I am saying that these forests have costs. They usually have roads. They have fire prevention. Maybe even rescue. Some garbage collection. No telling what all they have. And I am saying that if it's a national forest, then it makes sense not only for the national gubmint to pay for it, but also for the national gubmint to run it. If the state is gonna run it, far as I am concerned, that's a state forest that I as a voter have no stake in, no influence, and therefore, shouldn't pay a red cent for it. If GWB wants to make em state forests, he should do so.
You touch on an interesting issue. I’ll give fire roads a pass, though that’s also a state issue. Forest roads, we lease the forests for harvest, then spend federal money to build the roads to take out the timber, otherwise the “bid” wouldn’t be economic.
That’s nuts. If the harvest is economic, let the forest product companies build the roads. If they won’t bid enough, leave the forest alone, the Sierra Club will be happy and the owls will have a place to live. Same goes for grazing lands. It’s a state issue, with some federal interests, but neither are particularly efficient property managers from an economic perspective.