...and the flip side of that coin is that some "conservationists" want to turn a lot of the land into "grasslands" through "prescribed burns":
"November 2001:
Bush Administration signs a Memorandum of Understanding with The Nature Conservancy to jointly manage the nation's National Forests
The U.S. Forest Service and The Nature Conservancy announced a watershed memorandum of understanding (MOU) on November 16 to share the management of the entire National Forest system. The agreement includes inventorying, monitoring, protection and restoration of forest, grassland and aquatic habitat for fish, wildlife and plant resources. According to the official press release, the underlying goals of the memorandum of understanding include preservation of biodiversity and ecosystem management, rather than production of raw materials to feed the nation's economy. Two key MOU directives are to utilize prescribed burns and to combat invasive species. The MOU can be expected to reinforce the previous administration's road closure policy. http://www.prfamerica.org/UpdatesIndex.html
From the same website, by Carol LaGrasse:
".......Imagine an encumbrance on your property that is not on file at the county seat but is instead secretly kept by government, exempt from freedom of information law, and only accessible to law enforcement agencies or to you in the course of processing a building permit.
You cannot find out about this encumbrance on land when you are considering purchase, yet it can be used by government to stop use of your land as surely as any easement, mapped wetland, flood area map or minimum lot size.
This encumbrance is the record of special wildlife species and their habitats being accumulated by DEC and a private not-for-profit land trust [i.e., they pay no taxes on the huge profits they make on flipping private property into the hand of government, paid for by dollars extorted from you, the public], The Nature Conservancy (TNC) under a joint program that is in place in New York and every other state of the Union under similar arrangements between TNC and each state environmental agency...........TNC is the largest environmental organization in the United States, headquartered in Arlington, Virginia, with 1994 assets of just over one billion dollars. In 1994, TNC received $237,779,000 from sales of land to government, while expending $76,046,000 for this purpose......" http://www.prfamerica.org/NYsNaturalHeritageProgram.html
In addition to taking property off the tax rolls, raising the tax burden on everyone else, thus forcing MORE sales by owners unable to keep up, the "regulation by government", or some such term, was [and this may be outdated by now] required in order for the IUCN, one of the land collectors for the U.N., to exert international control over what was formerly private property. (I think I read this at Henry Lamb's website or at discerningtoday.org, Michael Coffman's site.) In other words, the property goes from private hands to The Nature Conservancy (or some other front group) to local/state/federal government and eventually, to the U.N. which assumes sovereignty. (Also, once the UN has sovereignty over property, by placing it on an "endangered list", the land can be closed off to the unwashed masses to "protect it".)
See UN Influence on Domestic Policy http://www.discerningtoday.org/UN_influence.htm.
"............The IUCN's strategy is brilliant. First, the IUCN helped create both the "science" of conservation biology and the Society of Conservation Biology. The leadership of the Society, along with David Foreman (co-founder of Earth First! and Director of the Sierra Club), then dreamed up the granddaddy of all earth protection schemes--The Wildlands Project, which demands that up to one-half of America be put into wilderness reserves and corridors, with the remaining land as buffer zones. Second, credibility for the pseudoscience of conservation biology was bought with foundation funding of conservation curricula within universities, and by strong acceptance by federal agencies belonging to the IUCN. Finally, the IUCN wrote or helped write Agenda 21, the Conventions on Biological Diversity, Desertification, Sustainable Development as well as the President's Council on Sustainable Development's (PCSD) report in which, surprise, surprise, supporting documents like the UN Global Biodiversity Assessment name The Wildlands Project as the template for protecting biological diversity! What seem to be totally independent programs and activities are in reality a masterpiece orchestrated by the IUCN.
Through the IUCN, government agencies such as the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, the National Park Service, the US Forest Service, the EPA and other federal agencies can huddle in private with the Sierra Club, Nature Conservancy, National Wildlife Federation, National Audubon Society, Society of Conservation Biology, UNEP, UNDP, UNESCO and many others to develop strategies to implement their "ecospiritual" agenda on the ground by changing US policy -- without any knowledge of Congress or the people who will be affected......." http://www.discerningtoday.org/iucn.htm.
"The IUCN Programme is described in the document "Stepping into the New Millennium".
The Union's innovative and comprehensive conservation programme wil be implemented over a four year period (2001-2004) in 180 countries. The Programme is based on delivering results in three major areas:
KNOWLEDGE - IUCN's core business is generating, integrating, managing and disseminating knowledge for conservation and equitable use of natural resources.
EMPOWERMENT - IUCN uses that knowledge to build capacity, responsibility and willingness of people and institutions to plan, manage, conserve and use nature and natural resources in a sustainable and equitable manner.
GOVERNANCE - When knowledge is available and people are able to use it, the most important steps can be taken - systematic improvement of laws, policies, economic instruments and institutions for the conservation and sustainable and equitable use of nature and natural resources.
It was developed through a consultative planning process and then approved at the World Conservation Congress in Amman, Jordan (October 2002)(?). View resolutions adopted at the Congress.
The programme includes the activities carried out by IUCN's six Commissions and the Secretariat. By focusing the IUCN programme on two conservation goals and seven Key Result Areas we have integrated the work of the Commissions and the Secretariat. The diagram below shows the programme framework...............(blah, blah, blah)" http://www.iucn.org/about/programme.htm.
The IUCN (aided by such groups as the Nature Conservancy) is helping the UN to implement Agenda 21 and the Convention on Biological Diversity (basically, the Wildlands Project, US included - Map at discerningtoday.org): http://www.iucn.org/themes/biodiversity/.
Membership of The Nature Conservancy in the IUCN can be seen here: http://www.iucn.org/members/directory.cfm.
See also "The Juggernaut of Private Not-for-Profit Interest Groups" http://www.prfamerica.org/Juggernaut.html, listing many of these groups, including the Nature Conservancy, and many more articles here (many are reasonably short): prfamerica.org articles regarding The Nature Conservancy.
According to the official press release, the underlying goals of the memorandum of understanding include preservation of biodiversity and ecosystem management, rather than production of raw materials to feed the nation's economy. Two key MOU directives are to utilize prescribed burns and to combat invasive species. The MOU can be expected to reinforce the previous administration's road closure policy.
It is my understanding that the national forest system was intended at its inception to be managed national resource, entirely different from a national park, and not closed off from the public, which I am assuming is a part of this "road closure policy". If that includes closure also of trails, camping and hunting areas, then this is a plan that we should oppose, and I would join you.
Good managed timber lands are not incompatible with good habitat practices... I support fully a blending of habitat, timber harvest and recreational use. Anything less I will not support except in the very few areas such as national parks where utter wilderness was established long ago for it's own sake. The two distinct types of national lands should not be confused or blended together in my humble opinion. The rest of your post shall have to wait until tomorrow, hope you do not mind my questions as I get to it.