Sometime we win...National Forests and Wildlife Refuge

Opening it up for what? Camping?

AWESOME!

I believe this is what OP is talking about.
Ruling

Responsible logging is ok with me.

So in effect. There will be a higher risk of forest fires, due to a lack of Land Management.

Terryallan wrote:
So in effect. There will be a higher risk of forest fires, due to a lack of Land Management.

The risk won't change since the rule already is in effect. Land management will continue as it has. What continues to be stopped is logging.

It's true; stripping the land bare does have a positive effect on wildfire potential.

Always seems that people want us to use renewable resources but cry when other people try to harvest renewable resources. Trees are renewable, harvesting trees provides jobs, resources to build houses. It is far better to allow controlled harvesting than uncontrolled forest fires. Regardless, nature will backfill the area anew.

ScottG wrote:
It's true; stripping the land bare does have a positive effect on wildfire potential.

That is true. But since the land hasn't been stripped (because the law has already been in effect for years), then no one is suddenly changing the landscape. It remains as it has been - therefore no change to risk. :)

wildtoad wrote:
Always seems that people want us to use renewable resources but cry when other people try to harvest renewable resources. Trees are renewable, harvesting trees provides jobs, resources to build houses. It is far better to allow controlled harvesting than uncontrolled forest fires. Regardless, nature will backfill the area anew.

Again, there is no "backfilling" to occur because the land has not been logged since the lae went into effect years ago. This ruling maintains the status quo.