smarandr
Well-known member
Yet another half truth/uninformed statement from Big Rack. I was hunting Federal land during the gubmint shutdown--legally I might add.
MT GOP: Transfer Federal Lands to the State
- Thread starter katqanna
- Start date
Yet another half truth/uninformed statement from Big Rack. I was hunting Federal land during the gubmint shutdown--legally I might add.
roadhunter
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2013
- Messages
- 719
So we need to give the USFS more money to fix the problem??? I hope you are kidding.
Getting somebody else to pay the bill for firefighting on USFS land? I really hope you are kidding on this one. Why should somebody else pay the bill for a problem on USFS land caused by USFS mismanagement. That makes no sense.
Your response sounds like something a government employee would say. Bigger government is the problem, not the solution.
If what you said was true about 50% of the budget being used for firefighting that should tell you all you need to know. Do you know any ranchers who use 50% of the ranch budget fighting fires? Do you know of any logging companies who use 50% of their budget fighting fires? Any landowners who do this? There is a reason that no corporation, business, ranch, farm, etc.. spends that much on firefighting for their property. It's simply not necessary if you manage the land correctly.
Are you saying all Federal Land was open to hunting during the shutdown?
http://missoulian.com/news/local/fe...cle_3a306122-320f-11e3-b49c-0019bb2963f4.html
Change the State laws. Each State has a process to do this.
As for taxes, it's a spending problem, not a revenue problem.
USFS budget has declined significantly over the last 15 years. They're starved for funding while GE & Exxon Mobil pay no income taxes. If you can't see the pattern, your eyes are shut.
Do you know any ranchers who have cut their budgets year after year and can still provide the same services? I don't.
TO think that you can lessen the cost of fighting fires ignores the entire world around you. As the west gets warmer and drier, fires will occur with more frequency. Most of those fires, btw, start in areas of human development.
Furthermore, the ecology of the west is an ecology of fire. There is nothing wrong with fire, but there is a lot wrong with looking at a forest, and only seeing saw logs.
Do you know any ranchers who have cut their budgets year after year and can still provide the same services? I don't.
TO think that you can lessen the cost of fighting fires ignores the entire world around you. As the west gets warmer and drier, fires will occur with more frequency. Most of those fires, btw, start in areas of human development.
Furthermore, the ecology of the west is an ecology of fire. There is nothing wrong with fire, but there is a lot wrong with looking at a forest, and only seeing saw logs.
BuzzH
Well-known member
In some cases that could be a true statement, in others not so much. There is a lot more to wildland fire than simply stand density. Many times, its not even the trees, or tree density, that is causing fire behavior. Weather, fuel moisture content, winds, extended drought, species composition, invasives, DWM's, aspect, slope,...to name a few, influence fire timing, intensity, etc.wayyyy more than stand density.
I've fought more than my fair share of fires...clearcuts, major highways, thinned areas wont even slow a fire down many times.
There are also costs associated with entering stands multiple times for thinning and logging in a typical stand rotation. Thinning can be costly, in particular in a precommerical situation, and is some cases can increase fuel loading, in particular for the short-term.
Theres also species that dont do well with any kind of "thinning", lodgepole being the classic example with other shallow rooted species like most of the Picea (Spruce) family.
I agree that when practical it makes sense to sell and log trees. No question of that. However, its not as "simple" as you make it sound. Again, there are major costs associated with reforestation, in particular "replanting". You have to gather seed, have multiple nurseries, pay the tree planters, etc. Its a sketchy proposition, and a very long-term investment, in particular in the Interior West, where tree rotation ages are mostly in the 80+ year range. Then theres always the problem of home starts, construction, interest rates, etc. that determine stumpage fees. Doesnt make any sense to log a tree that either doesnt have a market or is is under-valued. In particular when you've spent an ass-pile of money in "management".
Fact check...aisle one! The USFS employees do not set policy. That is done, for the most part at the congressional level. Management of anything costs money. The public has demanded that the USFS stomp out every fire that starts, that comes with a price tag. The public demands the USFS manage T&E species, that comes with a price tag. The list goes on and on. To hold USFS employees responsible for everything that happens on the millions of acres they control is irresponsible as a best case.
Recreation, wildlife, clean water, clean air, grazing, etc. all have to be given equal consideration under the MUSYA, thats why its a fair comparision. The USFS is bound by law to consider all uses equally.
Again, you paint with the broadest of brushes and at a very simplistic, almost juvenile level. I agree 100% that in some areas of the NF lands, the USFS could generate income from timber sales. The worst case being a "break even" venture that stimulates jobs, which again, I have no problem with where practical. However, if you could show me where the sole mission of the USFS is to generate income, I'd appreciate it.
Its also fair to keep in mind they simply cant, by statute, law, or regulation log every acre they own. Try pulling off a timber sale in designated wilderness sometime. Try pulling off a timber sale in a riparian area sometime. You get the idea. At the same time you're considering that, remember that the USFS is also charged with the costs associated with managing ALL of their lands and ALL of their various resources.
They arent bad at managing the land, they just cant make everybody happy. The USFS has reduced their budgets, cut programs, and staff for the last 20 years. Management costs money, intensive manage like you're advocating, costs even more.
The USFS isnt perfect, their managers are human and the decisions they make today (both good and bad) take a life-time to see the results of. They're also bound by law and regulation to manage within the laws that the Americal Public, via their congressional Representatives pass. Just the way it is.
However, it gets old listening to loud-mouths bash an Agency they have no clue about.
GE and Exxon did pay income taxes.
And?
BuzzH
Well-known member
...and get off your ass and show us how easy it is to change the state constitution.
For starters.
You act like its no big deal, keep chirping big-bird.
For starters.
You act like its no big deal, keep chirping big-bird.
It doesn't matter what would happen, it is what they would be told to vote one way or another and you know it.
Each State is different.
Maybe you wouldn't even have to change the Constitution for some States.
In some States it just takes a vote by the people to change it.
katqanna
Well-known member
On page 4 of the MT GOP resolution I linked, it stated that the Coalition of Montana Chambers signed on to the Transfer of Federal Public Lands. So I looked it up and found the document. Joint Position/Policy Papers Coalition of Montana Chamber - 2012/2013.
Pg. 4 "Return of Federal Lands: The Chambers encourage the State of Montana to adopt a policy requesting the transfer and management of Federal Lands, where appropriate, to the state of Montana."
I called our Bozeman Chamber and spoke with CEO Daryl Schliem who very much advocated this position saying the restrooms on state lands for camping were cleaner than those on BLM lands and couldnt understand my objections to loosing Federal Public Land access. I looked him up
Pg. 4 "Return of Federal Lands: The Chambers encourage the State of Montana to adopt a policy requesting the transfer and management of Federal Lands, where appropriate, to the state of Montana."
I called our Bozeman Chamber and spoke with CEO Daryl Schliem who very much advocated this position saying the restrooms on state lands for camping were cleaner than those on BLM lands and couldnt understand my objections to loosing Federal Public Land access. I looked him up
Last edited:
BuzzH
Well-known member
BigRack,
Lots of "maybe's" and "just takes"...not to mention leaving things up to the "voters". Lord only knows they never decide wrong.
I've long been a fan of gathering facts and getting the horse in front of the cart...obviously, your mileage varies.
I will make no apologies for not wanting to gamble away my public lands on a "maybe" and "just take".
Lots of "maybe's" and "just takes"...not to mention leaving things up to the "voters". Lord only knows they never decide wrong.
I've long been a fan of gathering facts and getting the horse in front of the cart...obviously, your mileage varies.
I will make no apologies for not wanting to gamble away my public lands on a "maybe" and "just take".
I'm all for keeping it under Federal Control but we need to articulate it to the general public of why it should be that way.
Going around blaming certain groups of people is not the way to do it like some on here do.
I think that a lot of folks have articulated why it's a bad deal: States lack infrastructure and funding to handle the land, taxes would increase and no gaurantee that states won't sell it off or kick hunters and anglers out.
Just look at Utah.
As for holding people accountable for their actions - I thought that was a conservative thing? I'm all for it. Happy to name names.
roadhunter
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2013
- Messages
- 719
Buzz,
Good response. I think we agree on many of the topics. You did a good job of pointing out some exceptions to the topics discussed.
]I can assure you that I have a good handle on what goes on (and what doesn't in most cases) in a USFS office. I also have family who work for the USFS. I do understand that there are decisions made that are out of their control but there is still a different vibe when you walk in a USFS building among the employees. I deal with USFS people on a daily basis and after doing so for over a year am still unsure as to what most of them do or contribute. I could go on but I think we all know what I am talking about. It's true for many government employees who would never make it in the private sector.
Do you think there are any benefits to allowing the state to manage these lands as opposed to the USFS?
I think there could be some benefits along with allowing each state to make decisions based on their area instead of blanket policies that may or may not work in each state. During the shutdown states like South Dakota asked to take control of attractions such as MT Rushmore because if how important it is to the states economy. It really showed how important it was to them and how they might be able to run them more efficiently.
Any chance there could be less red tape/lawsuits/etc that seem to limit what the USFS can currently do?
I don't know on this but I can't imagine it would be worse than it currently is.
Nope, not less, probably not more.
So long as the ESA and other laws/rules are in place that allow the fringe minority on one side to use the courts to tie up land management decisions for decades, the lawsuits that create red tape for the USFS will still exist. Rather, it will just become the headache of the state agencies and a cost to state taxpayers.
When the states tire of that, which they will tire very quickly, the response will be to sell the land. That end result accomplishes the goals of the fringe elements driving the issue who have an ideology that public land is the anti-Christ to our society.
It's not like transferring to the state now makes the ESA null and void. Rather, it will change the defendant named in the suit will be "State of ......", rather than USFS/BLM. A state agency cannot ignore the ESA any more than a Federal agency can.
If these "sell the public landers" were serious about fixing the problem, they would look at the tools used to create lawsuits and red tape, such as the Equal Access to Justice Act and others. Changes there would give agencies some freedom to manage these lands.
But, since the end goal of these fringe operators is to dispose of the public lands, they do not want real solutions, only manufactured solutions that sound good in a five second sound bite and accomplishes their goal to dispose of the public lands. They see this growing frustration with the court system being used to manipulate the process that results in agencies being handcuffed to manage.
That frustration serves the purpose of the public land disposal crowd, even if it will never solve the bigger problem. They are political opportunist of the highest degree.
So, there will not be less red tape or lawsuits. Just different defendants named at the top of the letterhead.
Rimrock
New member
" the restrooms on state lands for camping were cleaner than those on BLM lands "
Maybe because that's a few years back, a great MSU grad student, Brekke Peterson was working summers for State Parks, and among her other research on camelina, she used the meal (the byproduct after cold-pressing the oil) as a fantastic odor inhibitor in outhouses!!
But, nowadays, I would perhaps only consider this ridiculous exchange, if Wild-Eyed Kerry White and Roger Kookman, the rest of the Environmental "Quality" council, the other Bozemaniacs, and now maybe even the "Chamber" had to clean those outhouses.
Yeah, right....
Maybe because that's a few years back, a great MSU grad student, Brekke Peterson was working summers for State Parks, and among her other research on camelina, she used the meal (the byproduct after cold-pressing the oil) as a fantastic odor inhibitor in outhouses!!
But, nowadays, I would perhaps only consider this ridiculous exchange, if Wild-Eyed Kerry White and Roger Kookman, the rest of the Environmental "Quality" council, the other Bozemaniacs, and now maybe even the "Chamber" had to clean those outhouses.
Yeah, right....
Ben,
I like your replies (normally) but I have to call you out with B.S.
Show me exactly where Exxon pays no income tax. My quick reference shows they paid north of 31 BILLION. Where are your facts???.
