Originally Posted by Dave_Skinner
No, I did not introduce this topic, if I did I would not do so in the gunwriter's forum anyway.

Sam, part of the reason you're still doing good is, the Greens are working on "sexier" parts of the landscape. Be glad they are busy elsewhere -- except for maybe APR. You and I should have a visit about that, I need to go to Minot and Cannon Ball for a combined "estate" and "work" trip around May 1.

So, here's the "short" version of "If I Were The Big Boss."
I have rather unusual experience with natural resource politics, mostly on the forestry side as I grew up in a timber town when 50 percent of the entire economy was forest products. Should it be that now? No, but in light of what is going on, with fires covering double what has ever been harvested on the National Forest, the sector needs to be larger than it is.
I also come from a farm family, shoveled my share of bins and cow flop.
But my passion is forests, well-managed, self-sustaining, beautiful, vigorous forests.
Forests break down into several basic classes of ownership, and I rank ownerships on "balance" and overall condition, along the lines of the multiple-use model of economic, social and environmental outcomes. Best is a tie between tribal and state (good); and another tie between private and federal (terrible, for seemingly opposite reasons).
Prior to the late 1980's, the NF system and larger timber companies in Montana presented a stunning package of benefits to the economy and the general public.
The Forest Service was truly "Land of Many Uses" and because of interlocking ownerships and access, the large private outfits did much the same -- open, free access for both work AND play, with the deal being "don't kill our trees or needlessly tear up our roads and trails."
There were designations of wilderness, of course, but those were broadly supported as everyone recognized the need for primitive set-asides of outstanding natural resources that everyone agreed were outstanding.
All that changed with the Endangered Species Act and other alphabet-soup laws on the federal side, while on the private side, corporate raiders like Charles Hurwitz and a new corporate structure called a REIT, or Real Estate Investment Trust, totally changed the forest products sector.
Fast forward 20 years and you have waste on federal land driven by misguided radicals, and a pillage model focused utterly on cash flow on private.
The only bastions of multiple use remaining on the landscape are state and tribal forests. Why?
Well, both states and tribes are politically insular, less subject to boardroom greed or stupid federal law/Beltway evil. They are clearly self-interested, of course, but no more so than the "power players" on federal or private ownerships. State and tribal constituencies bear direct witness to outcomes on the ground. Neither can print money, therefore they really like to MAKE money. Not a lot, you can't if you adhere to multiple-use for the long term. But you can break even, and this is critical when millions of acres are added together.
For the most part, states and tribes do the absolute best job of creating and managing huntable habitat, of mitigating fire (and habitat-attribute loss). Hands flipping down. Period. End of story.
And there's another aspect, that cuts to the guts of our existence as a representative republic, of, by and for the people, especially the average citizen.
I think we pretty much can all agree (gosh, I hope so) that government is best, closest to the people. I would think by now that most of you would "get" that idea. Edicts by Beltway charlatans or courtroom terrorists do real harm on the ground -- and who lives with those harms?
The fact is, the general public wants, and fully deserves, a say in how such gigantic tracts of land, which are utterly central to our economic, social and environmental well-being, are managed. We all want, and deserve, reasonable access to those lands as well, something that is not forthcoming from the feds, nor from private without crazy fees. Tribes, that's up to them, period. As for states that now have certain restrictions, keep in mind that such restrictions can, and likely would, be changed by state legislatures to reflect the attitudes of the state's citizens.
Sell? To some billionaire? Or for trophy homes? Well, maybe, if the price is utterly ridiculously high and there's a need for more housing (think of Vegas). Maybe if deed restrictions ensure continued recreation access with a fee structure that gives value back. But any kind of final sale would be a complete last resort.
Then there is the argument "oh, these lands belong to everyone." I understand that, and would never support punitive access conditions or fees for nonresidents. I'm find with nonresident hunters, I welcome them. That's the coolest part of multiple use -- to use and enjoy "Land of Many Uses."
I don't see visitors as competition at all. I'm glad to see the bars and motels full of visiting camo.
But keep in mind that your two-week trip is just that. I'm around here all year, and I'd sure appreciate the chance to make a decent living the other 50 weeks, so maybe I can afford a two-week trip to YOUR backyard once in a while.

As for the expense of firefighting forcing a sale, that is utter crp. Forestry doesn't have to be done in straight lines. Sales can be done with a burn component, and fuels can be managed to lay out "defensible" areas where fires can be stopped. I have been on a number of Indian reservations (closed to most white-eyes) where this model is fully operative. The general approach taken is, "This is ours, we're calling the shots, we don't want to depend on Uncle Sam any more, and we'll deal with the consequences ourselves, thankyouverymutch." It's socialistic to a point, but totally focused on the bottom line. And it works for the tribes, very well, thanks.
I have seen fire track after fire track where past vegetation management had a direct impact on fire behavior, both positive and incredibly negative. And as I get older, I get to see years of change, see and walk the "before" and the "after" of fire. I am convinced, as are the tribal foresters who hosted me, that fire is completely manageable across much (emphatically not all) of the landscape, in a framework where, yep, you can have a full-impact, "natural" fire, but limit it to a size that the local sawmilling infrastructure can handle in the ordinary course of business. Capture the value of the wood where rational, convert it into replanting and other management needs, reset the clock and return some cash to the treasury in the bargain.
So yeah, if the states and their respective citizens had the ability to control policy on their public land base, the overall outcome would be much better overall socially, economically, and environmentally -- for everyone.


Okay, that's an interesting copy/paste from an op-ed you must have written some time back, but it says absolutely nothing about how, exactly, you would handle those lands currently under Federal management. Lay out your plan, if you were in charge. Who would manage them? To what end? What parameters? What stakeholders at the table? What priorities? What budgeting and from where? Would they be state Trust lands? Tribal? Something complete new? What restrictions? How would those be accomplished? What uses allowed or not and how would that fit within state or tribal constitutions?

Spell it out; the floor is yours.

Originally Posted by Mannlicher
America needs to understand that our troops are not 'disposable'. Each represents a family; Fathers, Mothers, Sons, Daughters, Cousins, Uncles, Aunts... Our Citizens are our most valuable treasure; we waste far too many.