[Overtaxed]

The public forest timber sales are accessible to small time operators and loggers. So as a use of public funds, it does provide a better return on the dollar than some other uses I would attack first.

Oh yes! < /sarcasm > Due to the US Forest Sevice's policies, deadwood is not removed from the forests and roads into the forest are limited. The result? All that deadwood is fueling those fires out West burning the forests that environmentalists "care" so much about. And firefighters are hampered by lack of roads.

I prefer the land to be managed by private interests. The federal government couldn't manage a freaking cat house, let alone a forest.

[HairOfTheDog]

The mismanagement is the result of conflicting policies. National Forests were never meant to be the same as National Parks, and the "greens" have been pushing to make them one and the same, in all practicality. The ideas I am pushing do not mean the same thing as the "no access" wilderness advocates. My arguments are against them.

For what it is worth, the DNR forests near me are well managed with dead wood removed and open roads in. Not all of the public lands have been hit by the closure and wilderness movement. My goal is to fight every closure of these lands. Access is my whole point. It is a different mindset than those who would close it.

And to some degree, fires will always happen and some of this blame is hype. These fires are certainly a lesson.

Carried to the extreme, no public land means no camping, hiking, hunting and enjoyment of wilderness unless one wants to buy their own mountain. Not sure I can afford that for the kids this year.