State and federal co-management of national Forest?

[R.K.]

Had this article pop up and I haven’t had the chance to read all of it yet. But for some odd reason, this immediately felt like a slightly underhanded first step towards state ownership and sale of federal lands.

I’m probably wrong on that, but thought it was at least worth sharing. With any luck, they’ll focus on habitat improvements, and not just board feet of lumber.

State takes on co-management of 200,000 federal acres in Northwest Montana

About 214,000 acres on the Kootenai and Flathead national forests will serve as what Montana Gov. Greg Gianforte called the “initial sandbox” for a shared stewardship agreement between the state and U.S. Forest Service.

dailyinterlake.com

 

[SAJ-99]

Had this article pop up and I haven’t had the chance to read all of it yet. But for some odd reason, this immediately felt like a slightly underhanded first step towards state ownership and sale of federal lands.

I’m probably wrong on that, but thought it was at least worth sharing. With any luck, they’ll focus on habitat improvements, and not just board feet of lumber.

State takes on co-management of 200,000 federal acres in Northwest Montana

About 214,000 acres on the Kootenai and Flathead national forests will serve as what Montana Gov. Greg Gianforte called the “initial sandbox” for a shared stewardship agreement between the state and U.S. Forest Service.

dailyinterlake.com

Shared management means state gets some money from the output. My main question is 100m board feet is a lot. Is that even possible with current employment levels or we there need to be an influx of people to the region? That’s probably why the timber is still standing now.

I’m sure there will be both good and bad from this. Kind of how it works with all these projects.