Be careful, pigman. You will get flamed for having an opinion based on experience. You should be forming opinions based on emotion. Same with you, Tom/Barb - living close and seeing/reading about the fires is a perspective you are not supposed to share. It may support the Administration's actions.
From what I have read, so far, less than 3.5% of Tongass will be opened for logging. I have not found out how much, or where, the oil development or mining may take place. That is not much of a footprint, when one is trying to balance our lifestyle with protecting the environment, in my opinion. But, I live in Colorado, where much of our forest is dead due to pine beetle infestation, which is due to suppressing fires for too long. Humans know the best way to manage forests - just ask the Forest Service or tree-huggers! (sarcasm)
YosemiteSam, I am not saying you should not be bringing attention to potential impact on a beautiful area. Had you not mentioned it here, I would not have heard about it, or looked into it. However, I do believe in a balanced approach, and understand there are trade-offs. When hiking at Philmont Scout Ranch, they told us to use the existing trail, even where it was worn 6" or a foot into the ground. They called it the "sacrificial zone". This kept the rest of the meadows and forests untracked. I think this is what has to be done to support our lifestyle - some areas are sacrificed for the benefit of the population, while the rest can be preserved. It is a balancing act, that's for sure. But, if we protected everywhere from human impact, we would have much less opportunity for camping, hiking, and enjoying the outdoors. It is almost like you are saying "I have my area for my benefit, but no one else is allowed to create their area of benefit". Or, "I am here, and there are too many people, so ban anyone else from moving in".
Tradeoffs. We live with them every day.
2017.5 Lance 1995
2017 F150 EcoBoost, Max Tow
Most camping off-road
