Timber and litigation and fire

[TheJason]

It is an apples to oranges comparison simply in the goals of each agency. State land boards are typically mandated, either by law and/or state constitution, to maximize revenues from the trust lands. Federal land agencies such as BLM and USFS are mandated to manage for multiple use. Those two goals don't coexist very well, and that's where the PERC article falls down is because it solely focused on profit returns for timber. It doesn't include the economic benefit federal lands provide to local communities.

You can legitimately break down State Land profits for grazing, timber, and mining because that's really all they are intended to do is provide revenue. Federal lands are intended to provide much more than that, so profits are only a fraction of their bigger purpose.

Short of charging trail tolls, trail construction and maintenance will never provide economic return to the USFS. It does, however, provide economic return to the towns that surround these areas. Also, to my knowledge, federal land revenues simply go into the general treasury and do not necessarily go back to the agencies for management, maintenance, and upkeep.

We are digressing rapidly from the original intent of the OP, but I do appreciate the civil discussion.

 

[BigHornRam]

BHR, you obviously didn't comprehend a thing I posted.

You didn't comprehend what I posted. For years, most all COMMERCIAL timber sales have been litigated. To the point that the FS has cut way back on putting out commercial projects. So right now, there aren't a lot of acres in litigation. Make sense?

What they have started doing is non commercial thinning under cat ex, cutting, piling, and burning, trees up to 12" diameter. The project I linked to is one of these. It's also in a roadless area. Helicopter logging is the only way to legally log this piece of ground. The trees are mostly over 12" diameter and a lot of trees need to be removed in order to meet their planned objectives. That won't happen because a COMMERCIAL harvest would obviously get tied up in litigation.

 

[Nameless Range]

A more meaningful analysis would be a comparison of individual but similar timber sales - One to ones with state versus federal. Even then it would fall short if it didn't factor in the different hurdles both contingents have to go through, and the fact that the state has positioned itself to only own parcels which are profitable. That's why I don't necessarily think regional comparisons work very well.

No doubt the feds could increase their profitability, but I'm not sure it would make a meaningful difference in their revenues versus their expenditures.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Here is an article straight from the USDA - FS: https://www.fs.fed.us/speeches/chang...le-two-debates it holds some interesting content. Definitely worth the read.

That is a helpful article with good information and an interesting perspective, especially since a USDA - FS writing.

I'm not a believer of the apples and oranges as both are based on covering expenditures.

I agree that the USFS should be attempting to cover more expenditures regarding resource extraction projects. But the "apples vs oranges" issue really involves much more. Both are NOT based on covering expenditures. It's not a matter of my opinion or yours; it's a matter of the governmental structure and what Congress requires versus what the state constitution requires. With regard to "multiple use" Congress does not even expect USFS to come close to breaking even. Consider that campgrounds, trails, and other recreational amenities are funded through taxes and Congressional allocations. 'Just one example of vast differences with regard to federal vs state lands. Montana state lands are mandated by the State Constitution to produce revenue, not just cover expenditures but to make money for schools. I think you know this, but again the differences (fedl lands vs state lands) are huge.

NOTE: I expect that PERC and others of that ideology would like us to pay $100 or $200 per night or whatever it takes to cover the campground expenditures ... but that's not the way it has been established for the good of the people ... nor is it really the way we want it? Hunting could really get expensive if we had to pay by the usage mile for the trails and all the public lands privileges we so enjoy.

 

[BigHornRam]

And by the way, it would make a good project. It's a mile wide by 1/2mile deep, and fits right between 2 existing fire scars. It also butts up to private property, where most all the land owners have done a good job thinning their properties. It also has a major trailhead in the project area.

 

[Sytes]

Here is one of those small steps that *could* take a lesson from State timber sales reviewed by our own GAO.
http://www.gao.gov/mobile/products/GAO-07-764

And the terrible accounting and lack luster oversight continues... Another review that exposed loose controls...
http://forestpolicypub.com/2017/04/03/u-s-forest-service-scalped-on-tongass-timber-sales/

Regarding litigation here is an interesting article by the environmental friendly, Missoulian... I believe they did a fair portrayal respecting ALL viewpoints. I don't have the Washington Post article that Tester had to apologize over his "exageration" though here is the Missoulian: https://www.google.com/amp/missouli...cbcf3abe-21d1-5144-9e52-1084f0baf972.amp.html

 

[Rancho Loco]

Yes, that opinion column perpetuates the myth that litigation stifling timber extraction projects is what keeps forest management from reducing and controlling the likelihood of severe wildland fires. I think the wood products industry and those who advocate for increased logging are becoming less credible by ignoring the science and the studies by wildfire behavior professionals. I believe that if the wood products folks would instead develop a proactive plan which would identify the urban - wildland interface areas most at risk and the areas with timber worth harvesting where reasonable access already exists, then their cause would be more widely supported. To merely assert that there are dead trees throughout the National Forests and on other public lands and thus the need to thin and reduce fuels is critical, really is not a reasonable well thought-out position. Something needs to change with regard to all the stifling litigation ... but pointing to that as an indirect cause of severe wildland fires is naive, at best.

The column does not even touch upon international trade agreements which adversely impact the timber / lumber industry hugely.

This.

 

[BigHornRam]

Hmm. The Washington Compost is going after Tester now. Should give him a least a 10 point bump back here at home.

 

[BigHornRam]

Yes, that opinion column perpetuates the myth that litigation stifling timber extraction projects is what keeps forest management from reducing and controlling the likelihood of severe wildland fires. I think the wood products industry and those who advocate for increased logging are becoming less credible by ignoring the science and the studies by wildfire behavior professionals. I believe that if the wood products folks would instead develop a proactive plan which would identify the urban - wildland interface areas most at risk and the areas with timber worth harvesting where reasonable access already exists, then their cause would be more widely supported. To merely assert that there are dead trees throughout the National Forests and on other public lands and thus the need to thin and reduce fuels is critical, really is not a reasonable well thought-out position. Something needs to change with regard to all the stifling litigation ... but pointing to that as an indirect cause of severe wildland fires is naive, at best.

The column does not even touch upon international trade agreements which adversely impact the timber / lumber industry hugely.

Is this project reasonable and well thought out, Straight Arrow?
http://ravallirepublic.com/news/local/article_ad9a7826-200e-5dc9-81ff-1742d2ba4611.html

It has a COMMERCIAL component to it, so will no doubt be litigated.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Something needs to change with regard to all the stifling litigation

On a myriad of issues, the no-compromise, winner take all, stances of so many special interest groups on both sides has made common sense compromise nearly impossible these days and both seem to be 'happy' with grinding litigation approaches rather than real problem solving. I have spent my life in the legal arena, and litigation is a terrible way to resolve issues with any complexity or nuance. Sadly I see little reason to hope our culture sorts this out in the short term, but will retain hope for the long term.

 

[Straight Arrow]

The information included in that article would lead me to be supportive of that project. It does appear to be "reasonable and well thought out" in that it analyzes the wildland urban interface (WUI) factors, roads, recreation, water quality concerns, and other important elements which should be considered in any such proposal. Yes, I would predict the results of that project would be positive. Now if only those entities which would typically litigate to block would be able to realize the benefits.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Now if only those entities which would typically litigate to block would be able to realize the benefits.

An ugly truth of our current state is that most political organizations ultimately are driven by fundraising, and compromise does not fill the coffers as readily as uncompromising conflict and fear-mongering.

 

[BigHornRam]

An ugly truth of our current state is that most political organizations ultimately are driven by fundraising, and compromise does not fill the coffers as readily as uncompromising conflict and fear-mongering.

True. And for the fear mongers who keep bringing up "selling off our public lands to the highest bidder" and "the Forest Service is under funded" read this paragraph.........

"Eric Winthers, the Darby district ranger, said the project is fairly small and mainly involves land acquired a few years ago from the Darby Lumber Company. It encompasses land in the Rye Creek, Little Sleeping Child Creek, Harlan Creek, Roan Gulch, Burke Gulch and Robbins Gulch drainages on the Darby/Sula Ranger District."

In this case, the Forest Service bought land. But you never hear that from the fear mongers.

 

[TheJason]

In this case, the Forest Service bought land. But you never hear that from the fear mongers.

http://billingsgazette.com/news/sta...cle_394ea074-c991-5308-9872-2e326df44541.html

According to this article, it initially was approved as a purchase. However, it ultimately happened as an exchange.

 

[tjones]

Double post with JLS


"In this case, the Forest Service bought land.",,,,,,Bought-not so much.



https://www.landcan.org/news/Bitterroot-National-Forest-completes-land-exchange-with-CB-Ranch/2556

 

[BigHornRam]

http://billingsgazette.com/news/sta...cle_394ea074-c991-5308-9872-2e326df44541.html

According to this article, it initially was approved as a purchase. However, it ultimately happened as an exchange.

I stand corrected. Any idea what happened with the funds that were approved by congress for this purchase?

 

[TheJason]

I stand corrected. Any idea what happened with the funds that were approved by congress for this purchase?

No idea. As I recall, the money was to be appropriated from LWCF funds I think, although I could have this confused with another appropriation?

 

[VikingsGuy]

I stand corrected. Any idea what happened with the funds that were approved by congress for this purchase?

Fair bet they were not returned to the taxpayers

 

[Straight Arrow]

Aside from intent of the "design" has the trade agreement adversely affected the US timber industry?

Straight Arrow's question.

http://mtstandard.com/opinion/edito...cle_86f91977-b95c-561b-8d3b-72441d92b10c.html Answered by Chuck Roady, vice president and general manager of F.H. Stoltze Land & Lumber Company, Columbia Falls, MT.

Tony, what's your take on Chuck Roady's opinion?

 

[cgarner]

If it was LWCF, the funds most likely got reappropriated to another acquisition project.