AWorkingForestEmpire

if i really am successful at buying huge amounts of land in the millions of acres what do you think the land ownership should be and how should the lands be used? there are different setups and ill go into detail. some national forests have cabins that are leased to individuals while the land is collectively owned. some timber and organizations own the land themselves while the land is protected with conservation easements by the state or national government and the recreational rights are collectively owned so everyone gets public access. this setup may be best since it creates tax revenue but the downsides are it mite be hard for locals to get firewood. the disadvantages with national forests are their dependent on tax payers money and its hard for them to sell a log due to the environmental movement which would make them more self sufficient and rely less on tax dollars and charge for recreation. some working forests owned by timber company’s are state wildlife management areas but are protected with working forest conservation easements while the state does wildlife management on them and they are not fully public owned so it is a public private partnership. in a way i prefer the public private partnership for timberland because it sends more taxes into gov than gov spending to protect the land. this is why governments in New England prefer to just purchase easements for giant forest lands. so lets get a discussion on what people think is the best way to permanently protect wild places.

[BlueSky]

so lets get a discussion on what people think is the best way to permanently protect wild places.

Leave them alone.......................buy them and leave them alone.
James

Originally Posted by WhiteShaman

so lets get a discussion on what people think is the best way to permanently protect wild places.

Leave them alone.......................buy them and leave them alone.
James

In principle I agree, but where do you propose to find funding for same?

logging if done sustainable is not bad. blasting off mountain tops for coal andwhere the tree cant grow back is bad. the nature conservancy saved a 100,000 acre forest overnight in the Adirondacks simply by having it sustainably logged and they were able to send some over for wilderness protection thanks to the logging that made it possible. conservation needs some sort of economic incentive to go on.

It's a complicated issue TBC because forerst systems arenow impacted with invasive species, plant and animal which will change the nature of the forest.

The huge forest fires that are being experienced has much to do with the no burn policies of gov manigement. Large amounts of debris accumulates and becomes an unatural amount of fuel, killing species which are equipped and even prosper from normal fire.
Invasive plant species smother understories resulting in loss of habitat for native flora and fauna species.

If this is of concern to you contact the Nature Conservancy. They would do an assesment, and present a plan to both rectify and maintane a healthy enviroment with the aim of it becoming self sufficient. This is donewith the intrest and work of realy dedicated volunteers. The matter of private or public ownership is not a factor with them. By all means check thier record for restoring wildplaces that are globaly endangered, and have been recovered. They are equaly effective in keeping unspoiled places unspoiled.

Originally Posted by Sentientno1

It's a complicated issue TBC because forerst systems arenow impacted with invasive species, plant and animal which will change the nature of the forest.

The huge forest fires that are being experienced has much to do with the no burn policies of gov manigement. Large amounts of debris accumulates and becomes an unatural amount of fuel, killing species which are equipped and even prosper from normal fire.
Invasive plant species smother understories resulting in loss of habitat for native flora and fauna species.

If this is of concern to you contact the Nature Conservancy. They would do an assesment, and present a plan to both rectify and maintane a healthy enviroment with the aim of it becoming self sufficient. This is donewith the intrest and work of realy dedicated volunteers. The matter of private or public ownership is not a factor with them. By all means check thier record for restoring wildplaces that are globaly endangered, and have been recovered. They are equaly effective in keeping unspoiled places unspoiled.

i see you already know about the nature conservancy. We posted nearly at the same time.

[norseman]

Learn from what we went through in the UK this year. The governement planned to sell off publicly owned forests to private owners. We raised a huge petition and contributed to a fighting fund and the government backed down.
DO NOT TRUST POLITICIANS WHEN IT COMES TO NATURAL RESOURCES !

[Chrysaetos]

Originally Posted by ThoughtBroadcaster

so lets get a discussion on what people think is the best way to permanently protect wild places.

Ecotourism IMO..

Yes I know, there are bad sides of ecotourism, but that can be worked on. It is the future if you ask me.. How else are we going to 'protect' the wilderness?
Let nobody in because we are supposedly not a part of it, and just watch it on the tellie? No, people want to engage, be a part of it..

i came to the conclusion and public ownership is to costly and does not create a tax base and governments in Minnesota are complaining and trying to make sure the state does not buy any more land. conservation easements are the way to go since there is still not gov ownership and creates a tax base.

http://www.winonapost.com/stock/func...ge=1&archives=