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! =-----

Larry Caldwell wrote in message
...
In article ,
writes:

Well, I just guess ole Colorado does things differently than you
parts:


http://www.insidedenver.com/drmn/sta...1509465,00.htm
l

Habitat loss blamed for birds' decline
Audubon Society assessment lists 39 species frequently found in state

By Gary Gerhardt, Rocky Mountain News
October 29, 2002

As farmland gives way to housing, and timber is cleared to make roads,
39 bird species are losing their native habitats in Colorado.

We were discussing forest land, not urban sprawl. Of course cities
sterilize the ground they are built on. A nuclear explosion would be
easier on the wildlife of an area than a housing development. The
natural environment recovered on Bikini Atoll after the H-bomb tests, and
it only took about 20 years. If you build a city on it, you are looking
at environmental destruction that will persist for centuries.


Actually, one could argue that the H-bomb tests greatly *benefited* the
environment there (after the initial disruption) by chasing out the
fishermen.
As a result of several decades of relief from fishing pressure, the Bikini
Atoll region has become a showcase of marine-life diversity.
The harmful effects of increased background radiation, ironically, appear
to be more than offset by the fact that radiation scared off all
the humans!

In a similar vein, the area around the Chernobyl nuclear plant has
become quite a spectacular wildlife refuge. Once again, the fact
that the radiation has chased the humans out has more than offset
whatever harmful effects the radiation has had on the wildlife there!

I'm not sure how Greenpeace would spin this!

Larry Caldwell wrote in message t...
In article ,
writes:

Well, I just guess ole Colorado does things differently than you
parts:

http://www.insidedenver.com/drmn/sta...509465,00.html

Habitat loss blamed for birds' decline
Audubon Society assessment lists 39 species frequently found in state

By Gary Gerhardt, Rocky Mountain News
October 29, 2002

As farmland gives way to housing, and timber is cleared to make roads,
39 bird species are losing their native habitats in Colorado.

We were discussing forest land, not urban sprawl. Of course cities
sterilize the ground they are built on. A nuclear explosion would be
easier on the wildlife of an area than a housing development. The
natural environment recovered on Bikini Atoll after the H-bomb tests, and
it only took about 20 years. If you build a city on it, you are looking
at environmental destruction that will persist for centuries.

Well I hate to tell you this = but there is massive development on the
forested front range in Colorado! Most of it, and on the plains, that
birds and a lot mammals need for lower range existence druing winter!

And in a lot of the higher forests, the lower valleys are composed of
inholdings which can be very well developed!

In fact, the concept on critical habitat is that in times of very
heavey environmental stress, there are few areas that provides the
needs of large mammals during such times! Most of these areas are on
lower land which is mainly privately held and developed!



Unfortunately, urban development is exempt from most environmental
regulation.