jnapier.
You are too kind....not to me but to the WDFW!
Their rules and regulations are the problem.
So many of the rules have the opposite effects
of their intended objective. For example, why wouldn't a spotted owl be just as welcome on
somebody's forest land as a red breasted
robin----until it is listed as an endangered
species. Now it is the proverbial shoot, shovel
and shut up. Having a pair of SO on your property
is a tremendous liability. Heck, they should
be giving the landown an incentive not a financial
burden for having them on their property.
When regulations were coming down the pike to
limit timber cutting along waterways (widening
the riparian zones) it created a log it or
lose it mentality....Miles of timber along
waterways were logged before the laws went into
effect less a landowner was left forfeiting
tens of thousands of dollars of lost timber.
The constitution is suppose to protect the
taking of property from US citizens, but
here in the Pacific NW they have found a
way around the constitution and have regulated
away one's timberland value and rights.
Those that play by the rules, which I have, suffer the most. Many feel that it is easier
to receive forgiveness (if they get caught), than
to get bureauocratic permission for a sylviculture practice. And in most cases that's
true.
The worst managed forestland is a heck of a lot
better watershed, than the best laid out shopping
mall. More and more land owners are giving up
the fight and just selling out their timberland
for developments. It's a shame that govenmental
foresters don't own forestland and understand
human philosophy. They would be so far ahead
of the learning curve if they did.
BB
PS I sincerely appreciate your words of support.
