As usual, I agree with Doug on this issue. The USFS is well on its way to becoming a version of the National Park Service. This may or may not be a bad thing. My personal feelings are (Yes, I know we are all supposed to be scientists here, but this is a matter that hits close to home.) that the National Forests are public lands and should be managed as the public sees fit. Democracy in action and all that stuff. Now, the question that has to be answered is this: Are the groups that are calling for restrictions on timber harvests in National Forests truly representative of the U.S. citizenry? My gut feeling is that they are very much a minority. However, they are a very vocal minority. The old adage that the squeaky wheel gets the grease is very appropriate in this situation. Until the majority decides to speak up and get involved in this issue, we will be bound by the decisions pushed through by these groups. There may or may not be room for a compromise here. The National Forests that are involved in really hot battles tend to be near urban areas. Is there a correlation between the fact that urbanites view these areas as their personal playground and the fact that these forests are deluged with litigation? Probably so..... I know that this is a simplistic answer, but maybe those forests should be dedicated to endangered species protection and recreation with the agreement that other areas be dedicated solely to timber production. Maybe it is feasible, maybe it's not. If turning over all of the National Forest lands in the South to provide habitat for the red-cockaded woodpecker would insure private property rights and private timber production, I might even buy into that. Thank you Doug for a thought-provoking question and an opportunity to vent... John M. Cooper
Mail converted by
MHonArc 1.1.0