I decided to wait a month before responding to your post. I'm reminded of the old cartoon featuring Rick O'Shay and Hipshot Percussion...I didn't want to 'shoot from the hip', without thinking.
I agree with the idea of keeping the state and federal government out of NTS, in the context of the rules, regulations, laws and legislation of bureaucracies that attend to non-profit, for-profit, and other variations of organizational entities. I can think of a number of organizations that I'm apart of that I advocate for no status that requires state or federal involvement.
But just to see if I can get you to shoot from the hip', I'd go so far as to say that the best thing that could happen to the forests of New England would be to have them included in a network of National Forests and National Parks, where Core relatively undisturbed areas that were surrounded by, or connected by protected Corridors to other Core areas would receive the protection of federal ownership. And those areas that had shown a good response to best management practices (such as those you espouse), be designated for continued forest management (insofar as they could be managed into perpetuity in a sustained yield fashion). With VERY active public input into a NEPA process.
: > }
dbhguru wrote:I vote to keep the state and federal government out of NTS.
great perspective-now, if only I could get them out of all forestry! they add nothing, in my opinion, at GREAT expense to the taxpayers...