Replies

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.

Hey Hair! I get to agree with you this time!

I've lived for a short time in Texas, where there is very little in the way of public lands and then here in the west, where we have quite a lot (maybe some case can certainly be made that we have too much in some places, that's for sure).

The lifestyle advantages of having access to public lands like National Forests are tremendous and there is no question in my mind that they are quite valuable as a public resource.

However, I too have "issues" with the management of these resources in some cases. I believe that the environmentalists have injected a great deal of "unwisdom" into this management in recent years. One of the drawbacks of public lands is that they become susceptible to political influence from well-funded special interests: Like the Sierra Club and other radical environmentalists. Staunching that influence is a tiring and costly fight that many don't have the time, energy or money to wage. But finding a way to acquire and maintan good management over these lands is worth it to keep these lands open to public use.

I'd like to see more use of these lands, not less, with the lands being maintained largely for recreational purposes. For one, I'd like to see ski resorts and areas -- most American ski areas are on National Forest land -- have an easier time making improvements, and even allowing more of them to expand hotel and restaurant offerings.

It was difficult in Texas to find affordable outdoor recreational activities -- whereas here, and in much of the west, it is easy to do so.