Dismantling of the USFS

[Flymph]

Did people from the North still buy cotton during the Civil War? Probably so, but they persevered and eventually erased slavery. I think we could agree that murder is a universal wrong. So I will do everything in my power to limit my number of murders while you call me a hypocrite and murder at will. How does this logic stop murders?

I have displayed many scientific-back articles showing Climate Change consensus and personally believe it is the greatest crisis facing human kind. If this stance depletes my credibility with you than please read #76 above by @SurfnFisn.

 

[Flymph]

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.

Climatologists and Environmental Scientists have generally criticized Mass for downplaying the role of Climate Change in extreme weather events and criticizing media reporting on global warming. While he does acknowledging human caused climate change he argues that it is not an existential threat and blames "natural Variability for events like the 2021 PNW heatwave.

Here is a summarized list of some of the critical arguments made against Mass made by a consensus of Climatologists:
Mass is wrong to rule out the influence of global warming on specific unprecedented weather events
Disagreement with his assertion that the 2021 heatwave was due to a high-pressure ridge rather than climate change
Critics,including researchers cited by have challenged his findings that there is no direct connection between climate Change and Northwest Wildfire risks or declining snow pack
Critics suggest his skeptical approach on social media nd his blog emboldens climate change deniers.
Mass has accused major publications, such as the Seattle Times, of exaggerating climate impacts using unrealistic, aggressive scenarios.
Mass worked along side the NO on 1631 campaign, which was over 99% funded by oil and gas companies and Koch Brothers

Bottom line is Climatologists VS a local Weatherman - who do you chose to believe?

 

[Long_Rod_Silvers]

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.

Agreed, its not "public access", which I'd much prefer. I think theres a lot of incorrect assumptions regarding private land though. I've quite frequently hunted and fished on private land. Does it take more work sometimes, yes. Sometimes it costs money which sucks. But its not as many portray, where private equals gone forever (or very rarely).

 

[Long_Rod_Silvers]

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

Respectfully, I dont think they're outliers. Those are major private land owners. Can you name as many private land Owners that bought public land that dont offer access?

I know many places where private land Owners have given me access.

 

[Long_Rod_Silvers]

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.

Dont speak for me, please. How do you know what I think?

 

[clarkman]

Respectfully, I dont think they're outliers. Those are major private land owners. Can you name as many private land Owners that bought public land that dont offer access?

I know many places where private land Owners have given me access.

yeah? how many vs how many have not? be honest.

how many that I have called personally? yes. quite a few. Far outnumbers the one's who have permitted access (sure, there have been a few, but those are the outliers)

Related, a quick Google search also shows that millions (15-16 depending on source) of acres of state and federal public land now inaccessible due to private land owners buying up land surround the public land.

 

[Brian Miller]

I know many places where private land Owners have given me access.

I have a few streams where I have been granted permission by land owners to fish through or cross their land for stream access after meeting them and letting them get to know me and that I will treat their property like the special treasure it is. I'll try to stop by and say hi on my way in - out.

That can get awkward when a property owner has suffered damage and my car is parked near where their property is posted so idiots may think that "someone else is getting away with it so "I" can too."

 

[Long_Rod_Silvers]

yeah? how many vs how many have not? be honest.

how many that I have called personally? yes. quite a few. Far outnumbers the one's who have permitted access (sure, there have been a few, but those are the outliers)

Related, a quick Google search also shows that millions (15-16 depending on source) of acres of state and federal public land now inaccessible due to private land owners buying up land surround the public land.

And those are all inaccessible now? Inaccessible meaning zero access?
How many are inaccessible?

Im not saying I like public land being sold to private. I am saying I dont agree with your assessment that once sold its very rare for any access to be allowed. I don't think thats accurate in the PNW.

 

[Long_Rod_Silvers]

I have a few streams where I have been granted permission by land owners to fish through or cross their land for stream access after meeting them and letting them get to know me and that I will treat their property like the special treasure it is. I'll try to stop by and say hi on my way in - out.

That can get awkward when a property owner has suffered damage and my car is parked near where their property is posted so idiots may think that "someone else is getting away with it so "I" can too."

Ditto. I always check-in and check-out and report anything I've seen. Feedback Ive gotten has always been they very much appreciate the info.

 

[RCF]

I have accessed private land numerous times on the Madison or Beaverhead Meeting with the owners has been very beneficial. Usually the only request was they wanted a fish dinner..

 

[_WW_]

After 5 pages of reading my initial thoughts seem to have been borne out. There are exceptions to the rules. If you look hard enough you will find them. They don't make the rule null and void, they just help define, and confine the rule to a narrower set of circumstances.

The climate is changing. If you think nearly 8 billion people, living organisms, are having no effect then you should do a deep dive into where the oxygen in our atmosphere came from.

 

[Dustin Chromers]

I think you hit on something in your opening sentence. I was always very impressed with the campgrounds in the Deschutes, Umpqua, and Mackenzie National forests; always very clean, very well maintained, and usually well populated by folks who generally cared for and had a good outdoor ethic. Now, go off the beaten track on some of the old forest service roads, you can find all kinds of old deserted and occupied homeless camps, trash dumps, deserted vehicles, etc. Not sure if it's the Forest Service fault, they spend their maintenance budgets on populated campgrounds and maintaining hundreds (thousands?) of miles of hiking trails and more heavily used FS roads. Not sure there is the budget or personnel to police and maintain some of the not-so-heavily used FS roads.

That's my take on it anyway. Only 2 NF in New England, I felt fortunate to be able to explore those in Oregon.

Is there budget to approve an easement for public access that's been on a desk for 2 years? It simply needs to be signed.

Right now the public does not have effective access to an area on USFS lands because a document is simply not dealt with. The evil timber company decommissioned a road for fish passage. This was a main entrance through evil timber company land onto USFS. The evil climate changing timber company built a spur linking their ground to USFS lands with the idea that the public could now use the new spur and the fish get a pulled pipe. To my understanding this easement has yet to be signed 2 years later. To be if access was a priority this paper would be signed. Currently it is gated as this document is not signed. To me this is another example along with zero maintenance essentially that access is not a priority. The horrible evil timber company would be happy to open the gate once it it signed. Yes there's liability involved and the like and the whole thing is rather stupid aside from the nick improved fish passage. It's one of a long list of access lost in my area and is par for my experience.

Honestly the sentiment out here feels the same with the park as it is the USFS. Access simply brings problems they don't want to deal with so it's actually discouraged.

Forest Service organizational shake-up designed to get more money and work on the ground

The U.S. Forest Service that oversees 193 million acres of public land, including 20 million in Idaho, 9.3 million in Washington and 15 million in Oregon, will undergo a major overhaul in the coming years.

www.spokesman.com

This article certainly doesn't paint duck a grim picture as that bastion of news The Hatch does. I mean if we're attacking sources the hatch should probably stick to fishing right? I mean are they qualified to speak on anything other than which midges move the most trout? I mean you gotta have credentials to speak up around here.

 

[509]

@509 I was thinking about your posts on Sequoias and fires earlier this month when I attended a presentation by Dr. Chad Hanson. He said high intensity fires are necessary for Sequoia reproduction. Are you familiar with his work? If so, what do you think of it?

Yes, I am very familiar with his "work".

I can only think of a handful (counting the fingers on one hand that even publish with Hanson. There have been multiple publications in peer reviewed journals that by landscape and fire ecologists that call out Hanson's "conclusions". Those numbers are north of 20 folks with impeccable credentials in landscape and fire ecology.

Even Jerry Franklin, whom I am not a fan, has lent his name to calling out Hanson in science journals.

Full disclosure, I spent 1973 and 1974 being the field manager for mapping EVERY GIANT SEQUOIA south of the Mineral King road to the southern edge of Sequoia National Park. I visited EVERY Sequoia grove in the area.

Hanson is full of shit, when he talks about high intensity fire being necessary for Sequoia reproduction.

In Garfield Grove, the ONLY large patch of Sequoia reproduction was in two avalanche chutes. It was so thick we counted well over several thousand trees in those two small avalanche chutes. Obviously, there was NO HIGH INTENSITY fire in those two chutes!!!

Giant Sequoia's need bare mineral soil, and some light for germination. Fires that expose bare soil and thin the white wood component are enough for Sequoia regeneration.

The only Sequoia grove I found with extensive Sequoia reproduction was this one: https://www.savetheredwoods.org/protect/you-secured-a-new-gateway-to-giants/.

In 1974, this grove was in private ownership and I got permission from the owner to use the grove to access two groves located just east of the NPS boundary from Case Mountain. The owner had about 20 years earlier logged the grove, by leaving all the Sequoia's and removing the white woods. This was the ONLY GROVE south of the Mineral King road that had extensive Sequoia reproduction. I had never seen even since, the level of Sequoia reproduction that I saw at Case Mountain.

Hanson, is wrong on high intensity fire being necessary and it will result in losing MORE GROVES and thousands of really large Sequoia's in future fires. The Earth Justice League and the Center for Biological Diversity keep filing lawsuits to prevent protection of the Sequoia groves from wildfires.

Two groves that I worked were Homer's Nose and Board Camp Groves just north of the South Fork of the Kaweah River. In the spring of 1974 I put in the control mapping lines for both those groves. I did notice, how dark, and overgrown with white woods it was within Homers Nose Grove.

When the fires burned BOTH groves a few years back in a "high intensity" fire so desired by Hanson it KILLED ALL THE LARGE GIANT SEQUOIA's. But even worse, it burned the soil with such intensity that there was NO REPRODUCTION BY SEEDLINGS.

BOTH GROVES WERE TOTALLY ELIMINATED, EVERY SEQUOIA TREE AND SEEDLING WAS KILLED.

The fire was that hot. The National Park Service is replanting both groves with Sequoia seedlings grown in a greenhouse.

I disagree with that decision, they should have left the grove as it was after its destruction of the policies of the Hanson and the environmental community (Save the Redwoods organization is following professional foresters and managing their grove and advocating for saving the public groves from the environmentalists.

Maybe put up a interpretive sign so the public knew who filed lawsuits to allow the destruction to occur.

For those of you still running Sequoia on your Apple machines, that is a picture of what a Sequoia Grove on its deathbed looks like. All it takes is a spark, and you will get a rerun of Homer's Nose and Board Camp.

I don't know why Apple does not show a picture of a healthy Sequoia grove instead. Maybe like Hanson, they don't know what a healthy Sequoia grove looks like.

 

[Zak]

Yes, I am very familiar with his "work".

I can only think of a handful (counting the fingers on one hand that even publish with Hanson. There have been multiple publications in peer reviewed journals that by landscape and fire ecologists that call out Hanson's "conclusions". Those numbers are north of 20 folks with impeccable credentials in landscape and fire ecology.

Even Jerry Franklin, whom I am not a fan, has lent his name to calling out Hanson in science journals.

Full disclosure, I spent 1973 and 1974 being the field manager for mapping EVERY GIANT SEQUOIA south of the Mineral King road to the southern edge of Sequoia National Park. I visited EVERY Sequoia grove in the area.

Hanson is full of shit, when he talks about high intensity fire being necessary for Sequoia reproduction.

In Garfield Grove, the ONLY large patch of Sequoia reproduction was in two avalanche chutes. It was so thick we counted well over several thousand trees in those two small avalanche chutes. Obviously, there was NO HIGH INTENSITY fire in those two chutes!!!

Giant Sequoia's need bare mineral soil, and some light for germination. Fires that expose bare soil and thin the white wood component are enough for Sequoia regeneration.

The only Sequoia grove I found with extensive Sequoia reproduction was this one: https://www.savetheredwoods.org/protect/you-secured-a-new-gateway-to-giants/.

In 1974, this grove was in private ownership and I got permission from the owner to use the grove to access two groves located just east of the NPS boundary from Case Mountain. The owner had about 20 years earlier logged the grove, by leaving all the Sequoia's and removing the white woods. This was the ONLY GROVE south of the Mineral King road that had extensive Sequoia reproduction. I had never seen even since, the level of Sequoia reproduction that I saw at Case Mountain.

Hanson, is wrong on high intensity fire being necessary and it will result in losing MORE GROVES and thousands of really large Sequoia's in future fires. The Earth Justice League and the Center for Biological Diversity keep filing lawsuits to prevent protection of the Sequoia groves from wildfires.

Two groves that I worked were Homer's Nose and Board Camp Groves just north of the South Fork of the Kaweah River. In the spring of 1974 I put in the control mapping lines for both those groves. I did notice, how dark, and overgrown with white woods it was within Homers Nose Grove.

When the fires burned BOTH groves a few years back in a "high intensity" fire so desired by Hanson it KILLED ALL THE LARGE GIANT SEQUOIA's. But even worse, it burned the soil with such intensity that there was NO REPRODUCTION BY SEEDLINGS.

BOTH GROVES WERE TOTALLY ELIMINATED, EVERY SEQUOIA TREE AND SEEDLING WAS KILLED.

The fire was that hot. The National Park Service is replanting both groves with Sequoia seedlings grown in a greenhouse.

I disagree with that decision, they should have left the grove as it was after its destruction of the policies of the Hanson and the environmental community (Save the Redwoods organization is following professional foresters and managing their grove and advocating for saving the public groves from the environmentalists.

Maybe put up a interpretive sign so the public knew who filed lawsuits to allow the destruction to occur.

For those of you still running Sequoia on your Apple machines, that is a picture of what a Sequoia Grove on its deathbed looks like. All it takes is a spark, and you will get a rerun of Homer's Nose and Board Camp.

I don't know why Apple does not show a picture of a healthy Sequoia grove instead. Maybe like Hanson, they don't know what a healthy Sequoia grove looks like.

Thank you for responding. As you may have gathered, I'm a fellow traveler with Earthjustice and the Center for Biological Diversity and support their work. But one of the things that I like about this forum is the opportunity to get outside my bubble and hear from peple with different viewpoints. I appreciate yours.

 

[509]

Thank you for responding. As you may have gathered, I'm a fellow traveler with Earthjustice and the Center for Biological Diversity and support their work. But one of the things that I like about this forum is the opportunity to get outside my bubble and hear from peple with different viewpoints. I appreciate yours.

Thanks...Zak.

I tried "toning down" the words, but nobody listens when they are toned down.

Somehow, we need to move beyond the shouting.

 

[SurfnFish]

Thanks...Zak.

I tried "toning down" the words, but nobody listens when they are toned down.

Somehow, we need to move beyond the shouting.

your first hand field experience is both enlightening and convincing.

 

[Billy]

Agreed, its not "public access", which I'd much prefer. I think theres a lot of incorrect assumptions regarding private land though. I've quite frequently hunted and fished on private land. Does it take more work sometimes, yes. Sometimes it costs money which sucks. But its not as many portray, where private equals gone forever (or very rarely).

The area of Idaho i'm elk hunting this fall has giant tracts of timber land that was once public and now purchased by the Wilk brothers out of Texas. I ain't getting access by a knock on the door.

It's incredible how much land it is. I think they own over 600,000 acres across the west. Gone into the hands of a billionaire family.

 

[Billy]

Pure political shots or mudslinging will be deleted. If it keeps up thread will be locked. Warning.

 

[dflett68]

hans gruber: "release the political prisoners or i'll blow up nakatomi tower!"
hans' crew: "get the money up to the roof!"

daniel plainview: "i. drink. your. milkshake!"

 

[Brian Miller]

While he does acknowledging human caused climate change he argues that it is not an existential threat and blames "natural Variability for events like the 2021 PNW heatwave.

I'll admit right up front that much of this is way over my head. I do acknowledge the global climate is warming, but at least for now not at the crisis rate that makes for scary-bad headlines. I see six specific things that you criticized Dr Cliff Mass about.

his assertion that the 2021 heatwave was due to a high-pressure ridge rather than climate change

This blog entry contains too much data from two published papers in the peer-reviewed, refereed literature he wrote on the subject for me to summarize.

The Real Story of the 2021 Northwest Heatwave

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

cliffmass.blogspot.com

no direct connection between climate Change and Northwest Wildfire risks or declining snow pack

Much of what I read from Dr Mass does not speak in the absolute. Does your use of "direct connection" to mean a 1:1 causation:effect?
Wildfire: Climate Change is a contributor but not a 1:1 absolute causation.
"Most of our wildfires occur at lower to middle elevations that melt out well before the fire season every year. Low snowpack years simply melt out a few days or weeks earlier. So by the mid-summer fire season, the impact is minimal at the elevation at which the fires are occurring."
(This is one thing I believe is not in Dr Mass’ Atmospheric Sciences PHD area of expertise, although he probably talks to Professional Foresters to come to this conclusion. I wonder if @509 has an opinion about what roles poor forest management vs climate change play as drivers behind wildfires, and which would be the most cost effective-efficient and actionable issue to address NOW?)

Declining Snowpack: He believes low snowpack is primarily driven by El Niño
And according to NOAA… "El Niño is caused by a weakening of the trade winds over the tropical Pacific Ocean, allowing warm water that is normally pushed westward to "slosh" back eastward toward South America. This buildup of warm water increases ocean surface temperatures, which alters atmospheric circulation, resulting in shifts in global weather patterns, such as increased rain in the eastern Pacific and drought in the west.
Key Drivers of El Niño: Weakening Trade Winds: Normally, trade winds blow from east to west across the tropical Pacific. When these weaken—or sometimes reverse—they allow the accumulated warm water in the West Pacific to shift eastward.
Ocean-Atmosphere Interaction: The warmer water in the eastern Pacific warms the air above it, which causes increased convection and rainfall in that region, further disrupting typical climate patterns. Westerly Wind Bursts: Periods of wind blowing from west to east help transport warm surface water from the Western to the Eastern tropical Pacific.
Oceanic Kelvin Waves: These act as a mechanism to transport warm water beneath the ocean surface from the western Pacific to the eastern Pacific.
El Niño occurs in cycles every 2 to 7 years. Although a natural phenomenon, research *suggests that human-caused climate change is contributing to more frequent and extreme occurrences."
*Do you believe suggests means proof of direct 1:1 causation, or a contributor, which is how I interptret Dr Mass' writings.

Oh, and again this isn’t really Dr Mass’ field of expertise but he also believes (probably based on discussions with Forest Management Professionals) that a large snowpack can make the wildfire season WORSE by providing moisture longer in the spring, promoting MORE vegetation growth creating more fuel to burn. But I have to admit I am in the LOVE THAT SNOWPACK frame of mind because I suspect it helps provide better habitat and resources for fish and wildlife over the summer.

Mass has accused major publications, such as the Seattle Times, of exaggerating climate impacts using unrealistic, aggressive scenarios.

Dr Mass comes to this conclusion through various claims made by the Seattle Times. He provides data for his assertions, with regional climate modeling of which the American Meteorological Society says he is a recognized expert. One egregious example of STs "click bait" journalism style...
"Articles written by the Seattle Times Climate Lab, which receives financial support from climate advocacy groups, are the most concerning, as illustrated by the deceptive, unfactual article published yesterday. The article, How bad is Washington's summer drought going to get?, starts with a large picture of a major reservoir (Lake Keechelus)-- The March 31, 2026 article picture shows a completely empty lake, and the legend describes a "depleted Lake Keechelus" and that this total lack of water is a "familiar scene." see below…

Totally deceptive and wrong. The truth is that the lake is nearly full, as shown by an image total from a WSDOT cam:

The official measurements of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation indicate the lake was 95% full on March 30 (it is now 96%):"

Seattle Times Provides Deceptive and False Information on Washington State Drought

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

cliffmass.blogspot.com

Also the Seattle Times is urging Washington state lawmakers to pass legislation providing government grants to local news outlets, citing a "significant state of decline" in the industry. Is it losing readership because of articles like that?
Here's another recent example

Misinformation in the Seattle TImes About Drought, Snowpack, and Climate Change

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

cliffmass.blogspot.com

the NO on 1631 campaign

And speaking of the Seattle Times it looks like even that major publishing company, spoke out for the NO on 1631 Campaign.
"The Seattle Times Editorial Board strongly recommend a NO vote on I-1631, characterizing the new $2.3 billion energy proposal as “expensive and unaccountable” and urging voters to reject the measure on their ballots."
(likely partisan campaign literature link witheld)
2018 Initiative 1631 was the defeated Protect Washington Act that would tax carbon emissions. It was supposed to be a comprehensive, primary policy to fight climate change through a direct fee on large carbon polluters but carried no guarantees on deliverables? But then we got the CCA... I already outlined that debacle in another thread. It's a bad JOKE, and the joke is on the taxpayers.

Bottom line is Climatologists VS a local Weatherman - who do you chose to believe?

According to the American Meteorological Society, "Cliff Mass is a Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at the University of Washington, holding a Ph.D. in Atmospheric Sciences from the same institution (1978) and a B.S. in Physics from Cornell University (1974). He is a renowned expert in "numerical weather prediction" (uses supercomputers to run complex physical and mathematical models, simulating atmospheric conditions to forecast weather), regional climate modeling, and Northwest weather, leading the region's top high-resolution modeling efforts."

“Crisis” another emotional buzz word favorited. Speak/write in concrete objective statements/declarations and I’ll listen.

I think this is a very reasonable viewpoint!