Re: Nat. forests=parks?

• To: forest@nic.funet.fi
• Subject: Re: Nat. forests=parks?
• From: dsouth@Forestry.Auburn.EDU (David South)
• Date: Mon, 05 Dec 1994 07:56:38 -0600 (CST)
• Cc: forest@nic.funet.fi
• Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
• Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Dear Doug:

I would like to add a little trivia and thoughts regarding your question
about National Forests evolving into National parks.


The following is from "The World Book: 1973 Year Book" page 347.

On June 24, 1972, the U.S. Forest Service adopted a plan to restrict
clear-cutting on its timberlands.  The action came in response to guidelines
set forth on March 30 by the Senate Subcommittee on Public Lands.


Likewise, a news release 20 years later stated:

Washington, June 4, 1992 -- Clearcutting will no longer be a standard way of
harvesting national forest timber under a proposal announced today by the
U.S. Department of Agriculture.  "The new policy will limit clearcutting to
areas where it is essential to meet forest plan objectives, such as
establishing habitat for endangered species of wildlife," said USDA's Forest
Service Chief F. Dale Robertson.


If this 20-year cycle continues, then will the next news release be? 


(a) On June 14, 2012, the U.S. Forest Service adopted a plan to eliminate
clearcutting.     New harvesting guidelines were installed in response to
recent Federal Court
    decisions.

or

(b) On June 14, 2012, Congress approved a bill to transfer U.S. Forest
Service lands to 
    the Department of Interior's National Park System.  The decision was in
response
    to a decreasing amount of discretionary spending in the Federal budget.
For this
    reason, an OMB report examined duplication of federal programs.  It
found that
    services provided by Park Service and Forest Service lands were about
the same.
    Positive revenues from Forest Service lands had ceased in 2007. A bill
to privatize 
    the Forest Service lands was supported by Republicans as a short-term
revenue
    generating measure.  However, this alternative bill failed to pass by a
narrow
    margin.  The sale of 85 million acres of land would have produced a revenue 
    of only 500 billion dollars.  A new bill which would transfer some
federal land to      state ownership is receiving consideration by all three
political parties.      

David South
School of Forestry
Auburn University, AL  36849-5418

dsouth@forestry.auburn.edu

205-844-1022
205-844-1084 (FAX)

• Prev: Tasmania and Alabama
• Next: re: Nat. Forests=parks?
• Index: Forest mailing list December 1994
• Thread: Forest list subjects in December 1994