Help save the U.S. Nat. Forest? - Page 2 - Fiberglass RV


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 09-26-2006, 11:32 AM   #15
Senior Member
 
Byron Kinnaman's Avatar
 
Name: Byron
Trailer: 2006 Scamp 13' towed with a 2005 Dodge Dakota 4.7l Magnum W/full tow package (over kill)
Oregon
Posts: 6,307
Registry
Quote:
Just ask anyone who has stayed in an Oregon park, national or State. They got the best thing going I have ever seen.

and
__________________

__________________
Byron & Anne enjoying the everyday Saturday thing.
Byron Kinnaman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2006, 12:23 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
BOBSMITH's Avatar
 
Trailer: 2002 Casita Freedom Deluxe / 2007 Nissan Frontier King Cab
Posts: 729
Quote:
There is no one that loves respects and enjoys the mountians more than myself. I understand the need to protect them for everyones benefit. The impression that I now have is the USFS is now run by people that consider you and I interlopers that are out to destroy the forest. I truly believe that in the future our boondock camping is going to be eliminated.

I was wondering if anyone else has had a similiar experience or thoughts on this. How do we keep our Forest open and available?

John
Well, the basic fact is that you are an interloper. In the shrinking confines of our protected lands, humans are always the outsider, always trying (sometimes without meaning) to ruin the landscape with trash, garbage, feces, off-road vehicles, poaching, etc. and etc.

The plain fact is that we don't have enough territory off-limits to motorized vehicles, and any time I see more such land becoming roadless, the more I like it.
__________________

__________________
BOBSMITH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2006, 01:15 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
Byron Kinnaman's Avatar
 
Name: Byron
Trailer: 2006 Scamp 13' towed with a 2005 Dodge Dakota 4.7l Magnum W/full tow package (over kill)
Oregon
Posts: 6,307
Registry
Quote:
They have stopped logging and now the forest is in such an overgrown state that if a fire were to start there would be hundreds of thousands of acres burned with no hope of stopping it. Logging not only generated revenue for the F, S., the logging industry maintained the roads. The logging industry also greatly reduced fire suppression costs.
No doubt. No trees, no forest fire.

Quote:
I think it was only 2 years ago that our National Forests in the west suffered millions upon millions of acres of burned forest. This tragedy was caused by [b]improper forest managment pracitces. The new F. S. enviromentialist do not want any logging and this creates an [b]overgrown condition that is perfect for a Forest Service caused disaster as we saw several years ago.

I am speaking from experiance and the wisdom and knowledge of friends that have worked for the F. S. for over 40 years and will retire soon.

John
I wonder how the forests survived without the Forest Service to "manage" them. They've been there a lot longer than the Forest Service has existed.
__________________
Byron & Anne enjoying the everyday Saturday thing.
Byron Kinnaman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2006, 01:34 PM   #18
Senior Member
 
Bill MacDermod's Avatar
 
Name: William
Trailer: 1999 17 ft Casita Spirit Deluxe ('Inn EggsIsle')
Florida
Posts: 611
Hey Byron, Going to pot meant to me the motorized vehicles they let in to tear the place up, the fisherman who goes in and gets his lines caught in something and just cuts it off with the hook still on the end of the line, and catching fish and just throwing them on the bank . Heck I don't even like the board walks they have all over Yellowstone but i do understand that many handicap folks wouldn't see the park if they didn't have such things. I may not understand all the politics of these things as you claim to but I'm glad for being able to see all that this country does have to offer. I had a farm in Virginia and the kid next door wanted to ride his 4 wheeler on it and I said sure but stay away from the cows and no donuts in the pasture. The next thing I know there is 1/2 dozen of these suckers out there doing exactly what I asked him not to do and one of them was his dad who farmed about 300 acres for a dairy farm. Go figure.
__________________
Love being Inneggsile
heading sloowly up the eastcoast to our next 2 month (Aug and Sept) camp hosting gig at Camden Hills State Park in Maine
Bill MacDermod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2006, 02:35 PM   #19
Senior Member
 
John Perry's Avatar
 
Name: John
Trailer: 1996 13 ft Scamp
California
Posts: 471
Send a message via AIM to John Perry
Quote:
No doubt. No trees, no forest fire.
I wonder how the forests survived without the Forest Service to "manage" them. They've been there a lot longer than the Forest Service has existed.

Existing timber did survive better before the advent of the NEW Forest Service. Prior to the F.S. fire supression was unknown on the scale it is today. Fire kept the forests healthy by eliminating the overgrowth and the understory. When the F. S. and National Forests came along the logging industry did what the forest fires did in the past.
The loggers not only generated revenue for the Forest Service, they maintained the roads in the forest.

The original logging industry did do massive damage to the forest but protections were put in place and the damage was minimized.
Now the Forest Service has all but eliminated logging on the National Forests. The cost to us is massive forest fires and suppression costs due to overgrowth.

A perfect example of modern forest managment is north east California. From Susanville Ca. to the Modoc National Forest on the northern Cal. border is one big tree farm owned by Roseburg, Weyerhauser and other private lumber companies. North eastern California is some of the best deer hunting in the west and the most beautiful forests you will ever see. You can walk throught these privately owned forests without a machete or chain saw to cut your trail. I lived in Susanville for 5 years, my home backed up to a tree farm owned by Roseburg. I lived in the tall timber, the only forest fire worries came from the forest service land, never from the well managed tree farms.
The only thing that thrives in overgrown forests are rodents and birds.

I am not demeaning the dedication of most of the Forest Service workers that you and I meet when we are in the forest. I am saying that the new management of the Forest Service has become politically correct and caters to the extreme enviromentalists who consider you and me as interlopers in the forest.

One thing I should mention, when I refer to tree farms they are not acres upon acres of seedlings. They are mostly mature trees with seedlings planted where other mature trees have been harvested.
The thinning of mature trees and removing the under story allows sunlight to reach the ground and allows the seedlings to thrive.
Thanks to modern forest managment practices we have more trees today than we did at the turn of the century.
John
__________________
John Perry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2006, 04:03 PM   #20
Senior Member
 
Name: Darwin
Trailer: 2002 19 ft Scamp 19 ft 5th Wheel
Posts: 3,029
Send a message via Yahoo to Darwin Maring
While the national parks are going to pot (Yes they’ve caught people growing and harvesting pot in the parks) our State parks here in Virginia are expanding with camp spots and cabins that can be rented.

They charge a fee to get in the park and they look wonderful.

Lake Anna State Park, Virginia about 40 minutes west of Fredericksburg, Virginia on Interstate 95.
__________________
Darwin Maring is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2006, 06:45 PM   #21
Senior Member
 
John Perry's Avatar
 
Name: John
Trailer: 1996 13 ft Scamp
California
Posts: 471
Send a message via AIM to John Perry
Quote:
No doubt. No trees, no forest fire.
I wonder how the forests survived without the Forest Service to "manage" them. They've been there a lot longer than the Forest Service has existed.

They are not surviving very well, go to www.forestsfuture.fs.fed.us and it will back up what I have been saying. The overgrowth began in the late 60s and 70s when logging became the target of the enviromentalists. They are not what I call true enviromentalists, they are what I call protectionists. The politically correct Protectionists see man as a predator and spoiler. The politically correct have taken over the management of the USFS and they are the cause of the terrible conditions that our forests are in.
Apparently my telling the truth, as I see it, has upset quite a few of you. I did not mean to. My wish was to point out the dire straights that our forests are in and our potential loss of the use of the forest that we all love.
This will be my last post on this subject as I do not wish to upset anyone any further.
John
__________________
John Perry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2006, 08:10 PM   #22
Senior Member
 
Trailer: 1968 Venture (Molded Fiberglass 19 ft Class A Motorhome) and 82 TranStar B+
Posts: 164
Send a message via AIM to Penny Taylor Send a message via Yahoo to Penny Taylor
I was terribly upset when I found out that they were selling the lumber out of our National Forests. But that was because I thought that they were clear-cutting it.

I was in the flood of Oct. 94 here, and a lot of the damage to my neighborhood was because a land owner had just completely clear-cut a beautiful forest of many hundreds of acres, upstream from me. The water just sloshed down over us, and our houses, with nothing to stop it, and it had never done that before.

If the FS manage the timber cutting so that it helps the new growth, and reduces the risk of fires, which therefore saves people, and animal's lives, I am all for it. IF the proceeds from the sale of the lumber are used to maintain the beauty of our forests that is a plus, too.
__________________
Penny Taylor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2006, 08:41 PM   #23
Senior Member
 
Roger H's Avatar
 
Name: Roger
Trailer: Y2K6 Born Free 32RQ on the Kodiak chassis, 1995 Coachmen 19' B-van and 1996 Precision 21' Sailboat
Iowa
Posts: 5,000
Quote:
Apparently my telling the truth, as I see it, has upset quite a few of you. I did not mean to. My wish was to point out the dire straights that our forests are in and our potential loss of the use of the forest that we all love.
This will be my last post on this subject as I do not wish to upset anyone any further.
John
John,

I don't think that encouraging a lively discussion about our national forests and the way they're managed is upsetting at all. There are a variety of views on how they should be managed, and I think it appropriate that we be able to discuss them intelligently and with open minds. Obviously some folks tend to be more passionate than others, but we all learn from the discussions. We can learn from both the good and bad things that have been done in the past to manage them, and perhaps find an appropriately balanced way to better manage them into the future, but unless we as the users of the forests understand how they've gotten to be the way they are, we can't understand what needs to be done to properly protect and manage them for posterity.

Roger
__________________
Roger H is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2006, 09:31 PM   #24
Senior Member
 
Byron Kinnaman's Avatar
 
Name: Byron
Trailer: 2006 Scamp 13' towed with a 2005 Dodge Dakota 4.7l Magnum W/full tow package (over kill)
Oregon
Posts: 6,307
Registry
I wasn't going to respond to this topic again, but....

The Forest Service is charged with managing a crop, trees. Many of the Forest Service Timber managers came from the timber industry. If they didn't come out of the timber industry they were good friends with those in the timber industry. The timber industry's goal is to cut down trees and sell timber products. Large machines were designed and built to cut down trees at an alarming rate. Laws were passed to control the amount of timber cut i.e. non-declining yield. The Forest Service and their timeber baron buddies chose to ignore the law. After many law suites the Forest Service was forced to reduce the amount of timeber cut to attempt to get back to the point they were supposed to . That couldn't be done, so the point was moved. There's still some time to go before non-declining yield can be reached.

As for forest fires, the main reason they do so much damage is the timber industry and Forest Service stopped all forest fires. Need to save the trees for the timber barons you know. Hence there has been a large build up of fuels on the forest floor. Fires have always been a part of nature. Most fires are natural, not caused by man. With the amount of fuels on the forest floor the fires burn very hot. Hot harder to fight, more damage to environment, etc.

As I recall the last times I wandered around a clear cut there was a lot of fuel on the ground. Not natural fuel but fuel left behind by the loggers. In fact it was practice to do "dirty logging" (Forest Service term not mine). Which meant leave all the branches on lying around on the ground.

The Forest Service also in the logging hay days attempted to build a road into as many places as they could to prevent more lands put into declared wilderness.

Mother nature took very good care of the forests, otherwise there wouldn't be "Old Growth" areas. Man interviened and still doesn't understand enough to know how to balance all the needs of man and nature.

I think we're getting better, and it's too bad that much of the timber industry had to be shut down, but I think it's the timber industry's influence on the Forest Service that cause the over harvest. Which had resulted in the timber industry being shut down 20 years before they ran out of trees.

It does take 300 years to grow a 300 year old tree. Most of those are long gone now.

I think you can really blame the mismanagement on three things.
First and far most, not fully understanding how nature works. We still got a ways to go.
Second. Greed of the timber industry. (you see the same thing in oil today)
Third. The increase in population and demands on the system.

So you have another point of view.

By the way every since the Forest Service has been publishing forest plans we've been studying them.
__________________
Byron & Anne enjoying the everyday Saturday thing.
Byron Kinnaman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-2006, 09:15 AM   #25
Senior Member
 
Name: Darwin
Trailer: 2002 19 ft Scamp 19 ft 5th Wheel
Posts: 3,029
Send a message via Yahoo to Darwin Maring
Just read in the US News, The Forest Service will start charging $50 on Oct 1 for people to get married in the Great smoky park (Tennessee - Carolina border) and said that just covers costs.

Just think of what the clean up will be after the wedding. Many people will just walk away and leave all the litter on the ground and think it is OK.

I certainly have no objection to them covering costs for such an occasion.
__________________
Darwin Maring is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-2006, 09:30 AM   #26
Senior Member
 
Al & Cindy K's Avatar
 
Name: Al
Trailer: Scamp
North Carolina
Posts: 403
In NC we're fortunate to have four National Forests; Croatan (coast), Uwharrie (central), Nantahala (southern mtns) and Pisgah (northern mtns). Over the past forty plus years, we've camped extensively in all of them. It has been my experience that the management of those lands with which I'm familiar has improved significantly over time. Many of the campgrounds have undergone major renovations, particularly to the bathroom facilities and the road system is in better condition than ever. Resource damage by timber harvesting, at least in my lifetime, has not been an issue although pictures I've seen from around the turn of the century indicate this has not always been the case. We've not had problems with the FS staff either. I'll admit they're not very proactive in dealing with the public but I've found them to helpful, knowledgeable and courteous when approached.

The following link provides some interesting statistics from 2005 for the National Forests in NC. Of particular note is that revenue from recreational activities exceeded that from timber harvesting.
http://www.cs.unca.edu/nfsnc/facts/forest_facts_05.pdf

For a government agency, they actually have a fairly decent home page http://www.cs.unca.edu/nfsnc/
Lots of emphasis on recreational activities can be found there.

Maybe we don't have the 'timber barons' here in the southeast but the Weyerhauser, Georgia-Pacific and Canal Wood operations that are local seem to do a decent job with their 'sustained yield' policy and, in my opinion, have proven to be good corporate neighbors. Believe it or not, they do understand that cutting down all the trees really isn't in their best interests.

FWIW, I don't work in the timber industry or have any ties to the US or NC Forest Service but my experiences with them has not be negative in the least. Just another point of view.


Al
__________________
Al & Cindy K is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-2006, 09:43 AM   #27
Senior Member
 
Byron Kinnaman's Avatar
 
Name: Byron
Trailer: 2006 Scamp 13' towed with a 2005 Dodge Dakota 4.7l Magnum W/full tow package (over kill)
Oregon
Posts: 6,307
Registry
Quote:
Just read in the US News, The Forest Service will start charging $50 on Oct 1 for people to get married in the Great smoky park (Tennessee - Carolina border) and said that just covers costs.

Just think of what the clean up will be after the wedding. Many people will just walk away and leave all the litter on the ground and think it is OK.

I certainly have no objection to them covering costs for such an occasion.

There sure seems to be a lot of confusion about federal services and lands. National Parks like the Great Smoky Mountain National Park (Key work PARK) are under the national Department of Interior. The National Forests (Key word FOREST) are under the Department of Agriculture. Two completely different goverment agencies, with two completely different missions.
__________________
Byron & Anne enjoying the everyday Saturday thing.
Byron Kinnaman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-2006, 12:45 PM   #28
Senior Member
 
Name: Darwin
Trailer: 2002 19 ft Scamp 19 ft 5th Wheel
Posts: 3,029
Send a message via Yahoo to Darwin Maring
I didn't know that however I do speculate that neither one of them have received enough funding to accomplish their mission.

This thread started off as a campsite in a National Forest. Sounds like the National Park Service and the National Forest service have some boundry issues. Why not let the forest people worry about the trees and let the park people worry about picknick tables and camp sites?
__________________

__________________
Darwin Maring is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Casita interior cushions clearance sale, Save big!!! Donna D. Classified Archives 9 10-29-2008 06:55 PM
Come on over to Forest City, IA Dave M Problem Solving | Owners Helping Owners 0 06-08-2006 06:27 AM
Forest Fires Legacy Posts General Chat 5 08-19-2003 10:24 PM
Forest Fires Legacy Posts General Chat 1 08-15-2003 11:55 PM
Desoto National Forest in MS Legacy Posts Rallies, Get-togethers, Molded Meets (Archive) 1 10-02-2002 04:38 PM

» Trailer Showcase

Siesta

DannyH

Bebe

MMiller
» Upcoming Events
No events scheduled in
the next 465 days.
» Virginia Campgrounds

Reviews provided by


Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:28 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.