Thanks for the update. I think the issue of protecting our wilderness areas is one that crosses ALL political lines. Let's all fight to keep our natural heritage safe for future generations!

We can't log, so there's loss of income and jobs. Those folks have families and go on welfare. The logging industry gets more of its work outsourced. We can't drill offshore or even build another refinery, so the cost of everything goes up and up and up, and billions of US dollars go to the far east in exchange for their oil, further eroding US buying power. The "environmentalists" who promote this kind of thinking have worked for decades to eliminate public use by hunters and off-roaders of the land THEY own as Americans. Now of course that these problems are affecting everyone, suddenly it's a crisis. Give me a break! the government owns the majority of all the land in the US. I think it's time they gave some back, especially to paying customers. Just one man's opinion! : )

I think there are extremists on both sides of the issue. There are those who think the land, all of it, is there for the taking. Then there are those who support plans to make entire wilderness areas off limits to all human traffic. I'm against both. Surely we can strike a balance between our need to harvest materials from the Earth and be responsible inhabitants.

I'm not against logging. But let's not sell off amazing old growth forests and giant chunks of land at wholesale. As for drilling, we should be harvesting hemp for biodiesel and trying to get off the teet of the Middle Eastern oil barrons.

I just wanna go camping...

Less than a third of the U.S. is publicly owned and most of that is open to logging, road-building, mining, grazing, military uses, and other destructive practices. Each year the U.S. population grows by about 3 million and it will hit 300 million this coming October. This means the amount of recreational land per capita grow less by the minute and now Bush wants to make it worse.

Bush should find a better way to pay for his wars than selling off the public lands.

For sure, I've seen clear logging; that's where they come in and cut everything and just leave a barren landscape. Then maybe plant some junk, quick growing pines. And I can tell you that's not the answer!

We need some good planning on harvesting our timber on public owned lands. Problem is getting the folks in there that will do the good planning vs those who would rape the land in the name of more profits for the favored few.

Folks, we are in serious trouble in this country today with our politicians and policy makers who are already bought off by the special interest lobbyist. I have deep concerns for the future of our national forests.

Dale

It was the Indians who invented clear-cutting in North America to enable crops to grow. And all the large lumber corporations rotate their stands of trees as without them there would be no lumber industry. Regulations have already changed the redwood industry - the stuff sold today is junk that won't last generations like the old-growth of the past. I'm happy to buy non-redwood for fencing and such as "doing my part". BTW, there are more trees growing today than when the whites came aboard. Don't fall for the liberal cry-baby stuff. My first work was in timber harvesting, I know a little bit about the industry.

Only about 4% of our lumber comes from the National public lands so stopping logging there even completely would have little impact on lumber supplies. If our politicians stopped catering to the special interests of the timber lobbyists they would once again make it legal for farmers to grow industrial hemp to fuel our paper mills, construction industry, clothing, food industry, etc. Unfortunate the farming interests can't hire as many lobbyists, lawyers, and pay for as many "educational" junkets as the timber lobby.

The nonsense about more trees growing now than 400 years ago is meaningless. The diverse hardwood and slow growing species are being wiped out and replaced with fast growing aspen and conifers to placate the timber lobbyists. This changes the whole makeup of life in the forests. It is the biodiversity of the forest system and quality that counts not an increasingly monoculture crop for special interests.

Hemp telephone poles! Hemp dart boards! Hemp Ladders! 1st Quality Hemp here! Heh, heh! Good one Broca. I'm one to belive that changing nature and the globe is one heck of a lot more complicated. And I think that good people can manage our resources without kicking out every user. I'm one to pick up a glass togetehr now and then, but I'm not drinking this Kool-Aid. : )

Honestly, I don't know what the answer is. I do agree with a lot of the opinions put here on both sides of the issue. I can tell you without a doubt that the part of Maine that I spend my summers is mostly owned by Mead paper company. Part of the reason that the land stays undeveloped and natural is that it is owned with by the paper companies. They do logging and really the only evidence is the occasional roads and the trucks coming out. Sometimes very early in the morning you can hear the chainsaws. However, they don't clear cut and the land is guaranteed to stay undeveloped. They own it and it is in their interest to let the trees grow. However, where I live in Southern NJ it is quickly being developed. Where once there was all farm lands is now all housing developments. Very soon and the garden state can no longer be called the garden state. So, quite honestly, are we barking up the wrong tree here? I don't know. Just a question to put out there for you all.

The majority of the "timber companies" are selling their lands due to high ownership costs and possibly ownership battles with environmentalists, tree huggers and the like. They're not too interested in who purchases them either. Some of the same do-gooders have been very active in regulating other US providers of food and fiber in order to protect our environment. Although they have or show very little concern over what products are produced or how they are produced through the outsourcing. It is proven that much of the food and fiber produced outside of the US is done so using methods and products that cannot be used here. Due to much of this type of attitude by these activists the knowledge and desire to produce needed food and fiber could be lost in the US. If the food and fiber we depend upon for our life is produced outside of the US at cheaper costs due to more lax environmental and labor laws wemight find ourselves at the mercy of other counties.

There are now strict land use laws concerning logging (might not have been there in the 80's but now they are). What you talk about in stripping or raping the land is not an issue for most areas. People need to be able to support themsleves and their families but no one wants them to do so because a tree might be harvested. Sustainable logging works. The National Forests are being sold where urban sprawl is bumping up against it... It's not willie nillie process that is being done, not sure where you live but if you haven't personally seen this than a trip might be in order. It's great to have an opinion but make sure you aren't only looking at things one sided. Schools need funding - if not any forest project work than where will the money come from? Most don't want to raise their taxes to fund what once logging did.

I can say that the forest being proposed for sale in the west is being chosen in an adult and knowledgable manner. Not one campsite is being sold... Would rather see a forest be useful and managed properly than have all the trees die (which you know they do) and fall on the ground creating a worse fire danger... I believe people are more important than trees but they can both live in a non-radical environment.

Echoes, preach it brother!! : )