House natural resources furthers public land theft bills

[TrickyTross]

Funding: Yes. It's a tactic of some politicians to de-fund or under-fund an agency and then complain about how incompetent that agency is and how it fails in it's mission; thus it should be de-funded or under-funded. Not just DOI and DOA, but IRS, EPA and etc.

As to committees, you should be a diplomat. I don't think I've ever read the truth in such a polite, if not understated manner.

The Donald Trump in me calls such committees unmitigated Bull Shit.

Not saying this is false. What solutions do you offer to address the budget issues? In no way, shape or form am I an advocate of selling public land (feel like I have to say that a lot, have a feeling no one is even reading this part). If you did away with the committee appointed by the governor and switched it to one that was compromised of users and NR professionals in the area, what would the problem be then? All we see here is more wilderness. More areas that continue to degrade without management. All I'm trying to find out is a tangible solution. Lived here my whole life. Wildlife continues to plummet. Golden-Winged Warbler is our sage grouse. Lack of management (and probably these damn house cats) have led to a huge decline in their populations and the ruffed grouse. This isn't a propaganda statement. This is fact that is easily obtainable by research or contacting RGS, NWTF or any land grant in the SE.

Not looking to argue, just discuss what a solution could be.

I feel I must note I asked about this bill, and said I supported the Forest Resilience Act of 2015. Never went head over heels endorsing.

 

[James Riley]

70% of the forest is 70 years or older.

I'd like to see 70% of the forest about 500 years old or older. 70 sounds like toothpick timber.

Committees are an end-around federal scientists working under federal statutes. Seems that changing the law, if science and the U.S. public support such a change, would be the better angle.

 

[TrickyTross]

I'd like to see 70% of the forest about 500 years old or older. 70 sounds like toothpick timber.

Committees are an end-around federal scientists working under federal statutes. Seems that changing the law, if science and the U.S. public support such a change, would be the better angle.

Got ya. I'm not a preservation guy. Where I live, it doesn't jive. Gotta have management, kinda like the Pacific NW. We regen fast here.

I agree. That's why I am a fan of the Forest Resilience Act. And I feel that placing an acreage threshold on wildfires to have them leave the fiscal responsibility of the USDA to FEMA would greatly reduce the budget borrowing. NEPA doesn't limit like people paint it to. Every BMP already has a NEPA approved counterpart.

 

[James Riley]

Got ya. I'm not a preservation guy. Where I live, it doesn't jive. Gotta have management, kinda like the Pacific NW. We regen fast here.

I agree. That's why I am a fan of the Forest Resilience Act. And I feel that placing an acreage threshold on wildfires to have them leave the fiscal responsibility of the USDA to FEMA would greatly reduce the budget borrowing. NEPA doesn't limit like people paint it to. Every BMP already has a NEPA approved counterpart.

"Compromise" is a term we often hear and are told we should aspire to. If so, then, where 70% of the forest is only 70 years old, it sounds like more than half (20% more than half) has already been given over to the "conservationists." So, true compromise would involve . . . well, you get the picture. Gotta run.

 

[TrickyTross]

"Compromise" is a term we often hear and are told we should aspire to. If so, then, where 70% of the forest is only 70 years old, it sounds like more than half (20% more than half) has already been given over to the "conservationists." So, true compromise would involve . . . well, you get the picture. Gotta run.

70 years or older. Biomes are a crazy thing. What works in Wyoming doesn't work in the Southern Apps. Science, pretty crazy how it works. http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/nfsnc/home/?cid=fseprd491137 static growth doesn't work here. Might work in an area that has bison and elk grazing, we don't anymore. And nothing's being done to help the Elk that were re-introduced.

Stay classy

 

[BuzzH]

my experience is that congress has confined what the federal land managers can do. Budget restrictions ate hardly ever addressed by either side of the argument.

Could there be issues with governor appointed committees? Sure. Every day there is a biased committee somewhere appointed by a biased individual. But couldn't the committee be appointed kind of like how they do the Stakeholders Forums? Multiple organizations who represent the forest users?

What do you propose happens to address the management concerns? What can happen to fix the budget?

Yes, Congress has put laws, acts, etc. into effect that make management tough. Many of those laws and regulations are still going to have to be addressed by the "citizens committee". Let me ask you, is the average person appointed by a Governor to some land management committee going to be aware of how, why, and what the various Forest/Range Policy even is? Are they going to be able to work through the regulations, laws, and Acts to successfully meet management objectives?

IME, probably not, that's why we employ people within the Land Management Agencies that DO understand the process. Exactly why I'm also not going to hire a plumber to fix my car, or hire a Forester to perform a triple by-pass. These citizen based committees are fine to present input and work WITH the Federal Agencies and help to get the desired outcomes. But, what I see happening with this, is the citizens getting to run the whole show...and that's never going to work for me or anyone else.

There is a big difference between the Agencies seeking input, and the State, via appointed committees, getting to flat assed manage the local forest. I don't want that, I want professionals being assisted by the locals to get things done.

I also think that if locals don't like the way it is now, work to address that problem through the appropriate channels, change the law, etc.

The budget issues can be solved by demanding that the people you elect fund what is important to you. If they fail to do so, un-elect them and find somebody that will.

I'm not in favor of appointed committees guiding 100% of management, they aren't qualified to do it.

 

[TrickyTross]

Yes, Congress has put laws, acts, etc. into effect that make management tough. Many of those laws and regulations are still going to have to be addressed by the "citizens committee". Let me ask you, is the average person appointed by a Governor to some land management committee going to be aware of how, why, and what the various Forest/Range Policy even is? Are they going to be able to work through the regulations, laws, and Acts to successfully meet management objectives?

IME, probably not, that's why we employ people within the Land Management Agencies that DO understand the process. Exactly why I'm also not going to hire a plumber to fix my car, or hire a Forester to perform a triple by-pass. These citizen based committees are fine to present input and work WITH the Federal Agencies and help to get the desired outcomes. But, what I see happening with this, is the citizens getting to run the whole show...and that's never going to work for me or anyone else.

There is a big difference between the Agencies seeking input, and the State, via appointed committees, getting to flat assed manage the local forest. I don't want that, I want professionals being assisted by the locals to get things done.

I also think that if locals don't like the way it is now, work to address that problem through the appropriate channels, change the law, etc.

The budget issues can be solved by demanding that the people you elect fund what is important to you. If they fail to do so, un-elect them and find somebody that will.

I'm not in favor of appointed committees guiding 100% of management, they aren't qualified to do it.

Yea.... Hence when I said "But couldn't the committee be appointed kind of like how they do the Stakeholders Forums? Multiple organizations who represent the forest users?" They (Feds) are currently utilizing this now for identifying their objectives on Plan Revisions. National Forest Foundation host it and God only knows what that cost. And to be fair, some of those who work for the federal land agencies are not fans of hunting or timber or conservation. As someone who works alongside them, I've witnessed it on many counts first hand. As someone who has spent many hours on this current plan revision, I have witnessed Rangers applaud organizations that represent other forest users and brow beat the hunters. It's 6 one way half a dozen another.

I agree. Laws need to be changed. What specifically do you think?

 

[BuzzH]

Yea.... Hence when I said "But couldn't the committee be appointed kind of like how they do the Stakeholders Forums? Multiple organizations who represent the forest users?" They (Feds) are currently utilizing this now for identifying their objectives on Plan Revisions. National Forest Foundation host it and God only knows what that cost. And to be fair, some of those who work for the federal land agencies are not fans of hunting or timber or conservation. As someone who works alongside them, I've witnessed it on many counts first hand. As someone who has spent many hours on this current plan revision, I have witnessed Rangers applaud organizations that represent other forest users and brow beat the hunters. It's 6 one way half a dozen another.

I agree. Laws need to be changed. What specifically do you think?

Sounds to me like you have yourself a problem with hunters not representing/presenting themselves in a very convincing way. It also sounds like there isn't much talking happening between the land management agencies and Game and Fish/DNR.

I can tell you right now, that as a hunter, and in particular if I were a hunter representing an organization, there is slim, to NO chance, that I would be brow-beat by a Ranger. Granted, I'm in a position to know who, what, where, and how to run things like that up the flagpole, but its not difficult. I don't tolerate that kind of behavior, period.

I'm 100% fine not getting my way on every issue, but there's a difference between getting ignored and not your way. A big difference.

Hunting (recreation), and wildlife must be considered in any Forest Plan. Your job, as a hunter, is to see that both are given equal consideration to other uses. That's the law.

If its not, file a formal objection (I'm assuming here that you have been engaged and commenting all along during this process). If you can, look for help from retired District Rangers, Forest Supervisors, etc. that know about the process and learn from them how things work. It would be nice to have the last option available, and that is to litigate as a last resort.

Once the agencies figure out you're serious, and you want to take steps wayyy prior to formal objections and litigation, you wont be brow beat again.

Specifically, I think NEPA is way over utilized. Not every decision made on the land should require NEPA, large scale stuff, yes. But, small acreage timber harvest, replacing a culvert here and there, things like that...NO.

 

[James Riley]

70 years or older. Biomes are a crazy thing. What works in Wyoming doesn't work in the Southern Apps. Science, pretty crazy how it works. http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/nfsnc/home/?cid=fseprd491137 static growth doesn't work here. Might work in an area that has bison and elk grazing, we don't anymore. And nothing's being done to help the Elk that were re-introduced.

Stay classy

When preservation and conservation are competing interests, they should establish a baseline. Since we are talking about federal lands, lets start with the forest on July 4, 1776. Now, what percentage of that has been left uncut? What percentage has suffered one cut? What percentage has suffered two cuts? Three? Four? etc. Flash forward to today. What percentage of the forest (any of the foregoing forest, cut or not) has been set aside for preservation?

I know you are not a preservationist and that's your right. But no one can come to the table arguing that conservationists haven't gotten the vast, overwhelming majority of the forest for their pecuniary interests. All the talk about "forest health", beyond pecuniary interests, rings pretty hollow when the proposed management always has something to do with getting the cut out, for money.

One may disagree with preservation but no one can fail to understand why, once that position has been adopted, a preservationist would be disinclined to split the baby or fail to use every tool in the kit to place a tiny dent in history.

One must ask, if 70% of the forest is 70 years old (or older), what of the other 30%? The implication, if 70% is 70 years or older, is that the balance is younger. That means preservationists have squat. As to the "or older", how much older? And how much?

As to static growth not working, how would we know? Have we given it 500 years to work?

In my estimation, 70% percent of the forest is not 70 years or older. Rather, 70% of the board feet of lumber is 70 years or older. We don't even know what an eastern forest looks like and we won't if we don't set some aside for several hundred years, at least. Even then it won't be what we once had as a baseline. But it could be a new baseline. Without pecuniary considerations mucking it up. Money is a crazy thing. It works in Wyoming the same way it works in the Southern Apps. Money, pretty crazy how it works, and the only science that has anything to do with it is social science.

Regardless, I have yet to see where State scientists know any more about biomes than federal scientists. Least of all those on committees appointed by politicians.

 

[TrickyTross]

When preservation and conservation are competing interests, they should establish a baseline. Since we are talking about federal lands, lets start with the forest on July 4, 1776. Now, what percentage of that has been left uncut? What percentage has suffered one cut? What percentage has suffered two cuts? Three? Four? etc. Flash forward to today. What percentage of the forest (any of the foregoing forest, cut or not) has been set aside for preservation?

I know you are not a preservationist and that's your right. But no one can come to the table arguing that conservationists haven't gotten the vast, overwhelming majority of the forest for their pecuniary interests. All the talk about "forest health", beyond pecuniary interests, rings pretty hollow when the proposed management always has something to do with getting the cut out, for money.

One may disagree with preservation but no one can fail to understand why, once that position has been adopted, a preservationist would be disinclined to split the baby or fail to use every tool in the kit to place a tiny dent in history.

One must ask, if 70% of the forest is 70 years old (or older), what of the other 30%? The implication, if 70% is 70 years or older, is that the balance is younger. That means preservationists have squat. As to the "or older", how much older? And how much?

As to static growth not working, how would we know? Have we given it 500 years to work?

In my estimation, 70% percent of the forest is not 70 years or older. Rather, 70% of the board feet of lumber is 70 years or older. We don't even know what an eastern forest looks like and we won't if we don't set some aside for several hundred years, at least. Even then it won't be what we once had as a baseline. But it could be a new baseline. Without pecuniary considerations mucking it up. Money is a crazy thing. It works in Wyoming the same way it works in the Southern Apps. Money, pretty crazy how it works, and the only science that has anything to do with it is social science.

Regardless, I have yet to see where State scientists know any more about biomes than federal scientists. Least of all those on committees appointed by politicians.

Still looking for where I endorsed State Scientist over Federal. Or we could be fans of the science we observe here. If you would like to engage about current plights of Southern App forest Coweeta Hydrologic Laboratory and Bent Creek Experimental Forest are usually the best places to look. Federal Scientist who work with State Scientist and Land Grant Universities. There reports and findings must be funded by those greedy timber barons that exist. They must discuss this at their monthly monocle appreciation meetings.

So, we lost the Chestnut due to a blight at the turn of the 19th century. Our climax species that provided annual food and shelter to many forms of wildlife. Along with the Chestnut loss, the Woodland Bison that were here were hunted out. They no longer exist here. Also the elk that existed were also hinted out and have just been reintroduced since the RMEF and a awesome gentleman at the GSMNP worked together to make it happen. But what's important about those species? Changed what was grazed and browsed and what secondary timber species had to take the spot of the Chestnut. When folks heard the Chestnut was going out the cut the hell out of the land. So, mast bearing species that were secondary and usually found at lower elevations started taking the roll of the chestnut. Flora and Fauna species that where food sources for wildlife, especially the larger species, began to dominate. Then the depression happened. The whole place that handy been cut during the chestnut epidemic was cut to the ground, except for Joyce-Kilmer. Amazingly, deer thrived. Bear did as well. But they almost depleted those resources as well. Enter tons of other invasives introduced. The historic forest of the Southern Apps were now going through a change.

With all that happening here there was still enough timber harvest to build many schools across the mountains here. The USFS managed the forest for multiple users. Wildlife flourished. It was a sportsmans paradise. Then 66,500 acres were designated for wilderness with the Wilderness Act. Then more was added as roadless inventory areas. They are overrun with invasives and bio-diversity in non-existent. So in 500 years it will be Kudzu, Chinese Privet, Miltiflora Rose, Tree of Heaven, English Ivy, Japanese Knotweed, and Pulonia, just to name a few. But the question was asked about "What if we just leave it alone?" So they cleared an area to a brush pile in 1964. Over the next 40 years they observed what came back. Guess what came back? Over 60% was Tulip Poplar. Mast bearing species was less than 12%. From this study many things have began to be researched on our forest from climate change, bio-diversity numbers (1700 different species after a clear cut, we only know about 1300), and how TSI like Crop-Tree Release is best in certain stands and elevations for wildlife. Hmmm.... That was a co-research deal between Feds and State folks. Probably a conspiracy. Probably made it up. Those monocle wearing bastards.

Also, you must be confused about the timber rich folks in the state. That's to the east. Swamp logging. Pine plantations. We got pulpwood. Even though my colleague told me that Tulip Poplar was bringing a nice price here in the past month.

But hell, what do I know? I just have lived here my whole life, studied it, currently work in Natural Resource Management, speak with multiple scientist (State and Federal, although most are primarily professors at land grant universities. Who knows what hidden agenda they have) about the state of our public lands. But you must know more about this area right? I mean, this is big news in "Directly above the Center of the Earth" Or maybe you just made assumptions. Which we know what that does...

Have a great 4th Mr. Riley!

 

[TrickyTross]

Forgive the typos. This Apple product is conspiring against me.

 

[James Riley]

Still looking for where I endorsed State Scientist over Federal.

My bust. I thought you were championing committees appointed by politicians, instead of leaving federal land managers to manage federal land pursuant to federal law on behalf of all Americans, even those of us who don't live there. I stand corrected.

Did we F things up? Yes, I will stipulate to that. Is it irreversible? I already made that point. So, let's find some land and get the money out of it. Let nature do whatever the hell it is that she does. Not all of it. Just some of it. Just some. And don't expect to get your result over night. Don't give me an "I told you so" after 100 years of S brush. Wait. Nature doesn't work on our time scale. Different time scale.

We don't know what we are talking about. Valarious Geist (sp?) waxes on about how the bison only got east after "we" decimated the Indians with disease. Hell, there weren't even earth worms in much of it. What of fire and the indigs? Anyway, I'm not going to sit here and argue the science. I'm not a scientist. But I know about money and the train of excuses used to get the cut out. All scientifically based: just like the scientists who proved no link between cancer and smokes. And they hold the day on much of our land; more so than the enviro boogy man who locks everything up.

 

[TrickyTross]

My bust. I thought you were championing committees appointed by politicians, instead of leaving federal land managers to manage federal land pursuant to federal law on behalf of all Americans, even those of us who don't live there. I stand corrected.

Did we F things up? Yes, I will stipulate to that. Is it irreversible? I already made that point. So, let's find some land and get the money out of it. Let nature do whatever the hell it is that she does. Not all of it. Just some of it. Just some. And don't expect to get your result over night. Don't give me an "I told you so" after 100 years of S brush. Wait. Nature doesn't work on our time scale. Different time scale.

We don't know what we are talking about. Valarious Geist (sp?) waxes on about how the bison only got east after "we" decimated the Indians with disease. Hell, there weren't even earth worms in much of it. What of fire and the indigs? Anyway, I'm not going to sit here and argue the science. I'm not a scientist. But I know about money and the train of excuses used to get the cut out. All scientifically based: just like the scientists who proved no link between cancer and smokes. And they hold the day on much of our land; more so than the enviro boogy man who locks everything up.

I'm picking up what you are throwing down. Wilderness has its place. It is my mistake that I didn't preface with that we had asked for 15-20% of the Pisgah and Nantahala to be managed for wildlife. In the form of Early Successional Habitat and Young Forest. Not the 2 things you manage and maintain if timber revenue is your game. To keep ESH you cut it to the ground, let it get to about 3 years old and then you burn/mow it and let it come back again. Young forest is primarily the age with tons of underbrush and understory. Differs from type and elevation. Wilderness has its place. We have it. We are just wanting a little bit to manage for the wildlife. The other thing we requested was a larger percentage of mixed age (uneven aged) stands to attempt at fixing high grading.

Really would prefer restoration on the 700,000 acres that can be managed. Then we could start anew. But it would cost a lot of money. Which is why the enviros keep pushing it. They know it will never happen.

I made an assumption on fire. Reintroduction of the fire regime has been a huge push by us. In fact, on my other post in other threads I talk about it as well. Just figured a lot of us (hunters) were on the same page as fire. Looks like I made the ass that time.

I will respectfully disagree with you on what happens after we let nature runs it course with invasives as prevalent as they are on our wilderness here. Many of the invasives love fire and come back stronger. Have to be one hell of a disturbance to eradicate those and release something magical from the seed bank....

 

[James Riley]

It is my mistake that I didn't preface with that we had asked for 15-20% of the Pisgah and Nantahala to be managed for wildlife. In the form of Early Successional Habitat and Young Forest. Not the 2 things you manage and maintain if timber revenue is your game. To keep ESH you cut it to the ground, let it get to about 3 years old and then you burn/mow it and let it come back again. Young forest is primarily the age with tons of underbrush and understory.

Really would prefer restoration on the 700,000 acres that can be managed. Then we could start anew. But it would cost a lot of money. Which is why the enviros keep pushing it. They know it will never happen.

I made an assumption on fire. Reintroduction of the fire regime has been a huge push by us. In fact, on my other post in other threads I talk about it as well. Just figured a lot of us (hunters) were on the same page as fire. Looks like I made the ass that time.

This seems to make my point about "the evil timber barons" and how every argument is always about getting the cut out.

Let's say we have a given forest and the goal is X. If achieving X inures to the financial benefit of the logging industry, then they will bid on and PAY US to go in and work toward X. If achieving X does NOT inure to the financial benefit of the logging industry, then WE have to PAY THEM to go in and work toward X.

Funny how X almost always can be spun toward getting the mature, high-value trees out of the way, you know, so wildlife can thrive on the shit brush that comes up behind. That way we can get the hunters on board. It's like getting rid of wolves out west: Elk will thrive and there will be more for hunters. Get the old growth back east (LOL!) out of the way and game will thrive and there will be more for hunters.

But if X is old growth, then we need to pay the logging industry to go in and clear the shit brush, selectively space various species on different soil types/locations for diversity, mulch-and-leave instead of pile-burn-or-remove, and to essentially garden instead of shave.

An objective capitalist would stand back and ask: "Well, what the hell do you expect? These people are in business to make money. Do you expect them to do this for free?"

My answer is no, I don't. But let's not pretend they are here to do us any favors.

I used to work on these issues out west, about 20 years ago. The answer was always cut and it's always cut the big, older, high-value trees. No matter what argument anyone made, some spin-doctor in the industry worked with *their* scientists to come up with a bunny-hugging PR angle to get the cut out. The industry loved to put a pretty young female face on it.

And they would chase the truth back into a corner until it bit them. But by then, it was too late. The first step was, they had carte blanche. The second step was their push-back. The third step was their denial. The fourth step their "mia culpa but we've changed . . .". The fifth step was re-branding and spin. Finally, we had the indisputable truth but it was too late and nobody gave a shit anymore because the area was trashed and we moved on to the next slice of pie.

The greatest insult was the idea that forests are a renewable resource. If that were true, then, with 96% to 98% of the land mass of the lower 48 having been trashed, you'd think they could start over again on that same 96% to 98%. After all, it's been nigh on to 240 years, right?

Instead, we are now called upon to compromise over a last slice of pie which is thinner than the blade we propose to cut it with. But here's the deal: The east has been trashed so I don't even know why I care. Why would I want to argue with anyone who thinks a 70 year old forest is, well, old? It's like an Iowa corn field being returned to Tall Grass Prairie: We can do it, so long as somebody can continue harvesting corn from it? Doesn't work that way. But that's the way the corn farmer demands it. It's a corn field now, James, get used to it. Let them have it. The east is a tree/game farm, James, get used to it. Not sure I have a dog in the fight.

But, since the "forest" we are talking about is federal, maybe I do have a dog in it. However, I'm not going to argue the science because I'm not a scientist. I could search out the preservationist's scientists, have them educate me, put your scientists on the witness stand, examine them, have them walk them themselves back in to a corner and slap themselves; but I'd rather compromise and defer to my federal scientists. After all, that's what I pay them for: To manage my forests back east, unimpeded by "committees". Does that mean they will do what I want? No. Especially since local interests always have more voice than some guy several states away. I've just seen it all before and had to throw in my two cents.

Further this affiant sayeth naught.

 

[TrickyTross]

This seems to make my point about "the evil timber barons" and how every argument is always about getting the cut out.

Let's say we have a given forest and the goal is X. If achieving X inures to the financial benefit of the logging industry, then they will bid on and PAY US to go in and work toward X. If achieving X does NOT inure to the financial benefit of the logging industry, then WE have to PAY THEM to go in and work toward X.

Funny how X almost always can be spun toward getting the mature, high-value trees out of the way, you know, so wildlife can thrive on the shit brush that comes up behind. That way we can get the hunters on board. It's like getting rid of wolves out west: Elk will thrive and there will be more for hunters. Get the old growth back east (LOL!) out of the way and game will thrive and there will be more for hunters.

But if X is old growth, then we need to pay the logging industry to go in and clear the shit brush, selectively space various species on different soil types/locations for diversity, mulch-and-leave instead of pile-burn-or-remove, and to essentially garden instead of shave.

An objective capitalist would stand back and ask: "Well, what the hell do you expect? These people are in business to make money. Do you expect them to do this for free?"

My answer is no, I don't. But let's not pretend they are here to do us any favors.

I used to work on these issues out west, about 20 years ago. The answer was always cut and it's always cut the big, older, high-value trees. No matter what argument anyone made, some spin-doctor in the industry worked with *their* scientists to come up with a bunny-hugging PR angle to get the cut out. The industry loved to put a pretty young female face on it.

And they would chase the truth back into a corner until it bit them. But by then, it was too late. The first step was, they had carte blanche. The second step was their push-back. The third step was their denial. The fourth step their "mia culpa but we've changed . . .". The fifth step was re-branding and spin. Finally, we had the indisputable truth but it was too late and nobody gave a shit anymore because the area was trashed and we moved on to the next slice of pie.

The greatest insult was the idea that forests are a renewable resource. If that were true, then, with 96% to 98% of the land mass of the lower 48 having been trashed, you'd think they could start over again on that same 96% to 98%. After all, it's been nigh on to 240 years, right?

Instead, we are now called upon to compromise over a last slice of pie which is thinner than the blade we propose to cut it with. But here's the deal: The east has been trashed so I don't even know why I care. Why would I want to argue with anyone who thinks a 70 year old forest is, well, old? It's like an Iowa corn field being returned to Tall Grass Prairie: We can do it, so long as somebody can continue harvesting corn from it? Doesn't work that way. But that's the way the corn farmer demands it. It's a corn field now, James, get used to it. Let them have it. The east is a tree/game farm, James, get used to it. Not sure I have a dog in the fight.

But, since the "forest" we are talking about is federal, maybe I do have a dog in it. However, I'm not going to argue the science because I'm not a scientist. I could search out the preservationist's scientists, have them educate me, put your scientists on the witness stand, examine them, have them walk them themselves back in to a corner and slap themselves; but I'd rather compromise and defer to my federal scientists. After all, that's what I pay them for: To manage my forests back east, unimpeded by "committees". Does that mean they will do what I want? No. Especially since local interests always have more voice than some guy several states away. I've just seen it all before and had to throw in my two cents.

Further this affiant sayeth naught.

What?

Now it seems like you are just looking for an argument, which is your right. But it seems there is some liberties taking and some stretching happening with what I have been typing. I'll stick with science here. Sorry. If I lived in an area where science pointed the other way, I'd go with it there too. In the case you ever venture to the "trashed East" I will more than happily take you around the public land and show you this biome and how things work here. Take you to the Federal, State, University and he'll a Private Scientist or 2 who do the research and agree on the need for management.

So.... The Enviros (the ones who push for restoration because they know it will never happen) are now the timber barons? And by keeping an area is ESH is someone how a money generator for these Enviros/Timber Barons? Seems a bit of a stretch. Do they make yoga friendly monocled? And are their top hats made of faux fur?