Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Sale of public lands and drilling everywhere

As for smoker, okay, false canard is repeating the same general concept, that of a red herring.

Does anyone here care to explain the difference between conservation and preservation posing as "conservation?"

Pointer,
The fact remains that you used a terrible example to narrate the "states will sell" story. I'm fortunate in that I've been able to actually see these places, talk to the managers in rather formal contexts.
What I resent the most is that many people will take your assertion at face value because it does take a lot of effort to actually verify reality. A good sound bite, passed on to lazy, ignorant "media" by a savvy fib-teller, does an incredible amount of damage over time.
I've been on the press meat wagon, with credentials, and been horrified at what passes for professional conduct from bylined, credentialed people. You know about guns, right? And you know how "reporters" tell THAT story, who gets quoted or is treated like an expert? Do gun control stories in your view have ANY relationship to reality?
Well, guess what? Natural resource issues are similarly distorted.

And Crick, I'm sorry you can't quite wrap yourself around the history of induced fire. Indians burnt north and south, east and west, everywhere it made sense for them. It was intensive, which is why whites found "Pauite forestry" so objectionable upon settlement. With no fixed infrastructure for the most part, for Indians, fire didn't pose a risk to "wealth" worth worrying about.

Finally, this thing about CONSERVING habitat. Does anyone here care to explain the difference between conservation and preservation posing as "conservation?"

Fire management or what, Jim? Was he a let it burn or out by 10 kind of fellow?

I have my office at the headquarters of a USFS contractor "task force." The only reason these guys do it is because the checks clear and they need the money. Otherwise, they'd rather be logging these same areas BEFORE the fires blow up.

As for smoker, okay, false canard is repeating the same general concept, that of a red herring. Happy? Bringing up the Elliot was a canard, a complete red herring.

Gotcha Jim.
I made a pass through Winter and North Parks after being gone for about ten years. When I left, we'd just gotten a massive blowdown in Diamond Park and the spruce beetles were going crazy. At the same time, the LP was getting really ripe all across Northern CO.
I mean, I knew it was going to get really bad unless something was done. But I never imagined what actually happened, horizon to horizon, across divides.
And we have the same thing, worst in SW MT on the B-D. Looked at some sales down there and it was just devastating to comprehend the blown chance, just thrown away. By whom? Litigous morons who don't understand what conservation really means -- or do, but don't care.

I'm still waiting for you kids to answer my question.

I didn't make any "state will sell story". The post above me stated that Oregon was selling "parkland". I only posted that what was being sold is the Elliot State Forest. You are reading way more into my posts about that than what was written.

I guess it means to stop managing it as a resource, kick most everybody out, and spend hundreds of millions fighting fire.

Which question is that, Dave?

While we are at it, can you summarize your current, ever-changing position on what should be done with Federally-managed public lands? Are you advocating for their sale again? Or, for their transfer to the states for eventual sale? Or, transfer to the states for supposed management like the tribes do with their granted lands? Or, something new? What is it this time?

Pointer,
The fact remains that you used a terrible example to narrate the "states will sell" story. I'm fortunate in that I've been able to actually see these places, talk to the managers in rather formal contexts.
What I resent the most is that many people will take your assertion at face value because it does take a lot of effort to actually verify reality. A good sound bite, passed on to lazy, ignorant "media" by a savvy fib-teller, does an incredible amount of damage over time.
I've been on the press meat wagon, with credentials, and been horrified at what passes for professional conduct from bylined, credentialed people. You know about guns, right? And you know how "reporters" tell THAT story, who gets quoted or is treated like an expert? Do gun control stories in your view have ANY relationship to reality?
Well, guess what? Natural resource issues are similarly distorted.

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.

I'm not Dave but speaking locally here in northeast MT I think the Feds do a good job managing the BLM and CMR.


The country is in good shape.



Pretty much leave management as is.

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