Is there really a good reason to have small inaccessible holdings inside Ted Turners property for example? Pieces less than 50 acres that have been inaccessible for over 100 years?
I can't think of any. No way the public ever gets access to those pieces. Try forcing access on people like that and you will lose badly in court.
The real question at this point is this. Is there anything that the USDA could do to make you believe they are incompetent? They get less than 10% of the value for the grazing resource they are in charge of and Timber is likely a similar story with almost no income but with huge firefighting costs to compound not selling/thinning the overgrown timber. I think it's pretty obvious that no matter what they do some folks will stand behind them and claim nobody could do better but a reasonable person can look at the job they are doing and give an honest evaluation without letting personal interest and emotion get involved.
You guys dodge my questions over and over because you don't like the answer because it proves my point.
At what point is the income per AUM for grazing low enough below market value for you to consider other options of managing the grazing resource?
How many acres of federal land would need to burn this summer for you to believe they have failed at managing the timber resource?
I don't believe anyone is dodging your questions, I surely wont dodge them.
For starters, the State and Feds have both made trades with Turner, I know this first hand since I worked for TEI from 1998-2001 managing wetlands/riparian habitat on 2 of TEI's ranches. The State of Montana made an awesome trade with TEI that blocked up and increased the size of the Robb/Ledford Creek WMA. TEI was very generous in that particular trade and was a huge win for winter range. I also know that both the Feds and State made some trades on the flying D. There are good reasons to not trade some inholdings as well for the State, in particular if the section(s) in question are generating revenue from oil and gas development, grazing, or timber resources. In many cases the DNRC still has access to those lands, even if the public does not. Since there is no mandate for the state to manage for recreation, public access, or even wildlife, there isn't a reason from an economic standpoint for the State to sell landlocked pieces. Another reason to keep inholdings is for the potential value they hold in the future for trades or for selling.
As far as your grazing and timber questions...well, I think the best place to start, is at the start, and that's looking at FS and BLM policy and mandates.
As to grazing, the policy that was implemented in regard to grazing fees was done by congress. You are misguided in blaming the BLM for not charging enough for grazing. While I somewhat agree with you on that issue, the bottom line is that the BLM did not set the policy that mandates the price of AUM's. If you want to change that, I suggest you take that up with your congressional delegation and blame the group that: 1. put the policy in place. 2. That has the authority to change it. Finally, there is no federal mandate that says the BLM is to manage anything to maximize profit from grazing. However, there are policies in place that compel the BLM to follow mandates, regulations, etc. that they must follow, things that cost a lot of money to administer (fire fighting, road maintenance, water quality, riparian health, etc.). In a lot of cases, the States are not required to pay for any of those items.
As to the timber on FS, they are required to follow the MUSYA, and in that act it specifically says that "“harmonious and coordinated management of the various resources, each with the other, without impairment of the productivity of the land, with consideration being given to the relative values of the various resources, and not necessarily the combination of uses that will give the greatest dollar return or the greatest unit output.” Multiple use implies a sustained yield of outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed, and wildlife and fish values." It goes on further in regard to sustained Yield “achievement and maintenance in perpetuity of a high level of annual or regular periodic output of the various renewable resources of the national forests without impairment of the productivity of the land.”
This act compels the FS to give equal consideration to all uses of our National Forests, not just timber, not just wildlife, not just range. It further clarifies that by stating, right in the act itself, that the consideration of management for any particular piece of land will not come down to simple economics.
Its a pretty lame argument to say the FS has failed at managing timber, under the laws, again enacted by congress, I think they've done the job they are required to do. Have there been mistakes? Yes, in some cases, they have probably logged areas they shouldn't have, in others they probably haven't logged enough. But, if the FS were to follow your imagined mandate, that the government should run like a business, there would have been ZERO consideration given to the other resources defined in the MUSYA of 1960. I'm glad that wildlife, watersheds, range, and recreation have been, and are continuing to receive, equal consideration under the Law on federal lands.
Also, as to your "thinning" comments, that works in fantasyland but not in reality, in particular in regard to this most recent Mountain Pine Beetle infestation. A vast majority of pine beetle kill is dominated by Pinus Contorta, lodgepole pine. There is no thinning lodgepole, its either clearcut or leave it alone. Lodgepole replaces itself through stand replacing disturbance, fires, I&D outbreaks, etc. It creates a mono-culture of even aged trees that depend on each other for stability and resistance to wind-throw. Thinning lodgepole is an exercise in futility and a totally wrong headed approach that clearly defines a lack of basic forestry knowledge.
This latest round of beetle kill was also not helped by market factors either. This all happened when soft-wood markets were at a low point due to the recession, combined with high fuel costs, and slow housing starts. Of course theres also NAFTA, that created a situation in the softwood market, where it was cheaper to import raw veneer from Canada to U.S. mills, than to log NF, State, and private lands. This was really a "perfect storm" of bad timing, drought, and vast acreages of lodgepole that fell into the perfect requirement for a MPB outbreak (determined by size, age, and elevation of the LPP forests).
All of this leads to the exact reason that I never want to see transfer of public lands is because there is no State mandates and policies that give equal consideration to the various resources found on public lands. Consideration absolutely needs to be defined in statute, law, regulation, and policy if we are to have any chance at having wildlife, hunting, fishing, and recreation...it simply has to or it will be ignored. There is NO question that the States are not considering recreation, hunting, fishing, and wildlife with many of its decisions regarding their holding...and by State Mandate they aren't required to. I'm fine with that, but I'm also fine with the job being done on Federal Lands to give equal consideration to resources found on same.
