>DW,
>
>I'm not going to disagree with
>you. I hear that all
>the time and don't know
>if it's true. However, we
>are where we are. Should
>we just let it burn
>for the next 70 years
>under different management while we
>wait for it to fix
>itself?
>
>But tell me, if that's why
>we have such bad fires
>these days then why did
>we have the "Big Blowup"
>fire of 1910 that burned
>3 million acres in Washington,
>Idaho and Montana. The fledgling
>US Forest service wasn't even
>established until 1905. That was
>a time of rape and
>pillage the land scape. No
>thoughts of conserving the forests
>the way we do now.
>How was that possible when
>nature was still taking its
>course without the tree huggers
>mismanaging everything?
>
>Not takin sides, just sayin
>
>
www.sportsmensaccess.org
NVB
Logging was in its infancy in 1910. Course neither of us were there but I'd believe 70% or better was still virgin forest with a healthy fuel load and draught conditions, a perfect storm so to speak. We have the ability to lessen the likelihood of another perfect storm (although it's too late for colorado, it's comin!) if we'd just manage our renewable resource. The problem is we've put aside sound forest management and allowed the public to decide how our wildlife and forests should be managed. Instead of the biologists and foresters with the knowledge to install good management practices we let people with barely the ability to run their own lives make these decisions. There are people in the forest service who know what is needed. The problem is they're handcuffed to policies contrived from the Federal bureaucracy. Colorados problem was our forest was all generally the same age class due to lack of logging and fire suppression the past 70yrs. Then the beetle came along and just so happened to thrive on that age class of tree. Had we had a forest of varying age classes our situation would be no where near as dire as it is now. The mature stands would have been impacted and the younger stands would not have. Leaving us with a forest 20yrs or more ahead of where it is now. You made a comment about getting involved in the monument designation process to ensure hunting would be allowed on the monument. I agree. Why can't we get involved in the land transfer and assure there's a provisions that never allows the states to sell those transfered lands and forever allows us to recreate on it as we do today? I know you guys continue to bring up the "state trust lands" as an indicator of what will happen. Truth is that's what those lands were intended for. The money from the sale of those lands was and is to be kept in a trust to fund public education. The states followed the guidelines set forth way back when. Why can't we just get involved and set the guidelines in the event of a transfer?
