Sometime we win...National Forests and Wildlife Refuge

The National Forests have been underharvested for the last 30 years. That is the biggest reason we have megafires we can't control.
We have had problems competing with the Canadians when it comes to wood products, because their government subsidizes the industry.
The US has been a net importer of wood products for almost 50 years.
Wood is carbon neutral. It is renewable and sustainable. Most other resources aren't. We need a lot more logging and we are likely to get it.

The next jump in wood technology is the use of timbers for high rise buildings. Wood is already used for hundreds of products besides lumber, plywood and OSB. This trend will continue.

Bert Ackerman wrote:

Yosemite Sam1 wrote:

Again, on the backdrop of national and global lumber oversupply, let's keep those trees under harvested until we need them for strategic and dire national needs.

Because you never know when you'll need to build a Ford class carrier from 2X4's.

Don't joke, I've just seen just recently bicycle made of wood in Europe (Rome) telling myself, ways to punish yourself going retro.

Yosemite Sam1 wrote:

Again, on the backdrop of national and global lumber oversupply, let's keep those trees under harvested until we need them for strategic and dire national needs.

Because you never know when you'll need to build a Ford class carrier from 2X4's.

dave54 wrote:
Whoever said timber was 'given away' to corporate interests?

... If anything, they are grossly underharvested.

Come back to me when these logging companies have planted the trees themselves on their very own lands and we'll start talking about how it's not given away. Meanwhile, it's our collective resources on our land and patrimony.

Again, on the backdrop of national and global lumber oversupply, let's keep those trees under harvested until we need them for strategic and dire national needs. Meanwhile, we can provide local communities and small operators the opportunity to harvest salvageable trees from fire or disease.

Whoever said timber was 'given away' to corporate interests?

Timber is sold at competitive auction to the highest bidder. That is frequently, but not always, a locally owned small logging business.
By definition, the highest bid at a competitive auction is the fair market value.
Of the revenue obtained for the timber, 25% goes right back to the local county earmarked for county roads and schools. Up to 10% is retained by the National Forest for forest roads and trails. Of the remaining, up to 90% may be retained by the National Forest to improve forest health in the harvested area, including reforestation, wildlife habitat improvement, stabilizing disperse camping sites, and similar.

The peak year for timber harvests in the National Forest system was 1970. It has been in decline ever since. Harvesting never exceeded sustained yield, and in the Sierra Nevada of California harvests are currently around 5% of sustained yield. National Forests are not now, and never have been, overharvested. If anything, they are grossly underharvested.

vjstangelo wrote:
National Forests are resources that are used for betterment of the country. That means multiple uses: grazing, homes, camping, agricultural (including managed logging). That is why the National Forests are managed by the Department of Agriculture.

National Parks are meant to preserve pristine/historical resources hence they are pretty much off limits to most of the above. They are managed by the Department of the Interior.

Agree, but in the light of global oversupply of lumber and oil, why give away these resources to corporate interests?

I recall sometime that the original intent of these national forests are as strategic resources in times of shortage -- like what happened in the postwar housing boom for our returning foreign deployed servicemen that allowed these forests to be harvested to alleviate the severe lumber shortage from commercial sources.

National Forests are definitely managed by law under multiple use, but agriculture and homesites are not part of the plan. Some remain as inholdings or on long term leases. Consolidation of private and public lands is an ongoing challenge.

National Forests are resources that are used for betterment of the country. That means multiple uses: grazing, homes, camping, agricultural (including managed logging). That is why the National Forests are managed by the Department of Agriculture.

National Parks are meant to preserve pristine/historical resources hence they are pretty much off limits to most of the above. They are managed by the Department of the Interior.

Yosemite,
Learn something about forestry. We have serious problems with megafires due to neglect, specifically fire suppression and lack of logging. The forest in worse shape of any in the Lower 48 would have to be Yosemite NP which has been in protection for 150 years.

Old growth forests are in decline. They have mortality rates much higher than their growth rates. They release carbon into the atmospere through decomposition. We value them because of their scientific and aesthetic value.

Harvesting dead material by local people is the wrong answer. Forests are managed by logging. Coastal forests are managed by clearcutting and most other forests are managed by selective harvests.

ppine wrote:
If you want to win on public forest land you have to support thinning and logging. That is the only way to create proper spacing and fire resilience.

Clear-cutting no, thinning yes. And only awarded to locals for their furniture, curving, housing and firewood needs.

Those who are still arguing for forest health, you should visit the dense Redwood National Park/Forest.