shoots-straight
Well-known member
Yea, I'm wasting my time listening. The outcome will be predictable.
Federal Land Grab Comes To Helena
- Thread starter katqanna
- Start date
shoots-straight
Well-known member
The good representative from Utah (Stratton) was asked how they (the state of Utah) could pay for wildfire. He said that they would do a better job of managing the lands and their would be less or no fires.
BuzzH
Well-known member
Stratton is clueless, shows how little thought has actually been put into the funding side of the issue.
Thats for starters.
Thats for starters.
jryoung
Well-known member
....and next on the phone will be representative bumbling white guy from our neighboring western state.
Senator Brendan will follow up with a verbal hand job.
Senator Brendan will follow up with a verbal hand job.
BuzzH
Well-known member
Take a look at google earth in MT, ID, WY, CO, AZ, NM, UT, NV, OR, WA.
See if you can find some forest regeneration. Encroachment of coniferous forests alone is creating tens of thousands of acres of "regeneration" alone.
As to the comments made by the PHD in Forestry, they should try to find someone thats not stuck in the '60's.
His vision of Forestry is old school as a best case. Apparently Resource Policy wasnt required for his PHD either.
See if you can find some forest regeneration. Encroachment of coniferous forests alone is creating tens of thousands of acres of "regeneration" alone.
As to the comments made by the PHD in Forestry, they should try to find someone thats not stuck in the '60's.
His vision of Forestry is old school as a best case. Apparently Resource Policy wasnt required for his PHD either.
Google Earth is not going to answer my question and I'm sure I could find many answers to my question on Google, but I trust Randy and that is why I asked him the question.
katqanna
Well-known member
Oy, just got back from the EQC meeting, carpool ride had to leave at 5:00, so I missed making my public comments on the fact that you cant transfer lands "back" or "take back", what was never in State control to begin with. I had some great poll charts that show the break down of US 74% against, the western states, especially MT 2014 78% against selling Federal Public Lands to reduce deficit. The MT breakdown also showed western state breakdown of Montana voters considering themselves hunters (53%) and anglers (57%). I gave my charts to Jerry in case he could use them in public comments.
The choreographed agenda was definitely of a vocal minority of malcontents. Trying to waste our taxpayer dollars and time. They spoke of clean water and the BLM not doing their job. Yeah how about the BLM lawsuit in the Missouri Breaks for cattle illegally being run there, that have ruined the banks, polluting the water and destroyed riparian areas. Yeah, lets talk federal mismanagement. Loved Winder's line, "May take a generation to change the culture of Federal Government in the West." As more people are becoming aware of the rights and benefits of Federal public lands, the percentages of those in opposition grows.
The choreographed agenda was definitely of a vocal minority of malcontents. Trying to waste our taxpayer dollars and time. They spoke of clean water and the BLM not doing their job. Yeah how about the BLM lawsuit in the Missouri Breaks for cattle illegally being run there, that have ruined the banks, polluting the water and destroyed riparian areas. Yeah, lets talk federal mismanagement. Loved Winder's line, "May take a generation to change the culture of Federal Government in the West." As more people are becoming aware of the rights and benefits of Federal public lands, the percentages of those in opposition grows.
shoots-straight
Well-known member
I can't speak for Randy, and I'm no forester, but in the Bitterroot National Forest fires have reforested more than half that National Forest land on it's own and there has been some departmental help.
They use to reforest lots of acres and are trying to again somewhat. We sure have a lot of Spanish descendant types of people show up this time of year.
http://ravallirepublic.com/lifestyles/blife/article_9de51daa-d888-11e3-8d34-001a4bcf887a.html
Nameless Range
Well-known member
The representative from Wyoming was the most irritating. The guy said "Nefarious Overreach" At least 10 times.
I also find it offensive that Montanans would look to Wyoming for land management and governance advice.
I also find it offensive that Montanans would look to Wyoming for land management and governance advice.
Thanks for the link.
I don't understand why there would have to be a grant to pay for some of the seedlings. It's nice the casket company is donating money to the US but I hope it wasn't needed to plant the trees it paid for.
It was a ridiculous show from the anti-public land crusaders yesterday. Several speakers were supporting Bundy, while others were naked in their pursuit to sell off lands. TheNevada county Commissioner was clear as a bell :First they'll start with checkerboard lands and then move on to lands with high recreational value.
There were, however, some good points brought up in regards to serial litigants who try to stop any project. However, the solutions already being acted upon were either completely ignored or they were glossed over and belittled.
The farm bill provision for cat -exing forest restoration projects under 3,000 acres is a good example of removing some barriers in order to both increase forest health and ensure jobs for local forest communities.
Buzz was spot on with his assesment of the PhD in Forestry. His solutions were to go back to the Timber Wars and just clear cut everything. He certainly comes from the "the only good tree is a cut tree" school of thought.
The committee once again excluded the $5.8 billion outdoor industry from committee testimony and they only allowed truncated public comment. Vito, Jerry Davis & Nick Gevock did a good job reminding the committee that transference of public lands would result in a large number of upset people.
There is no doubt that fotest management has been hamstrung. But the position of the proponents of transference remind me of the old saying "you have to burn the village in order to save it." Pretty short sighted and certainly one sided presentation from the committee, but that's what I'm come to expect.
There were, however, some good points brought up in regards to serial litigants who try to stop any project. However, the solutions already being acted upon were either completely ignored or they were glossed over and belittled.
The farm bill provision for cat -exing forest restoration projects under 3,000 acres is a good example of removing some barriers in order to both increase forest health and ensure jobs for local forest communities.
Buzz was spot on with his assesment of the PhD in Forestry. His solutions were to go back to the Timber Wars and just clear cut everything. He certainly comes from the "the only good tree is a cut tree" school of thought.
The committee once again excluded the $5.8 billion outdoor industry from committee testimony and they only allowed truncated public comment. Vito, Jerry Davis & Nick Gevock did a good job reminding the committee that transference of public lands would result in a large number of upset people.
There is no doubt that fotest management has been hamstrung. But the position of the proponents of transference remind me of the old saying "you have to burn the village in order to save it." Pretty short sighted and certainly one sided presentation from the committee, but that's what I'm come to expect.
BuzzH
Well-known member
Actually google earth would answer your questions. Try it.
You can easily see regeneration in clear cuts, burns, etc. intuitively obvious, even to the most casual of observers...
Plus, your question was too vague to really allow for an appopriate answer. Many things to take into consideration regarding regeneration in regard to trees/forest.
In the most broad sense, yes, natural forest regeneration is fully successful. I rarely find a study site that I visit that isnt regenerating successfully and not fully stocked.
Also, there is no doubt in my mind that there are more trees/stem per acre on most FS lands than there has ever been. I worked on the UCRB study comparing stand density, trees per acre, species composition, etc. I compared a set of 500-600 photos taken in the late 40's in a large watershed in Western Montana to a current set taken in the mid 90's. The amount of trees per acre had increased dramatically in 50 years, species composition had changed in many areas, in particular Pinus Ponderosa, Larix Occidentalis, and Pinus Contorta stands.
The dozen or so people that I worked with on the same project all found the same thing.
Another thing that was noted is the lack of large snag trees in the 90's photos VS the 40's photos.
The conclusions I drew from that study is that fire suppression and selective logging in the early 1900's altered forest type, species compostion, etc. more than anything else. To a lesser degree human development and land clearing operations (mostly in the lower elevations).
The place for discussion in regard to forest regeneration is really about whether the species composition is appropriate NOW compared to historically what was found prior to fire suppression.
To answer your question, you would need to be more specific to forest type, species composition, habitat type, etc. etc.
katqanna
Well-known member
katqanna
Well-known member
Wish I had seen this before I sent my newsletter out this morning, I would have included it.
National land grab alarming to anglers, hunters, sportsmen and women by BHA's Land Tawney
This OpEd was just posted to the Flathead Beacon yesterday by Sen. Jennifer Fielder who is chairing this SJ 15 Federal Lands study. Transfer of Public Lands Would Benefit Montana
National land grab alarming to anglers, hunters, sportsmen and women by BHA's Land Tawney
This OpEd was just posted to the Flathead Beacon yesterday by Sen. Jennifer Fielder who is chairing this SJ 15 Federal Lands study. Transfer of Public Lands Would Benefit Montana
Last edited:
Similar threads
