Quote:
|
Originally Posted by richlevy
I did mention that. However, assuming that because they purchased the land that they will not clearcut it is also wrong. Mining companies own the land that they strip mine. This does not make them better stewards.
|
The difference is that miners are engaged in a one time extraction of a resource whereas a sensible timber company can count on returning to a tract of land. A local outfit would be most likely to manage for the long term.
We argue about this stuff a lot when we mountain bike because the gov land we sometimes ride on is mixed use and each group is always trying to get the others thrown out. Enviros vs timbermen vs horsey people vs mtn bikers vs atv riders vs enviros. Many of the lands out West were managed for timber for many years, then enviros normally from away with no economic stake come in and for good or ill change the purpose the lands are managed for. Privately held land is easy to manage for a specific purpose.
I don't like the idea that some politician in Boston, Mass. can decide that a working community in Idaho isn't economically viable. What I'd like to see is a competitive bid process. Let groups of people purchase the lands for their stated purpose and manage it accordingly. Land where timbering can be viable would be the focus of timber companies and outfits like the Nature Conservancy could buy up the environmentally important pieces. We know with the Bush administration that open government isn't priority one reducing the likelyhood that sales will be truly open. It would be cool and useful to put together a map of all the lands and have a real time observation of bid prices for sections. Groups could get together and buy ajoining pieces if they have compatible goals say mountain bikers, cc skiers, and campers...