Finished lumber products from high quality US grown timber !

Or be like a 3rd world country and ship our raw materials elsewhere and in return buy finished lumber products machined from punky, Asian peckerwood at places like IKEA.

I'm pretty sure the money being spent is not taxpayer money, but it is being given to the government, technically paying the taxpayers.

Being public land, we, the public, all have a say in what is done with the land, and there are other jobs and economic concerns at stake other than loggers and mills (though loggers and mills will likely be directly and not kindly affected, that's for sure, in an area that already has some serious unemployment issues).

Fish on...

Todd

It also looks like the usual push from those on the right to privatize everything takes a back seat when doing just that would affect their pocketbooks.

"Shrink government...unless it's part of the government that gives me money, in which case leave it alone..."

Fish on...

Todd

Would the loggers and mill workers be objecting to the big land grab if, say, Plum Creek or Rayonier were the ones buying the land? I doubt it.

Fish on...

Todd

If we let locals decide what to do with public lands throughout the country, public lands would be a wasteland right now.

The problem with your rationale is that public lands are just that; they're PUBLIC lands and belong to everyone. Everyone foots the bill for them, not just local loggers.

That said, I would find it aggravating that some numbskull in lower Manhattan would raise their opinions about what to do with public lands in my state, but I have to accept the fact that the lands belong to everyone.

Wolves on the other hand is a sticky issue. They used to belong to everyone, now they belong to the state of Idaho. Unfortunately Ari Goldbloom in NYC hasn't figured that out yet.

maybe we should shut down boeing. tear down all their plants replace with grass and trees.
the state would not need to build more freeways,tunnels and get rid of a lot of people.

I'm still undecided on this deal. I am trying to learn more about it so I can pick a side of the fence. There's no question that it stands to further damage what is already a badly suffering economy on the O.P., and as a resident of Grays Harbor County, I don't feel good about that. On the other hand, there does seem (on the surface) to be an opportunity to secure vital habitat for fish and the wildlife that depend on them, which the conservationist in me likes a good deal.

As for the sportsman in me, for the time being, he would like to see some proposals for ways in which this WOULD increase fishing and hunting access. If the area is to be labeled "wild and scenic," I doubt there will be plans to improve roads or provide new ones, and boat launches and the like also would seem like a bit of a contradiction. Also, there have been similar campaigns sold to a willing public in the recent past that have resulted in a net loss of opportunity for sportsmen. I don't have any real reason to believe that is what will happen here, but I think a bit of suspicion is prudent in the early going.

If I can be convinced that there are ways to improve our opportunities, money available for any projects, and something less than a major hit to local economies in the plan, perhaps I will jump on board. What we have so far is a broad concept that sounds great to a bunch of sportsmen concerned about protecting and enhancing the resources that support their favorite pastimes. Until we have an opportunity to dig into the details and sniff out any devils, we should be very careful about openly supporting this, in my opinion.

Never changes does it? Twenty years ago, every tree along 101 had a sign tacked to it saying "Leave the dams, get rid of the park."

Benefit to water quality, fish, and wildlife would be the difference between current management and whatever the new management scheme would be. You are not talking about going from no protection to 100% protection. Public lands already have some very restrictive regulations that are intended to maintain productive habitat. Incremental benefit there may be only slight or even negative for some things. IMO this seems to be more about aesthetics or expanding the park, with the fish and wildlife card thrown in to garner broader support.

my main concern is that it would end up as a playground for the "non consumptive user" segment. close all the roads, lock out the hunters and fishermen seems to be the order of the day.

logging is OK as long as it's done intelligently. weyco and rayonier should shoulder a lot of blame for what's screwed up out this way.

It's interesting to read some of the polarization in this thread. Those who have read my posts on this BB would understand that just as I'm not opposed to ALL hydropower, I'm also not opposed to all logging for the simple reason that society needs wood products just as it needs electrical energy.

What I am annoyed by are extreme points of view, such as let the locals decide. No way. First off, local decision making has a track record of large scale long term environmental destruction for short term profit, world wide. Second, if you're an OP resident, they are NOT YOUR rivers, your fish, your wildlife, nor your forests, excepting private forestlands. Get over yourself already. If you as locals had a track record of other than large scale environmental destruction and degradation, it's likely that the rest of the state and nation wouldn't be taking any interest in proposals like Wild Olympics. Further, so-called working forests have traditionally become monocultures that are less suitable wildlife habitat for most species other than blacktail deer. However, that is changing gradually since WA adopted its Timber-Fish-Wildlife plan in 1989 and the more recent Forest and Fish plan around 2001.

On the other hand, I'm not real pleased with the opposite extreme that locks up resources under preservation, rather than conservation, which are significantly different strategies. WA has the most progressive forest management laws in the world, as far as I know. Environmentalists say they don't go far enough, and timber companies say they render forest land unprofitable. That, in itself, suggests it might be just about right for achieving functional forests and rivers for fish and wildlife and a viable, but smaller, timber industry than we had through the 1980s that was on a roll to cut every standing stem from horizon to horizon.

So for now I'm officially undecided on this Wild Olympics campaign.

Sg

I guess seeing some of those names speaking out in support helps a bit, but do you see any mention of specific ways in which this will actually improve our access to these lands?

When the trees fell in 2006 and 2007 windstorms in the Colonel Bob Wilderness, blocking access to trails, the "wilderness" designation hindered the clearing of those trails and added significantly to the fire danger.

The Fed. fire crews didn't go in and crosscut them out? That's what we had to do any time we weren't on fires and needed project work... nothing like days spent crosscutting logs out of trails miles into the boonies...

+1

If "locals" didn't have such a crappy track record of doing anything for the environment other than use it up as fast and messily as possible, not only screwing the environment and the rest of us who also own it, but screwing their own long term economic benefits from it, I might have more trust in "locals" to take care of all of our lands.

Fish on...

Todd

This is just another example of government B.S. They write up a bill in such a way that they can manipulte what it says to fit thier actual motives. They say access will improve but dont say in what way. I highly doubt there will be any access impacts as far as hiking in is concened. It will definately mean more locked gates and roads being closed for drive in access, blocking out the young, elderly, and dissabled.

All new logging in the areas designated will cease which means no more clearcuts to feed the OP deer and elk herds. The impact that will have on deer, elk, and bear hunting in the area goes without saying.

Last on the "Land Grab" issue my question is....
Are the land owners going to have a choice to sell or is the government going to just come in and take it off thier hands at whatever value the gov. thinks is appropriate?

If that is the case then I understand the "land grab" phrase.

As for the timber industry, it is already in a dire state in the U.S. My family has been in the industry for 50 years and it has never been as tough as it is right now. The value of lumber will not go up until the housing construction industry comes back, which isnt showing any indication of improvement in the near future. If not for much of or WA state lumber is currently being exported to China and other parts of Asia towns like Forks would already be whipped off the map.

I like the conservation idea, but as usual the plans lack details and explanation to the public.

Trails are used to access the wilderness areas, and were built and maintained by the USFS for years. One storm comes along and now you just abandon that area? Seems like a waste of resources for all of those years prior to the storm, doesn't it?

Should a fire start in the area blocked off by the no longer usable trail, the loss of additional forest would occur. Also, since this wilderness area backs up to private property, the opportunity for greater damage to more of these property owners exists, as the fire/fires would have an opportunity to grow larger in size because the lack of trail access for the firefighters to get the fire.

It also makes it a more dangerus situation for smoke jumpers, as their avenues of escape have a greater chance of being blocked when trail maintenance is not allowed by any other means than human powered hand saws. Chainsaws are not allowed unless you go through a years long permit process.

Abandonment is not wise use. Conservation is.

rawhide, government isn't buying the land...they're selling it...

I have some issues with this debate right now...because I am constantly annoyed by people using one scary possibility to prove their point, when they probably don't care about it, or it isn't likely to happen, rather than just say what they want.

The whole woods will burn up, the elderly will be excluded, handicapped people can only look at the woods online, hunting will disappear...if you have some reason to think that, then fine...but if what you are really concerned about is the money to be made off a "working forest", then just say that and be honest about it.

Fish on...

Todd

+ an emphatic 1.

Uninformed knee jerk reactions are tiring, frustrating, and a waste of everyone's time. From what I gather, some facts and methodology are needed to support claims made by the proposed management plan. These types of planning process typically start much as this one has, with a group putting forth a certain set of proposed or hoped for ideals and conditions, management goals if you will. Then, hopefully through some well crafted public process, the steps and processes to achieve those goals are created.