Maybe Clinton was right?

[Fairweather]

OK. Was I wrong about the roadless rule imposed in our National Forests by Emperor Clinton? I've harped on about how this rule would be twisted by the enviro-kooks to limit recreation access...and I still believe it! And I don't think the process under which the rule was imposed could be considered democratic by any means. But when I read stories like this, and align my beliefs in free enterprise...that is, non-or-minimally-subsidized markets....I have no choice but to conclude that timber sales on federal land should be stopped, or sharply curtailed! The Roadless Rule...Maybe Clinton was right.

 

 

 

http://www.tribnet.com/news/story/5374772p-5313586c.html

[klenke]

And yet, the Trail Park Pass is sooooo necessary.

[JoshK]

And yet, the Trail Park Pass is sooooo necessary.

 

Maybe I should split this into a seperate thread, but I am curious on exactly what should be done about trail access funding. I know we all bitch about it, but what should we do? Would we all complain if the parking passes went entirely towards maintaining roads, trailheads and trails? After all, somebody needs to pay to keep the roads and parking lots at a useable standard.

 

FW, I think my real beef with loggon on federally land is that you and I own that land and I don't care to give my land to the timber companies so they can make money of it. Yes, the argument would be taxes from the sales benifit us all, but the reality is we benifit 1% and the timber companies benifit 99%

[Fairweather]

Josh,

 

I don't know if you read the story/link, but just the awful waste illustrated therein galls me to....well... to the point that I'll admit Clinton was possibly right about something!

 

Those forests up in The Tongass aren't going to grow back as readily as trees do in The Gifford Pinchot. To just leave the trees to rot like that is inexcusable...criminal, even. Just as big a crime as raw-log exports IMO.

 

As for the forest pass, here's my position in a nutshell: I'm gonna keep payin' it....so I can keep bitchin' about unrepaired road washouts!

[klenke]

Josh: regarding your first paragraph: (the little arrow on the right designates our Trail Park Pass fees)

[dukiebird]

Good call, Klenke. I've never thought that logging (or cattle raising, for that matter) in national forests should be allowed, there are private lands set aside for that purpose, not national forests. Fairweather, you're actually right, to me, the fact that you buy a pass means that you have the right to bitch, just make sure you bitch to the right people to get things changed. People pay more attention if you are someone that has paid them, and is willing to take it away. And before RobBob comes out to jump up my ass, Weyerhauser had nothing to do with that particular sale (note: not a blanket excuse for logging practices of Weyer or any other Co.)

[JoshK]

I would argue that there is absolutely ZERO excuse for cutting any sort of old-growth, or even well established second growth. If timber companies cannot make a profit from renewable logging on their land then...well, I dont really give a fuck. If they have to charge more, than that is what is nescessary. If end consumers end up paying more for housing, than so be it, that is how the market works. There is no excuse for us to be paying to line the pockets of timber companies, esp. when they are cutting trees that have value in their present state.

[catbirdseat]

Klenke, where did you get that drawing? It's pretty good.

[cj001f]

But when I read stories like this, and align my beliefs in free enterprise...that is, non-or-minimally-subsidized markets....I have no choice but to conclude that timber sales on federal land should be stopped, or sharply curtailed! The Roadless Rule...Maybe Clinton was right.

It's a subsidy left and right can agree needs to be ended. Now how about agriculture subsidies.....

[jjd]

Bill Clinton may have been right for the wrong reason. Taxpayers as a whole should not be subsidizing timber any more than they should be subsidizing your recreation. If you insist on having a government entity manage lands, you should be prepared to have it managed for everyone - including people who want to harvest timber. There are those who believe that logging should be permitted on public lands. I am not in favor of subsidizing any industry, lumber included. However, I do recognize that my beliefs are not shared by all.

[cj001f]

jjd-

I have no problem with harvesting timber. I have a problem with the government constructing and maintaining a road, gratis, for the extraction of timber sold at sub-market rates. Then keeping that road closed to the general public for "safety". Too often recreation is the redhaired stepchild to extractive uses of the National Forests - and recreation is increasingly asked to pay more of their share ($15 a night for a campground spot!) when the logging subsidies show no sign of slowing.

[jjd]

I agree with you. I don't want to subsidize anyone. I'm glad to see both sides of the aisle agreeing on something, albeit for different reasons.

[klenke]

Klenke, where did you get that drawing? It's pretty good.

I done made it all by my selfsome.

 

cj100f: your comments are exactly what I was trying to convey in my purdy diagram.

[JoshK]

I wonder when synthetic building materials will be cost effectie enough to make an inroads? Apparently they are better now, but just cost a lot. the place we are in has composite siding or something like with a 100 year guarantee. obviously much better than wood. If the government's arguement for timber subsidies (as it has been before) is to keep people employed our money would be better spent retraining these folks. It would cost a hellavu lot less.

 

Next step...getting oil subsidies cut.

[Dru]

what did they make that composite from, oil?

 

hmmmm how many board feet did Saudi Arabia ship this year?

[JoshK]

what did they make that composite from, oil?

 

hmmmm how many board feet did Saudi Arabia ship this year?

 

recycled pop bottles. yes, I know where the pop bottles come from, but it is still a re-use of something we already have in bulk.

[assmonkey]

I am curious on exactly what should be done about trail access funding.

 

Hmm, maybe we could go back to the pre-1992 Gingrich revolution state, make corporations actually pay SOME taxes and get back some of the services that existed in this country going back for more than 80 years: Public land stewarship, education, social security.

 

Just a thought!

 

- a s s m n k e y

[JoshK]

teddy roosevelt would be ashamed with what the republican party has become...at least in regard to the environment.

[bunglehead]

OH MY FUCKING GOD. A RATIONAL DISCUSSION ON CC.COM??!!!!

WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON?!

 

 

But, yeah I agree with all of you. We just need to manage our forests better. And old growth shouldn't be cut.

There are campgrounds in the Umpqua basin where there is not water, and they charge 12 bucks a night. That aint right.

[Fairweather]

teddy roosevelt would be ashamed with what the republican party has become

And I suspect JFK would be ashamed of what the Democratic Party has become.

...at least in regard to the environment.

 

Actually, Josh, the story reads that even Republicans in congress (the administration notwithstanding) are asking tough questions about logging/USFS practices. Anyhow, no need to throw partisan barbs at this point.

[dukiebird]

What tough questions, and who is asking them? I'm not trying to stir shit up, I simply don't know, and would like to find out which R congresspeople you're talking about. Just curious

[JoshK]

Actually, Josh, the story reads that even Republicans in congress (the administration notwithstanding) are asking tough questions about logging/USFS practices. Anyhow, no need to throw partisan barbs at this point.

 

This is indeed true. I should have singled out the admninistration from repubs in general. I bow my head and admit that there are some respectable and decent repubs. It's too bad they can't stand up for what is right and admit this administration is bad for the country *and* their party! Ok...enuf partisan stuff.

 

I can see why the repubs would be questioning this too. Maybe their reasons are different, but the FS policy is something that most repubs and dems can agree SUCKS in it's current form.