US Forestry service plan for Pisgah and Nat. Forests

[misterfloyd]

hello to all:

This is come to my attention. The US Forestry service is planning to open 700,000 acres of Pisgah and Natahala forest to logging, mineral extraction, as well as fracking.

Here are some good articles and places to start to have you voices heard:

http://wildsouth.org/forest-service-...la-to-logging/

http://wnca.org/usfsloggingnationalforest/

http://www.friendsofbigivy.org/

When I heard about this I was mad beyond measure. I have never been an activist but for this I'm sending emails left and right. Please do not think that someone else will do it. Email the forestry service, contact your legislators in this area. The information is very easy to find. Even if it is a small paragraph.

This has consequences beyond NC and the AT.

We need numbers and a voice. I hope all consider it.

Best Regards,
Floyd

[Abatis1948]

What was that that others had to say when I posted this could happen in our public lands? Can’t happen, they said! Folks it can and will happen and it may already be too late to change this in the Pisgah and Natahala forest. Let your voice be heard. Let folks know these places exist and encourage folks to hike the AT and visit these forests. The more folks who know about this the more voice we have in stopping it and/or preventing it.

[Abatis1948]

Here is an example of some of our Florida State Forest lands being taken over: http://www.wctv.tv/home/headlines/Pr...221701781.html

It is a done deal for Black Water State Forest and Tate's Hell by the time this meeting was held. Film at eleven!

[Spit Walker]

wow how sad.

[Abatis1948]

For those of you who are not familiar with the Nantahala and the Pisgah start here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nantahala_National_Forest
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pisgah_National_Forest


This is my last post on this thread today. I might say I am surprised others have not posted on this very important issue.

[misterfloyd]

Well if you want to know where this is all coming from always follow the money trail. As a resident of NC there has been a big political shift. Where one party is very well known for not being concerned about the enviroment. Personally I vote for common sensce and I personally do not see it. These areas make a great deal of money from tourism and I have meet many people from the lower 48 who come here to enjoy the area.

I really hope that people realize the gravity of the situation here, and I would venture to guess, that something along these lines are happening in other parts of this country as well.

I always thought the forestry service was the "good guys." Hence the reason why I have contacted my senators, and representatives, state and federal.

I hope others do the same.

[One Half]

looks like we need to get 'active' and fight this. I wonder what is the best way to do so

[misterfloyd]

I have never been an activist in the strictest sense of the word.

I would like to know the best way besides what I'm doing at the moment.

AT Traveler, I believe you are right.

The worse thing is to do nothing.

Floyd.

[peakbagger]

Much as some folks want to get out the torches and pitchforks, these are national forests not national parks. The links supplied in the OP appear to be highly biased and use plenty of hyperbole. Unlike a national park, national forests are managed for multiple use and that includes logging and even resource extraction. There is active logging in the Whites as well as designated wilderness areas and to most folks they don't realize when they are hiking through. Wildlife populations tend to be much more diverse and active in areas of regrowth which logging creates.

Unless the rules are different between different national forests every cut has to be extensively researched prior to commencement and then monitored post cut. Granted in the short term any major logging cut looks ugly for a few years after the cut but not any different if a natural disturbance like a fire hit. Give it five years and there is extensive regrowth and a much expanded wildlife base and 20 years down the road there will be new healthy forest. It has gotten to the point in the whites that in some districts, the national forest intentionally does 5 to 20 acres clear cut where no wood is extracted to encourage a diverse wildlife base.

The major issue that these types of battles come down to is that groups are trying to force a national forest into a national park indirectly by removing the multiple use designation of a National Forest. The White Mountain National Forest used to be ringed by wood products manufacturers of many types supplying many products and full time jobs for the local population. Over the years the whites has been pushed into more of the "Boston National Park" and the volume of harvests have dropped significantly. Many if not most of the woods product facilities have shut down creating a long term unemployment issue in the region. Seasonal homes have moved in and the inevitable tourist based economy has moved into some areas but seasonal tourist based jobs are no substitute for the previous full time woods products jobs. A byproduct of the seasonal home invasion are developers that starve out the local wood industry and sell the lots abutting the National Forest as seasonal lots. Once that happens, there are a group of retires that move into the area and have nothing better to do but create programs to save the woods not realizing that the woods they are looking at have been cut 3 or 4 times.

I popular bumper sticker in the area when the whites were under pressure from the ban logging movement was "if you object to logging try using plastic toiler paper".

[Traveler]

The major issue that these types of battles come down to is that groups are trying to force a national forest into a national park indirectly by removing the multiple use designation of a National Forest. The White Mountain National Forest used to be ringed by wood products manufacturers of many types supplying many products and full time jobs for the local population. Over the years the whites has been pushed into more of the "Boston National Park" and the volume of harvests have dropped significantly. Many if not most of the woods product facilities have shut down creating a long term unemployment issue in the region. Seasonal homes have moved in and the inevitable tourist based economy has moved into some areas but seasonal tourist based jobs are no substitute for the previous full time woods products jobs. A byproduct of the seasonal home invasion are developers that starve out the local wood industry and sell the lots abutting the National Forest as seasonal lots. Once that happens, there are a group of retires that move into the area and have nothing better to do but create programs to save the woods not realizing that the woods they are looking at have been cut 3 or 4 times.

I popular bumper sticker in the area when the whites were under pressure from the ban logging movement was "if you object to logging try using plastic toiler paper".

Hyperbole aside, I think the issue goes beyond managed forest harvesting alone, though the White Mountain NF has a fair amount of old growth forest that I'm sure loggers eye longingly. Some forest, specifically old growth stands that can be preserved should be, especially in the northeastern US given their scarcity. That said, forest husbandry should be employed to ensure new growth stands are able to sustain some industry. The timber industry was slow to embrace this until fairly recently (in historical context) and are now seeing the results of this prove beneficial to their longevity.

The issue of fracking is, or should be, more of a concern. Despite assurances its perfectly safe, even the oil/gas industry admits it taints about 7% of the wells in areas where fracking is taking place. If wells are tainted, that means water aquifers are, which is a serious issue. Never mind recent association with the chemical injections causing lateral earth shifting in OH and illegal dumping of fuels and other chemicals that are being discovered. We are all "downstream".

"Oil and gas companies illegally injected 9,173 gallons of diesel while fracking wells in Colorado, and 32,950 gallons nationwide, according to a report unveiled Wednesday by an attorneys' environmental group. Fracking with diesel without a permit has been illegal since at least 1997, and industry groups have said companies no longer do it." Denver Post 8/14/2014

So much for corporate assurances, hyperbole runs two ways. Though there is a balance, without an energetic defense of national forests, the better financed and politically lubricated oil/gas industry's energetic pursuit of exploitable resources on land it does not own nor would be responsible for cleaning up would see little resistance.

Hyperbole exits in these and other issues, as exampled in asserting retirees have nothing better to do than create road blocks to industry or selective posting of links that cast all industry as bad guys. Assurances mean very little given the history of industry in the US and the fairly constant erosion of EPA whenever politicians can, it all comes down to responsible use. As was pointed out there are rules that govern timber harvesting that do allow room for old growth forest to remain untouched, much as there are rules that are supposed to prevent industry from acting badly. Neither will work well without robust conversation and oversight by independent groups.

Just my two cents.

[Slo-go'en]

I doubt there are any "old growth forest" other then a few trees in some very inaccessible places anywhere in NH or Maine. Vermont was 90% deforested when sheep framing was big in the 1800's and NH was pretty much stripped bare too.

Anyway, logging has been a traditional use of National Forest land since forever. Trees grow back, eventually. Fracking on the other hand is getting way out of control. It seems they want to deplete this resource as quickly as possible and it doesn't take long before they have to move on to another area. Good luck stopping it though, the oil and gas lobby is pretty powerful in Washington, especially now with the new congress.

[DSettahr]

I concur with those suggesting that a complete ban on timber harvesting within National Forests might not be appropriate.

As a society, we depend upon forest products. Whether knowingly or unknowingly, we drive the demand for those products simply by reading books or newspapers, or living in and using buildings constructed of timber, or using the electricity that is brought to us atop wooden utility poles. National Forests were founded on the basis that they would provide multiple uses- not just recreation, and not just timber production.


The implementation of modern forestry practices and silvicultural techniques that are based upon sound scientific understanding of forest ecosystems can ensure minimal ecological and social impacts from timber harvesting, and can virtually ensure timely regeneration of the next cohort of trees, as well as ensuring long term ecologic integrity. I think that it is more than reasonable to expect that the US Forest Service would apply these techniques, and that they should be held accountable if they fail to do so. But to expect that no harvesting would take place is, I think, unrealistic.

[shakey_snake]

If the Saudi's keep oil under a $100 a barrel, I'm not sure we have much to worry about.

[Alleghanian Orogeny]

Well if you want to know where this is all coming from always follow the money trail. As a resident of NC there has been a big political shift. Where one party is very well known for not being concerned about the enviroment. Personally I vote for common sensce and I personally do not see it. These areas make a great deal of money from tourism and I have meet many people from the lower 48 who come here to enjoy the area.

I really hope that people realize the gravity of the situation here, and I would venture to guess, that something along these lines are happening in other parts of this country as well.

I always thought the forestry service was the "good guys." Hence the reason why I have contacted my senators, and representatives, state and federal.

I hope others do the same.

Surely you know that NATIONAL Forests are owned and administered by the Federal Government. The party in power in North Carolina has zero to do with the long term multiple use plans developed by the US Department of Agriculture through its National Forest Service administrative teams of professional land managers.

Peakbagger has it dead right: National Forests are not National Parks. National Forests are specifically owned and administered by the Federal government under the multiple use doctrine. Logging, mining, and oil and gas extraction, even (gasp!) by hydraulic fracturing have been allowed and must be allowed under the very essence of multiple use. The same mandate applies to recreational use, where hiking, backpacking, hunting, fishing, cycling, OHV use, paddling, etc, etc must be accomodated. The Pisgah and the Nantahala NFs are in that sense no different than the Beaverhead-Deerlodge NF in Montana or any of the other dozens of NF units.

If folks want a friendly ear when advocating for preservation of or additions to National Parks and designated wilderness areas, many of which are in fact carved out of National Forests, may I suggest that knee-jerk "the sky is falling" outcries whenever the National Forest Service is merely doing it's job has the effect of turning important and helpful people full-on against preservationists. Silliness like implying the NC General Assembly and the Governor of NC have powers over the long-term use plans for NF units in our state does the same.

AO

[Traveler]

Silliness like implying the NC General Assembly and the Governor of NC have powers over the long-term use plans for NF units in our state does the same.

AO

Agreed. We all know its SC Governors who seek carnal power walks on the "Ol Appalachian Trail".