Well as i said, lotta logging going on here on fed land specifically to address fires. And the logging is contracted out to the highest bidding private business, youre trying to make it sound like its the usfs itself doing the logging and were paying wages for the loggers. Thats not the case. Feds cant sell off land to developers. States can. Ill keep my federal land. You can enjoy suburban sprawl elsewhere. Wilderness areas are nigger free. Housing developments are not. I spend a lot of my life on national forest land hunting deer, bear, lion etc. Picking berries and mushrooms, shed hunting, being in the mountains alone. That couldnt happen if that land was being sold to developers which it eventually would be if it wasnt fed land.
Federal land is OUR land. We own it. State land not so much. I have to buy a pass to park on state owned land. Federal land no pass required because it belongs to me.
And the logging is contracted out to the highest bidding private business, youre trying to make it sound like its the usfs itself doing the logging and were paying wages for the loggers.
I didn't imply this at all. Stand improvement, pre-sale work, and harvest administration are all separate from logging costs. Those other pieces are all paid by the taxpayer and it costs us an astronomically high $/mbf for the USFS to harvest timber when compared with any other land management agency or organization outside of maybe the ODF.
Logging costs (logger's wages) are paid for out of the value of the timber, which is factored in the bidding process you mentioned. That has nothing to do with the USFS's extreme pre-sale costs. And in some cases, timber was allowed to degrade so badly that loggers are being paid more than the actual delivered value of the logs just to get the shit cleaned up. The USFS routinely sells timber at negative stumpage. Anyone else would be fired for doing do.
As long as we're talking about massive overhauls of land management philosophy let's say that if federal land management ends, portions of that ground are protected by non-development easements at the state level. Many state land management agencies and private timber companies already do this. We don't have to consider the situation as of everything else would have to remain static if the USFS were shut down as they should be.
Ever noticed how large game prefer edge spaces and transition zones between widely spaced seed-tree harvests and more closed canopy rather than the fuckshow jungle of ladder fuels, beetle kill, and root disease that is huge swaths of federal ground?
Federal land is OUR land. We own it.
LMAO. Just like you "own" your own property but still have to pay property taxes. You are granted leave to recreate on the "king's land" and you pay taxes for the privilege, nothing more.
The cost of federal lands is a pittance compared to all the other bullshit our government spends money on. If that money wasnt spent maintaining millions of acres of wildlife habitat for free recreation it would just be spent on gibs for illegals and niggers. Yes i notice how wildlife prefer edge habitat. I also notice that the usfs land around here has the best hunting around. And the subject of this thread, wilderness areas specifically, that means non motorized. No atv trails all over, retards 4 wheeling pitching beer cans, no roads. Difficult access. It keeps the rabble out and provides a low pressure sanctuary for animals. Then i can go kill them in an area they feel safe, free from fat roadhunting assholes.
The cost of federal lands is a pittance compared to all the other bullshit our government spends money on.
So because they waste money elsewhere we should turn a blind eye to massive, intentional squandering of some of our most important natural resources because you like to recreate.
I know what wilderness and roadless are. Every wilderness area will eventually burn. And when it does it will burn at a soil-damaging level well above natural fire intensity as a result of the unnaturally high fuel loading created by a century of fire suppression and half a century of failed forest management.
I also know that wilderness and roadless designations are leveraged and billed by environmental groups to lock up land right in line with the principles of the Guidestones. Yeah, the article was about expanding wilderness protection areas, which does take currently operable ground out of productive rotation.
I am not at all proposing that federal land be turned over to be developed and clear-cut. I am saying that that federal land ownership at the current scale is unconstitutional and needs to end. The citizens of the several states should be given the liberty to manage the land within their borders as they see fit without any input beyond their state's capital. Citizens should absolutely require that their state maintain ground in trust as natural spaces and undeveloped areas.
Last summer, when everyone fled the coasts to get out in the woods because of the coof, did you notice where they went? They flocked to federal ground, clogging up road systems and campsites and ignoring state or open industrial ground the next drainage over. The federal system invites out-of-state road hunters and recreators to your area and they are constantly working on promoting diversity in natural resource management and outdoor recreation, not that nigs will ever into hiking or hunting.
(post is archived)