Sometime we win...National Forests and Wildlife Refuge

Yosemite Sam1 wrote:

dave54 wrote:
National Forests were initially created to be logged sustainably.

"No national forest shall be established, except to improve and protect the forest within the boundaries, or for the purpose of securing favorable conditions of water flows, and to furnish a continuous supply of timber for the use and necessities of citizens of the United States…" -- Organic Administration Act of 1897.

Good logging is beneficial to the forest and wildlife, improves watersheds and fisheries, increases biodiversity, and improves the resiliency of the forest to catastrophic disturbance.

Except clear-cut logging, mining and oil extraction violates the multi use principles. I don't think RVers will want or be permitted to do camping in their concessions.

Again, Big Bear National Forest approach of low impact, local small operations of selective harvesting can co-exists with camping and does not degrade the watersheds.

Individual tree selection (selective harvesting, in your words) is appropriate only in certain situations, and inappropriate in most. In certain conditions clearcutting (or one of the variations) is the best harvest method. Depends upon the tree species, site conditions, and the reason for the harvesting. National Forests are not harvested solely to make money for the treasury or make money for the loggers. That is actually forbidden by law. All harvesting now has a ecological benefit behind it -- improve wildlife habitat, forest health, fire protection, watershed improvement, et al. Sometimes clearcutting is the best way to achieve the objectives, sometimes other harvest are better. The purchaser and the treasury may make some money on the harvesting, but the underlying reason is for the benefit of the forest and local communities.

The Forest Service does scarcely any clearcutting anymore due to public misunderstanding of forest ecology and sound forest practices. This is another example of public opinion and emotion running opposite of good science. Too bad, because almost forest ecologist and forest scientist are clamoring for increases in forest harvest levels on public lands, including more clearcutting. The Forest Service in Region 5 (basically California) is currently harvesting only 5% of the sustained yield level. The rest is burning up.

There is no Big Bear National Forest. Did you mean the Big Bear District of San Bernardino National Forest?

I do concede mining is tough to work work into multiple use. The 1872 Mining Act takes precedence over the Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act in many ways. OTOH -- How much of the computer or device in front of you right now did not originally come out of a hole in the ground? Or your RV? Not too many of us want to life a lifestyle with no mined products at all.

Of course, camping (recreation) is only one of the multiple uses of National Forests. In concept, all are equal and should have equal weight in management decisions. Tough to implement when every user group insists they should get priority over all the others.