5 ms·

It needs to be a HARD set aside.. perhaps only trials and fire roads too. NOT what the US does with "national forest"... IE it's pseudo wilderness. They let r

It needs to be a HARD set aside.. perhaps only trials and fire roads too. NOT what the US does with "national forest"... IE it's pseudo wilderness. They let ranchers use it to raise their cattle and lets companies harvest trees and mine it.

tgb 12y ago
Harvesting of trees can be both very profitable and of low impact. There's very high biodiversity on the edges transitioning between forest and clearings. Of course, it's easy to do it poorly, but it's a very useful source of income for many preserved areas.
- hyperbovine 12y ago
  Also, everybody still wants and needs wood. It's just an incredibly useful material, as well as being renewable and generally carbon-negative. So, trees are going to be cut down somewhere. Better the national forests where there is at least some stewardship going on than elsewhere.
- wavefunction 12y ago
  And as the perennial summer fires show us year after year, the forests need to be turned over more frequently than they have been to prevent these cataclysmic fires.
sliverstorm 12y ago
Sounds like what you want is designated wilderness areas? They mention them in the article, but not everyone is familiar with them. Wilderness areas are not the same as national parks, though a national park may have wilderness area. People are generally allowed to hike or ski, but you need a permit to camp and sometimes even a permit just to be there. [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Wilderness_Preservation_System http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Wilderness_Preservatio...
- jessaustin 12y ago
  The problem lots of people have with wilderness areas is that one isn't allowed to just drive right in. Of course, if one could, they wouldn't be very wilderness-y. b^)
Someone1234 12y ago
Plus excessive hunting in some areas (where wildlife is unable to regain the numbers lost). Illegal hunting is also an issue too but that won is harder to handle than legal hunting where too many permits are granted (and granted for too small of an area, wiping out a population in that area). Over-hunting is also a massive problem for fishing (both inland and open water), we're wiping out whole species of fish.
wmeredith 12y ago
As someone who spends a fair amount of time in National Forests (Mostly dispersed camping in Colorado and camping/canoeing in Missouri) I think the national park system is incredibly well managed as is.
- maxerickson 12y ago
  National Parks in the U.S. are a distinct thing from the National Forests. They are even organized under different federal departments (parks are part of the Department of the Interior, forests are under the Department of Agriculture).
  - cwal37 12y ago
    To go on, they're a result of two competing philosophies regarding natural areas and conservation from the early 20th century. The two schools of thought were essentially embodied in John Muir[1] (National Parks) and Gifford Pinchot[2] (National Forest Service). It's a really interesting narrative if you're at all interested in these distinctions and protected areas in the United States. It's the sort of thing that can be traced all the way through to attitudes today, and provides a nice context for why these systems exist. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Muir#Activism_and_controversies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Muir#Activism_and_controve... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gifford_Pinchot#Forestry_policy_and_institutions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gifford_Pinchot#Forestry_policy...
    - the_af 12y ago
      Thanks for the links! I wasn't aware of this philosophical difference, and found this a fascinating read. My knee-jerk reaction is to side with the preservationists of the National Parks Service. One day I must visit the US and see some of those beautiful and wonderful parks they have :)
      - sliverstorm 12y ago
        I am of the opinion that both are valuable. Preserve this plot of land, responsibly manage & cultivate for exploitation that plot of land... until we no longer need natural resources, the USFS has its place. Of course, I spend most of my time in the Parks and Wilderness areas. There are some fantastic Parks here. https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-_JNendCskyQ/VAddy-E365I/AAAAAAAABqs/7JH5eBdI4wQ/w1309-h874-no/AocqYc9.jpg https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-_JNendCskyQ/VAddy-E365I/A... https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-xhoVkkVZYIo/VAddychbCvI/AAAAAAAABqQ/E87vxKpnbJ4/w1311-h874-no/614558_10100492958459158_1436622339_o.jpg https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-xhoVkkVZYIo/VAddychbCvI/A...
Smudge 12y ago
I recently tried to go hiking in Colorado with my dad in an area that he remembered being a great hike ~20 years ago. Well, we get there, and we realize the majority of the area has become an RV camp littered with dirt bike trails, despite it being managed by the National Forest Service. We still had an okay time hiking once we got to the main trail, but the whole area around it was a dust bowl, certainly not helped by all of the erosion. As we were leaving, he remarked that this is what happens when your country's forest service is part of the Department of Agriculture (tasked with policy on farming, agriculture, food, and using resources economically) instead of the Department of the Interior (housing the National Park Service and the Fish & Wildlife Service, among others, and tasked with conserving federal land and resources). It's a real shame that the Forest Service, while doing an okay job maintaining much of the land, is part of a wider branch that is incentivized to promote economic growth and treat resources as things to be used instead of preserved. It just doesn't seem to fit in with that branch of the government.
- sliverstorm 12y ago
  That structure isn't a mistake. The USFS & the NPS have distinct goals. Borrowing from Wiki: Land management of (national forests) focuses on conservation, timber harvesting, livestock grazing, watershed protection, wildlife, and recreation. Unlike national parks and other federal lands managed by the National Park Service, extraction of natural resources from national forests is permitted, and in many cases encouraged. USFS does not exist for pristine preservation of deep wilderness. The goal of the NPS is preservation & low-impact recreation. The goal of the USFS is responsible resource exploitation. Both goals have their place. We need both organizations. The key then is wise choices in designating the land.
  - Smudge 12y ago
    I understand the distinction and the philosophical differences. The USFS and USDA are, overall, a good thing for us to have, and they clearly serve a different role from the National Park Service, et. al. That said, having seen first-hand an example of "low-impact recreation", I felt that the USFS was over-stepping its bounds. There was even a recent investigation by the Government Accountability Office on whether or not the USFS should be moved from Agriculture to Interior[1], the result of which seems to have re-enforced the cultural differences these two departments have had since their founding. But I'll admit that the case of the RVs and dirt bikes might have been an outlier. I was simply not impressed by what I saw, and I hope that it's not happening much elsewhere in our national forests. [1]: http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-223 http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-223
ejain 12y ago
US National Forests also include 400+ out of the 700+ designated wilderness areas in the US. These areas have no ranchers or loggers or miners, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._Wilderness_Areas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._Wilderness_Areas.

tgb 12y ago

Harvesting of trees can be both very profitable and of low impact. There's very high biodiversity on the edges transitioning between forest and clearings. Of course, it's easy to do it poorly, but it's a very useful source of income for many preserved areas.

hyperbovine 12y ago
Also, everybody still wants and needs wood. It's just an incredibly useful material, as well as being renewable and generally carbon-negative. So, trees are going to be cut down somewhere. Better the national forests where there is at least some stewardship going on than elsewhere.
wavefunction 12y ago
And as the perennial summer fires show us year after year, the forests need to be turned over more frequently than they have been to prevent these cataclysmic fires.

sliverstorm 12y ago

Sounds like what you want is designated wilderness areas? They mention them in the article, but not everyone is familiar with them. Wilderness areas are not the same as national parks, though a national park may have wilderness area. People are generally allowed to hike or ski, but you need a permit to camp and sometimes even a permit just to be there. [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Wilderness_Preservation_System http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Wilderness_Preservatio...

jessaustin 12y ago
The problem lots of people have with wilderness areas is that one isn't allowed to just drive right in. Of course, if one could, they wouldn't be very wilderness-y. b^)

Someone1234 12y ago

Plus excessive hunting in some areas (where wildlife is unable to regain the numbers lost). Illegal hunting is also an issue too but that won is harder to handle than legal hunting where too many permits are granted (and granted for too small of an area, wiping out a population in that area). Over-hunting is also a massive problem for fishing (both inland and open water), we're wiping out whole species of fish.

wmeredith 12y ago

As someone who spends a fair amount of time in National Forests (Mostly dispersed camping in Colorado and camping/canoeing in Missouri) I think the national park system is incredibly well managed as is.

maxerickson 12y ago
National Parks in the U.S. are a distinct thing from the National Forests. They are even organized under different federal departments (parks are part of the Department of the Interior, forests are under the Department of Agriculture).
- cwal37 12y ago
  To go on, they're a result of two competing philosophies regarding natural areas and conservation from the early 20th century. The two schools of thought were essentially embodied in John Muir[1] (National Parks) and Gifford Pinchot[2] (National Forest Service). It's a really interesting narrative if you're at all interested in these distinctions and protected areas in the United States. It's the sort of thing that can be traced all the way through to attitudes today, and provides a nice context for why these systems exist. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Muir#Activism_and_controversies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Muir#Activism_and_controve... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gifford_Pinchot#Forestry_policy_and_institutions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gifford_Pinchot#Forestry_policy...
  - the_af 12y ago
    Thanks for the links! I wasn't aware of this philosophical difference, and found this a fascinating read. My knee-jerk reaction is to side with the preservationists of the National Parks Service. One day I must visit the US and see some of those beautiful and wonderful parks they have :)
    - sliverstorm 12y ago
      I am of the opinion that both are valuable. Preserve this plot of land, responsibly manage & cultivate for exploitation that plot of land... until we no longer need natural resources, the USFS has its place. Of course, I spend most of my time in the Parks and Wilderness areas. There are some fantastic Parks here. https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-_JNendCskyQ/VAddy-E365I/AAAAAAAABqs/7JH5eBdI4wQ/w1309-h874-no/AocqYc9.jpg https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-_JNendCskyQ/VAddy-E365I/A... https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-xhoVkkVZYIo/VAddychbCvI/AAAAAAAABqQ/E87vxKpnbJ4/w1311-h874-no/614558_10100492958459158_1436622339_o.jpg https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-xhoVkkVZYIo/VAddychbCvI/A...

Smudge 12y ago

I recently tried to go hiking in Colorado with my dad in an area that he remembered being a great hike ~20 years ago. Well, we get there, and we realize the majority of the area has become an RV camp littered with dirt bike trails, despite it being managed by the National Forest Service. We still had an okay time hiking once we got to the main trail, but the whole area around it was a dust bowl, certainly not helped by all of the erosion. As we were leaving, he remarked that this is what happens when your country's forest service is part of the Department of Agriculture (tasked with policy on farming, agriculture, food, and using resources economically) instead of the Department of the Interior (housing the National Park Service and the Fish & Wildlife Service, among others, and tasked with conserving federal land and resources). It's a real shame that the Forest Service, while doing an okay job maintaining much of the land, is part of a wider branch that is incentivized to promote economic growth and treat resources as things to be used instead of preserved. It just doesn't seem to fit in with that branch of the government.

sliverstorm 12y ago
That structure isn't a mistake. The USFS & the NPS have distinct goals. Borrowing from Wiki: Land management of (national forests) focuses on conservation, timber harvesting, livestock grazing, watershed protection, wildlife, and recreation. Unlike national parks and other federal lands managed by the National Park Service, extraction of natural resources from national forests is permitted, and in many cases encouraged. USFS does not exist for pristine preservation of deep wilderness. The goal of the NPS is preservation & low-impact recreation. The goal of the USFS is responsible resource exploitation. Both goals have their place. We need both organizations. The key then is wise choices in designating the land.
- Smudge 12y ago
  I understand the distinction and the philosophical differences. The USFS and USDA are, overall, a good thing for us to have, and they clearly serve a different role from the National Park Service, et. al. That said, having seen first-hand an example of "low-impact recreation", I felt that the USFS was over-stepping its bounds. There was even a recent investigation by the Government Accountability Office on whether or not the USFS should be moved from Agriculture to Interior[1], the result of which seems to have re-enforced the cultural differences these two departments have had since their founding. But I'll admit that the case of the RVs and dirt bikes might have been an outlier. I was simply not impressed by what I saw, and I hope that it's not happening much elsewhere in our national forests. [1]: http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-223 http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-223

ejain 12y ago

US National Forests also include 400+ out of the 700+ designated wilderness areas in the US. These areas have no ranchers or loggers or miners, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._Wilderness_Areas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._Wilderness_Areas.