Dave & Marcia wrote in message
...
It seems that private forest lands are operaterated and maintained in
better
condition then federal lands. Why not lease these federal lands to private
companies? The companies would have a vested stake in their proper upkeep.
That would seem to be a better outcome for all.

Any opinions?

I recently spent a couple of weeks traveling the length of California -- saw
lots of
privately-owned and federally-owned forests. On balance, the
privately-owned
forestlands did not appear to be in any better condition than the
publicly-owned
lands. Private lands suffer from the effects of fire-supression just as
much as
public lands do. Drive the highway from Redding through Shingletown on
the way to Lassen Park. You'll hit forest long before you reach the
national
forest boundary. And what you'll see is miles and miles of over-stocked,
overgrown *private* forestland. In the mix, I'm sure that you can find
some nicely manicured commercial forest. But even the commercial
forestland is typically densely stocked with lots of not-so-large trees, and
given the same extreme conditions seen in Colorado and Arizona last
summer, could easily be consumed in a crown-fire.

Privately-owned forest land isn't any more immune to wildfire than is public
land. From San Diego County to Lassen County, there are large
stretches of over-grown, overstocked, brush-choked privately-owned
land just waiting to go up in smoke.








-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----