New Forest Service Plan- good?

robby denning

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Feb 25, 2012
Messages
15,603
Location
SE Idaho
Received this from B&C this morning. It sounds good to me. Am I missing anything here? With all the wildfires the last 20 years, I think it's time to try something different...

Boone and Crockett Club; Passage of Resilient Federal Forests Act, Long Overdue Step in the Right Direction

Wednesday, November 01, 2017

The group behind the creation of our national forest system - the Boone and Crockett Club - applauds Congressman Bruce Westerman (R-AR), Chairman Rob Bishop (R-UT) and the House of Representatives for passing H.R. 2936, the Resilient Federal Forests Act of 2017. The bill was introduced by Rep. Westerman and benefited from the bipartisan support of 232 Representatives and 25 national hunting and sportsmen's organizations.

The new bill will strengthen the Forest Service's ability to improve forest habitat for big game, game birds, and other wildlife while fixing the funding woes for fighting wildfires. Additionally, the bill creates new authorities for active management to restore the health of federal forests and local communities. The legislation builds on the Healthy Forests Restoration Act and the 2014 Farm Bill to speed projects from planning to execution, better fund the process, and strengthen collaborative support for beneficial and necessary projects that continually face the threat of being bogged down in litigation.

"Each year, we see the management budget of the Forest Service depleted by increasingly larger and more devastating wildfires," said Ben B. Hollingsworth Jr., president of the Boone and Crockett Club. "In the worse cases, up to 53 percent of the annual budget is used for putting out these fires. This leaves no funding for the important work of fire prevention, which keeps fire events small and more contained. Part of this new bill will allow the Forest Service to tap into disaster funds while maintaining their annual budget for fire prevention. This will not only help reduce devastating wildfires, but also create healthier forests that wildlife depend on and where people recreate."

Just this week Montana Congressman Greg Gianforte, co-sponsor of HR 2936, hosted Congressman Westerman to view projects and fire damage in the state, where 2017 wildfires scorched some 1.2 million acres.

The Resilient Federal Forests Act of 2017 also seeks to streamline the Forest Service's ability to carry out multiple forest health projects of the same kind based on a single environmental analysis rather than having to repeat the analysis each time a project is proposed. It will also expand the Good Neighbor Authority to increase partnerships with the states for watershed protection and restoration.

"Another positive gained from this bill is a reduction in superfluous litigation that only seek to derail positive conservation efforts through time-consuming litigation," said Hollingsworth. "Overall, this bill is a positive step for improved and more productive management of our federal forests, something we know how to do, but have had a hard time doing. We certainly hope this new bill now passes the Senate with the same sense of urgency shown by the House."
 

Jskaanland

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Mar 19, 2016
Messages
1,802
Location
Washington
I know that RMEF was in support of it. I didn't see anything that threw red flags.
 

twall13

WKR
Joined
Jan 21, 2015
Messages
2,708
Location
Utah
This is the first I've heard of it but if it's as good as it sounds I'm absolutely shocked that Rob Bishop was involved. The fact that he is involved has me a little leary that there is a hidden gotcha in there for public lands.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
 

Jauwater

WKR
Joined
Jun 30, 2016
Messages
3,295
This is the first I’ve heard of it, and reading it sounds good. I thought for sure the governments plan was gonna be to insure the lands through AIG ;-) I guess it all comes down to what the plan of action actually is, whose performing said actions, and whose supervising progress. Sounds good though glad to see their trying something new.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

twall13

WKR
Joined
Jan 21, 2015
Messages
2,708
Location
Utah
Why?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Rob Bishop is probably the foremost politician trying to get rid of public lands. He typically tries to pass legislation that does damage to how public lands are managed so he has more leverage to open them up to development.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
 

COSA

Lil-Rokslider
Joined
Apr 29, 2012
Messages
215
Location
WY
Looks good, but one better look at the fine print if it Rob Bishop's involved. He's bought & paid for by the Koch brothers
 

TheTone

WKR
Joined
Mar 4, 2012
Messages
1,772
I'm scared of the Bishop connection as well.

If the fire funding is fixed/improved thats a good thing, but I am a little leery that the "improving forest health" is simply code for cut down lots of trees.
 

dotman

WKR
Joined
Feb 24, 2012
Messages
8,200
I'm scared of the Bishop connection as well.

If the fire funding is fixed/improved thats a good thing, but I am a little leery that the "improving forest health" is simply code for cut down lots of trees.

I'm for increasing timber cutting on USFS and BLM lands. This will create way better forest health and habitat for wildlife.
 
Joined
Jan 12, 2017
Messages
817
Location
Idaho Falls,ID
Nailed it. Improving forest health is code for opening up more land to timber companies. It doesn't privitize it yet, but gets it one step closer. That's where the Rob Bishop connection comes in. Raul Labrador from Idaho will be right next to Rob Bishop spurring that timber land to become private eventually. I don't trust anything these two individuals endorse as far as public lands are concerned.
 
Joined
Dec 14, 2014
Messages
343
Location
Hutchinson, KS
sounds great to me and if they can actually take the handcuffs off of the logging operation that would be huge.. The forest service was actually a business at one time believe it or not. They should be making the government money not costing it. Its simple all of these forest fires would be nothing if they did selective logging and made the ground cover clean with prescribed burns. Wood makes money plain and simple and the forest service owns a lot to cover yearly costs and still have surplus without depleting the forest.
 
Joined
Jan 23, 2014
Messages
868
Location
Wisconsin
If the timber is actually managed responsibly then it could be good. The FS could actually hire more Forest Techs and Foresters that are not always tied to fire. Hopefully it will not be a door for doing favors for a buddy or financial supporter. I'll wait and see how this shakes out.
 

MattB

WKR
Joined
Sep 29, 2012
Messages
5,743
Nailed it. Improving forest health is code for opening up more land to timber companies. It doesn't privitize it yet, but gets it one step closer. That's where the Rob Bishop connection comes in. Raul Labrador from Idaho will be right next to Rob Bishop spurring that timber land to become private eventually. I don't trust anything these two individuals endorse as far as public lands are concerned.

Why would a timber company want to buy the land when it can periodically harvest from it while under public ownership? I don't think the math makes sense there.
 

dotman

WKR
Joined
Feb 24, 2012
Messages
8,200
Why would a timber company want to buy the land when it can periodically harvest from it while under public ownership? I don't think the math makes sense there.

They wouldn't, the lands only value to them is with the trees.
 

TheTone

WKR
Joined
Mar 4, 2012
Messages
1,772
We aren't going to log our way out of forest fires. The two most recent fires near me started on heavily, recently logged pieces of timber company lands. Fire absolutely rips through messy logging slash and super heavily stocked reprod. One of the industry lobbying groups here happily promotes that they plant 7 trees for every tree they harvest; isn't that kind of contrary to the statements that we have too many trees and thus are having fires? I don't have a problem with logging per se, but just be honest about your motives. I also get concerned about all the roads, traffic and lack of wildlife security that comes with it.
 

dotman

WKR
Joined
Feb 24, 2012
Messages
8,200
We aren't going to log our way out of forest fires. The two most recent fires near me started on heavily, recently logged pieces of timber company lands. Fire absolutely rips through messy logging slash and super heavily stocked reprod. One of the industry lobbying groups here happily promotes that they plant 7 trees for every tree they harvest; isn't that kind of contrary to the statements that we have too many trees and thus are having fires? I don't have a problem with logging per se, but just be honest about your motives. I also get concerned about all the roads, traffic and lack of wildlife security that comes with it.

Truthfully we need forest fires to burn, best way to get rid of all the beatle kill. But we can also start to create a healthier forest with logging, might take 40+ years, there is no quick fix.
 

5MilesBack

"DADDY"
Joined
Feb 27, 2012
Messages
16,135
Location
Colorado Springs
Truthfully we need forest fires to burn, best way to get rid of all the beatle kill. But we can also start to create a healthier forest with logging, might take 40+ years, there is no quick fix.

Yep. Fire is nature's way of cleaning up the forest and creating new growth. But every time a fire starts, they put it out. Unfortunately people have a very near-sighted view of how things should be managed. Without the logging, forests get even more overgrown which causes these fires to be even larger and more damaging to what most people want in the first place.
 
Joined
Sep 23, 2016
Messages
931
I have opinions (most probably uneducated) on a lot of political issues, especially when they involve funding but if the US is committed to extinguishing wildfires I honestly don't know how the fire suppression budget gets fixed. Its a money losing game with little to no return... as healthcare, retirement costs, hourly wages, fleet rates, etc.. increase it only stands to reason the cost of suppression will. Regardless if the money is spent on prevention or suppression it's going to continue to climb so:
1) we can either kick more money from the general funds to help or
2) we can generate alternative revenue through things like timber sales

therefore if harvested responsibly to aid with habitat improvement I see this as a necessity. I'm all for it... regardless of which politician is backing the bill.
 

flyinsquirel

WKR
Shoot2HuntU
Joined
Jul 3, 2012
Messages
1,042
Location
Central Cal
The above 3 are on target. Logging is good for the forest and deer/elk poulations. If our goal is massive fires that burn everything to moonscape we should keep our current forest management practices.

Personally I'd rather watch it go down the road on the back of a truck than up in smoke.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk
 

541hunter

WKR
Joined
Jul 20, 2016
Messages
441
Nailed it. Improving forest health is code for opening up more land to timber companies. It doesn't privitize it yet, but gets it one step closer. That's where the Rob Bishop connection comes in. Raul Labrador from Idaho will be right next to Rob Bishop spurring that timber land to become private eventually. I don't trust anything these two individuals endorse as far as public lands are concerned.

This is nothing better than a conspiracy theory. I understand your concern with Bishop but think the statement about being code for opening it up to privatization is of no merit. Our forests in the west are in dire conditions and due a constant battle of litigation by environmental extremists the situation gets worse every year.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Top