Leupold BX-4 Rangefinding Binoculars

Pisgah-Nantahala Forest Plan revision

TrickyTross

TrickyTross

Active member
Joined
Jun 20, 2016
Messages
305
Location
Leicester, NC
Just curious as to anyone else here that uses the Pisgah or Nantahala NC in -WNC? Wanted to know my audienc before I started the conversation about our struggles with federally managed land here. I have a whole different view of wilderness and roadless inventory than what may be popular. More of a biome and eco-system based management fan. Prefer science to emotion.... disregard typos and spelling. On a tablet
 
You probably won't get a lot of "hits", but start the conversation anyway. Lots of folks on here with a lot of experience in working with federal agency on management.
 
So, I know that public lands is a big hit out west, as it should be. You all know how the western states were formed, and how the federal government gave land in the 6 sq. mile township scheme. In the 13, feds owned 0 land. The forming of NF in NC was parcels "purchased" by the Feds. Not gonna get into the deal about if the pricing was fair, if the land was stolen and all that. It is irrelevant to my qualms. Also, the Pisgah-Nantahala NF system is about 1.2 million acres. not even gonna get into the Great Smoky Mountains National Park on this thread. I know 1.2 Million acres is nothing to the western folks, but to us in WNC, it is huge. Please don't twist what I am about to advocate for into some "rape, pillage, and plunder" or some "pro-state owned lands" garbage. It isn't.

We have been engaged in the Pisgah-Nantahala Forest Plan Revision since 2011. Was supposed to take 3 years. The last plan revision was in 1987, but had some amendments by the preservation crowds in the early 90s (believe it was 94) and then a lot of sustainable management was yielded and stopped. Since then, our forest have continued to age. 70% of the NF stands are 70% or older. 0.2% are in the young forest or early successional habitat. Currently there are 6 Wilderness Areas (designated) in the NF system here, those are : Shining Rock, Middle Prong, Linville Gorge, Southern Nantahala, Ellicot Rock and Joyce Kilmer- Slick Rock, which totals in 66,500 acres. That does not include the wilderness study areas or roadless inventory areas. After the initial assessment the USFS released, it revealed that the plan would essentially only be applied to approximately 700,000 acres. That is the amount of land that can be planned on that does not already have a designation of some kind. So, preservation organizations released propagandic statements and press releases citing that "USFS clears for industrial scale logging on 700, 000 acres of National Forest". Given the current popular political scene and how people get their enviro-activism from an actor who flies on a private jet to accept awards all over the globe, you can imagine it has been sporty.

Historically speaking, we were ground zero for the American Chestnut before the blight. It is gone. Now, we are rampant with disease from other pest on multiple tree species. Adelgid on the Hemlocks and Gypsy moths on the oaks are the easiest to identify with the most research done on them. Then, we have invasives that just absolutely take over. I know we all do. But it is hard not to find a portion of land here that does not have an issue with invasives. The natural state of our forest from wildlife to species present is completely off. How can that be addressed in an area where no management is allowed to take place?

So, what does the current state mean for wildlife? Well, the S. Apps is one of the most bio-diverse areas in regards to flora/fauna and tree species. These lands supported Elk and Woodland Bison in addition to what is still here. The forest types intensify in diversity across the landscape. We are in the oldest mountain range in the world (according to geologist). But, when no disturbances happen, crowns shade out sunlight, competition ends, and static growth is all that is present. Ruffed Grouse numbers have been dropping drastically since the early 90s. Given there are many things that contribute to that, but one of the main issues is lack of early successional habitat and young forest. The golden-winged warbler is a species of concern and is being evaluated on the ESA side of things. Its limiting factor? Lack of early-successional habitat at elevations of 3,000 or higher. White-tail deer harvest are ridiculously low with 0.02 Deer per square mile (figured on deer harvest numbers). Bear harvest are equally as low. Turkey numbers flourish on private property, and are one of the few game animals you can pursue on NF land, with a chance of harvest. The only wildlife you see on the NF in abundance are salamanders. Very few birds of prey once you get in the property. So this has led to an increase in game animals and other wildlife in urban/suburban areas. This has led to a huge decline in hunters utilizing federally managed lands. So, if you are not fortunate enough to have access to private land, you either use North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission (NCWRC) lands that are not on the NF system, or you put in for permits to a state ran forest. That's your options. In regards to how the NCWRC and NCFS managed lands are, they are impeccable. But, they total a little over 3,000 acres in WNC. I could be wrong on that number. On the NF, the NCWRC manages certain areas, but it is honestly glorified mowing of plots that average about 5 acres in size and are few and very far between. If the NCWRC was allowed to do their jobs on these tracts, we would return to being a sportsman paradise.
 
Enter the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Council (FWCC). This group is a collaboration of every actual conservation group that is in WNC. Ruffed Grouse Society, Quality Deer Management Association, Western North Carolina Quality Deer Management Program, National Wild Turkey Federation, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, North Carolina Bowhunters Association, the list goes on. But it is a group of sportsmen and woman who just want one thing; Wildlife to be at the forefront. Wildlife is our concern, is our passion, and is what w care about. The guiding light and technical expertise comes not only from all of us who represent different organizations, but from NCWRC staff such as biologist, technicians, foresters, and commissioners. One thing we got in NC (at least here in the mountains) is a group of public servants that work for the NCWRC. This group uses science and are some of the brightest folks I have met. They have and continue to be the backbone of sportsmen and women in this revision.

Elk were reintroduced to WNC by the RMEF and Great Smoky Mountain National Park in 2001. Specifically in the Cataloochee Valley. The history of that area and how it was added to the park is a tale for another day, but adds to the distrust of us mountain folk with the feds. The elk have done great and are starting to disperse across the landscape. The place they go to though are areas on private land, primarily farms that have cattle. Cornfields, areas that are recent timber harvest (0-5 years), any area that has a disturbance. Guess the one place you wont find the Elk? The NF. And guess what isn't a priority or wasn't even being discussed until the FWCC brought it up? Elk habitat and dispersal onto the Pisgah-Nantahala National Forest System. The park views them as their pets.

The opposition to this is the usual crowd of preservationist and associated organizations who claim to be conservationist, but wouldn't know what that word even means. They are calling for an increase of the already 500,000 acres of wilderness and this new National Recreation Area (NRA), which is just wilderness, with a consideration for mountain bike trail maintenance. These groups disregard the peer-reviewed scientific studies that have been done in our area, and opt to use studies from biomes that are found in the West. Science is unfortunately a back seat to aesthetics and some cases of "moral narcissism".

Currently there is a "think tank" type group that has been put on by the National Forest Foundation. I signed an agreement not to discuss what transpires there unless I bring it before the group, this came after propaganda and an attempt at a MOU by the preservation groups. The NFF had this done to keep everyone happy. When it is all said and done, I will discuss my views on that.

What I have found is how disenchanted sportsmen are. There are so many hunters in WNC. I hunt in Ohio with a group of about 12 people that live within the confines of WNC. Only 3 of them know what is going on. 1 has written a letter. And in truth, I wrote the letter and he signed it. Beyond discouraging. But if you threaten to take away bait piles, let archers shoot bear over bait piles, or change a legal caiber, they come out of the wood work. Its sad. And very dis heartening. But I was listening to Randy on his podcast the other day when he was discussing public lands with Dan Doty (episode 9 or so) and he said something that made me re-think how this needs to play out. He touched on how the ownership of public lands was broken out by using an example of heirs holding $100,000 in a trust from their deceased uncle. We are the heirs. Each one of us has a say. Across the board. Whether you live in Montana, or Wyoming, or Alaska, or freaking wherever in the US, you have a say in how this is handled and managed. I used to be very "this needs to be a local decision" and would get ticked off with groups writing in that were not even in a bordering state. But after hearing Randy, I changed my thought.

Sustainable management needs to happen here. Hands-off doesn't work in the Southern Apps. Science shows it and those of us who work in conservation observe it. But, the preservation groups appeal to my age group (sorry, if I could have chosen when I was going to be born and what generation I could be a part of, it would not be this one) and get all those who utilize the forest in ways other than hunting to start the wilderness mantra. Wilderness has its place. From what science has showed me, and from what I have observed, age distribution of stands across the landscape is what is needed. Wilderness has its place. Early Succesion has its place. Young Forest has its place. But right now, all we are seeing is Wilderness and more attempts at designations to eliminate management across the Pisgah-Nantahala NF. What needs to happen is that hunters across the country need to start supporting each other. What happens in WNC impacts public land management across the board. What happens in Wyoming impacts me, but more importantly, my children and their children and their children and so on. That's why I care. Don't get me wrong, I love hunting. It is why I do what I do. But more important than that, is the ability of my children and future generations to make a choice on whether it is something they want to partake in. If we keep going the way we are now, their decision will already be made for them.

The preservation groups and anti-hunters (really not a notable difference here) have people call and write from Spain (yea, its even on the letters on the USFS website) to Hawaii and everywhere in between about their cause. Why cant we do the same thing? We need to do the same thing. Very few of us who hunt were around for the Pittman-Robertson (as in alive) and none where around when hunters started pushing for wildlife interest. Are we cut from the same cloth? Or are we just playing Teddy?

If you do not agree with me, I will happily discuss it. If you disagree and do not want to discuss, please refrain from being that guy or gal and just keep it to yourself. My proposal is that we as hunters, regardless of where we are or what we hunt, need to start banding together and making our voices heard. My generation really needs to step it up.
 
Last edited:
Finally, what I have found is that it is not the USFS fault. They can only work with the budget they have and within the confines of NEPA and public comments. So how do we address that to our elected officials? The budget comes straight back to wildlfire. Its the USDA budget as a whole, not just the USFS. I work alongside the FSA and NRCS and the staffing cuts due to budget constraints is echoing in the private land owner world of conservation. The Resilient Federal Forest Act of 2015 seems to be the step in the right direction, its passed the House, but still waiting at the Senate I am sure. Also, FEMA picking the tab up if we could deem a wildfire as a natural disaster would be helpful. Extremely helpful. NEPA is what it is. But, every practice that can be implemented in regards to wildlife has a way to be implemented in NEPA. Timber Harvest need BMPs and SMZs. Its not too difficult, might be some extra work and hoops, but it can be done. Public comments is on us. We must be the ones to make our voices and desires heard. We must stay in constant contact with our elected officials on every level (local, state, federal) to make sure we remain on their radars. Also, we need to counter the antis message about hunters with facts and science. Show the truth. I know it seems like now a days, truths are not desirable by the masses of society, but its legit. its what needs to happen. Its what has to happen if we want our progeny to have the ability to participate.
 
Deleted until I get a chance to read the rest of your posts. Only the first was there when I started my reply.
 
Last edited:
Sorry bud, on other forums I get blasted if I put too much on one post. I reckon its six one way, half a dozen another. And the time between comes from landowners stopping by at the office.
 
First off, kudos for getting involved. My first suggestion is to stay informed/involved in the forest plan process. Be sure to comment (and on time) on the plan and that in those comments that you include the type of management options you would like to see available to the forest. Put that science to work! Be fairly specific on the methods you would like to see them employ and more general if at all where you would like to see that method applied. This is important because the forest plans are where the sideboards of what can and cannot happen are placed. Plans, IME, are more often interpreted as listing what can be done. Don't think just because it's not listed as cannot be done that it would be able to move forward. Try to make sure that the member of the FWCC comment as well. In the comment phase, individually for each member might be better than collectively.

From the first post, it sounds like you guys are facing similar circumstances that we have here in southern IN. Over mature/decadent forest and not enough age diversity. Here, the USFS and the private very rarely clearcut anymore due to the public perception and aesthetics. Last year was the first time in a long time that IN did not have a ruffed grouse season and rightfully so. The good news is that your posts prompted me to check the Hoosier NF website for scheduled projects and it looks like that have quite a few projects scheduled for this year to either: a) improve some barrens or b) create more early successional areas. I'm hoping to grab a map(s) and check a few of these out this year.
 
1_pointer said:
First off, kudos for getting involved. My first suggestion is to stay informed/involved in the forest plan process. Be sure to comment (and on time) on the plan and that in those comments that you include the type of management options you would like to see available to the forest. Put that science to work! Be fairly specific on the methods you would like to see them employ and more general if at all where you would like to see that method applied. This is important because the forest plans are where the sideboards of what can and cannot happen are placed. Plans, IME, are more often interpreted as listing what can be done. Don't think just because it's not listed as cannot be done that it would be able to move forward. Try to make sure that the member of the FWCC comment as well. In the comment phase, individually for each member might be better than collectively.

From the first post, it sounds like you guys are facing similar circumstances that we have here in southern IN. Over mature/decadent forest and not enough age diversity. Here, the USFS and the private very rarely clearcut anymore due to the public perception and aesthetics. Last year was the first time in a long time that IN did not have a ruffed grouse season and rightfully so. The good news is that your posts prompted me to check the Hoosier NF website for scheduled projects and it looks like that have quite a few projects scheduled for this year to either: a) improve some barrens or b) create more early successional areas. I'm hoping to grab a map(s) and check a few of these out this year.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the reply. We are pretty vigilant on the comments. That's great about the projects they are implementing! Hopefully it all goes well. What are people's take on the Resilient Forest Act in your kneck of the woods?
 
I would be shocked if I asked every Hoosier hunter and even a handful of them new about that act. Not too many here pay attention to politics in regards to hunting or resource management, especially in a proactive manner...
 
But, boy do they like to whine when laws/regs are added or changed that they don't agree with!
 
You're obviously more knowledgeable and involved in the issues than I am or could ever be, so I won't presume to speak intelligently about them but I do admire your drive and motivation. For those not familiar with the situation it's fairly simple; hardwood forests provide very little food for whitetail or elk. The acorn and beech mast can't sustain wildlife year round, heavily canopied forests shade out most of the undergrowth which deer feed on, elk need large open areas to graze on and until the deer grow giraffe like necks they have little to browse on so are forced to concentrate in the private lands where agriculture exists. The preservationists are in large part outsiders who have moved to the mountains, pockets bulging with rust belt equity money, scabbed their hideously obtrusive homes onto the sides of the mountains, bought a Subaru and then want the national forests to remain untouched so they can hike or ride their bikes along the trails as if they will remain like that forever without any attempts at management. One would think they had given birth to the forests based on the attitudes they have regarding controlled cutting.
It's a big problem and unfortunately I don't have the answers beyond the position that for a forest to be viable and retain wildlife it has to be managed for the wildlife.
Keep fighting Tricky Tross, and please don't buy a Subaru!

Subaru.jpg
 
Last edited:
Get involved. Comment on Forest plans. Become involved in Peer Reviews. Attend Forest meetings when possible. Converse with those involved.
Something has to change.
The close everything for the elite crap has to stop as much as the rape & pillage before it.
The lawsuit shut downs & payback to litigants crap is priority.
Sustainable Use is Wise Use.

I was blown away by how overgrown the NF in VA was when I visited DC for talks with USAD-FS & my Congressman.
Figured the rest of the NF was in same shape.
 
The preservationists are the folks who tend to come from families and areas where they didn't have an exposure to the outdoors and thus have no understanding of natural processes. This is why many federal agencies are throwing lots of money into urban outreach and outdoor education. These people grow up and vote, but their lack of understanding of basic natural principles hamstrings agencies from being able to effectively manage.

I think hunters have a unique position somewhere between industry and preservationists, and have the ability to bridge the gap and build consensus on both sides if the message is delivered correctly. We see the need for both conservation and responsible management of resources, and understand that both provide benefits to wildlife. But when people get so caught up in labels, they can't see past those long enough to realize that they share very similar views on more of the specific issues than they might think. For example, I'm also a birder. A lot of birders fall into the "preservationist" camp, and knee jerk reaction is that logging is bad. But if they were to sit down and actually listen to one specific problem (golden winged warbler), and the science behind how management for that species could be improved ( logging), more of them would probably buy in than you would think. The overarching, huge problem of public lands management never gets fixed if we continue to make arguments at such a broad scale, and without addressing local concerns. But if you break it down to specific issues, find the stakeholders that care about that issue regardless of their "group label", and work to build consensus, progress will happen.

Keep up the good work TT!
 
TrickyTross,

I think many have given you good advice.

I agree with you that its VERY important that individuals send comments, rather than just letting a few organizations comment on their behalf.

I've also found, that the science/facts, absolutely has to back up your proposals.

I think another item that some of the conservation groups MUST BE WILLING to do, is file formal objections and/or sue for correct management if its called for. The only way to make sure that can happen is to be engaged in the process from the start.

I have come to the conclusion that many conservation groups will raise all kinds of hell during the planning process, but very few have the stones to follow through with objections and lawsuits.

I feel your frustrations, the problem of hunters not knowing whats going on, and their lack of involvement drives me friggin' crazy. But, if done in a reasonable way, with science to back your arguments, its also amazing what a small, well-informed group can accomplish. Stay the course, keep pounding away, get more people involved...its really about all we can do.

Finally, be the leader in Conservation efforts. Don't be shy about taking credit for your "wins", even small ones. Win a few times for sportsmen and others will start to follow.
 
Thank you all for the advice. I will keep you all in the loop. In the future on the comment period, I will post what our position is and see if any of yall would write in, and I promise ill do my part to make sure we write in on your behalf if you face similar issues on federally managed land in your areas. Thanks everyone!!
 
Heres the update thus far. Yesterday, the USFS released the "Forestwide Objectives" which can be found here http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fseprd508011.pdf

From what I have read thus far and what I see, even though they put Wildlife and its habitat components in the first portion of the document, the recommendations show that it clearly isn't at the forefront of the plan. Yet again there is a call for more "Old-Growth" Forest (static growth is what they are here) by about 60,000 acres. We already have 66,500 acres of the system in Wilderness and then more in Roadless Inventory, which from a conservation and management standpoint, is the same thing. You will really get a kick out of what they are going to create for Elk.... a whopping 250 acres.... to me that just means the USFS is now gonna have its own pet herd, much like GSMNP already does....

Met with our Senators field rep yesterday. Told him that congress needed to free up the hands of the USFS to where they could do there jobs. The USDA budget needed to be addressed as well. Wildfires needed to be deemed a natural disaster after an acreage threshold. We had a fire that originated on a small parcel of private land. It went from 40 acres to 1000 acres in 4 hours. 80 years worth of fuel load went up like a tinder box. That's all of WNC federally managed land. its all in misuse and mismanagement because of budget constraints. Past 3 years the USDA has had to borrow from the DOD budget in order to keep up with wildfires across the nation. Some think-tank dueche nozzle staffer probably convinced some politician that it is cheaper to fight fire than to pro-actively manage our lands. It is amazing to me how those in office are so out of touch.....

The other side of the coin is that sportsmen need to band together. if you have a minute, after you look over the inventory and the new objectives, write to the email address [email protected] and check out http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/nfsnc/home/?cid=fseprd491137 which has all the documents and everything else that we have been dealing with thus far.

Please write and voice your opinion, this land is also yours. if we don't do something, the ability of those who come after us to hunt here will be greatly limited. Also, if they can gut it here, whats to stop them on other parcels?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
Forest Plan Revision for Med. Bow N.F.
Replies
3
Views
940
Ten Bears
T

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
111,389
Messages
1,957,045
Members
35,154
Latest member
Rifleman270

Share this page

Back
Top