4 ms·

There's really nothing to say when someone's response boils down to, "No" and it's hard to argue that you're adding anything to the discussion here. What did I

There's really nothing to say when someone's response boils down to, "No" and it's hard to argue that you're adding anything to the discussion here. What did I "mischaracterize" exactly? What was incorrect or what did I miss that makes you say that? Is the USFS not failing to protect old growth? Have their policies around controlled burns not been criticized for decades as antiquated? Do they not poison rivers to "control undesirable fish species"? Or by contrast, what are they doing that you think excuses their shortcomings?

insane_dreamer 2y ago
Yes, the criticisms of some of their policies and shortcomings are warranted. But you weren't discussing those. Instead, you characterized the USFS as primarily engaged in building roads and logging/deforestation. That is what I objected to. Yes, logging is part of what they manage -- to ensure that it's done in a sustainable and proper manner (without which, corporations would just take it all, especially if the federal lands were privatized). Now whether they are too cozy with the logging industry in some states, that may be the case -- but that's a regulatory/policy question, not at all solved by cutting the USFS.