PDA

View Full Version : Regarding the National Forest System



OneDoesNotSimplyWalk
02-01-2017, 23:48
I hate to intrude, but I have to get this out there somehow. After discovering the Appalachian Trail, my views on conservancy have changed greatly and there is hardly any greater issue in my mind.

Recently Press Secretary Spice when asked if the President would promote aggressive logging of our National Forests and reduce funding to the USFS for fighting forest fires Spicer replied by saying jobs would take precedence over conservancy. The AT being part of the USFS and after the recent damage to the trail due to forest fires I was shocked at this response. I do not consider this a partisan issue and hope that you will show your support for our national forests and ask for an official statement from the white house.

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/demand-statement-regarding-protection-united-states-forests

Thank you for your time!

OneDoesNotSimplyWalk
02-01-2017, 23:51
The white house petition only needs 150 signatures by March 3 to become viewable on the white house website (So the American people can weigh in) and your support is much appreciated!

OneDoesNotSimplyWalk
02-02-2017, 01:00
Signing only requires less than a minute and a valid email!

FreeGoldRush
02-02-2017, 08:19
If I understand correctly the text at the link you provided, it appears you are concerned because Spicer did not reject something that someone else said. People say crazy stuff all the time in an effort to create news. Just because someone said something and the Whitehouse did not choose to address it, that does not therefore make what was said the position of the Whitehouse.

If there is some specific position from Trump or someone close to him about mowing down our forests to create jobs, then please post a link. But as of now I really do not believe that is their position.

Alleghanian Orogeny
02-02-2017, 08:44
Everyone can benefit from independent reading about the history of National Forests and their present-day uses as public lands as defined by statute, regulation, and case law. A very highly simplified summary is NFs are "multiple use lands" where recreational users, mining, oil and gas development, timber production, and other commercial activities are all intended to coexist. Yes, there are dedicated Wilderness areas within some NFs, and good for that. But outside of dedicated Wilderness areas and Wilderness study areas, and the like, we should expect to share the NFs with other wholly legitimate users of these publicly-owned resources. They're not, after all, National Parks or even National Monuments, each of which has highly restricted use as defined by statute, regulation, and case law.

AO