Winters, I'm going to paste yours here and reply accordingly, in italic, or "Dave": I don';t know how to run the graf functions here..:
This is the first rational post I've seen from you on this subject. I also think I understand your perspective, may not agree with all of it but we can have a conversation vs innuendo and smoke screens.
First, about Colorado. Elk hunting in Colorado is about one of two things - hunt on private or get off the road. I don't have access on private and am not paying for a guided hunt so my only option is to get off the road. "Get off the road" means off any easy access. I know guys that hunt '3-4-5 miles' off the road and still come up empty. Walking 2.75-3.75-4.75 miles back a road/trail then a short walk off the access point doesn't count. Elk have figured that out. Off the road means bushwacking, hiking to yonder ridge, etc. To do that you need a dearth of roads. Roads mean access, access means hunters, hunters mean no elk. Its that simple to me.
[i][/i] You are only in Colorado for short times every year and that's your biggest constraint toward understanding. Seriously. I'll also say it's too bad you don't have access on private, scored by actually building relationships with private landowners. I got the "goods" at Trinidad because I publicly supported the idea of coalbed methane production on their ranch and that of their neighbors, the thing there was they held the mineral rights, it wasn't the "split estate" thing. But aside from the "business," I could also speak "cow" and all that, so we became actual friends over time, not just incidental allies. The wells went in, the pumps still run, and the elk are still there.
"Integrated forestry" I'm not sure what that means. Forest management I could buy into in limited amounts. Forest fires are fueled by undergrowth. Forest fires also clear large openings in forest. Fire creates habitat. In the end, I'll default to Mother Nature to create habitat - unless I'm not understanding the concept of integrated forestry. As an aside, I'm not against forestry, just don't think we need as much as we have/do. I work in the coal mine industry so am no stranger to resource extraction. And for the record, I'm not fond of some of the issues mining and logging create. At least in the east, logging is likely the least regulated industry around and creates large scale sediment issues.
Dave: Least regulated? Really? That may happen in Tennessee, failure to control sediment and all that, but out West, every state and the Feds have pretty strict regulations on soils and water management. Plus most loggers have at least one or two certified persons on the crews who keep the rest in line. Never mind that loggers are outdoorsmen, too. You have to be, you're sixty miles from town, no help close, in all weather, you better be an outdoorsman or you'll be dead soon. As for mining, are you white collar or in the hole? That matters perspective wise.
INTEGRATED forestry, which you SHOULD understand, means to log, AND burn and consider the next forest. Combining fire with mechanized harvest is typical for the tribes because that's how Indians managed their woods before the white guys showed up. And it is amazingly effective, I have been on "closed" rezzes with the tribal foresters and it's good stuff. It's not done elsewhere because the court system blocks everything (thank you, Greens, like those who fund BHA).
Also, and this is important, the tribes can't print money. They get some subsidy, but comparatively little. So -- they have to do things that make economic sense, and that's critical. Sometimes, they just have to "let it go and hope for the best," that's a direct quote from a tribal forester in Washington state regarding the impacts of a terrible wildfire. Other times, they can capture value, scoring JOBS (which some Indians really like, trust me), revenue for the tribe, and other cash to buy seedlings and jump-start the next forest, the one they want to see, not seven, but NEXT generation from now.
So the lesson learned from the tribes, and my attitude is, public lands policies need to be economically rational and generate value, not literally burn cash that could be better used elsewhere -- or left in the hands of the people who generated that cash in the first place.
'Access for everyone' is a subjective thing. Wilderness/no roads is access for everyone - for everyone who cares to walk or take a horse. When I see 'access for everyone', that means to me, everyone with an ATV. I despise ATVs in hunting country - except to retrieve animals or for the handicapped. Outside of that, get your ass off the iron pony and walk. Probably for this reason alone, I'm against more roads/trails into forests. I've seen enough ATV abuse to last my lifetime. I could tell stories for the rest of the day but suffice to say I'm not an ATV fan. And I don't buy the whole "gated road" concept. Another series of stories. ATV guys have abused that privilege to the point where I won't even entertain the thought.
Dave: Yeah, it's subjective. To wilderness people, multiple use means that more than one person can hug an old-growth tree at the same time. Or hike down a trail at the same time. And your attitude about the iron pony says a lot. I'll agree during hunting season, partly, especially for regulated retrieval and handicap access, but not the rest of the year. And when you talk about ATV people and "abuse," that's also not kosher. Yes there are idiots, I hate them, I scream and yell at them all the time. But think about guns and shooting areas -- extend your "ATV" attitude and there shouldn't be any place to shoot on public lands, either, because someone MIGHT be stupid. Punish the guilty, but don't use them as a surrogate or excuse to completely wreck something you might not like, but others love. That's complete Fudd thinking, like the gun controllers using school freaks to get at guns in general.
'Broader economy' sounds like business language. I'd dare say the economies of the west are fueled by recreation dollars, not resource extraction industries. I'm sympathetic to business cases but not in this context. Growing trees in the US is not rocket science and is not a scarce or limited resource.
Dave: You are WRONG about recreation as a driver. Maybe in the places you go, but tourism and recreation doesn't carry the economy through the entire year, not even close. Tourism is always "extra" except in a few tourist traps, like Jackson and Aspen -- not places I want to be with stratospheric costs and terrible pay, totally have and have-not places.
If your last sentence is truly your motivation for wanting more access, I can live with that and agree with some of it in principle. If we were the decision makers, we could reach a compromise that meets in the middle. As to some of the supporters of BHA, they may have ulterior motives including some that are counter to your way of life (logging as I understand). I would stand with you against them if I thought you weren't simply being a lumber whore at all costs.
Dave: Lumber whore? Try timber beast, in that I've seen what happens to a landscape (that was managed for 10,000 years by Indians for human benefit before Columbus) when the false ideolgy of "nature" takes over. In forested, mountainous landscapes, especially in the dry West, you either log it, or burn it preemptively, or it finally gets tired of waiting and burns from ridge to ridge, taking the good stuff as well as the bad. THEN you get your sedimentation, oh, baby. It ain't rocket science, you're right about that -- its sleazy, slimy politics.
Gotta go catch a few trouts.
