onto survive. So, industry has adapted sustainable yield and, management options to provide a sustainable resource while being environmentally friendly. TO ensure the existence of the resource and, the environment that is required for it to grow in. And, local state and federal agencies ensure they are adhered to during these harvests.

The protesting and judicial actions were most definitely an over reaction to the word logging. Because logging also creates a VERY good ecosystem. Sadly, though mis-information and political agendas has once again led to a result that has potentially cost the sportsmen in this country granted access to a pretty large piece of hunting ground. Something the left has gotten pretty good at doing.

God Bless men

every speck of national / state "public" lands could be sold today, the national debt could be reset to zero and in 12 years it'll be back to 20 trillion in debt

the Fed Govt has no accountability - the people of this country serve it, not the other way around

WV ... you live in a world of your own ... you don't have to look very far in the west to see 'excessively logged' forest areas. Just look what the Native land owners have done to their lands in SE Alaska or what some of the large timber owners did to their lands in Or & Wa .... 'sustainable timber rotation' is not even in their business plan. '82,000 acres will keep a couple logging crews busy for about 40 years' = fake news. The sale of the Elliott is not a done deal yet .... and if it happens it's another no-win situation for hunters & fishermen in the area.

Muskeg. Excessively logged? Please provide scientific links to support that claim.

Fake news? You are right. 21 years being a professional forester charged with managing forest lands for all entity's has left me mindless to the situation. 21 years doing this has also shown me that people like you have no earthly idea about forest ecosystems, forest management, or forest economics. I gotta go now and call my oncologist to fix my truck. He knows vehicles better than any mechanic I know.

WV ... then you know well the difference between the forests of WV & the Pacific NW ... apples & oranges.

I have a little experience my self. I've logged from central Cali to Alaska & back several times. Over 25 years bushling, catskinner, high-lead rigging, Helo-logging, mills, (including the Redwood big timber), reforestation, etc. I've worked my whole live primarily on public forest lands. I know a lot about sustainable yield and holistic forest management ....

The Native lands in SE Alaska were logged from boundary to boundary in about 20 years .... over 300 K acres. The only reason they are logging now is our Republican Senator Murkowski just gave them 85 K acres of Tongass National Forest for free & has introduced another bill to give away another 125 K acres.

Funny thing is..... there are a LOT of folks on this site who along with the "enviro whackos" are vocal supporters of NO commercial uses, logging, mineral rights, no roads, no flippin' nothing for some of these very same lands, fed or state. And the resulting ZERO income going to the local communities, infrastructure, social needs such as schools etc. They don't care, except when faced with the results of their actions, then it's somebody ELSES fault when those effected are FORCED to deal with the realities of what others championed. Inevitable ..... is inevitable. You can't build a home or drive your car or heat/cool your home with unicorn farts......

The irony is when the very same folks will then chime in about how the sell off is bad. All they while not seeing how they were actually part of the problem.

It has nothing to do with just "state" management. I've seen very little intelligent management from pretty much any government. They all play the wind for what benefits THEM, many times professionally, sometimes personally. I've seen first hand the feds destroy communities by shutting down multiple and sustainable use that benefited the communities at the whims of the "man is bad" mentality. And it ain't just envro whackos. But it IS nearly all from people who don't have to live, work or raise a family in those areas effected.

Yep, it is apples and oranges. That doesn't change the reality it is a renewable resource. And, until you explain how it was scientifically excessive, its just your opinion. It should be stated that what you say they did in 20 years took a lot more then a couple logging crews to accomplish.

If you are what you say you are, than you understand that what you are calling excessive logging is in the eye of the beholder. If timber companies want pulp products, that is what they manage for, etc..... That doesn't make it excessive. It makes it the goal. If sustainable yield wasn't a part of their long term management goal then that is their business. They don't answer to the same guidelines American industry does, on their tribal lands.

Once again, out of the Millions and Millions of acres of ground in the National Forest, private, state owned trust land, and state owned forest ground in the west, It'd be nice to see something besides an opinion on examples of excessively logged forests. One thing is for sure, with liberal leadership and, the self appointed environmentalist that now accompany a bunch of internet keyboard's, "excessive logging" is just an emotional tag until then. And, has been the keynote argument of the liberal, left leaning, self appointed environmentalist for the last 25 years. Even though logging in the west has decreased to a small fraction of what it was 25 years ago.

God Bless men

WV

Happy to respond. I'm no forester. I quickly google scholar searched and found a few studies done looking at cold water habitat's post logging over about a 3 year period. The "glitch" was that all the studies I found, were done by folks in forestry schools and in experimental areas. I'm sure there would be more done in different formats. I note this, because these were done by PhD foresters working for major university forestry programs, thus things like sustaining forest boundaries around water were consistently accomplished and the overall logging strategies were organized to test their ability to minimize impact. One was actually in WV :) in some experimental forest, and showed that rapid succession post logging minimized stream elevations and helped stabilize stream chemistry - by 3 years out the flow was only about 2.5cm above normal (baseline pre logging) which is pretty minimum.

Now, if I was a forestry researcher I could likely find more studies which were performed by looking at pre - post commercial logging on a large scale - that would be much more applicable to this discussion.

That said, from what I read, excessive would include things like not leaving appropriate buffer zones near water, performing proper road improvements to manage runoff and other strategies used to minimize run off into waterways.

I didnt dig into other issues related to the impact on other forms of wildlife. I know I've read some good stuff from Trout Unlimited on the topic in the past, but Ill have to go back and review that.

I'm not a forester, I'm just a guy who likes to hunt and fish and wants my kids to be able to do it for centuries to come. So I have limited context when reading scientific papers on logging, I have to put some trust in professionals in that field (forestry) to help me understand - and you have me doing more reading in that regard - thanks!

Some people might call this excessive .... this was once Tongass NF. It became corporation land as part of the settlement for the Ak pipe line. These logs went export round log market to Japan.

'excessive logging is in the eye of the beholder'

Thanks Will. The study you quoted was conducted in the Fernow experimental forest. What is to be debated in these studies is the affect that the amount of ground water has on stream flow levels in any forest, in relation to the size of the water shed that is being logged. What isn;t to be debated and, has been shown by these studies and other else where is that when BMP's are followed, increases and decreases in stream flow due to logging is irrelevant in any environment worldwide. it should be noted that stream flow during and shortly following logging operations, in the coniferous forest of the pacific northwest shows a decrease in steam flow too Albeit irrelevant as well.

The issue with roads is a given. It takes a better road to run tractor trailers of logs than it does smaller vehicles. Since water runoff and damage is the defining factor in road maintenance, controlled erosion management is a must with any logging operation. Once one road is built, it will forever be used as access for logging so, initial erosion is no longer a factor after establishment. Which is when it has been shown to happen with any degree of certainty. Albeit to such a small degree it to is irrelevant when BMP's are followed.

Keep reading man. You'll find out the stereotypical speech many on the left preach is just not true concerning the negative effects of logging.

I appreciate you being civil and seeing my question for what it was. First class brother. God Bless men

I'm not saying that the Elliott will be logged like some parts of SE Ak or even like some parts of the Oregon coast have been, if it is sold. It's just a sad situation that this area might become no-trespass or pay to play lands. No mater what the cause. If sold ... corporation wins, we loose.

That is an awesome picture. It shows how well it was done. However, It wasn't nor, will it ever be managed to stay like that. You know that. It was/will be planted back or site prepped for natural regeneration. Which leads to more forests. Sustainability at it's best example. Beside's, with only 400,000 acres of the 16.8 million acres in the Tongass NF ever having been harvested to date, excessive in the degree you imply is very misleading. Because it is only 2% of the total Tongass NF forest land. A whopping 2% of 16,800,000 acres is all corporate timber companies have managed to cut in all this time of excessive cutting you describe. If I was in charge of the cutting plan, I'd up that and keep 75% nearing harvest or mature for harvest instead of the 98% it's currently got on stand. I'd keep 25% of the available land as cutting or regrowing. That would ensure diversity for wildlife and, a very substantial income for profit. Win-win for everyone except those that oppose sensible, scientific forest management.

What I see is an uneven aged, diverse forest coming. REAL science says that it will be Beneficial in degrees far higher versus an even aged forest stand. From the smallest microorganism in the soil, to the biggest mammal found in Alaska, diversity and the opportunity to grow exponentially has just arrived. I also see a utilization of the resource second to none in those pictures. And a professional, well planned, well conducted timber operation with stream side management zones to protect intermittent water sheds that buffer, filter, and control over land water run off until the new stand is established. A great example of sustainable forest practices. I'd put any of the Foresters and loggers that worked on that, working for me in a heart beat. However, what you are portraying with your claims is something entirely different. And, is based on your personal feelings. Not the science of the Tongass NF or, forest management in general.

No one is denying we lose if Elliot leaves Oregon ownership. No one. We were discussing why it is even on the selling block. I'm betting if there was some harvests areas inside the Elliot that looked like the picture you posted, hunters would be thrilled, animals would be thriving, and the forest wouldn't be up for sale. Since that isn't reality, we'll likely loose public access in the end.

God Bless men

Maybe the state finally realized that: 1) ODFG is known for poor/no quality elk management; only quantity-spikes, and 2) ODFG issues minimal NR tags, unless for spikes, and since they recently raised NR License/ tags, there is less income. Therefore, with 82,000 less acres, they might do a tiny bit better.

WV, there's an old saying that liers can figure and figures can lie. The lie in the 2% is that it includes every acre, rock, water, swamp and timber that no one wants. Far more or the desirable timber is gone. There are also adverse effects on wildlife such as the deer which require old growth timber to survive the heavy snow environment.

In Northern MN there are on their third or so harvest of poplar. There are finding reduced yields because you can't keep hauling the nutrients (logs) out of the environment without adverse effects.

WV ... IC you sure know how to spin it .... over 50% of those 17 million acres has no trees. Your right about 400k acres of the log-able 500k acres has been logged. There is really not that much high volume old growth acres left. There is no replanting and very little reforestation work of any kind being done by the USFS or private corps. They are trying to log a little regrowth now of some of the early history stuff but there is no market at all for it. Rotation is looking like 70 to 100+ years to produce a non-marketable tree (in the current market). Japan has totally left the SE timber market. Chinese round log market is about it.

Clearcutting in SE is devastating on the Sitka Blacktail ... as well as several other species. The deer are heavily dependent on the remaining high volume old growth that's left. Salmon runs in some heavily logged drainages are now basically non-existent. In the last 8 years there has been millions of $'s spent on stream rehab just on Kuiu & Prince of Wales Islands USFS lands and has not even put a dent on the work that (should) needs be done.

BTW ... I logged in SE for years. When we first started in the Corporation timber nothing under 17 inches on the small end went to the landing and two knots of 2 inches in diameter deemed a log cull. High grade logging was the practice for years. In some units we only logged about 30% of the volume that was fell and bucked. There was no such thing as stream or beach buffer. Alaska has a very poor State Timber Forest Practices act which rules the State & corp timber land. The only way LP could log for their pulp mill (that was built by the Fed Gov and given to them) was to be heavily subsidized under the 50 year contract. When they had to start paying stumpage they shut her down. No Corp logs ever go to the last remaining mill in SE. Since the USFS has relaxed the round log export rules Viking Timber on POW Island has exported most of the current sale they are logging.

LKH, I've heard of a similar saying as well. But, it was to the tune that liars never figure and figures never lie. Slightly different but, a whole new meaning. I think it applies if you use the right info to figure with. I didn't so, I was indeed mistaken about that 2%. After retrieving the correct forested acres, I re-figured it twice to ensure that it didn't happen again. It came out to 4% of the total forested acres within the Tongass to have ever been harvested.

You were correct in that only 9.5 million acres are forested in the Tongass. Bringing the correct harvested total to 4%. Overall, harvest acres didn't change. Just total forested acres. Referencing the Alaska Forestry Organization web page will confirm this.

When looking at the picture muskeg posted, the requirements of thermal protection and heavy snow browse areas are represented very well in that harvest. I really don't know how it could have been done any better. I know Greenpeace and Cascadia Wildlands would disagree. But, I think critical reasoning and, their undeniable agenda leaves their opinion as irrelevant for consideration.

At current proposed harvest rates, the Tongass will literally be cut through in full rotation in roughly 1000 years. Excessive nutrient depletion rate of Northern MN clean logging simply does not apply in this situation.

God Bless men

I'm seeing State and Fed income bla bla bla. That is NOT addressing the real purpose of the public ownership (state or fed) of the properties in question, the DEDICATED purpose, which is to fund the public needs of the people who LIVE there.

THAT is the STATED LEGISLATED PURPOSE of those lands in question. Yet a bunch of people who do NOT live there or are really effected in any meaningful way..... who want to eliminate any "intrusion" or "commercialization" by man, that being bad ofcourse..... have no problem burying the folks out of sight this land to which it has been dedicated...in legal contract... to support.....

Lovely. You don't see the point is to fight to see the contract with these people is fulfilled? This is the result of fighting to restrict it? Good grief..... You know who you are.......

These are not National Parks. Get that BS out of your head. We HAVE National Parks. We have just been inundated with the next best thing in the last few years, Executive Order National Monuments. Stroke of a pen, pro hunting or anti with the same pen. Or the opposite tomorrow. Living on a whim of those with no culpability. But hey.... as long as nobody can use it for mankind's nefarious purposes....

Where is it some folks live? Can they even put themselves in the same situation or are they too urbanized in their day to day life to recognize the people who live there are effected? What do YOU do to support your family, your community? How is your local community, schools and such funded? I'm guessing it's a LONG LONG way from those folks in any case......

Sorry, this is a very sore spot just like a blister in a poor fitting boot. I'm very weary of folks living with impunity speaking out of both faces.

muskeg, What is it I'm trying to spin? The Alaskan Forestry Organization is where I got the info. What do you want me to say? You are right and the AFO is wrong? You are a logger? I don't doubt that. But, I don't know what you want me to say other than somebody is wrong about what they claim and, I'm betting it isn't the forestry organization charged with representing the acreages and, what has or hasn't been cut in that 9.5 million acres.

The pictures you showed is not CLEAR CUTTING. IT IS NEARLY THE PERFECT DEER HABITAT AS SHOWN. It plainly meets required buffer recommendations and, mature timber buffer areas outlined in the forest management plan for the Tongass NF. Yes, huge areas of clear cutting is very bad for deer in deep snow regions. That isn't new info and, those areas AREN'T clear cuts. So what are you trying to say? EXACTLY WHERE DO YOU THINK WE ARE IN HUGE DISAGREEMENT HERE? I'M GETTING CONFUSED BY WHAT YOUR OPPOSITION IS. We aren't communicating well.

You made a personal claim early on. I used factual info to contradict it and, here we are. I get it, you think the resource is being over harvested. However Cutting 4% of a total of 9.5 million acres of forest land over the years is not excessive timber harvest. It is so small a percentage, it is irrelevant. I don't know the legal ramifications outlining all of that 9.5 million acre's of timberland or, what is or isn't off limits to cut in that 9.5 million acres. I just know that the 400,000 acres that have been cut out of the 9.5 million acres of timberland in the forest is a VERY small amount and, no where in the same universe as excessive.

You mentioned 500,000 acres, Is that is what is available for logging under the current plan? I assume it is since you said so in your last post. I admit to reading the Tongass NF plan a while back but, I truly don't remember if that is the magic number designated for logging this prescription. I thought it was somewhere in the 150,000 acre range over the next decade? Whatever it is, it doesn't change the fact it is such a small area in relation to the whole timbered area, that it can't be an example of excessive logging as you claimed originally.

But, my biggest confusion to all this is what any of this has to do with the sale of a state forest in Oregon, Originally given to them by the federal government as state trust lands, because the timber harvest it's sole survival depended upon was halted due to left leaning politics. I'm just confused where we are in disagreement in that arena and where any of this other stuff applies. I should have never replied to you on this thread. I should have done it in a PM I reckon.

God Bless men

PM sent ......

WV - all good man. If people cant share ideas intelligently, and even accept differences... What has the world come to! (I say that aware of the irony... based on today's communication style so often displayed :))

I looked over TU's "state of the trout" report from last year over the weekend. While the document consistently touches on logging among the negative impacts on coldwater fisheries, it's focus is beyond any one area of concern, so there is no real historical review of or up dated description of proper logging to sustain coldwater system health. Here's the report, it's a good read regardless of this discussion: http://www.tu.org/sites/default/files/offline/sott15/State_of_the_Trout_2015_web.pdf

Something interesting to me in reviewing it though, was the reminder that some challenges from historical logging are things like increased stream temperature, and destruction of habitat. Reviewing some of there other info, (TU's) there are some articles on there site which get into damage to commercial fishing due to loss of salmon spawning ability in areas where logging was performed. That was a historical view, and again, not clearly describing differences between current and historical practices - I think we can all agree that a lot of historical environmental practices were absolutely horrid for the environment. I'd suggest that's because we didnt know what we do now, and because sometimes, money wins. I'm seeing the rivers flowing green, red, blue etc as they did here in the north east when paper mills were making paper of those colors prior to environmental awareness rising. Or, thinking of things like the little creek near my home, filled with effluent from local plastics factories as it was decades ago.

Ill go back to it, I suspect there is a good way to log - I'm not going to suggest it, because I dont have formal training either in the science of it, or the practice - every time I use my chainsaw and dont lose a foot is a good time :) ha ha ha! But, I'm certain that with the amount of knowledge and understanding today, if people come together with different expertise, a long term result which can improve the economic and environmental conditions of given areas can occur. It definitely does not have to be one, or the other.

When it comes to the sale of public lands, my bias, is the history of industry favoring growth and $$ over the environment by a wide margin. That's a bias - because hey, as I said earlier, they didnt know better 50 years ago, nor did today's technology exist. So I'm trying not to base my thinking here just off the past, but rather, off seeing a positive long term plan which I hope leaves the world a better place for my kids kids kids.

Good discussion! Will

I agree with some of what's been said, however there is one factor not mentioned. Grazing and timber rights on public land have been leased for far below market rates for years. I believe based on what I have read that this corporate welfare is more the work of Republicans than Democrats, and is a big factor in the land being a financial drain. I'm not saying we need to start voting in the Demos, but some of you seem to think Republicans are always looking out for your interests. They are politicians and a grazing or timber lobby will help them get elected if they sell out our land for pennies on the dollar. Let them pay market rates or get off our land.

I don't claim to be a professional forester, and I know that eventually it usually does grow back. However, as an old forestry professor told me about Montana logging, when it takes 70 years to grow back to what it was, you are essentially mining it. Maxim and other sweet old boys basically took what should have been a sustainably harvested forest, providing jobs in perpetuity, and logged it out in a few short years. I am very pro-logging if done in a environmentally sound and sustainable manner. Hopefully we can get back to more of that on public lands. and provide revenue streams to support it's better management and the local economy. I have seen enough inaccessible land in my lifetime. The thought of more public land headed in that direction makes me very unhappy.

(I had to Edit:)

After participating in this thread, there is little wander why the Elliot lost and, we as sportsman are going to lose this battle before it is over if we don't work hard to fix the misconceptions and, a lack of total understanding on this subject.

Will, keep reading. You'll find the TU has reverted to placing debris and wood waste in salmon and Trout streams. Nearly a 180 degree swap from what they used to recommend in all cases. And, yes there is a compromise in all this. My question is how much do we public land hunters have to lose before we realize that?

I think the communities could have been funded at current grazing/timber/mineral rates. They seemed to over the many years anyway.

The problem is the leftists/enviros shut it down. Now it's ZERO income. Yet some don't have any problem with that..... their community isn't funded by it. They actually support no multiple use, no commercial use. THAT is what lead to the sale. Clueless that you can't have it both ways, unless you personally want to make up the shortfall. Haven't seen many volunteers there either.

WRT party affiliation...... I don't know about you.... I don't know any of those folks involved in shutting down multiple use who are not democrats. May be a couple..... or maybe they are confused about their "political identity".....

WV, TU and other groups use strategic woody debris additions to streams/rivers to improve scouring and diversity of flow as well as to add cover and a substrate for insect growth and other food sources for fish. The aim is to help streams work more like they did before man really started to mess with them either via channelizing flow thinking that helped reduce the odds of flooding, or, restoring them after dams are removed or logging / agriculture resulted in increased stream temps and or siltation which killed or seriously impacted fish populations.

My suspicion is that if logging is done well - as in that study you knew about that I saw in WV or elsewhere, it can coexist with a healthy environment.

There's got to be a balancing act between public land turning to private, essentially industrial land and land which we all can enjoy - that contributes to the health and well being (financial, physical and mental) of our communities. I dont know the answer, but I'm pretty confident that it's not extracting every cent that can be extracted from a land area - nor is it avoiding extraction of some of a land areas monetary potential.

There is a balance there. It's not D / R. Or at least, it shouldnt be. The balance should be USA - where people with different ideals can compromise and find a best solution. There are enough people who really understand this on local/national/international levels to figure it out... If they can cast politics aside for all of our greater good.

I agree with everything you said. It's 100% correct. The only thing I'll ratify is the lack of compromise is due to party politics. The answer doesn't necessarily lay with the letter behind the representatives name. However, it does lay with common sense political views. Which is expressed by one side on this issue.

The conservative outlook is the only side I'm seeing that expresses that. Because liberals are taking what they can get. One inch at a time with lawsuits. Not multiple use doctrine.

I guess in the end, this debate turned out well. While there are variables affecting this that haven't been brought out, what has been debated shows there is a compromise. And no one who is pro extraction is demanding we ring every cent out of these lands. But, in order for us to keep being able to access a public land we don't own, we need to allow the bill payers the ability to pay the bills. Deficits have to be paid. Irregardless of liberal economic theories that say our society can function with a consuming deficit, it cannot. And as worldwide cases have shown, governments are going to take from the people to pay the debts liberal policy has instilled. Let's get this right in the ballot boxes and keep our access set in law. Or, continue down the same road and watch it slowly go away. God Bless men

The MUSY and FLMPA mandates that govern USFS and BLM demand that public lands under those domains be managed for "multiple use and SUSTAINED YIELDS". The sustained yield revenues were supposed to pay the bills.

When the enviros started using the courts and sympathetic government agencies (won't mention which party...) to circumvent Congress and illegally create "laws" to shut down the sustained yield portion of the mandate, the whole system of self-sustaining public lands started going to hell. And with it, the scientific management and condition of public lands went to hell also. Wildfires and beetles are doing what humans should have done for the past 45 years, except no revenue is produced by Ma Nature.

Every defacto law created by court decisions, as mentioned by Jaq, could be changed by Congress. Every single one of those cases.

Yet, what does the spineless Congress do? They propose selling the lands or giving them to state agencies where they will likely be sold or at least impaired from an access perspective.

Congress hopes we continue fighting among ourselves and not hold them accountable for changing the laws such that the playing field is leveled. I have sat in on many phone calls and meetings where Congressional delegates have been asked to sponsor such changes. They all squirm, as they know that getting such passed requires work and possible compromise, neither work or compromise being something those folks are interested in.

Regardless of the political blame game here, the reality is this. Oregon is going to lose a huge amount of public lands open to hunting and other activities. If Congress follows through with the idea being promoted to transfer lands to the western State Land Boards, the loss of access in Oregon is going to very small compared to what hunters and shooters will lose under the State Transfer notion.

I hope you all draw your Wyoming elk tags today.

Bravo men. Both of you. Now that's two posts that should get everyone's attention.

God Bless fellas

Trial153, That article you posted has absolutley nothing to do with the reality of things here. Idaho Department of Lands, like its sister agencies in other states, is charged with using the lands it holds in a way that creates revenue for the schools of our state.

Given that I've been directly involved in trying to accomplish a transaction with the Department of Lands for three years, I have a little insight. They DO NOT sell land at this point. They can trade for lands only if the trade shows a CLEAR financial benefit to the state.

It amazes me how many on this site actually look at logging as a bad thing. Much of the timbered ground in Idaho is owned by timber companies, and it is logged for their profit, you can be sure of that! But the fact is that those timber lands, by and large, are healthier forests than our National Forests, without a doubt are better for our wildlife. I find it amazing that so many here can't get a grip on rotational logging, and what actually represents a profitable log/tree in different areas.

Bravo man. Great post.

If we charged market rates to graze or timber on federal lands, they would be economically self sustaining, not a drain that adds to the deficit. Let them use the land, but don't give away the store and then swallow the line that ALL problems are caused by the lefty wacko enviros.

And grazing is often destructive to the ecology of the land, and to water quality of the streams. Fact.

Bullshooter, absolutely correct. That's why proper management for sustainability includes responsible logging and grazing to minimize effects on water quality, erosion, and wildlife habitat. Revenue from multiple use would help greatly with that, but with all things political, some politician somewhere has a better idea of what to do with that revenue (see Porkulus 101) than to plow it back into our public lands..

Totally agree. "Porkulus 101". Haha good one.

Register here to reply to this topic