Forest Roadless Rule Reversed

[Telenater]

I think many in this thread are overlooking a fairly significant piece of the issue.

We're not talking about land that's under immediate demand for logging. These areas that do not yet have roads and are marked for inclusion in the Roadless areas program are for the most part areas where timber harvest is less financially attractive for one reason or another.

On to another topic brought up in this thread.
I've been doing some reasearch on the economic impacts of agriculture on local areas. I see no reason why many of the same principals that apply to food crops would not apply also to timber. The primary economic benefit to a local area is not in the sale of the timber. The primary economic benefit derives from the jobs created by the harvest operation and in particular value added processing of the harvest (lumber mills for timber, canning/freezing for vegies, and wine making for grapes). Conversion of land from agricultural production into residences results in a very large short term benefit for a long term loss to the region that may be several times the economic benefit of the initial sale, construction, and the support(plumbers, grocery stores...) of the community created.

The more I've done, the more pro-ag I've become. Agriculture/silviculture does not provide natural habitat, but what it does provide is far superior for a vast majority of species. This combined with the economic benefits forces me to conclude that it is a net benefit to a region to support it.

Companies that want to engage in salvage harvesting are frequently the larger timber companies, not the local ones that'll bring benefits to the local communites over the long term. These large industrial timber companies have the added benefit (to them) that stewardship of the land is something that they generally don't have to deal with. Once they're done in an area, and have met some minimal requirements for clean up they have no vested interest in preserving the area for the growth of the next generation of trees (and have exported almost all of the profit from the area).

So, where does this leave roadless areas? The only groups really interested in them are generally large companies that will bring very little net benefit to the region from harvesting. The profit margin will be even lower because the areas are harder to access, or have lower quality timber (the reason they don't already have roads) requiring larger areas, lower environmental standards, or subsidies to support the operation.

In most cases informed locals are in favor of roadless areas because the recreational/tourism/environmental value exceeds the harvest value to the local community. Outside interests frequently portray roadless areas as a "local issue" and that the USFS is eliminating local choice. This is blatantly false and is a corporate abuse of local populations.

It is also worth noting that roadless areas provide a buffer between wilderness designated areas and urbanized envirnonments and protect watersheds (drinking water). Other projects that I have worked on have showed quite clearly that the density of roads within forest ecosystems is the single strongest predictor of declines in measurable ecological value.

[eastwest]

Lazy fuck....

No. Fuck you. There are some part of the forest that you can't possibly hike to for a day trip. The roads are mostly there already, let's use them. It's sorta like Feinsteins "Wilderness Area". There are parts of the desert that are now off limits to all vehicles, even mtn bikes. There are historic sites (old mining towns, mines, mining claims, etc.) that are now completely out of reach, unless of course you want to hike in. Yeah, right. In the summer, when it's 100 fucking degrees, let's get you out there to hike in 10 miles on a perfectly good dirt road that is now off limits to vehicles. It's a fucking crime.

Save it for future generations? Yeah, right. By then they won't be able to get anywhere near the sites. It will be lost to future generations.

[rideit]

No. Fuck you. There are some part of the forest that you can't possibly hike to for a day trip. :

So take a TWO day trip, you seriously lazy fuck.

Maybe there are places that SHOULDN'T and NEEDN'T be a one day hike away.

There are places on our great planet that you can't get to in a TEN day hike...does that mean we should pave the way to them?


"Oh, I'm fat and lazy, and my kids are too. Pave it so we can get back to dairy queen in one day!!!"

THAT is a fucking crime.

Lazy fuck.

As to the mining claims/towns, did you ever think how long it took the MINERS to get to them? A LOT longer than a day hike, ya' dumb shit! Why not honor thier presence and proximity as well?

Whether or not you know it, you ARE the problem. YOU are the one to blame when everyone else goes through a pristine area, and says "oh, it was unbelievable here a decade ago, now it is nothing but asphalt and strip malls.."

Yup ,you ARE that guy.

So Sorry.


(Oh, and I advocate Mt. Bike civil disobedience. And I am talking about forests, not desert.)

[Telenater]

No. Fuck you. There are some part of the forest that you can't possibly hike to for a day trip. The roads are mostly there already, let's use them.

Fine use them. If the road already exists, it won't be removed by the roadless rule.

It's sorta like Feinsteins "Wilderness Area".

No, a roadless area is fundamentally different from the roadless rule. If it has roads, it won't become part of the roadless areas (unless the roads are formally decommisioned and revegetated). And there are explicitly delineated methods providing authority for providing exemptionsl from the roadless rule (which does not exist with wildernes designation).

[BanditXXX]

While it is unlikely that mouth-breathers like Bandit XXX will see the light and suddenly acquire the ability to think rationally about land management, the underlying premise of his blather needs to be addressed.

It is also important to remember that the roadless rule only applies to parcels of land, 5,000 acres or more, which have not been logged or roaded. This is approximately 50 million acres across 38 states (58 million if you include the Tongass). Why after a 100 years of logging and mining is a 1/3 of the national forest system still intact?

Well, National Forests do not exist solely to produce timber and provide a venue for our collective radness. They also provide a home for little fury creatures, salamanders, butterflies, and wildflower, which need intact habitat—not isolated islands of wilderness—to survive. That is why national forests were managed (until GW came to town) to maintain viable wildlife populations. In addition, our national forests play an important role in protecting the cleanliness of our drinking water. For instance, the city of Sacramento’s water comes from a roadless watershed.

If anyone is actually interested in seeing where the inventoried roadless areas are, http://roadless.fs.fed.us/maps/usmap2.shtml.

On the hedonistic tip, skiing through old growth rules. Second growth is okay, and third growth sucks donkey balls. Mountain biking on logging roads sucks, so why should we build more of them? I like signal track.

"Until George Bush came to town" You guys whine and cry about one of the best presidents we've ever had.

As far as I can see, our NF are still being managed. And managed quite well. The Chester Morse Watershed is still intact. We still have clean water.

Quit your crying and concentrate on issues that matter. Like getting our fleet of semi trucks to burn bio diesal. Get people to car pool. etc.

Instead of humping those old growth trees, why don't you go hump some fat lady who needs the love more than some 100 year old tree that is already protected.

[iceman]

"Until George Bush came to town" You guys whine and cry about one of the best presidents we've ever had.

man, up until now I thought he was serious.

[bdog]

"Until George Bush came to town" You guys whine and cry about one of the best presidents we've ever had.

As far as I can see, our NF are still being managed. And managed quite well. The Chester Morse Watershed is still intact. We still have clean water.

Quit your crying and concentrate on issues that matter. Like getting our fleet of semi trucks to burn bio diesal. Get people to car pool. etc.

Instead of humping those old growth trees, why don't you go hump some fat lady who needs the love more than some 100 year old tree that is already protected.

So, we can have an intelligent discourse here; air different views and opinions and post research data ... or ... we can have posts such as Bandit XXX's that prove once again that the average age and IQ on this forum appears to be the same, around 19! ... or 12 maybe!

[BanditXXX]

I think many in this thread are overlooking a fairly significant piece of the issue.

We're not talking about land that's under immediate demand for logging. These areas that do not yet have roads and are marked for inclusion in the Roadless areas program are for the most part areas where timber harvest is less financially attractive for one reason or another.

On to another topic brought up in this thread.
I've been doing some reasearch on the economic impacts of agriculture on local areas. I see no reason why many of the same principals that apply to food crops would not apply also to timber. The primary economic benefit to a local area is not in the sale of the timber. The primary economic benefit derives from the jobs created by the harvest operation and in particular value added processing of the harvest (lumber mills for timber, canning/freezing for vegies, and wine making for grapes). Conversion of land from agricultural production into residences results in a very large short term benefit for a long term loss to the region that may be several times the economic benefit of the initial sale, construction, and the support(plumbers, grocery stores...) of the community created.

The more I've done, the more pro-ag I've become. Agriculture/silviculture does not provide natural habitat, but what it does provide is far superior for a vast majority of species. This combined with the economic benefits forces me to conclude that it is a net benefit to a region to support it.

Companies that want to engage in salvage harvesting are frequently the larger timber companies, not the local ones that'll bring benefits to the local communites over the long term. These large industrial timber companies have the added benefit (to them) that stewardship of the land is something that they generally don't have to deal with. Once they're done in an area, and have met some minimal requirements for clean up they have no vested interest in preserving the area for the growth of the next generation of trees (and have exported almost all of the profit from the area).

So, where does this leave roadless areas? The only groups really interested in them are generally large companies that will bring very little net benefit to the region from harvesting. The profit margin will be even lower because the areas are harder to access, or have lower quality timber (the reason they don't already have roads) requiring larger areas, lower environmental standards, or subsidies to support the operation.

In most cases informed locals are in favor of roadless areas because the recreational/tourism/environmental value exceeds the harvest value to the local community. Outside interests frequently portray roadless areas as a "local issue" and that the USFS is eliminating local choice. This is blatantly false and is a corporate abuse of local populations.

It is also worth noting that roadless areas provide a buffer between wilderness designated areas and urbanized envirnonments and protect watersheds (drinking water). Other projects that I have worked on have showed quite clearly that the density of roads within forest ecosystems is the single strongest predictor of declines in measurable ecological value.

Why don't you sing and dance that proposal to the local farmers here in Puyallup? Ya, that's right, you won't , because you'll get laughed right out of the meeting place. Many have sold there land because they can't afford the property tax. When their land gets rezoned into commercial or industrial use, the property taxes shoot sky high. They can make more money by selling their land than to keep farming. That is why you see all the warehouses and commercial buildings being erected in the valley.
Jobs in agriculture? Who are you kidding? Minimum wage labor that will only be done by migrant workers. How does that benefit the economy?

You better go back to college and study labor relations and economics 101.

You're so far out of touch with the real world or you've been smoking some of that heavy duty weed from The Sunshine Coast!!

[BanditXXX]

So, we can have an intelligent discourse here; air different views and opinions and post research data ... or ... we can have posts such as Bandit XXX's that prove once again that the average age and IQ on this forum appears to be the same, around 19! ... or 12 maybe!

Loosen up those shorts , pal. What's the matter, your tiger striped G-string get stuck in your ass?

Go get a shot of scotch and spank the old lady, then come back and report on the weather you wanker!

[bdog]

Many have sold there land because they can't afford the property tax. When their land gets rezoned into commercial or industrial use, the property taxes shoot sky high. They can make more money by selling their land than to keep farming.

Just what does loss of sustainable farm lands have to do with Roadless areas? Oddly, you and I are on the same page as far as preservation of farm lands. The problem there, as you pointed out is re-zoning of agricultural lands and the problem is developers. BUT ... this has nothing to do with preservation of roadless areas and ancient forests.

[BanditXXX]

Just what does loss of sustainable farm lands have to do with Roadless areas? Oddly, you and I are on the same page as far as preservation of farm lands. The problem there, as you pointed out is re-zoning of agricultural lands and the problem is developers. BUT ... this has nothing to do with preservation of roadless areas and ancient forests.

I was responding to telenators rant about farming. He doesn't know shit, and I'm letting him know that fact.

[Telenater]

Many have sold there land because they can't afford the property tax. When their land gets rezoned into commercial or industrial use, the property taxes shoot sky high. They can make more money by selling their land than to keep farming. That is why you see all the warehouses and commercial buildings being erected in the valley.

Thank you for pointing out one of the fundamental problems. In addition to ignoring regional benefits from agricultural buisness. The rampant rezoning is a critical problem that is entirely locally derived.

In one sense you are quite correct. The following rezoning the individual farmer can make more money if he sells it than if he tries to farm under that new zoning. So, here's a novel idea. Don't rezone the ag land. This is a local problem at either the county or city level and one over which the local populace has a great deal of control (should they choose to exercise it). The rezoning process in WA differs somewhat from that of Ca, but the reality is that most of the groups pushing for the rezoning are heavily influenced by outside companies and are basically pulling the wool over the eyes of locals to keep them from taking an active role in planning their future.

Jobs in agriculture? Who are you kidding? Minimum wage labor that will only be done by migrant workers. How does that benefit the economy?

Another missunderstanding of the agricultural economy... Agricultural jobs are not all minimum wage. Yes, a huge percentage are migrant workers making minimum wage. But, they're still spending money in the local communities while they're earning the money in the area. The transport drivers, tractor drivers, mechanics, shift leaders, inspectors, canning/packaging machinery operators, bakers, winemakers, and managers make more than minimum wage and are drawn mostly from the local populace so when they make money it stays in the local community and is subject to multiplier effects. Replacing the agricultural industry with locally owned commerce or industry can exceed the economic benefit to the region of agriculture. But in almost all cases the conversion isn't into locally owned buisnesses, it's large national ones that take the money and ship it out of the area.

You better go back to college and study labor relations and economics 101.

You're so far out of touch with the real world or you've been smoking some of that heavy duty weed from The Sunshine Coast!!

Indeed, I'm starting graduate school next week. I have worked for one of the premier environmental and agricultural universities as a researcher for the past 6 years. The goal is that I'll get a degree through extending the research I've already done in this field looking at how land conversion to urban uses impacts regions economically and environmentally.

[BanditXXX]

Thank you for pointing out one of the fundamental problems. In addition to ignoring regional benefits from agricultural buisness. The rampant rezoning is a critical problem that is entirely locally derived.

In one sense you are quite correct. The following rezoning the individual farmer can make more money if he sells it than if he tries to farm under that new zoning. So, here's a novel idea. Don't rezone the ag land. This is a local problem at either the county or city level and one over which the local populace has a great deal of control (should they choose to exercise it). The rezoning process in WA differs somewhat from that of Ca, but the reality is that most of the groups pushing for the rezoning are heavily influenced by outside companies and are basically pulling the wool over the eyes of locals to keep them from taking an active role in planning their future.




Another missunderstanding of the agricultural economy... Agricultural jobs are not all minimum wage. Yes, a huge percentage are migrant workers making minimum wage. But, they're still spending money in the local communities while they're earning the money in the area. The transport drivers, tractor drivers, mechanics, shift leaders, inspectors, canning/packaging machinery operators, bakers, winemakers, and managers make more than minimum wage and are drawn mostly from the local populace so when they make money it stays in the local community and is subject to multiplier effects. Replacing the agricultural industry with locally owned commerce or industry can exceed the economic benefit to the region of agriculture. But in almost all cases the conversion isn't into locally owned buisnesses, it's large national ones that take the money and ship it out of the area.


Indeed, I'm starting graduate school next week. I have worked for one of the premier environmental and agricultural universities as a researcher for the past 6 years. The goal is that I'll get a degree through extending the research I've already done in this field looking at how land conversion to urban uses impacts regions economically and environmentally.

You're living in La La land pal. Why don't you go talk to the farmers and ask them how the prices have been for their products in the past years? And then ask them how much fuel, fertilizer, seed, property taxes, etc have increased?

You'll get an eye opening answer. They are not going to work for free.
The farmers can't control how their land is rezoned. Their answer is to sell the property than can no longer be economically viable for them to farm. You don't have to go to college to figure that one out, now do you?

The industries that replace the farms have higher paying jobs and the money does stay local.

[rideit]

But in other good news, thousands of acres in northern Idaho are off limits to snowmobiles due to the near extinction of the last remaining Big Horn sheep herd in the lower 48.



Ahh, fuck the sheep, they didn't serve our lord anyway. They deserve to die.

[P_McPoser]

But in other good news, thousands of acres in northern Idaho are off limits to snowmobiles due to the near extinction of the last remaining Big Horn sheep herd in the lower 48.



Ahh, fuck the sheep, they didn't serve our lord anyway. They deserve to die.

I've seen them in Arizona, Nevada, and California....???

[rideit]

Nope, I was wrong. It is a Caribou herd. You ain't seen them slumming down south.

[BanditXXX]

Nope, I was wrong. It is a Caribou herd. You ain't seen them slumming down south.

There are 1,000's of them in B.C. and The Yukon Territory. Open up hunting season on them. Or the cougars can eat them. Personally, I'd rather eat their meat than beat it. Get it??

[rideit]

we aren't talking about the yukon, fucktard.

[hairy]

Thank you.

Spew, dispite the Denver Post's claim, the Clinton Rule was not "quickly over turned" by the Bush administration. The Clinton Rule was changed two days ago with the release of this new rule, up until that time the roadless rule was in effect. However, the roadless rule was challenged in court by logging companies and the Bush administration didn't bother to defend the rule against their lawsuits, that is when the pesky cock sucking environmentalist stepped in. Again, the roadless rule went into effect at the end of the Clinton era, but it was many years in the making,

Anyway, since this is a ski forum, I'll suggest that all ya'll check out the inventoried roadless areas off of Pass Ridge, CA. Fucking sick bird terrian and you can take a sled there in the winter. One road bifricates hundreds of thousands of real and defacto wilderness and I don't think we need anymore.

attaboy!

[boredboiseboy]

Local Impacts should equal Local Decisions.
/ducks

Kinda like how Idaho is already planning to kill off the wolf population before they are even delisted?