USFS Travel Management Bill

Thanks -- done.

The Forest Service original mandate was to manage the lands for the benefit of local communities. Somehow over the years the mission got reversed with local needs specifically excluded from consideration.

Well, here we go. I am not one of those folks who believe the government can do no wrong -- they mess up all the time. But I have read the bill and I can't support it in good conscience -- it ties the hands of the Forest Service and tilts too far in favor of the folks who want to create more roads. This is a real problem in Utah and Nevada, where people like Cliven Bundy are pressuring local elected officials to retake control of the BLM and forest service lands. And since the local officials are (of course) concerned about re-election, they tilt in favor of the noisiest local constituencies. By contrast, the USFS is supposed to represent everyone in the country, not just the folks who happen to live near the forest (and who want grazing rights, for example, as Bundy does).

So let democracy take its course -- let the bill go through the process. I understand and respect the viewpoint of those in favor of the bill. But I respectfully disagree, and I would urge forum members not to support the bill.

profdant139 wrote:
... By contrast, the USFS is supposed to represent everyone in the country, not just the folks who happen to live near the forest...

Some of us remember about 20(?) years ago when several northern California National Forests were revising their management plans and a number of issues were raised by southern CA environmental groups. The L.A. Times responded to local complaints about outsiders interfering in local affairs, with an editorial about forests belong to everyone, everybody deserves a voice, etc.

It was not six months later when some northern CA groups submitted responses to a Santa Monica Mountains proposed plan. The L.A. Times then published another editorial, railing against outsiders interfering in local affairs.

It works both ways...

"The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist". Apparently first coined by a French poet in 1864 and made popular more recently by the fictional character Keyser Soze.

IMO some of the 'greatest' crimes ever committed went either unnoticed or we never knew who profited. The recent Wall Street CDO Mortgage scandal comes to mind.

Today if you haven't noticed there is a land grab going on for our public lands. My copy of Field & Stream came today with a timely editorial. It bears reading: linky

Meanwhile members of the Senate are already introducing measures that would deprive us of the lands we hold so dear: linky

Most people seem to think turning the land over to the states mean sell off and degradation. The track record of most states is the exact opposite.

Most state forests are better managed, in better health, and make more money than the adjacent federally owned forests.

I'm curious as to the impact of such a bill (either way) on the MUCH smaller NF lands we have here in the Northeast. ST

Local input is a good thing. Blanket controls dont work. I dont read anything that says it opens up new roads or control to the states.

(It might be helpful if our loveable Moderator ;) could merge some of the more recent posts on the "Boondocking really exists?" thread that relate to this debate with this one.)

LS

Dave54, I have to admit you are right -- if you have ever visited the Cal Fire Demonstration forests (Jackson, or Mtn Home), they are in great shape -- the forests are thinned, and the trees are healthy. The Calif State Parks? Not so much.