3 ms·

As someone who lives in a county with National Forests, this is a huge issue. Originally the deal was the Feds could have national forests, but make up for miss

As someone who lives in a county with National Forests, this is a huge issue. Originally the deal was the Feds could have national forests, but make up for missing property tax/economic activity with logging grants, mineral right grants, and paying a portion of the money the feds made from that to the local community. Then for environmental reasons the feds just stopped allowing anything on the land and paying what they promised AND killed all those local community jobs. Double whammy. Personally I think the Feds should have to sell all the national forests now since they did not keep to the promises they made, or at least renegotiate with the local community. But unlike when these deals were made, the USA is now a Federal system without any state rights power, so we just try to keep the roof from leaking on our school and vote to increase our own taxes to educate kids. Meanwhile people talk trash about rundown rural communities and all the unemployed millworkers/miners that turned to drugs when they lost their job opportunities and ignore that the entire country broke it's promise to those people. Imagine the weight of the country choosing to break a promise and ruin you while making fun of your rundown ignorant small town po-dunk life, an ant crushed with no-power to do a thing about it. Lumber is through the roof, yet the mills are all closing. Because the country hates you, your way of life, and TOOK all of the land and locked it up even though it promised not to do that when it took the land.

cactacea 4y ago
I've spent the majority of my life living in rural areas. I've also spent a ton of time on public land in just about every state west of the Mississippi. The lack of historical context and understanding of the economics of resource extraction here is staggering. 1 - Guess who the land belonged to before the federal government? It wasn't the states. I reject your assertion that localities are even entitled to a say here beyond the federal democratic process. Almost all of the land in question was open to claim at one point - nobody did so and ownership was retained by the government. 2 - It's absolutely laughable to say that they "just stopped allowing anything on the land". In certain areas maybe but as a blanket statement that's absolutely incorrect. As a personal anecdote, one of my favorite spots to pick berries in western WA was clear cut just this past summer. I'll never visit that spot again in this lifetime. But hey, someone got paid a couple of bucks so I guess that's a net positive for the country. Don't even get me started about cattle ranchers and the damage they've done. 3 - Those jobs were based on extracting a resource that didn't belong to them and that takes decades to recover, if ever. Why should the rest of us let (in your words) some po-dunk town clear cut everything in sight when the rest of us can make our living without destroying everything from sea to shining sea? 4 - Should we help them out now that the economics have changed? Sure, absolutely, totally support that. However economies built on resource extraction have never been sustainable long-term, what's the point in doubling down on what already failed? I also disagree with your supposition that federal restrictions is what hollowed out these towns, the fundamental economics of resource extraction is why they've failed to be sustainable over the long term. 5 - I actually agree with you on one thing at least: put all it up for sale at a fair price. All national forests, all BLM land - everything that isn't wilderness or a national park. While the cattle ranchers, miners, and loggers will get a bit I can guarantee that conservationists will buy more. Leases are a sweetheart deal to extractors and always have been. Why should they buy what they can lease for basically nothing? The extractors would fight your proposal harder than anyone else.
- ROTMetro 4y ago
  1. And? The Feds made a promise when they created the Federal Forests. Are you saying they should not be required to follow to agreements set when they created the national forests? 2. Yes, they have completely stopped taking bids for timber harvest in my area. My country is screwed financially by this. Cattle ranchers existed as part of your arguement 1, so either you support argument one and are OK with cattle ranchers, or your argument in 1 is invalidated by your position on cattle ranchers. 3. Because the Federal government made this promise as the foundation of establishing these lands. 4. This is a lie. We have had no issues in my county with sustainable, you just made that up. The loggers definitely REQUIRE is be sustainable at this point to ensure employement, it's not 1800s wild west. 5. God I only say that being reactionary. I'm a hippie (even if my post doesn't show it), I love the national forests.
otikik 4y ago
I am sorry this has happened to you. I must point out that a lot of your post feels written by a Native American. Their story is also about broken promises and land (and other deplorable things)

cactacea 4y ago

I've spent the majority of my life living in rural areas. I've also spent a ton of time on public land in just about every state west of the Mississippi. The lack of historical context and understanding of the economics of resource extraction here is staggering. 1 - Guess who the land belonged to before the federal government? It wasn't the states. I reject your assertion that localities are even entitled to a say here beyond the federal democratic process. Almost all of the land in question was open to claim at one point - nobody did so and ownership was retained by the government. 2 - It's absolutely laughable to say that they "just stopped allowing anything on the land". In certain areas maybe but as a blanket statement that's absolutely incorrect. As a personal anecdote, one of my favorite spots to pick berries in western WA was clear cut just this past summer. I'll never visit that spot again in this lifetime. But hey, someone got paid a couple of bucks so I guess that's a net positive for the country. Don't even get me started about cattle ranchers and the damage they've done. 3 - Those jobs were based on extracting a resource that didn't belong to them and that takes decades to recover, if ever. Why should the rest of us let (in your words) some po-dunk town clear cut everything in sight when the rest of us can make our living without destroying everything from sea to shining sea? 4 - Should we help them out now that the economics have changed? Sure, absolutely, totally support that. However economies built on resource extraction have never been sustainable long-term, what's the point in doubling down on what already failed? I also disagree with your supposition that federal restrictions is what hollowed out these towns, the fundamental economics of resource extraction is why they've failed to be sustainable over the long term. 5 - I actually agree with you on one thing at least: put all it up for sale at a fair price. All national forests, all BLM land - everything that isn't wilderness or a national park. While the cattle ranchers, miners, and loggers will get a bit I can guarantee that conservationists will buy more. Leases are a sweetheart deal to extractors and always have been. Why should they buy what they can lease for basically nothing? The extractors would fight your proposal harder than anyone else.

ROTMetro 4y ago
1. And? The Feds made a promise when they created the Federal Forests. Are you saying they should not be required to follow to agreements set when they created the national forests? 2. Yes, they have completely stopped taking bids for timber harvest in my area. My country is screwed financially by this. Cattle ranchers existed as part of your arguement 1, so either you support argument one and are OK with cattle ranchers, or your argument in 1 is invalidated by your position on cattle ranchers. 3. Because the Federal government made this promise as the foundation of establishing these lands. 4. This is a lie. We have had no issues in my county with sustainable, you just made that up. The loggers definitely REQUIRE is be sustainable at this point to ensure employement, it's not 1800s wild west. 5. God I only say that being reactionary. I'm a hippie (even if my post doesn't show it), I love the national forests.

otikik 4y ago

I am sorry this has happened to you. I must point out that a lot of your post feels written by a Native American. Their story is also about broken promises and land (and other deplorable things)