Replies

I like to take a simpler and more incremental approach to carving up Federal lands. The split estate model is to me the most appealing, where local practitioners would identify an operation that they think they can do more efficiently than government can on a contract or leasehold basis. It would slowly evolve into a system of overlays. Market consolidations and Federal auctions would then complete the process.

I would rather see privatization attack endangered species management, weed management, fisheries, grazing, forestry... I don't think we're ready to deal with the airborne pollutant market yet because we don't have a good handle on the function of mitigating and naturally generating processes, although I do propose a silt market in the book as an example of what might be done. I don't try to spend much time telling people what the goals or transactable media should be, simply because I think that local entrepreneurs need to think that through and apply their own intelligence to that problem. The instrumentation and modeling capacity on the necessary resolution doesn't exist. Most of that stuff is top down design and IMHO will never get there.

As far as a market based management system design under which to accomplish those goals is concerned, there is one. I'm the author.

Anyone who has lived in Idaho County, Idaho, worked in the forest products industry, and enjoyed the rare recreational opportunities this county has to offer for most of their lives would have trouble finding anything that the federal government does managing federal forests in Idaho County, Idaho, that couldn't be done better by individual residents or local businesses. Anything the U.S. Forest Service does is going to cost the taxpayers so much to accomplish so little, most of the country will resent county residents.

In order to provide economies of scale and proper thoroughness of cleanup efforts, large tracts need to be logged so removal of wood fiber that could serve no other purpose than fueling boilers can be made practical. A typical restoration effort in Idaho County should cover about 20 sq. miles, be done by helicopters where terrain prohibits use of processors, remove usable fuel and fiber, leave 40 to 50 sturdy young trees per acre, and use cheap temporary haul roads built for ease of removal. I think economies of scale can best be achieved if qualified forest managers were to operate large tracts around 60 sq. miles in size in a manner similar to family farms. This would break the 1.1 million acres of Nez Perce National Forest land in Idaho County outside designated wildnerness areas into about 30 privately managed tracts. Early returns on thinning operations can be used to hire rehab crews for areas previously damaged by fire or poor logging practices.

I would like to see federal courts recognize the rights of local residents to claim that the smoke coming from federally managed forest land be considered pollution and the county government should be able to regulate potential sources of ozone destroying wood smoke if the federal government is not going to act. If the federal government refuses to make these cleanup efforts practical, thorough, and efficient through economies of scale, our local government should be able to require such policies to assure the job is done right and without unneccessary burden on our fellow Americans. I would hope that the federal courts would see the wisdom of managing the source of ozone destroying wood smoke and the neccessity of economies of scale for a thorough cleanup. I would hope that federal judges would require those who oppose policies we think would produce an efficient, thorough cleanup should be required to file environmental impact statements showing the impact burning these forests would have on our eyes, throats, and lungs.