Forest Service under threat?

[cal30_sniper]

What I haven't seen discussed here is how the move out west might impact funding for the USFS. Keeping funding flowing into a federal govt agency requires an obscene amount of in-person interface to support/counter all the pork-barrel schemes pushed by Congress as well as the internal hallway politics within the upper echelons of federal departments. The strong possibility is that pulling USFS leadership out of DC will likely severely hamper their ability to keep funding flowing to meet service functions and initiatives. The world runs on greenbacks, and this move is likely intended to strike severe blows to the USFS by hampering their ability to compete for the funding needed to carry out their mission and initiatives while fending off commercial interests eyeing their (our) lands for profit.

You don't have to support or agree with this model of government to realize that it is the model of government we function under, and no 4 year term by a President that can't stand for re-election is going to monumentally shift that. Moving USFS west is a move that is more likely structured to damage the agency under the pretense of a "smart move" than it is actually intended by our executive branch to foster any real improvement in how federal business is executed.

This could be viewed as akin to a political velvet-dagger or Trojan horse: the message is so clearly aligned with the best interests of the agency's work (by being closer to the land they manage) that you'd have to be a "fool" to argue otherwise. This keeps the political base cheering (and donating, not even considering what's being lobbied by commercial land developers and resource extraction interests) while hopefully attracting support from moderate non-partisan voters also since it's constructed to make "common sense". As with many other things, following the money may lead to a different conclusion than following the political talking points.

 

[Gila]

Right now, across the EU, Australia, Canada, NZ, etc, there is a movement that essentially believes the only good Earth is one untouched by human hands. It's very much a pseudo-religion - "Rewilding" is code-word for this, and it's backed by the Soros network, along with literally hundreds of NGOs associated with "Agenda 2030".

That was 25 years ago…today it is actually a plan put into play by the United Nations and the Biden administration. It is called the “30/30 Framework”. In the USA it is an effort to “re-wild” 30% of all of the land both public and private by the year 2030. Roadless areas, wilderness areas and wilderness study areas fall into place within the Framework. Apparently as a campaign promise, the Biden-Harris administration implemented the 2024 Public Lands Rule, also known as the Conservation and Landscape Health Rule, which established “conservation” as an official use of public lands, equal to other uses like hunting, grazing and energy development.

The Rule paved the way for the re-wilding NGOs to obtain forever conservation leases on large tracts of land both public and private. Once they obtained these leases, they could sell biodiversity credits on the open market. Any “human disturbance” such as extraction, cattle grazing and hunting is a dis-qualifier for a Biodiversity Credit. The price of a biodiversity credit per acre goes up for each ESA listed species such as Grizzlies and Wolves. The more apex predators the higher the price. Grazing Bison instead of cattle on the landscape is also a bonus for a biodiversity credit. The current Administration immediately rescinded the Public Land/use Rule of 2024 and pulled us out of the UN sanctioned Framework.

Most recently there is an MOU between the USDA and DOI to encourage grazing on public lands. I think that moving the NFS hdqtrs to Utah would accomplish draining the swamp in DC and allow the NFS to be closer to the lands they manage. All net positives to hunting I should think.

https://www.cbd.int/doc/decisions/cop-15/cop-15-dec-04-en.pdf

 

[Ozarkansas]

It is called the “30/30 Framework”. In the USA it is an effort to “re-wild” 30% of all of the land both public and private by the year 2030

the 30/30 framework was about “conserving” 30% of all land in the U.S. by 2030, either through easements, use restrictions, or outright ownership. It was never about rewilding. they never even defined what “conserved” meant, but based on their literature it is implied they included well-managed working public and private lands

 

[Gila]

the 30/30 framework was about “conserving” 30% of all land in the U.S. by 2030, either through easements, use restrictions, or outright ownership. It was never about rewilding. they never even defined what “conserved” meant, but based on their literature it is implied they included well-managed working public and private lands

Read the framework from the link I posted please. In this country a biodiversity credit precludes human disturbance to return biodiversity to the landscape. Remember that in many countries, land is owned by governments and monarchies. Also in some countries foreigners can only lease property. This subject is probably better discussed in a separate thread. Defenders of Wildlife are biodiversity credit “brokers” who sell those credits on a private int’l market. That group is a “re-wilding” group, definitely not a conservation group. This is what the farmers in India think about the 30/30 framework:

Understanding Biodiversity Credits – A Factsheet

Download pdf This factsheet was created with the intention to support: Organizations, researchers, scholars, activists, communities and individuals To learn, share and act on the threat that biodiv…

navdanyainternational.org

 

[Customweld]

Well, there goes this discussion. Thanks for the debate fellas. This one has done left the rails.

 

[Ozarkansas]

Read the framework from the link I posted please. In this country a biodiversity credit precludes human disturbance to return biodiversity to the landscape. Remember that in many countries, land is owned by governments and monarchies. Also in some countries foreigners can only lease property. This subject is probably better discussed in a separate thread. Defenders of Wildlife are biodiversity credit “brokers” who sell those credits on a private int’l market. That group is a “re-wilding” group, definitely not a conservation group. This is what the farmers in India think about the 30/30 framework:

Understanding Biodiversity Credits – A Factsheet

Download pdf This factsheet was created with the intention to support: Organizations, researchers, scholars, activists, communities and individuals To learn, share and act on the threat that biodiv…

navdanyainternational.org

Okay I read it, while the 30/30 initiative under Biden aligns with “Target 4” of that document, it still doesn’t address “rewilding” at all.

Regardless, neither the 30/30 initiative nor whether or not the UN wants to steal our land with biodiversity credits has much bearing on the USFS’s reorganization in this administration

 

[CJ19]

Okay I read it, while the 30/30 initiative under Biden aligns with “Target 4” of that document, it still doesn’t address “rewilding” at all.

Regardless, neither the 30/30 initiative nor whether or not the UN wants to steal our land with biodiversity credits has much bearing on the USFS’s reorganization in this administration

there are like 3 pages in this thread about forest management using wilderness or roads via USFS which is directly applicable to meeting the 30/30 initiative.

 

[Gila]

Okay I read it, while the 30/30 initiative under Biden aligns with “Target 4” of that document, it still doesn’t address “rewilding” at all.

Regardless, neither the 30/30 initiative nor whether or not the UN wants to steal our land with biodiversity credits has much bearing on the USFS’s reorganization in this administration

it does have a bearing if one of the reasons for the move is to drain the DC swamp of public land use ogres.

Edit: the UN’s definition of re-wilding is: “natural ecosystems”