Wildfire Hysteria

[BuzzH]

Could it have something to do with the fact that the State has a better legal position when dealing with lawsuits such as this, then the Federal Government does, Pointer? Hence the settlement by the environmental groups?

Having a small area like Lubrecht pay for itself is easy when considering the mandate by which its managed.

But, for you to use Lubrecht as a case study in "how it ought to be done" on Federal Lands is a bit disingenuous and not even close to a fair comparison. About like apples and aardvarks.

Pointer made the best observation, that what works on one small piece of MT forest is not going to necessarily work on anything of scale.

I wonder what the profit margin would look like on Lubrecht if the same requirements were mandated on that 28K acres that are required of National Forests via laws, regulations, etc.?

You know, little things like Lubrecht having the diversity of tree species, slope, etc. found on varying elevation with a complex mix of habitat types, soil types, and the list goes on and on.

Then consider the things the NF system is REQUIRED to follow, the various acts they're required to follow, and it becomes really clear that if places like Lubrecht were under the same requirements, it wouldn't come close to paying for itself.

Its just not right to cherry pick a small piece of prime timberland and claim that the rest of the world can be managed the same way...doesn't work in theory or reality.

 

[Nameless Range]

Other than BHR's claims, I can't find any documentation that Lubrecht Forest funds itself. I can find numerous examples of it getting funding from other sources.

Which isn't to say it couldn't. State Trust Lands for example, are managed for production, and take in more revenue than the cost of management. But that comes at a value cost, which has been reviewed on HuntTalk ad nauseum.

I was trying to convey that: Fires haven't been abnormally bad, costly mitigation that current funding levels make unfeasible will not stop fires, and fires cost more near development. Somehow I'm just generating excuses.

But say Lubrecht did fund itself. As has been pointed out by others, is prime lowland forest in the belly of the Blackfoot indicative of most forests managed by the Forest Service? Would revenue generated from those forests be similar? Are forests managed for revenue ideal for wildlife? Can BHR have a policy discussion without hyper-politicizing everything?

Paste and repeat the answer to any one of those questions to the others.

 

[BigHornRam]

Driving east last Monday morning, I caught this radio show, which talked about Montana forestry, and issues dealing with state lands vs. federal. It was very good and non-inflamitory.

http://www.northernbroadcasting.com/TOOLS/ListenNow/VoicesofMontana/tabid/115/Default.aspx

Guest speakers were Bob Harrington, a guy from DNRC, Julia Altimus, and Paul McKenzie. All very knowledgeable people. Listen and tell me what you guys disagree with.

 

[BigHornRam]

Can BHR have a policy discussion without hyper-politicizing everything?

Dude,

You were the one that was bagging on Bullock in the OP, and pivoted your wildfire hysteria comments to the state take over of the federal forest issue.

Radio show I linked to has a good discussion about state vs federal forest mandates, and why state take over is not a good idea. Listen to it, and tell me what you think.

 

[BigHornRam]

So, give your ideal 5 step process you would use to restore forest health across the northern Rockies and inland NW?

Read the book "Mimicking Natures Fire" I linked to earlier in this thread. Then we can have a discussion about western forest restoration.