I wanted to provide Rep. Young's response to my letter sent to him earlier this month. I am appreciative that he responded to a constituent out of his district and felt well-received by his staffer in Anchorage when calling his office. H.R. 3650 is one of the bill's that is drawing a lot of attention with regard to the public land transfer debate and rightfully so when considering the amount of acreage involved with and the aftereffects it may have on other states (The first language one reads on H.R. 3650 is "To authorize States to select and acquire certain National Forest System lands to be managed and operated by the State for timber production and other purposes under the laws of the State, and for other purposes.")
I do understand and agree to a point with Mr. Young concerning his thoughts on the utilization of the resources our public lands harbor (His TR quote is also well-received). However, my concerns lie with the protection and preservation in perpetuity of current land uses afforded by Federal Ownership and Management. Civil discourse/debate and compromise should be the tools most often utilized by our politicians and not bills such as H.R. 3650 that strips over 300 million Americans of their land.
April 21, 2016
Thank you for contacting me regarding H.R. 3650 the State National Forest Management Act. I appreciate you taking the time to share your concerns with me.
On September 29, 2016, I introduced H.R. 3650 State National Forest Management Act to address the management failures in the Tongass National Forest. The Tongass is a "crown jewel" in the national forest system. As such, it serves as a touchstone for controversy over our land management techniques. All too often, many people forget or choose to ignore that our forests are required, with good reason, to be managed by the Department of Agriculture under the concept of multiple-use, which allows for a wide spectrum of utilization, including wildlife management, recreation, and timber harvesting.
As an ardent conservationist, President Theodore Roosevelt created the Tongass National Forest in 1907. Regarding his philosophy, in 1903, he explained, "First and foremost, you can never afford to forget for a moment what is the object of our forest policy. That is not to preserve the forests because they are beautiful, though that is good in itself, nor because they are refuges for the wild creatures of the wilderness, though that too is good in itself; but the primary object of our forest policy, as the land policy of the United States, is the making of prosperous homes." Unfortunately, most environmentalists tout conservation, but in reality, are preservationists instead.
At 16.8 million acres, the Tongass National Forest is the largest in the national forest system. Coupled with Chugach National Forest, Alaska contains over 12% of the total acreage in the national forest system. Although the Tongass is over 100 years old, only 400,000 acres or just over 4% have been harvested. Of the remaining acreage, much of the forest is not topographically suitable for timber harvest and 6.6 million acres are congressionally designated Wilderness Areas, National Monuments, and Roadless Areas.
The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA), signed by President Jimmy Carter in 1980 settled the land use questions for the Tongass. In exchange for the large wilderness designation, Congress directed the Secretary of Agriculture to provide up to $40 million to support a timber sale program in the Tongass National Forest and to provide 450 million board feet of timber for sale annually. To date, this program has never been fully implemented, and every year the U.S. Forest Service is offering less timber for harvest. Quite simply, the Federal Government has not kept its promise to Southeast Alaskans.
The State National Forest Management Act would give any state the ability to purchase, at fair market value, through land exchanges, or by foregoing pending statehood selections, up to 2 million acres of National Forest lands. The legislation requires the states to approve the lands selected and the method of payment though their legislatures in order to ensure the transfer are in accordance with the law. The goal of this legislation is to address the major failures of our federal land management agencies, while giving the states an opportunity to manage the forests more successfully.
As you may know, compared to the federal government the State of Alaska manages only a tiny fraction of forestland in Southeast Alaska, about 50 thousand acres in the Southeast State Forest. However, the State has a better track record in forest management than the federal government has conducted within the Tongass. The State has sold about 65% of the 12.1 million board feet annual allowable cut while the federal government's timber harvesting in the Tongass National Forest has only yielded 12% of its 267 million board feet annual allowable cut. These figures alone prove the State is far better capable of managing our forests and providing for the economy of Southeast Alaska.
Currently, H.R. 3650 has been referred to House Committee on Natural Resources where it awaits further consideration. As a member of this committee I will keep your thoughts in mind as this legislation moves forward in the legislative process.
Once again, thank you for expressing your views on this issue. If you haven't already, I would encourage you to sign up for my e-newsletter at http://donyoung.house.gov/forms/emailsignup and my YouTube channel at http://www.youtube.com/user/RepDonYoung. Doing so will allow me to provide you with updates on this and other important issues. If I can be of any assistance in the future, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Greetings, Rep. Young
I'm writing you with concern regarding your recent sponsoring of H. R. 3650. As one of the 320,000,000 million plus owners of the federal land that you are proposing to transfer to state hands, I have serious concerns that such measures could lead to the eventual loss of access and recreational opportunities for the American people.
There is a seemingly renewed interest by some in the west to transfer public federal lands to states and even directly to private entities as GOP Presidential candidate Ted Cruz suggested recently during a talk at Boise State University on 5 March 2016. Men such as Theodore Roosevelt had the keen foresight to protect many millions of acres in the western United States in an effort to conserve the unspoiled wild lands that he had such an appreciation for; President Roosevelt was certainly not opposed to using our natural resources in a sustainable manner but understood that exploitation of these lands could readily occur if protections and federal oversight were lost.
I understand that you believe states or local interests may be able to manage these lands better than the federal government but have you diligently striven to provide information to federal agencies so that they may manage these lands better or ensured that they have been adequately funded so that they can do the job at hand? I can tell you that I've seen the lack of required personnel firsthand here in Colorado with respect to the White River National Forest (The No.1 forest for recreation in the country) where a USFS volunteer told me that they are severely understaffed and there was a grand total of one paid person covering his area in Summit County (The trail I was using required a significant amount of manpower to clear the fallen lodgepole pines that had succumbed to the pine bark beetle). In 1998 there were 18,000 USFS employees managing forest service lands; today there are fewer than 11,000 (a 39% decrease in personnel); further the National Park Service has deferred maintenance projects that amount to $11.5 billion (while National Parks are setting records for visitors) and the National Wildlife Refuge system has lost 430 employees since 2011, more than 12% of its workforce. I question whether it's fair to complain about the inadequacy and ineffectiveness of our land manager's when we are not giving them the financial and personnel support they require?
Yes, I am certain that many improvements can be made to the way our federal government manages our public lands, but the earnest use of discourse, compromise and collaboration of all stakeholders should be the tools used to implement these improvements and not by transferring oversight and ownership to state hands where more limited budgets and fewer stakeholders could facilitate the transfer of these lands to private interests much more readily. Please consider that approximately 80% of the state lands here in Colorado are unavailable for the activities such as hunting, fishing and camping and perhaps more importantly that essentially all state lands that were granted to the states of AL, AR, FL, IL, IN, IA, KS, LA, MI, MN, MO, NV, OH and WI have been sold; the state land sold in the aforementioned states equates to over 28 million acres. I believe that this track record is key when considering whether these lands will stay available to all Americans in perpetuity; it is also my belief that one bad fire season could wipe out a state's budget and could subsequently lead to a fire sale of state lands in an effort to procure funds.
I remind you that thousands of hunters from the east venture westward every year to enjoy hunting big game on the expansive tracts of public land that simply don't exist in the east; these hunters spend millions of dollars on things such as gas, airfare, equipment, hotel rooms and licenses and provide boosts to rural (and larger) economies that are not to be discounted. If you are still convinced that the path you are on is the correct one, I ask you to ensure protections are put in place that will ensure public access and that current recreation opportunities are protected forever; further, there should be rules set in place that preclude any sale of such land to private interests so that our posterity can enjoy these lands as we have been able to.
Very Respectfully,
I do understand and agree to a point with Mr. Young concerning his thoughts on the utilization of the resources our public lands harbor (His TR quote is also well-received). However, my concerns lie with the protection and preservation in perpetuity of current land uses afforded by Federal Ownership and Management. Civil discourse/debate and compromise should be the tools most often utilized by our politicians and not bills such as H.R. 3650 that strips over 300 million Americans of their land.
April 21, 2016
Thank you for contacting me regarding H.R. 3650 the State National Forest Management Act. I appreciate you taking the time to share your concerns with me.
On September 29, 2016, I introduced H.R. 3650 State National Forest Management Act to address the management failures in the Tongass National Forest. The Tongass is a "crown jewel" in the national forest system. As such, it serves as a touchstone for controversy over our land management techniques. All too often, many people forget or choose to ignore that our forests are required, with good reason, to be managed by the Department of Agriculture under the concept of multiple-use, which allows for a wide spectrum of utilization, including wildlife management, recreation, and timber harvesting.
As an ardent conservationist, President Theodore Roosevelt created the Tongass National Forest in 1907. Regarding his philosophy, in 1903, he explained, "First and foremost, you can never afford to forget for a moment what is the object of our forest policy. That is not to preserve the forests because they are beautiful, though that is good in itself, nor because they are refuges for the wild creatures of the wilderness, though that too is good in itself; but the primary object of our forest policy, as the land policy of the United States, is the making of prosperous homes." Unfortunately, most environmentalists tout conservation, but in reality, are preservationists instead.
At 16.8 million acres, the Tongass National Forest is the largest in the national forest system. Coupled with Chugach National Forest, Alaska contains over 12% of the total acreage in the national forest system. Although the Tongass is over 100 years old, only 400,000 acres or just over 4% have been harvested. Of the remaining acreage, much of the forest is not topographically suitable for timber harvest and 6.6 million acres are congressionally designated Wilderness Areas, National Monuments, and Roadless Areas.
The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA), signed by President Jimmy Carter in 1980 settled the land use questions for the Tongass. In exchange for the large wilderness designation, Congress directed the Secretary of Agriculture to provide up to $40 million to support a timber sale program in the Tongass National Forest and to provide 450 million board feet of timber for sale annually. To date, this program has never been fully implemented, and every year the U.S. Forest Service is offering less timber for harvest. Quite simply, the Federal Government has not kept its promise to Southeast Alaskans.
The State National Forest Management Act would give any state the ability to purchase, at fair market value, through land exchanges, or by foregoing pending statehood selections, up to 2 million acres of National Forest lands. The legislation requires the states to approve the lands selected and the method of payment though their legislatures in order to ensure the transfer are in accordance with the law. The goal of this legislation is to address the major failures of our federal land management agencies, while giving the states an opportunity to manage the forests more successfully.
As you may know, compared to the federal government the State of Alaska manages only a tiny fraction of forestland in Southeast Alaska, about 50 thousand acres in the Southeast State Forest. However, the State has a better track record in forest management than the federal government has conducted within the Tongass. The State has sold about 65% of the 12.1 million board feet annual allowable cut while the federal government's timber harvesting in the Tongass National Forest has only yielded 12% of its 267 million board feet annual allowable cut. These figures alone prove the State is far better capable of managing our forests and providing for the economy of Southeast Alaska.
Currently, H.R. 3650 has been referred to House Committee on Natural Resources where it awaits further consideration. As a member of this committee I will keep your thoughts in mind as this legislation moves forward in the legislative process.
Once again, thank you for expressing your views on this issue. If you haven't already, I would encourage you to sign up for my e-newsletter at http://donyoung.house.gov/forms/emailsignup and my YouTube channel at http://www.youtube.com/user/RepDonYoung. Doing so will allow me to provide you with updates on this and other important issues. If I can be of any assistance in the future, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Greetings, Rep. Young
I'm writing you with concern regarding your recent sponsoring of H. R. 3650. As one of the 320,000,000 million plus owners of the federal land that you are proposing to transfer to state hands, I have serious concerns that such measures could lead to the eventual loss of access and recreational opportunities for the American people.
There is a seemingly renewed interest by some in the west to transfer public federal lands to states and even directly to private entities as GOP Presidential candidate Ted Cruz suggested recently during a talk at Boise State University on 5 March 2016. Men such as Theodore Roosevelt had the keen foresight to protect many millions of acres in the western United States in an effort to conserve the unspoiled wild lands that he had such an appreciation for; President Roosevelt was certainly not opposed to using our natural resources in a sustainable manner but understood that exploitation of these lands could readily occur if protections and federal oversight were lost.
I understand that you believe states or local interests may be able to manage these lands better than the federal government but have you diligently striven to provide information to federal agencies so that they may manage these lands better or ensured that they have been adequately funded so that they can do the job at hand? I can tell you that I've seen the lack of required personnel firsthand here in Colorado with respect to the White River National Forest (The No.1 forest for recreation in the country) where a USFS volunteer told me that they are severely understaffed and there was a grand total of one paid person covering his area in Summit County (The trail I was using required a significant amount of manpower to clear the fallen lodgepole pines that had succumbed to the pine bark beetle). In 1998 there were 18,000 USFS employees managing forest service lands; today there are fewer than 11,000 (a 39% decrease in personnel); further the National Park Service has deferred maintenance projects that amount to $11.5 billion (while National Parks are setting records for visitors) and the National Wildlife Refuge system has lost 430 employees since 2011, more than 12% of its workforce. I question whether it's fair to complain about the inadequacy and ineffectiveness of our land manager's when we are not giving them the financial and personnel support they require?
Yes, I am certain that many improvements can be made to the way our federal government manages our public lands, but the earnest use of discourse, compromise and collaboration of all stakeholders should be the tools used to implement these improvements and not by transferring oversight and ownership to state hands where more limited budgets and fewer stakeholders could facilitate the transfer of these lands to private interests much more readily. Please consider that approximately 80% of the state lands here in Colorado are unavailable for the activities such as hunting, fishing and camping and perhaps more importantly that essentially all state lands that were granted to the states of AL, AR, FL, IL, IN, IA, KS, LA, MI, MN, MO, NV, OH and WI have been sold; the state land sold in the aforementioned states equates to over 28 million acres. I believe that this track record is key when considering whether these lands will stay available to all Americans in perpetuity; it is also my belief that one bad fire season could wipe out a state's budget and could subsequently lead to a fire sale of state lands in an effort to procure funds.
I remind you that thousands of hunters from the east venture westward every year to enjoy hunting big game on the expansive tracts of public land that simply don't exist in the east; these hunters spend millions of dollars on things such as gas, airfare, equipment, hotel rooms and licenses and provide boosts to rural (and larger) economies that are not to be discounted. If you are still convinced that the path you are on is the correct one, I ask you to ensure protections are put in place that will ensure public access and that current recreation opportunities are protected forever; further, there should be rules set in place that preclude any sale of such land to private interests so that our posterity can enjoy these lands as we have been able to.
Very Respectfully,
