Forest Service under threat?

[Customweld]

I haven't lost any access to hunting ,hiking or fishing due to timber sales or logging projects, but I sure as hell have from Forest Service closing roads.

 

[wowzers]

Either way, the important thing to understand is that MANAGED forests need to be managed. Heavy logging/clear cutting destroys the natural cadence of forest/tree life cycles. The dense understory everyone is complaining about is because of 200 years of heavy logging. Not sure how much time anyone on this thread has spent in old growth forests (the few small groves that still exist, thanks to extensive protections, which I'm sure this admin would love to revoke), but they don't have dense understory and don't require roads and 10000s of man hours every year to stay that way. They also don't experience massive forest fires.

Clear cutting and heavy logging destroys the canopy and allows for the growth of dense understory. Eliminating clear cutting and doing selective thinning and prescribed burning is the best way to manage these young forests back towards their original densities and cadences. But it requires skillful assessment, more manual cutting, and removal of slash, which makes it much less profitable. Considering the voracious greed of this administration, I have no confidence that this type of thoughtful management is what they have in mind

I don’t think you know as much as you think you do.

OSU research shows certain old growth forests most vulnerable to severe wildfires

Old growth forests with just modest exposure to fire are now most at risk for severe wildfires across the region. That’s according to a new analysis from scientists with Oregon State University and the USDA Forest Service Research & Development.

www.klcc.org

In recent years, wildfire has replaced logging as the largest threat, and since 2000, federal lands have seen a net loss of 2.6 million acres of mature forest and 700,000 acres of old-growth forest. Those acres were designated for multiple uses including recreation, timber production and wildlife habitat, providing important ecosystem services.”

 

[IDVortex]

Logged areas are actually good for the local wildlife vs dense forests... and let's not talk about the forest fire prevention of especially selective logging. Ive lost access due to massize fires in national forests due to piss poor state and local management of the forest service. But never have lost access due to logging.

Next up. The earth is indeed flat.

 

[RockAndSage]

The constant blending in of esoteric right wing talking points is troubling, but not surprising.

So...are you afraid to dig into that information, or do you just support it? Calling it "right wing" doesn't change the reality that the institutional and voting left across Western societies are pushing all of it - under a mask of benevolence - and right into a sinister reality that leads to my grandparents or my toddlers having less access to public lands because someone "feels" the only good Earth is one untouched by human hands.

Can you not see how separating the majority of the public from public lands - and limiting it only to the healthy and the fit - is a guaranteed way to ensure the public care less and less about public lands over time?

 

[Ozarkansas]

Separately, people need roads to get deep into places to enjoy our public lands heritage. This includes the old, the young, and the infirm. We can't limit public lands to wilderness because it feels good for some - people shouldn't have to be fit and young to experience the depth and breadth of their beauty.

While I support well-managed forests- and that usually requires roads- this argument seems set up to fail. People don’t need roads to enjoy public land, they just want roads to make access easier.

If you prioritize easy access, one could argue that you’re “denying access” at any trail that isn’t wheelchair accessible or doesn’t allow motorized vehicles. One could argue that unpaved roads or roads that require 4wd are “denying access” because they’re too hard to drive down in a Honda civic.

We should absolutely have opportunities for the young, infirm, and elderly to enjoy the outdoors. But the existence of roadless areas doesn’t deny them access.

 

[RockAndSage]

People don’t need roads to enjoy public land, they just want roads to make access easier.

But the existence of roadless areas doesn’t deny them access.

So...without roads, can you not see how "access" means "as far as you can walk"?

Are you arguing that this should be the case - that everything outside of the walking distance of a toddler, 6yo, or 76yo is acceptable to be made "roadless"?

I think we can agree that nobody's talking about paving everything or doing a massive roads project through public lands - what we're saying on this issue, is that closing roads on public lands decreases public access, and that needs to stop.

 

[Q_Sertorius]

So...are you afraid to dig into that information, or do you just support it? Calling it "right wing" doesn't change the reality that the institutional and voting left across Western societies are pushing all of it - under a mask of benevolence - and right into a sinister reality that leads to my grandparents or my toddlers having less access to public lands because someone "feels" the only good Earth is one untouched by human hands.

Can you not see how separating the majority of the public from public lands - and limiting it only to the healthy and the fit - is a guaranteed way to ensure the public care less and less about public lands over time?

You don’t have to be able to drive through everywhere to appreciate nature. We have extensive national parks for that. The non-hunting public has that for their tourism.

Face it, most people don’t ever think about western public lands or access.

Once there is a public way to drive up to the edge of every significant block of public land and a big parking lot, I will be happy. Then I might start to worry about an access road running through the largest parts.

But my hatred for ATVs is extreme. I’d love to see automatic forfeiture for having one in any area where it is excluded. If you can’t walk or ride a horse, I don’t think you have any business pretending to be a backcountry hunter.

As hunters we are caught between two large factions whose interests do not align with ours. One side wants to be able to let their industrial allies make a huge profit off public land. The other wants to let their anti-industrial allies turn it into an anti-human paradise.

I am sure that if companies were willing to accept a mere 10% profit margin - which is theoretically the margin on every federal government contract - and we stopped letting litigation shut down logging for years at a time, we could get some decent forest management programs.

 

[Harvey_NW]

Not sure how much time anyone on this thread has spent in old growth forests (the few small groves that still exist, thanks to extensive protections, which I'm sure this admin would love to revoke), but they don't have dense understory and don't require roads and 10000s of man hours every year to stay that way. They also don't experience massive forest fires.

Typically I don't disagree with you but I have to on this, especially since we live in the same state. Go check out the burns in the Pasayten Wilderness sometime, it got absolutely roached.

 

[solarshooter]

I don’t think you know as much as you think you do.

Congrats on the google search. But you didn't read that article carefully. It's saying exactly what I'm saying:

Researchers say 75% of the Pacific Northwest’s forests that historically saw low and mixed severity fires are highly vulnerable to devastating blazes today.

Part of this vulnerability came after Indigenous people were driven out, and therefore unable to practice controlled burns to reduce slash and pests, as well as rejuvenate the landscape.
...an aggressive campaign of extinguishing fires “became federal policy...
Prior to fire exclusion, frequent low- and mixed-severity fires had played a key role in maintaining the forest ecosystems of the western United States. Since then, older forests and trees have seen major structural shifts as shade-tolerant and fire-intolerant species have moved in.

And your direct quote, leaving out context which completely changes it's meaning:

“mature and old-growth forests on national forests saw major declines because of logging. In recent years, wildfire has replaced logging as the largest threat, ..."

So, logging decreased, which made fire the biggest threat.

 

[solarshooter]

So...are you afraid to dig into that information, or do you just support it? Calling it "right wing" doesn't change the reality that the institutional and voting left across Western societies are pushing all of it - under a mask of benevolence - and right into a sinister reality that leads to my grandparents or my toddlers having less access to public lands because someone "feels" the only good Earth is one untouched by human hands.

Can you not see how separating the majority of the public from public lands - and limiting it only to the healthy and the fit - is a guaranteed way to ensure the public care less and less about public lands over time?

So you're saying not wanting to open or create new roads all over the woods is a left wing conspiracy to stop right wing people from accessing the woods? OK man.

 

[solarshooter]

Logged areas are actually good for the local wildlife vs dense forests

Clear cuts? I disagree. Neither the fresh cut nor the 5, 10, 15, 20, etc year regrowth are optimal habitat for ungulates or other animals that live in the forest. Carefully thinned forests with controlled burns? Yes much better.

let's not talk about the forest fire prevention of especially selective logging

We are talking about it.

Ive lost access due to massize fires in national forests due to piss poor state and local management of the forest service

Don't disagree. The mismanagement was the clearcutting and heavy logging that happened a century ago. Unfortunately our time constant is much shorter than a forest's, so we have generally forgotten this relevant fact.

But never have lost access due to logging.

I have had a different experience. Can recall 2 areas in the last 5 years specifically that I've lost to clear cutting. One was a great hunting area, one was a great dirtibiking area with lots of established trails.

Next up. The earth is indeed flat.

If anyone on this thread thinks the earth is flat, it's not me...

 

[Q_Sertorius]

So you're saying not wanting to open or create new roads all over the woods is a left wing conspiracy to stop right wing people from accessing the woods? OK man.

It’s not a conspiracy. It’s an open movement. And it is also funded and pushed by our international great power adversaries. Just like the anti-nuclear messaging. And a lot of the other left and right wing extremist positions.

 

[solarshooter]

As hunters we are caught between two large factions whose interests do not align with ours. One side wants to be able to let their industrial allies make a huge profit off public land. The other wants to let their anti-industrial allies turn it into an anti-human paradise.

You NAILED it. Blast this from the ******* rooftops. And here we all are, 95% on the same team, bickering amongst ourselves. Just what they want.

 

[Customweld]

Central Idaho Wilderness did not get the memo that old growth doesn't experience wildfire.

InterAgencyFirePerimeterHistory All Years View

Interagency Wildland Fire Perimeter History (IFPH) includes perimeters thru 2024 fires, update complete 7/5/2025. Data maintained by the Wildland Fire Management Research, Development, & Application program data team: [email protected]

data-nifc.opendata.arcgis.com

 

[solarshooter]

Central Idaho Wilderness did not get the memo that old growth doesn't experience wildfire.

InterAgencyFirePerimeterHistory All Years View

Interagency Wildland Fire Perimeter History (IFPH) includes perimeters thru 2024 fires, update complete 7/5/2025. Data maintained by the Wildland Fire Management Research, Development, & Application program data team: [email protected]

data-nifc.opendata.arcgis.com

Not sure what point you're making with this map. Most of the forests in Idaho are not old growth. Probably less than 10%.

And I didn't say old growth forests don't burn, nor did the article linked earlier. No one should expect forests to not experience wildfire. All forests can/should/will experience fire. The difference is that young, overgrown forests with dense understory and short, small, closely spaced trees burn much more intensely and completely than a mature/old growth forest. In a healthy forest, a wildfire doesn't kill the trees, it actually makes them healthier.

 

[Weldor]

USFS mitigated a bunch of the Tonto NF, and are still working on it. Looks like moon scap now. Everyone seems happy about it except the Turkey's and deer and Elk. Now they are burning all the slash left behind. Good management or not, I don't know. I do have a bunch of Elk living in my front yard now though. There is plenty to eat here. not much where they chain flailed.

 

[Ozarkansas]

So...without roads, can you not see how "access" means "as far as you can walk"?

Are you arguing that this should be the case - that everything outside of the walking distance of a toddler, 6yo, or 76yo is acceptable to be made "roadless"?

I think we can agree that nobody's talking about paving everything or doing a massive roads project through public lands - what we're saying on this issue, is that closing roads on public lands decreases public access, and that needs to stop.

No, I’m saying that appealing to access when it comes to whether or not to build/close roads is a slippery slope, because there are always going to be areas that some people are unwilling or unable to access.

There’s good reasons to build roads and good reasons to close them, but in my opinion access is very low on the priority list for why to do either of those things.

 

[Customweld]

Not sure what point you're making with this map. Most of the forests in Idaho are not old growth. Probably less than 10%.

And I didn't say old growth forests don't burn, nor did the article linked earlier. No one should expect forests to not experience wildfire. All forests can/should/will experience fire. The difference is that young, overgrown forests with dense understory and short, small, closely spaced trees burn much more intensely and completely than a mature/old growth forest. In a healthy forest, a wildfire doesn't kill the trees, it actually makes them healthier.

The point is that from Stanley, north to the Lochsa has seen little to no management, extremely limited timber harvests and for the most part, no roads. It's a perfect study for hands off management and the shape of the forest reflects that. More than 90% of forest mortality in Idaho is on National Forest lands where forests are dying faster than they are growing. Those trees aren't dying from a saw. Something needs to change, and if a HQ move out west helps, I'm all for it.

 

[wowzers]

,

Not sure what point you're making with this map. Most of the forests in Idaho are not old growth. Probably less than 10%.

And I didn't say old growth forests don't burn, nor did the article linked earlier. No one should expect forests to not experience wildfire. All forests can/should/will experience fire. The difference is that young, overgrown forests with dense understory and short, small, closely spaced trees burn much more intensely and completely than a mature/old growth forest. In a healthy forest, a wildfire doesn't kill the trees, it actually makes them healthier.

You said “They also don't experience massive forest fires.”. You don’t have stand replacing fires that are low intensity.

Off the top of my head the Elliott State Forest in Oregon is a prime example of an entire old growth forest being consumed in the 1870’s, well prior to any industrial logging at scale.

You never answered the question. How much more than 99.9 % I’m the acreage do you want to not feel like you’re being denied access?

 

[poppa bear0062]

Hope the swelling public and corporate opposition stalls this enough to minimize damage to the forests. Hunting access will be reduced by this illegal privatization

I hope so, but it is a slippery slope. We all talk about how inefficient the government is, but at the same time we don`t trust government when they do try to reduce cost. If that is truly the objective