No, I did not introduce this topic, if I did I would not do so in the gunwriter's forum anyway.
Dave, it's obvious you didn't start the thread, and I have to say, obvious that's not the topic I was referring to.
The topic I was referring to was the question you asked earlier. The difference between conservation and preservation masquerading as conservation. You brought that up, why don't you explain it?
Thank you for describing your upbringing, it's illuminating and certainly shows how you came by a lot of your opinions. I will admit that if I'd grown up in a timber town I might share some of those opinions. But I didn't, and I don't. I have a different point of view, no more and no less valid.
In your post you state a lot of opinions as if they were fact. I'm here to say "not so fast." Or, if you prefer, "bullsh*t."
First you say you're all for local control but when a guy who raises cattle for a living says he thinks federal management is best for his particular location, you tell him he's wrong and you know better. Classic. So his opinion doesn't matter? He's about as close to this topic as you can get.
Then you talk about how the ESA has changed the National Forests and federal management of them so that they're no longer multiple use. The ESA has curtailed logging, no doubt and I do agree that's it's been mis-used and abused to that end. Maybe, and hopefully, that will change. But I'm a National Forest user too. I use the NF regularly, and as a matter of fact, the NF land hereabouts is the reason I live where I live. I've never been prevented from doing what I want to do there. Which is mostly camp, shoot, hunt, fish, and hike. And my favorite places to hunt all have livestock grazing, either sheep or cattle. And I drive by active mines on the way to them, and see where there's been recent logging. And I almost forgot, a ton of ski resorts.
And let's not leave out oil and gas extraction, there's a ton of that. It was interesting to read the locals' comments on how oil & gas has affected hunting in the Pawnee Grasslands. That's in the deer hunting forum in case you're interested.
So with all those multiple uses taking place right here where I can see them I have a hard time buying the argument that the NF is "no longer multiple use."
Then you talk about how "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," and you infer that the general public is not getting its say. Nothing could be further from the truth. I think the President is getting an earful on this topic as a matter of fact.
Here in CO the the economic, social, and environmental well-being (as they pertain to management of the National Forests) depend on tourism, that's the number 1 driver. Mining was the first driver, but not any more. It's still ongoing and driven by economics but pales compared to tourism. Oil and gas is another driver and it's pretty much unfettered. Logging is not and never has been the number 1 driver. In fact, logging is not generally good for tourism, for the most part. People don't want to travel here to sightsee, ski, hike, or fish in areas that have recently been logged, they prefer the untrammeled look. Not that I'm against logging, just stating the cold hard economic facts of our local economy. Which hunting plays a huge part in by the way.
The economic well-being of people here depends on tourism, and the majority of state residents like the current management just fine. With all its flaws, we know what federal management entails and we know that we can use the forests for their highest and best uses to support our local economy. It's working just fine, thank you.
