Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
18 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Keep fucking around and see what happens

You’re about to go John Rambo on their ass aren’t ya!!!

Posted

The issue isn't as simple as the new directive wants to make it seem.  For context, I live on the border of commercial tree farms in the coast mountains (almost all Weyerhauser after they bought Willamette Industries in a hostile takeover) and national forest.  I've been here since the late 90s, so I've witnessed the changes.   I've had many friends who started working in the woods the week after high school graduation.  The local logging industry is not like it used to be for a few basic economic reasons.

First, the infrastructure is gone.  There used to be mills all over the place.  Fed conservation efforts like spotted owl protection led almost all local mills to shut down.  I could have reached a mill in either direction from my house in five minutes.  Now the nearest is an hour away in the Willamette Valley.  The first big consequence of that change is that transport costs have increased dramatically.  There are more efficient ways to transport finished product long distances than logs.  Coupled with much higher diesel prices, it simply costs a lot more to log here now.  Throw in a new housing bubble burst 15 years ago, and it's even worse.  Much like re-shoring industrial manufacturing, the stated goal of the new tariffs, the solution would not be achieved in the short term, and big business is loathe to invest without long term guarantees, which aren't available when regulations are subject to change at the whim of the executive branch.  No new mill would be open here before the the next president takes over.

Second, the population is less than half what it was in the early 90s.  There used to be post offices and small stores within easy reach.  Now there's only one option to grab a beer within a half hour, and the postal service tried to shut down our weekday only, 4 hour per day post office.  Round trip to the grocery store is three hours.  The workforce left when the employers did.  Those who remain are mostly unemployable tweekers.  It's a long commute for a very physically demanding job.  Good workers have better options than trekking out here, and they'd have very few housing options locally compared to 30 years ago.

TL;DR  there's no magic wand solution to start utilizing the national forest land nestled right here in the most productive timberlands in the country.  It's gotta be even worse elsewhere.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • 5 weeks later...
Posted

https://www.npca.org/articles/8495-president-trump-s-proposed-budget-could-decimate-at-least-350-national-park

Quote

Washington, DC – The National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA) has calculated the Trump administration’s proposed cuts to the National Park Service budget could result in more than a 75% reduction to the National Park System. With 433 national park units across the country, that would essentially wipe out budgets and staffing for at least 350 national park units. The administration’s recently released budget proposal calls for a cut of more than $1 billion to the National Park Service, which includes a $900 million cut to the operations of our national parks, the largest proposed cut in the Park Service’s 109-year history. A list of targeted national parks will likely not be available until the president’s full budget comes out later this month. However, based on a review of the latest reliable budget data for each unit in the Park System, achieving a $900 million cut to operations would require eliminating funding for roughly 350 park sites — from the smallest to some of the largest.

Goddamn I'm so pissed my daughter won't get to see National Parks like I've been able to.

  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 5
Posted

Considering how many western rural red states rely on national parks to bring in tourists, I think this would backfire.  Or at least face serious resistance. Wyoming, Utah, Arizona, Montana, South Dakota especially.

So I’m sure the list will be Colorado, New Mexico, California, Oregon and Washington, mostly. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
4 hours ago, Js1 said:

Considering how many western rural red states rely on national parks to bring in tourists, I think this would backfire.  Or at least face serious resistance. Wyoming, Utah, Arizona, Montana, South Dakota especially.

So I’m sure the list will be Colorado, New Mexico, California, Oregon and Washington, mostly. 

All it takes is one ‘tweet’ declaring it a great idea and boom, they’re on board. 

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...