Interview with Forest Service Chief

[Ithaca 37]

"The fourth threat, in my view, I refer to it as unmanaged outdoor recreation. Mainly what I´m thinking about right now is off-highway vehicles. ... My belief is the day that we can take off-highway vehicles across the national forest, across country, wherever you want, is over. Motorized vehicles need to be limited to designated roads and trails or areas......”"

He has a lot more to say, too.

http://www.idahostatesman.com/Opinion/story.asp?ID=59359

 

[Ten Bears]

Lets examine the Third Threat <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> “The third threat, in my view, has to do with the loss of open space. In the West, it´s generally like some of the ranches that for one reason or another go out of business and they subdivide into ranchettes and condominiums. ... What I´m concerned about is that we in the Forest Service aren´t doing things ... that help push (ranches) toward ending up being subdivided. ...

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Our job is to make sure, if we´re going to graze on national forests, it´s being done right and we´re not damaging the environment. ... If we had some problems, I´d like to find some more creative solutions to those problems, rather than just pushing people off ... That´s a lose-lose, from my standpoint. ... I tell people that the worst-managed ranch is still better wildlife habitat than the best-planned subdivision. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Talk about selective posting.....

 

[BuzzH]

While I think Bosworth is a pretty good guy with lots of credentials, what the hell control does the FS have over private landowners CHOOSING to subdivide their land?

I suppose Congress could appropriate money to purchase the land when a private owner decides to sell, but that doesnt have much to do with the FS.

As far as allowing poor grazing practices to continue so that the leasee wont subdivide his private property...thats a big bunch of crap. If leasee's dont comply with the lease, kick their ass off.

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 01-27-2004 11:20: Message edited by: BuzzH ]</font>

 

[Nemont]

BuzzH,
What I understood him saying is that the F.S. doesn't want to do things which make it harder for ranchers to stay in business. The concern over open space and fractionalization of the landscape from development are a concern to many. Regardless of your opinion on public lands grazing, keeping open space is an objective of multiple use and Mr. Bosworths opinions is he would rather see cattle than houses.
I don't think that position has much popular support out there though. Even many cattleman want to end poor grazing practices because it makes them all look bad.
Nemont

 

[BuzzH]

So, if forcing them (ranchers) to COMPLY with lease agreements (that they agreed to) makes it harder for them to stay in business...Bosworth would rather look the other way?

I sure hope that isnt what he's implying, but based on many recent decisions by his boss, I'd suspect that IS exactly what he's thinking.

I'd rather have a responsible landowner leasing from the FS thats compliant with the agreements. I'd rather not have a poorly run ranch, ruining my public lands by using the same poor practices on MY federal land.

If it comes down to it, let them sell their land. You cant allow poor grazing practices to continue forever to help someone who isnt willing to help themselves. Also, I'd bet that most ranchers who arent complying to federal lease agreements are probably going to sell out anyway.

 

[Nemont]

BuzzH,
I agree with you. I don't think allowing leases to be run to the point of overgrazing is good for anything or anybody. I think the F.S. is an agency that right now is disfuntional.

Wasn't trying to argue. Just was adding my .02 cents.
Nemont

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 01-27-2004 12:17: Message edited by: Nemont ]</font>