Environmentalists Call for Fair Grazing Fees
redoak at forestmeister.com
Sun Mar 14 07:43:58 EST 1999
> In response to the first part of your question, yes there are still some
> rangelands that are in poor condition. Many of the abuses of the past will
> take a very long time to heal. Another issue is how range land is classified.
> It is classifed in poor, fair, good or excellent condition. Those names
> reflect the vegetative makeup of the plant community and may not reflect the
> cultural value of the rangeland. I know many rangeland situations that are
> actually managed for fair or good condition. As for the second part, there are
> many people who feel that all federal lands should be managed for
> non-consumptive uses (i.e. recreation) alone. However, many of the federal
> lands are meant to be managed for natural resource utilization and recreation
> is supposed to be a sideline. I know for instance that the organic act of the
> Forest Service says that the forest service is to manage lands for timber
> conservation and watershed stability...PERIOD.
> I do not mean to rant and rave about those who wish that federal lands are to
> managed for recreation but at least timber harvesting and grazing pay a part of
> their way. I cannot ever recall the Sierra Club asking their members to donate
> for the recreation uses of the national forests. But I could be wrong.
Actually, on federal land, timber does NOT pay it's way. The USFS lost a
billion bucks last year. Grazing pay its way? Not at all. The pennies
grazers pay do not cover the cost of the damage. Recreation uses do NOT
cause damage to the public lands; or at least, very little.
> Enough of my ranting. I hope this clears some things up.
Joe Zorzin, Practicing Forester
z-mail is HOT
More information about the Ag-forst