Re: Roadless areas input requested

[Jeff]

Hey you guys, Bruce wants some feed back. He asked for it, so I think you should tell him what you think. I am sure, regardless of your opinion, he would like to hear from you. I myself, will remain neutral cause I am da host.

[Bill Johnson]

I too will have to remain mute on this point, unless of course you should happen to decide to join our merry little confederation as the next province then we could talk.

[Gordon]

Feedback on what? Where is his post did I miss it?

Gordon

[Jeff]

Gordon, It was here, he apparently deleted the original post.

[Jeff]

Bruce,

Bruce, I want to stay away from making opinions on forest management, as I am not a forester, and don't feel comfortable doing so in public. But I will give you my opinion on format and not so much content.

Speaking as an interested person, your letter initially confuses me. I don't understand why you are writing it, or who it is even addressed to. It seems, rather then starting out with questions you should start out with an introduction, leading to opinions. Rather then a flowing interesting conveyance of your opinion, it seems like ramblings of a person, who is obsessed by something.

This is not meant to offend, but I do read a lot, and I do have a hunger for knowledge, and I actually would not read this as formatted if it were not for being asked to.  Not because of the content, but because the way it is presented.

[Bruce]

Dear Jeff:

   I will rewrite the letter.  The letter was intended to USDA Forest Service answering there ten questions relating to roadless area public comment.  Not knowing how to receive input from others, I listed the questions and provided my answers, hoping others could direct or correct me if I didn't answer the questions effectively.  V/R BWH

[Ron Wenrich]

I scanned your report.  Quite lengthy and a lot of research.  Let's try to narrow the scope a little.

Is your complaint about forest fires or the ESA or both?  Or is it the roadless policy?

I'm afraid the roadless policy may be here to stay for a while.  I've heard the arguement that tourism will give employment relief for those who are displaced.

That hasn't been the historic case of those in the Northeast.  There are areas where tourism has replaced the manufacturing and farming based economies.  Ski lodge areas are a good example.

What happens is that those higher paying jobs are replaced with minimum waged, seasonal jobs for the majority of the population.  Other jobs are created when land speculators come in and develop the private lands.  When the speculation bubble bursts, then those jobs are gone.

Then you have a new population of newcomers.  Their objective is to maintain the status quo, and that means to protect the remaining landscape.  Forest management goes out the window, until their home is threatened by fire.

Meanwhile, the local population relocates to better paying jobs.  Tourism isn't the answer.

I know you have other aspects that need addressed.  Keep on posting.

[Ron Scott]

Evaluation, protection, and management of inventoried roadless areas should be determined through the local forest planning process for each proclaimed National Forest as required by the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA).

To do otherwise is a violation of this law unless it is repealed.

There are many acres of semi-primitive non motorized areas designated in Forest Plans that are not being included in the Roadless Area initiative. Thus their are many acres of roadless areas not being disclosed.

An example is the Huron-Manistee National Forests states that it only has 6,000 acres when it really has 90,000 acres designated and to be managed as such.

[Bruce]

Thank you swampwhiteoak:  Since you answered my questions and posted my questions with your answers, if an effort to make more space available on the forum, I have deleted my questions.  I will also limit my USDA Forest Service roadless letter comment to one page rather then reference everything I thought should be addressed.  I have deleted my roadless area letter on Offroad.com as I now know what direction my comments should proceed thanks to you.  Thank you again.

Bruce

[Tom]

Makes you wonder how, without a road, anybody can be assured that 58 million acres is remaining pristine?  One of them bears might be tearing the place up.

[swampwhiteoak]

Bruce,

You've obviously spent a great amount of time researching and thinking about this and I applaud you for it.  You are probably more informed about the particulars of this rule than the average non-Fed forester.

You've written a lot of stuff here and on your website so I'll just comment on a couple of things.  Be aware that on many issues I agree with you in principle but you seem to want a devil's advocate so here you go:

1).  The lack of roads in the national forest makes it difficult to thin the forest in order to prevent wildfires.  Helicopters or cable systems transporting trees as a substitute to the construction of new roads at present is even forbidden in all most all roadless areas.  7 million-acres burned is not the answer.

A helicopter system or cable system to remove small diameter trees would be a large waste of money.  The money would be better spent thinning non-roadless areas that need the treatment.

2).  ESA should not be used as a tool in order to prevent new road construction or secure new land without consideration for county impact on local economies.

If in fact the species would be threatened by the road, then this is a valid use of ESA.  Otherwise it is not.  

3).  ESA allows international associations, etc., to gain access to our natural resources, thereby decreasing American control over our natural resources, directly affecting USDA Forest Service consideration for “roadless area” input/comment from Americans.

I guess you're talking about Greenpeace or WWF?  Most lawsuits I'm aware of have been generated by the Sierra Club or semi-local enviros.  

You might be interested to find out that much of the wood in the Tongass is earmarked for Japan.  Some oil in Prudhoe bay goes to Japan also.  How's that for decreasing American control over it's resources?

4).  ESA allows U. S. environmental associations, etc., to control our natural resources, forcing farmers and those in the forest industry to spend their money on law suits.

It would be nice to come up with a way to preserve the spirit of ESA while removing the litigous nature of it.  Unfortunately I can't think of one.  Maybe paying landowners to provide T&E habitat on their land.

5).  Importing timber from Canada in a free market is acceptable.  However, not allowing timber harvest in the U. S. in areas we should be harvesting timber is counter productive.  My father builds steel and wood buildings.  Lumber is expensive and the cost of a 2by6 or 6by6 treated post continues to rise.  I believe harvesting more U. S. timber and reopening mills will eventually decrease the high cost of lumber.  Many lumberyards have closed in my area and other parts of the country.  Therefore, 380,000 miles of roads in the national forest should increase to at least 800,000 miles and roads to private forestland should be allowed.  Why should those that pay taxes on their privately owned forest be forced to watch their forest burn because of USDA Forest Service and roadless areas policies?

Canada's lumber is unfairly subsidized (in my opinion) and has an inherent advantage over American wood.

Where "we should be" harvesting timber is arguable.  Some would say that harvesting on public land decreases the price of wood, and therefore hurts the private producer.  My belief is that we should manage for multiple values and forest health on public land and leave intensive timber production to private land.

You've already noted that there is a 8.4 billion dollar backlog on existing roads.  Why should they be expanded by 120%?  

6.  If roadless areas shall remain free of roads because of ESA interruption, then by George, those that own private forest who are not allowed access to their land in order to harvest their timber, should not have to pay property taxes to their county and when their timber burns, the government should pay them the market value per board foot rather then being forced to sell their land to USDA Forest Service because of policies that directly affect timber harvest.  This same principle applies to farmers but ESA interruption becomes the enemy.

I agree.

7.  If you think it’s difficult to exploit our natural resources, i.e., oil, gas, timber, minerals, etc., today, wait until tomorrow when CARA originates it’s 3 billion trust fund to purchase more forest and farm land at a time when PILT will change the way counties receive federal allocations.

CARA isn't all bad.  Ohio will get significant increased funding for non-game wildlife programs that are very underfunded as of now.  I think buying more land out west is kind of silly, though, since the feds own most of it anyway.

[Ron Wenrich]

What is the difference between a roadless area and a wilderness area?  Is it size or just designation?

When talking about managing a forested area, you must consider that non-management is a viable management alternative.

Usually, when someone thinks of management, they think of cutting trees.  In many western states, that has come to mean clearcut.  The problem with clearcut areas is when they regenerate, the tree height gives a ladder effect during a wildfire.  Then the fires top out quicker and move much faster.

Fire is an important factor of pine forests.  It is how they regenerate in many cases.  Trying to eliminate fires is pretty futile, IMO.  

The Forest Service has allowed them to run free at Yellowstone.  I believe this thinking will continue.  Afterall, if you aren't allowed to do any harvesting, what is the point?

.

[Ron Scott]

The primary difference between roadless and wilderness is that "W"ilderness is a Congressional designation. It is Wilderness with a capital "W". There are roadless areas and semiprimitive nonmotorized areas that have more wilderness characteristics than many designated Wilderness areas, especially here in the east.

The Allegheny Islands there on the Allegheny National Forest is a good example, but they are designated Wilderness.

[Don P]

Don't know what this comment has to do with anything but having planted monoculture for Champion and others,and having seen beetles  ...the concept scares me.

[Jeff]

Bruce I must warn you again, this is a DICUSSION FORUM. Not a billboard. It is an interuption to this board to post these large prefab messages.

Pick a topic, discuss it, move to the next. I can tell when you are talking and when your just pasting info. Stick to the talking.

[Bruce]

Jeff:

Sorry, Won't happen again and I'll delete the prefab.  I won't post an entire book anymore - Sorry, got dumb struck.  Thank you for setting me straight.  I was confussed.

Bruce

[Bruce]

Hi Don:  I'm a new guest that keeps making mistakes.  I'll correct that instantly.  I have a question you may have the answer to:

Blister beetles kill two horses from eating Socorro County-grown hay – If these beetles get in the forest because of over brush and spread into the roadless area would helicopters be sent to spay in order to save wildlife that eats grass, especially in dry areas of the forest?  Access to some degree, even if eight feet trails were constructed in the roadless area seems practical to gain access.

Bruce

[Ron Wenrich]

Don P:

Absolutely right on about monocultures.  We have them here in the East.  Mountains of oak stands.  When the gypsy moth came through, they just ate one end of the state to the other.

[Jeff]

Bruce, You are a full member. Are you confusing the Timber Buyers Network with the forestry forum?

Here's kinda how that works.

I created the Timber Buyers Netwrok as an information source for private landowners to educate themselves on how to manage thier forest and timber resources, some have no idea where to start and this is why we are here. The Timber Buyers Network membership is made up of companies that want their information available to our visitors. All member companies go through a verification and selection process before being approved. We only want reputable companies and people available to our visitors.

The forum was created for these companies and landowners to comunicate, but has evolved into it's own entity. You do not have to be a member of The Timber Buyers Network(TBN) to be a forum member, and TBN members are not nessesarily forum members.

So in short, Bruce you are a member! the little status bar under your name that appears to the left of your posts changes with the number of posts you have made. Once you reach 50 posts, It will automatically say Full member. That is if you don't have to keep deleting them, cause it counts backwards too!

[Bruce]

Ron:

Thank you very much for you comments.  

I have a few more questions if you care to comment:

1).  Could 8' trails be constructed in the roadless area utilizing rivers to float logs to existing roads?

2).  Would it be cost effective to use horses/oxen to pull the logs throughout trails to the rivers?

3).  Can the government swap federally owned trees with privately owned forest trees in areas that are restricted from harvesting trees, because the private forest is considered a sensitive area for one reason or the other?

4).  Does the government pay the private owner a fair market value for their trees when they burn, because of federal policy not allowing timber harvest within privately owned forest?

5).  My family members and friends are willing to sign their name to a roadless area letter that fairly addresses issues at hand, chiefly, burning of forest must stop.  To some degree, ESA must be fairly addressed allowing some private land ownership rights in order to determine individual desires on how best to manage private land.  In short, I will endeavor to rewrite my letter, but I wonder if my signature and a minimum of 30 others willing to sign a supporting letter addressing issues at hand, would not be better served affixed to a letter sponsored by forestry professionals who understand the issues at hand better then us farmers or truckers?  Officially, we still have around 30 or so days to respond to USDA Forest Service.


Bruce