I thought someone would call me on that. I have no idea how it works.ohio said:
You Can Have Your Own Little Piece of National Forest
- Thread starter Westy
- Start date
That might be one of the best posts in the political forum ever - someone honestly admitting they have no idea what they're talking aboutBurlyShirley said:I thought someone would call me on that. I have no idea how it works.
Anyway, back on topic.
I'd have to take a closer look at this whole thing to get a better handle on it, but a few things to remember: A lot of people (well, at least quite a few) already live in national forests. A good amount of private land is surrounded by forest land or, in some measure, still part of the forest.
Also, national forests are not national parks. They are there to manage resources, not for sheer protection. In the forests I've been to (mostly out West in low-use areas, admittedly- I worked in the Boise NF for 3 months), I found them to be like parks but without rules or much regulation. Plus, a lot of forests are frigging enormous and I wouldn't really be opposed to selling some of it off for a good reason as long as the impact was not too bad.
Logging, resource extraction (logging, mining etc.) and development (ski resorts, anyone?) is already widespread on accessible areas of national forest land. I'm not sure that handing it over to private companies would necessarily be much worse that what already occurrs in some places.
I dunno, maybe it's just that I saw a lot of logging, moto usage, crappy upkeep and poorly done ugly road cuts in my days in the forest.
I'd have to take a closer look at this whole thing to get a better handle on it, but a few things to remember: A lot of people (well, at least quite a few) already live in national forests. A good amount of private land is surrounded by forest land or, in some measure, still part of the forest.
Also, national forests are not national parks. They are there to manage resources, not for sheer protection. In the forests I've been to (mostly out West in low-use areas, admittedly- I worked in the Boise NF for 3 months), I found them to be like parks but without rules or much regulation. Plus, a lot of forests are frigging enormous and I wouldn't really be opposed to selling some of it off for a good reason as long as the impact was not too bad.
Logging, resource extraction (logging, mining etc.) and development (ski resorts, anyone?) is already widespread on accessible areas of national forest land. I'm not sure that handing it over to private companies would necessarily be much worse that what already occurrs in some places.
I dunno, maybe it's just that I saw a lot of logging, moto usage, crappy upkeep and poorly done ugly road cuts in my days in the forest.
we could buy some Ridemonkey land...........
the Ridemonkey Theme Park, complete with trails, strippers, and a beer volcano!
the Ridemonkey Theme Park, complete with trails, strippers, and a beer volcano!
MudGrrl said:
Don't forget the PD mud slinging pit.
and the LPFC room!Westy said:
Sign me up!MudGrrl said:
We'll have to make sure Jesus is in that pit.Westy said:
Old Man G Funk said:
And the strippers.
In that case, we'll need a stage and a stripping pole.Westy said:
I'm going to say I don't agree w/ the sale of these parcels.JRogers said:
But using the argument of loggers getting hold of the land is kind of silly. I know in lots of Cherokee and bits of Pisgah and Nanahala, there really isn't much resource management. Bringing in a logging company could clean out a lot of the excess fuels (go down around the ocoee river where the Tsali trail system is and the white water events were for the '96 olympics, its nothing but dead pine waiting to light up), do selective cuttings and actually improve the overall health of the forest.
The forest service already logs their land. It was create to manage the land and provide a renewable resource, practicing the ideas of conservation. The national park service is what operates on the idea of preservation; leave it as it is...hell, no bikes in this area! (Imagine riding off road in the smokies)
I hope this came out okay. I'm not some big "W" waving, gun toting, 'tobacce spittin redneck.....but I'm also not a dashiki wearing, free love college know it all hippie. I don't like the sale of the federal lands nor how the money will be divided up or most of the other decisions comming out of DC regarding this administration. But the logging issue isn't that big of one for me. How else are you going to wipe in the moring after that first coffee induced grumpy?
Completely different situation. We allow (edit: per kidwoo, removed "highly"... it's not THAT rigorous and thanks to Shrub becoming even less so) regulated, selective use of National Forest land, but maintain ownership of it. If we sell off the land, we have no ability to regulate it anymore. There is no guarantee (in fact it is very unlikely) that the land would be harvested in a sustainable manner.d.e.f. said:
Additionally, while the DoI does buy and sell land all the time, when they sell land, it is to raise funds to buy land they deem higher priority. In this case we're just sucking money out of the land in a one shot deal. It is the exact same short-sighted defecit-spending that has gotten us where we are. As BS pointed out, there are much easier and less permanent ways to raise money.