Forest Service Public Opinion Survey

[1_pointer]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> The public sees the promotion of ecosystem health as an important objective and role for the agency. There is strong support for protecting watersheds. The public supports multiple uses, but not all uses equally. Motorized recreation is not a high priority objective, while preserving the ability to have a "wilderness experience" is important.

There is a lack of support for subsidies for development and leasing of public lands. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_gtr095.html

Just thought some of you would like to read this.

 

[Nut]

I guess it will just be classified as "junk science" like everything else.

Thanks pointer

 

[dgibson]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The public has a strong environmental protection orientation, has a moderately strong conservation/preservation orientation, and supports some development.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>So, for some, environment is important, but conservation/preservation isn't? No comprehendo.

 

[1_pointer]

Dg- Could it be dependent on the definition of conservation/preservation?

 

[Muledeer4me]

"Preservation of traditional uses is a somewhat important objective. Development and use of the best scientific information enjoys wide support, as does information sharing and collaboration. A national direction for the management of National Forest lands is a slightly important objective. Increasing law enforcement on National Forests and Grasslands is an important objective and an appropriate role for the agency"


I saw it as reinforcing much of what we all talk about on here.
Save what we have,protect what really need's protecting,inforce the law's,share informantion so we understand why all the side's are talking about .
Not single out one groups vision and run with it like that all that out there.
Balance.

 

[brokfut]

I fail to see where the Forest Service is even trying to do the job it was created to do. Their initial charter within the Department of Agriculture is to manage a renewable resource, i.e. trees for timber. Since they do not allow logging of the Federally held forest lands, they are operating outside of their jusitiction in almost everthing they do now. The Forest Service has become just another buracrocy that is self perpetuating and self serving.

 

[1_pointer]

Thier focus has changed due to the change in societal values of the lands they manage.

 

[BuzzH]

1-pointer is right on, the Forest Service mission has changed, and has been changing for about 30 years or so. Its mission has always been to provide "the greatest good for the greatest number for the longest time"

Despite what some think, the values of society change over time, and as servants to the public, the FS must change to accomadate the "greatest number".

I think theres been enough polls, surveys, etc. done that prove people are putting more emphasis on preservation now, rather than resource extraction. Times change.

I personally still feel that extraction is not only proper, but needed, and completely acceptable if done correctly. But for the FS to operate as it did in the 30's, 40's, 50's, 60's, etc. would be totally irresponsible and ridiculous. The job of the Forest Service has come along way from farming trees, and it will continue to change as time goes on.

 

[ELKCHSR]

There are way's to log and extract timber, but you have to thin the biggest and leave the rest, cut and dry as simple as that. Part of the problem is that to many in the power curve, put their finger in the air and figure which way the polls will be next, not really caring or worrying about what they are supposed to be doing. Brokfut was absolutely correct in his post. Most don't want to see the biggest pulled out of the forest, but they want the wood products that come from this. You can't manage nature by mob rule, or what the fickle public wants today. It doesn't work, it hasn't work and it never will work. The public opinion doesn't belong in proper management of our natural resources…

 

[1_pointer]

If public opinion shouldn't have any affect on natural resource management, what is a better way?

FWIW, the BLM and other federal agencies are following the lead of the USFS in managing with a systems (holistic or big picture) point of view. I think the BLM and USFS got themselves in trouble in earlier times for two main reasons: 1. They tried to manage for a specific resource and that resource only. 2. Blanket management practices were implemented across very diverse landscapes.

 

[ELKCHSR]

I should rephrase this a little bit, so you guy's don't run over board with it and off the scope of extremism!!!
There are things the public can and should get involved in, the best uses of our public lands. Not the how's and why's, only the ideas...We pay mass amounts of $$$ for expert consultants, biologists and specialists in these fields to try and work the best plans for what to do with these to benefit the most. But we also have a very noisy bunch of individuals that know nothing about management and they get a big say on what happens in these places with out any real sense of science or common sense...

 

[1_pointer]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> with out any real sense of science or common sense... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
It's just too bad that they aren't the same thing. Other than that I do agree with what you posted.

 

[ELKCHSR]

Well thanks, I will take that as a compliment

 

[Muledeer4me]

"I personally still feel that extraction is not only proper, but needed, and completely acceptable if done correctly. But for the FS to operate as it did in the 30's, 40's, 50's, 60's, etc. would be totally irresponsible and ridiculous. The job of the Forest Service has come along way from farming trees, and it will continue to change as time goes on. '

Good one Buzz.
To add to that I agree with russ,that the public shouldnt have the last say when it goes against what is science based (not letting the racical fringe decide how to manage it)on one side or the other.

 

[1_pointer]

But what if science calls for getting all the cows off an allotment? Would you still stand behind that statement? I agree, if management was conducted using good science with the health of the land as the primary objective much of these debates would never happen.

 

[Michaelr]

if it was from sound science that cows should be taken off the range and not one of these

then I would be in full support, unfortunatly it is hard right now to know the difference.

 

[BuzzH]

It isnt hard to know the difference between something being over-grazed and something in good health (if you educate yourself a pinch). For Christ sake, we arent building rockets here.

 

[Michaelr]

Buzz you missed the point, AGAIN.

its about the rules and regulations going overboard because of extreemie weenie wacko's. I would totally agree that there are improvements needed, They just need done in a reasonable manner.
Not because of this

 

[BuzzH]

I sure dont see many strict regulations surrounding public lands grazing...do you?

If there were stricter regulations, maybe we wouldnt be having this whole debate.

 

[Michaelr]

enforcement of regulations already on the books is what we need!