Roadless

[timberbeast]

To both responses,  perhaps I'm spoiled by owning land where the timber regenerates so quickly and am naive in the situations in your areas.  A lot of the cutting done where my land is,  in the U.P. of Michigan is taking the pulp logs,  and selective cuts of the older timber.  Since I have not cut on state lands,  perhaps I'm premature in my judgement,  and apologize if so.  I work in a Cedar Swamp,  and take the old dying trees first.  Much of the cutting on private lands around me is done for wildlife habitat enhancement,  leaving thermal cover areas for the deer,  and much of it is conducted with the help of state foresters.  Perhaps I shouldn't say private is "always" better.  I have some white pines that two big men can't reach around,  and I leave them unless they get lightning struck or begin to die.  Then again,  who can tell another what to do with their own property?  I would not presume to do that,  nor do I think the government should.  The way that I cut,  and the way I've taught my kids to cut,  will ensure many lifetimes of cedar,  pine,  balsam,  spruce and the maples on the high land.  I personally do not want the government telling me to leave that one rotting cedar for the carpenter ants.  No animosity intended,  but I have been doing this for a long time.

[Gordon]

For those of you that are following this heated issue. This is the release on May 4
USDA UPHOLDS ROADLESS PROTECTIONS RULE
Secretary Veneman announces additional actions to address reasonable concerns to ensure responsible implementation

     WASHINGTON, May 4, 2001 -- Agriculture Secretary Ann M. Veneman today announced the U.S. Department of Agriculture will implement the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, restricting logging and road building activities in 58.5 million acres of national forest lands. The Secretary also announced additional actions to address reasonable concerns raised about the rule that will ensure implementation in a responsible, common sense manner.

For the full story go here
http://www.usda.gov/news/releases/2001/05/0075.htm

Now it really gets heated. Here is the news release about the court decision. Now I'm confused from what the court decision was as to what this says.
http://www.usda.gov/news/releases/2001/05/0079.htm

Relating to the real story.
Expanses of national forest land that would have been spared from logging and road building this weekend won't receive that protection after a federal judge blocked the Clinton administration policy.
The road ban would have prevented logging, road construction and other activities on 58.5 million acres of federal forests, except in rare circumstances. It was one of President Clinton's key environmental legacies.

U.S. District Judge Edward J. Lodge in Boise, Idaho, blocked the rule Thursday, saying it would cause "irreparable harm" to federal forest lands and those that neighbor it

Here is the full story.
http://enn.com/news/wire-stories/2001/05/05112001/ap_road_43485.asp

Gordon

[Ron Scott]

In a June 7 memo issued by the USDA-Forest Service, Chief Dale Bosworth, the Chief announced that he will have authority over all timber harvests and road construction in roadless areas until local officials overseeing National Forests have mapped existing roads and have their proposed changes to the exiting Forest Plan approved.

Contact your local National Forest District Ranger for further information.

[L. Wakefield]

   While on the subject of northern Maine forest land- there was an article in the paper sometime in the past 2 weeks about those very 'Hollywood types' to which you refer, buying up parcels (NOT little parcels). The article referred to them as 'kingdoms'. The article suggested that the general trend was to buy up enough to ensure a desireable isolation and buffering- then to build the palatial estate on the most desireable part- and then I don't remember what they thought would happen to the rest of it. Moneymaking ventures, one might suspect. At any rate, it did not sound to ME as if multi-use was in the cards. Not for 'the common man- or woman', eh? Exclusive hunting and fishing club? Maybe.
 
  I dunno. Any time you get someone with financial resources who has on their agenda to buy up land, you have to face the fact that first and foremost they will have in mind improving their own quality of life on this land. That's as true for me as for anyone. What quality indicators they value is not at all determined. Maybe they like timber. Maybe they like water (almost everyone likes water). Maybe they like bare manicured lawn. Maybe they like fish and game.
 
  Will they like commercial use and management as a 'renewable resource'? In the real world, they may not be able to afford NOT to like that.

  I might suggest a retrospective look at the parcels bought up by previous 'land barons' as well as beginning a prospective look at what is happening right now.

  I suspect there is sometimes a difference between purchase of a 'hideaway' and purchase as an investment. I have seen some examples of each . I find it difficult (as an outsider) to see a truly insightful, holistic agenda employed on any of the examples I have seen. But then again, I AM an outsider.
 
  I like parks. I like to see the land produce. I like the ideals put forth by the forestry stewardship incentive program. What I PERSONALLY envision as optimum is to look at the land first with a landscaper's eye- because I'm a sucker for beauty (hey, that's why they call it 'beauty' and not 'ugly', right?..)- and then with an eye to harvesting now and later- but the harvesting needs to be linked to the beauty. That, I swear, is not that hard to do. There are some lots here in town that you can fall right in love with because of how they look barely a year after selective cutting. And then add in the people. What's the beauty if there's no one to see it? And the animals have to benefit.

  Enough- wish I had the money to do it right.  lw

[timberbeast]

Well-made points,  L.    Like I said,  maybe I'm just spoiled by owning enough land and being lucky to manage it the way I choose.  I am a firm believer in a free market,  however.  I may not like what someone else does with their property,  but it is theirs.  Kudos for your recognition as humans being able to appreciate beauty.  I have trees which are old friends because of their beauty.  Many will outlive me.  I'm land-rich but cash poor.  But I'm happy!

[cointoss]

Timberbeast my feelings are the same as yours, after all it is my land and my timber and if I am not involved in any Federal program than I will cut what common sense and good forestry dictates.

[Tom]

HEAR, HEAR cointoss !!

[Ron Scott]

The Bush Administration announced that it needs more time to propose revisions to a ban on road construction in one-third of our National Forests.

Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman announced in May that the Administration would propose amendments to the road ban by the end of June.

More time is now needed!

[Tom]

Did you ever notice that it takes 4 government employees to run a shovel?

[Bill Johnson]

The sad part about that Tom is only 1 knows what they are doing and the other three are trying to learn.

Bill

[timberbeast]

And the one is the scary one.

[Jeff]

Here's something that might give us something to chew on. A rather different contact to the Timber Buyers Network, and my reply. We will then see where this goes.

name = Bruce *******
submit_by = ******@proaxis.com
mailing_list = YES
how_did_you_find_us = Search Engine
reason_for_contact = I am preparing a Roadless Wilderness report to USDA Forest Service friendly to Forestry/Timber/Logging/Recreation.  Will you review my report and give me feedback?V/R BWH
http://www.energyquestsearch.com



Bruce,
    I suggest using our forum as an avenue for feedback. We have many minds
from many fields that could possibly give you insight, and comment on your
report.  I myself, do not feel, would be qualified to reflect an accurate
review, but I know between the foresters, loggers, landowners and friends of
forestry on our board, you should get a fair but possibly varied look at
your report.

Please feel free to come to our forum at
http://www.timberbuyer.net/cgi-bin/forum/YaBB.pl register so you can post,
and simply let our many fine members know how they might possibly help. I
can give no promises on what sort of response you will get, I guess that
depends on you, and what you bring to the board.  Regardless, you will be
made welcome.

Jeff Brokaw
www.timberbuyer.net
www.forestryforum.com

[Ron Scott]

Forest Service Seeks Public Comment on Roadless Rule

The USDA Forest Service has opened the Roadless Conservation Rule to public comment and will consequently write a new rule governing the future use of 58.5 million acres of roadless national forest land.

Agency officials said they are committed to protecting roadless areas, but believe the earlier Clinton-era rule was flawed and likely will not survive the many lawsuits already filed by Western states, Indian tribes, and timber-dependent communities.