Dismantling of the USFS

[dflett68]

I think the ultimate goal is to transfer management to the states. Unfortunately some states won’t have the dollars to do so, which will likely lead to the sale and privatization of public lands.
SF

the penultimate goal is a transfer of management.

the ultimate goal is a transfer of public wealth.

 

[Flymph]

Multiple posters have invoked “climate change” as a driver of increased wildfire activity thus implying that any change to USFS organization and funding will ultimately result in more fires and their adverse result. They claim wildfires are increasing because of climate change. Although the earth’s climate is in constant flux and has been for eons, it is conveniently cited as the bogey man for efforts to impose a “green” agenda and demonize any effort to take a more reasonable approach to a changing climate. It prompted the following disconnected and admittedly a bit facetious thoughts.

One of the most often stated retorts in climate change discussions is: “The Science is Settled”. If such is the case, why is there such angst over closing research centers? What’s the logic for “Settled science” needing more research. Of course, science is never settled but it is a convenient argument.

A statement as one poster has made: “ Wildfire seasons lengthen due to Climate Change and are managed and fought by dwindling resources.”. As I dug into this I stumbled on to an interesting antidote where the National Interagency Fire Center (NIFC) was caught hiding actual fire history data that contradicted the current green agenda.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/05...y-national-interagency-fire-center-nifc_fire/

The two interesting points about this was the obvious sustained drop in fire activity during the “Fire Suppression” regimes by US fire agencies and the obvious uptick in fire activity when those regimes began operating under “green, environmental goals” instead of resource protection. One must also deduce by looking at the actual date hidden by the NIFC was that manmade CO2 induced climate change was far worse in the 19th and early 20th century. Thankfully the USFS fixed that during most of the 20th century until the greens went off the rails.

View attachment 181468

Mike: A quick fact check summary on "Watts up with That" reveals the following:

Overall, we rate Watts Up with That a strong pseudoscience and conspiracy website based on promoting consistent human-influenced climate denialism propaganda and several failed fact checks.

I have not looked up thier sponsors but I would bet they are extraction industry folks who have spent billions on promoting Climate Change denialism. I am going to stick with NOAA, NASA, and those folks who are out there fighting fires when it comes to longer fire seasons caused by Climate Change. Sounds like we agree the planet is warming but will continue to disagree on the causes.

 

[Dustin Chromers]

Multiple posters have invoked “climate change” as a driver of increased wildfire activity thus implying that any change to USFS organization and funding will ultimately result in more fires and their adverse result. They claim wildfires are increasing because of climate change. Although the earth’s climate is in constant flux and has been for eons, it is conveniently cited as the bogey man for efforts to impose a “green” agenda and demonize any effort to take a more reasonable approach to a changing climate. It prompted the following disconnected and admittedly a bit facetious thoughts.

One of the most often stated retorts in climate change discussions is: “The Science is Settled”. If such is the case, why is there such angst over closing research centers? What’s the logic for “Settled science” needing more research. Of course, science is never settled but it is a convenient argument.

A statement as one poster has made: “ Wildfire seasons lengthen due to Climate Change and are managed and fought by dwindling resources.”. As I dug into this I stumbled on to an interesting antidote where the National Interagency Fire Center (NIFC) was caught hiding actual fire history data that contradicted the current green agenda.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/05...y-national-interagency-fire-center-nifc_fire/

The two interesting points about this was the obvious sustained drop in fire activity during the “Fire Suppression” regimes by US fire agencies and the obvious uptick in fire activity when those regimes began operating under “green, environmental goals” instead of resource protection. One must also deduce by looking at the actual date hidden by the NIFC was that manmade CO2 induced climate change was far worse in the 19th and early 20th century. Thankfully the USFS fixed that during most of the 20th century until the greens went off the rails.

View attachment 181468

It's not like a century long policy of aggressive fire suppression then a complete abandonment of management activities to mitigate massive fuel loading would result in increased fires right?

 

[Mike Cline]

Mike: A quick fact check summary on "Watts up with That" reveals the following:

Overall, we rate Watts Up with That a strong pseudoscience and conspiracy website based on promoting consistent human-influenced climate denialism propaganda and several failed fact checks.

I have not looked up thier sponsors but I would bet they are extraction industry folks who have spent billions on promoting Climate Change denialism. I am going to stick with NOAA, NASA, and those folks who are out there fighting fires when it comes to longer fire seasons caused by Climate Change. Sounds like we agree the planet is warming but will continue to disagree on the causes.

My only questions are these?: Is the data correct or incorrect? And why did NIFC apparently hide data to portray a scenario not actually backed up by that data?

As to attacking the source, such is a common tactic even when the data is black and white. The source supposedly isn’t “credible” so despite the Black and white nature of the data, it can’t be credible as well. When you spend billions promoting a green, economy destroying agenda, it is just human nature to find ways to attack those who might challenge data and science that doesn’t support the agenda.

 

[Salmo_g]

View attachment 181477

Weyerhaeuser, among others, sells permits to access their forest lands. The number of permits is limited, and the permits are expensive. That's more of a contrast than a comparison between public USFS land and private land. Since I wasn't born into the "landed gentry," I very much want to keep public lands public so that I may have access to them.

 

[Salmo_g]

My only questions are these?: Is the data correct or incorrect? And why did NIFC apparently hide data to portray a scenario not actually backed up by that data?

Uhm, maybe it's because sources on both sides of an issue choose to cherry pick the data that best supports their respective argument. It's fair to attack a source on either side of the street for engaging in tactics that blur or obscure the picture, making a comprehensive and objective analysis all the more difficult.

 

[Flymph]

My only questions are these?: Is the data correct or incorrect? And why did NIFC apparently hide data to portray a scenario not actually backed up by that data?

As to attacking the source, such is a common tactic even when the data is black and white. The source supposedly isn’t “credible” so despite the Black and white nature of the data, it can’t be credible as well. When you spend billions promoting a green, economy destroying agenda, it is just human nature to find ways to attack those who might challenge data and science that doesn’t support the agenda.

To me the difference is clear. Your source is sponsored by profit-driven influence that cares "not" for the environment. I would disagree that the science coming from NOAA and respected Climatologists spend dollar one on a green agenda. As far as the economy is concerned, I can't think of anything more detrimental than Wildfires, extreme flooding, and drought that have proven links to Climate Change. I would love to further discuss today's economic disaster and its main causes but that would be breaking political boundaries.

Mike, all data is "black and white" but that does not mean it should not be fact checked for its credibility. I would fully expect you and others to cry foul if I presented "black and white" data from Green Peace.

 

[Shawn Seeger]

Weyerhaeuser, among others, sells permits to access their forest lands. The number of permits is limited, and the permits are expensive. That's more of a contrast than a comparison between public USFS land and private land. Since I wasn't born into the "landed gentry," I very much want to keep public lands public so that I may have access to them.

I would propose taking away or changing the "taxes" that weyerhaeuser pays (or doesn't) if they are going to restrict or limit access.

I know one of our "neighbors" has a 160 acre "tree farm" they only pay $282.01 a year in property taxes, as opposed to a .5 (half) acre piece next to my main property and I pay $328.50 a year in property taxes.

So, eliminate or reduce the tax benefits of the private timber company dissent allow free access.

 

[Scottybs]

Uhm, maybe it's because sources on both sides of an issue choose to cherry pick the data that best supports their respective argument. It's fair to attack a source on either side of the street for engaging in tactics that blur or obscure the picture, making a comprehensive and objective analysis all the more difficult.

Ding ding ding

 

[charles sullivan]

I would propose taking away or changing the "taxes" that weyerhaeuser pays (or doesn't) if they are going to restrict or limit access.

I know one of our "neighbors" has a 160 acre "tree farm" they only pay $282.01 a year in property taxes, as opposed to a .5 (half) acre piece next to my main property and I pay $328.50 a year in property taxes.

So, eliminate or reduce the tax benefits of the private timber company dissent allow free access.

I agree with your sentiment. There should be a public benefit to open space, agricultural or timber taxation. Like you, I prefer it to be in the form of access.

Tree farm owners pay an excise tax when they harvest the trees. They should also have a harvest management plan to qualify for them. In essense, the idea is that the property taxes are deferred until harvest and that the standard yearly taxes are replaced by the excise tax. They also pay B&O tax at harvest time.

Here is a breif description of the tax.

https://dor.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2022-02/TimberExciseTax.pdf

I'm not trying to tell you that you should like this tax scheme. I am merely trying to show you how those tree farms pay taxes. It sure looks like they pay nothing on a year to year basis. However, they do pay at harvest in the form of B&O and excise tax.

 

[Brian Miller]

Yep, there are your outliers. Assuming that is truly the case currently...

For the last few years I have been buying a non-motorized permit to get legal access to a nearby stream I have fished for over 20 years from Weyco NW.

Since I wasn't born into the "landed gentry," I very much want to keep public lands public so that I may have access to them.

I am also of limited means. I wish I didn't have to buy my way in but (human) pigs got all of the private access to a 4-mile swath of public property in the drainage closed to the public, and opens up much more to me within the Weyco property. There has been a big difference in the people I encounter and trash since the postings, unlike a stream reach on public land that is closer.

...eliminate or reduce the tax benefits of the private timber company dissent allow free access.

Weyco maintains their property and infrastructure. They patrol for rules violations. Their forestry practices have been a consistent benefit to stream quality and fish abundance. Unfortunately it takes less money to do that with restricted access.

 

[Mossback]

I have not looked up thier sponsors but I would bet they are extraction industry folks who have spent billions on promoting Climate Change denialism. I am going to stick with NOAA, NASA, and those folks who are out there fighting fires when it comes to longer fire seasons caused by Climate Change. Sounds like we agree the planet is warming but will continue to disagree on the causes.[/B]

Heartland Institute was one of them.

The Heartland Institute is an American conservative and libertarian 501(c)(3) nonprofit public policy think tank known for its rejection of both the scientific consensus on climate change and the negative health impacts of smoking.

Lol

Evidently Heartland sponsored sites are where dumbfucks go to get dumber...

 

[TheWhispering1]

 

[Bugmeister]

One must also deduce by looking at the actual date hidden by the NIFC was that manmade CO2 induced climate change was far worse in the 19th and early 20th century.

View attachment 181468

Your mileage may vary, but I would personally steer clear from deducing from the data being shown that manmade climate change was far worse in the 19th and early 20th century.

CO2 is release into the atmosphere through both human activities and natural processes. 90% or so of global CO2 emissions are accounted for via burning of fossil fuels. While burning forests results in some CO2 release, the more negative impact that forest loss (lost via burning or being cut down) has on CO2 is that it reduces trees that would otherwise absorb a lot of CO2 being released from other activities.

Around 1900, about 48% of the earth was covered by forests. In 2023, that number was down to 38% (it was ~57% 10,000 years ago). Half of forest loss in the last 10,000 years has occurred since 1900. The fact that wildfires may have burned more acreage in the early 20th century than is the case today might be at least partly a function of the fact that back in the early 20th century we had a lot more forestlands in the US.

 

[Mike Cline]

Your mileage may vary, but I would personally steer clear from deducing from the data being shown should that manmade climate change was far worse in the 19th and early 20th century.

CO2 is release into the atmosphere through both human activities and natural processes. 90% or so of global CO2 emissions are accounted for via burning of fossil fuels. While burning forests results in some CO2 release, the more negative impact that forest loss (lost via burning or being cut down) has on CO2 is likely that it reduces trees that would otherwise absorb a lot of CO2 being released from other activities.

Around 1900, about 48% of the earth was covered by forests. In 2023, that number was down to 38% (it was ~57% 10,000 years ago). Half of forest loss in the last 10,000 years has occurred since 1900. The fact that wildfires may have burned more acreage in the early 20th century than is the case today might be at least partly a function of the fact that back in the early 20th century we had a lot more forestlands in the US.

I think I was being facietous

 

[SurfnFish]

Anti-climate change defenders believe conservation and max business profit cannot coexist side by side, and the holy grail of capitalism is to be defended at all costs, usually draped in the flag of 'true democracy.'
And to substantiate their 'nothing to see here' position, they defend behind 'facts' manufactured on behalf of those funding these 'facts', which are invariably pro-business groups themselves funded by mega-corps fighting against carbon footprint restrictions and penalties.

Conversely, Stanford directed their AI to perform a deep dive into climate change, sifting through a massive amount of data both historical and current, scientific articles from around the world, global weather station reporting, sea current modeling, weather satellite global studies, tree disease and crop failure causality, carbon emission patterns, etc, etc. And what the AI produced, substantiated by thousands of backup data pages, was a simple conclusion:

Key Conclusions on Climate Change via AI

• Irrefutable Evidence: AI analysis of historical climate data confirms that Earth's surface temperature has increased significantly due to human activity, specifically the rise in greenhouse gas concentrations.
• Predictive Accuracy: AI tools have enhanced climate projections, confirming that the world will likely miss its 1.5°C warming target within the next 10–15 years.
• Cascading Impacts: AI models simulate future risks, predicting more severe heatwaves, intensified droughts, and accelerated sea-level rise, even under optimistic decarbonization scenarios.

 

[Brian Miller]

Multiple posters have invoked “climate change” as a driver of increased wildfire activity thus implying that any change to USFS organization and funding will ultimately result in more fires and their adverse result. They claim wildfires are increasing because of climate change. Although the earth’s climate is in constant flux and has been for eons, it is conveniently cited as the bogey man for efforts to impose a “green” agenda and demonize any effort to take a more reasonable approach to a changing climate.

From the local "weatherman"; a (fortunately tenured) PhD in Atmospheric Sciences whose team of researchers studies regional and global climate change by focusing on high-resolution modeling of how greenhouse gases interact with Pacific Northwest weather:
[There has been] "a slow rise in temperature over the past 50 years, by about 1°C. This is probably mainly due to increasing CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere."

Major Global Cooling of the Past Two Years and the Big U.S. Heatwave Last Month. Climate Change?

This blog provides updated forecasts and comments on current weather or other topics

cliffmass.blogspot.com

How significant is 1°C over 50 years to our forests.

Dr Mass is not a forester but seems to believe that high summer temps do dry out an ever-increasing bio-mass of standing timber and deadfallalong with (non-native) grasses in our forests, that as @509 has pointed out combined with 40+ years of modern "green, science based" forest practices have created unsustainable forests, that are...

burning down more trees than were are growing. My professional opinion is that the next Resource Planning Report by the Forest Service will show that the Pacific coast National Forests of Washington, Oregon, and California will also become unsustainble.

and are a (the?) major factor contributing to massive forest fires.

Cliff Mass Knows Climate Change Is Real, So Why Are Activists and Scientists So Mad at Him?

Photo by Genna Martin/The Herald Let’s dwell on a figure for a moment: 1,718. That’s the number of square miles burned by wildfires in Washington

web.archive.org

The WA CCA has spent $1.5 billion as of late 2025 on projects such as community investments (over $850M) and environmental initiatives that as of the last report that WADOE has (had the courage to admit) removed 78,000 metric tons of 96.1 million metric tons of annual greenhouse gas emissions.

Even according to WADOE, wildfires in Washington state have become a massive source of CO2 emissions, that in some high-fire years temporarily rival or exceed the state's entire transportation sector.

Has there been a reliable cost-benefit analysis of spending for public forest management - (that may have significant recreational benefits i.e. increasing improving road access) vs the CCA and other Climate Change Initiatives (Engineered) for the amount of greenhouse gasses that can actually be prevented-removed?

Harnessing green wealth: A two-decade global assessment of forest carbon sequestration and credits and the economic implications of sustainable forest management practices

As climate change accelerates, forests play a pivotal role in global carbon dynamics by providing both carbon sequestration and ecosystem resilience. …

www.sciencedirect.com

https://ceepr.mit.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/MIT-CEEPR-WP-2024-04-Brief.pdf#:~:text=We%20show%20that%20over%20a%20billion%20tons,could%20be%20extended%20to%20the%20entire%20world.

 

[Flymph]

From the local "weatherman"; a (fortunately tenured) PhD in Atmospheric Sciences whose team of researchers studies regional and global climate change by focusing on high-resolution modeling of how greenhouse gases interact with Pacific Northwest weather:
[There has been] "a slow rise in temperature over the past 50 years, by about 1°C. This is probably mainly due to increasing CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere."
View attachment 181480

Major Global Cooling of the Past Two Years and the Big U.S. Heatwave Last Month. Climate Change?

This blog provides updated forecasts and comments on current weather or other topics

cliffmass.blogspot.com

How significant is 1°C over 50 years to our forests.

Dr Mass is not a forester but seems to believe that high summer temps do dry out an ever-increasing bio-mass of standing timber and deadfallalong with (non-native) grasses in our forests, that as @509 has pointed out combined with 40+ years of modern "green, science based" forest practices have created unsustainable forests, that are...


and are a (the?) major factor contributing to massive forest fires.

Cliff Mass Knows Climate Change Is Real, So Why Are Activists and Scientists So Mad at Him?

Photo by Genna Martin/The Herald Let’s dwell on a figure for a moment: 1,718. That’s the number of square miles burned by wildfires in Washington

web.archive.org

The WA CCA has spent $1.5 billion as of late 2025 on projects such as community investments (over $850M) and environmental initiatives that as of the last report that WADOE has (had the courage to admit) removed 78,000 metric tons of 96.1 million metric tons of annual greenhouse gas emissions.

Even according to WADOE, wildfires in Washington state have become a massive source of CO2 emissions, that in some high-fire years temporarily rival or exceed the state's entire transportation sector.

Has there been a reliable cost-benefit analysis of spending for public forest management - (that may have significant recreational benefits i.e. increasing improving road access) vs the CCA and other Climate Change Initiatives (Engineered) for the amount of greenhouse gasses that can actually be prevented-removed?

Harnessing green wealth: A two-decade global assessment of forest carbon sequestration and credits and the economic implications of sustainable forest management practices

As climate change accelerates, forests play a pivotal role in global carbon dynamics by providing both carbon sequestration and ecosystem resilience. …

www.sciencedirect.com

https://ceepr.mit.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/MIT-CEEPR-WP-2024-04-Brief.pdf#:~:text=We%20show%20that%20over%20a%20billion%20tons,could%20be%20extended%20to%20the%20entire%20world.

A tenured Atmospheric Scientist is still a weatherman and not a Climatologist. I see no indication of his team having the necessary sheepskins as well. I will agree that feeble attempts to sequester CO2 get feeble results. Nevertheless feeble attempts sometimes reveal more necessary actions that must take place to truly make a difference. I can't see the logic in stopping these attempts or denying the Climate Crisis as a better route to making real change.

 

[Scottybs]

A tenured Atmospheric Scientist is still a weatherman and not a Climatologist. I see no indication of his team having the necessary sheepskins as well. I will agree that feeble attempts to sequester CO2 get feeble results. Nevertheless feeble attempts sometimes reveal more necessary actions that must take place to truly make a difference. I can't see the logic in stopping these attempts or denying the Climate Crisis as a better route to making real change.

“Crisis” another emotional buzz word favorited. Speak/write in concrete objective statements/declarations and I’ll listen. Once emotional banter is presented, the author loses creditability. I think CV was the term thrown around. Until you are ready to go back to stone ages… fossil fuels are here along with their positive and negative consequences. My CV is burning 200,000 lbs per flight of good ol’ Jet-A in the upper atmosphere, so it would be extremely hypocritical of me to preach about CO2 gas emissions… I feel the same way of those whom are very passionate about fossil fuels, that still fly on business and personal trips, have packages overnighted, etc…

 

[Brian Miller]

A tenured Atmospheric Scientist is still a weatherman and not a Climatologist. I see no indication of his team having the necessary sheepskins as well. I will agree that feeble attempts to sequester CO2 get feeble results. Nevertheless feeble attempts sometimes reveal more necessary actions that must take place to truly make a difference. I can't see the logic in stopping these attempts or denying the Climate Crisis as a better route to making real change.

Dr Mass has the data and acknowledges climate change.
You seem to use the tactic of marginalizing him and his team instead of providing examples of what he actually says that you believe is incorrect.