By A. M. Johnson
February 17, 2011
Mr. Tom Tidwell, as a spokesperson for the U.S.Forest Service publicly advocates for the surrender of American independence to the "One World Order".aka -"International Community".aka "United Nations".
I differ in thought than Mr. Tidwell. Mr. Tidwell quote: "The USDA Forest Service is committed to investing (Read Taxes) in the future of our public lands through our work with partners at home and abroad." end of quote. Mr. Tidwell advocates for "Climate Change". The climate has been under changes from one degree to another from day one. Climate change is nothing more than an excuse for Federal over reach and restriction against the general public and well fare.
Study this statement. "With partners at home (Could Mr. Tidwell identify those home partners?) and abroad. Who might the abroad partners be?
Following this Mr. Tidwell advocates that the U.S.Forest Service has the ability to oversight not only the Federal lands they currently handle, but private lands as well under the guise of "Environmental quality". This is a bogus cover for continued and increased over reach of regulatory powers.
This must be resisted. One of the methods of resistance is through the de-funding of the Department budget.
There should be no "International over reach" of America period.
I have an opinion that we should be independent of any abroad partnerships. American forest are American forest. Further, the American forest should be under the control of each and every independent State of the Union. Yes, the forest should be controlled under States Rights. Under States rights, there is no National requirement for the U.S.Forest Service.
Congress is approaching the time in our desperate budget debt situation where real discussions and impacts will be explored to reduce the Federal debt. One of the suggestions on file is a reduction of the USDA. A sector of that department is the U.S. Forest Service. The elimination of the U.S.Forest Service has merit when the Congress recognizes that returning to each State in the Union, of all land not authorized under the U.S. Constitution as specified by the signers of original intent of restriction of Federal involvement with States Rights.
In the case of the State of Alaska, we have a State forestry service. We have the capability and skills to manage the forest lands throughout Alaska.
If the Federal Government believes that Federal oversight of specific areas of and States lands are that warranted, then the Federal government should lease those lands from the respective State at fair market value. Far more than the current formula based on extinct timber harvesting acreage.
Understand I write this from the two points of interest.
One- of budget/deficient concerns: Finding parts of the USFS budget to reduce can be magnified by ones personal viewing of their local U.S.Forest Service growth and regulatory restrictive mode of operation. In Ketchikan, looking at the vast fleet of trucks, large fleet of boats, and increasing number of employees reflects the continuing growth in an area where forest activity from a commercial arena that has disappeared. What drives this continued growth? Tourist? What else? Fisheries? I don't pretend to have that answer, I do believe that the State of Alaska given the opportunity, would manage at a reduced cost and less restrictive both of those entity. I am confident that the observations I make for Ketchikan can be mirrored across the Nation at all USFS installations. That all the individual States have the expertness to manage their respective forest. Everybody puts their pants one leg at a time.
Personally I have given up using Federal land for exercise. Walking around Ward Lake anticipating meeting Glock (Automatic weapon) carrying Forest enforcement officers is disconcerting.
Speaking to, it seems in my observations, that the number of enforcement officers has grown by three or four over the past couple of years.
Along with at least one State Trooper, a couple of City police cars, one can anticipate seeing a U.S.Forest Service vehicle on the Tongass highway. It can be anticipated that in the future we will see a USFS enforcement report in Sitnews along with the Trooper.and City police with "Nothing to report"
Recently at the Tongass Ave USFS lot I viewed a new $300,000 Chambered boat. The boat is outfitted with a couple of $20,000 engines sitting on a three axle trailer that has to run around $8,000.00. It was labeled as an U.S.F.S. Enforcement vessel.
This seems to me a "Air force toilet Seat" situation when I see so many under used USFS boats floating around. Maybe this boat was for Thorne Bay (Which I understand,appears like an Army outpost for the equipment stacked there) or some other USFS site, the fact remains that all of the U.S. Forest Service activity reflects inflationary growth. So, from a budget stand point. doing away with the U.S. Forest Service would save Billions over the next 10 years, (Always the time period the President uses to reflect anticipated budget results)
Two: There is no way that American governmental agencies should be subjected to any International schedule or goals. The Environmental blanket use by Mr. Tidwell is a red herring. It is about control. The UN has as its goal a One World situation. The liberal philosophy supports governmental control. Under this mode of operation control of the masses is the ultimate over reach. Think of this. Ask yourself of any time or issue you have had with any Federal government agency, have you not faced restrictive intent.
The U.S. Forest Service never hold a public meeting where they are relinquishing control or loosening access or freeing of reign regarding Forest Service instituted policy? No. Every gathering that I am aware, is for the purpose to discuss the implementation of "New" regulations which invariably are an increase of restriction.
It starts with a young USFS intern from Kansas floating around in her kayak advising visitors that the berries are for the bears so restrict the amount you pick. Yep, had a person tell me that and I was floored.
In closing, I would suggest those who hold similar observations or agreement, contact Representative Young with a suggestion of his consideration at the appropriate time, to support States Rights. I have no opinion of contacting Senator Begich or Senator Murkowski, Both seem to be "Big Government" orientated. The best gauge is the upcoming budget debate and vote. That will tell where they stand.
I would urge readers of Mr. Tidwell to resist his International provocative avocations. Instead look too American private sector intuitions, to address reality of life through private jobs, forest development called harvesting, a renewable resource, self governance, and less reliance on the Federal Tit.as represented by Mr. Tidwell's Nanny State avocation.
Thank you for your patience, I remain,
A. M. Johnson
About: "Long time resident who knows what "Timber!" meant. A tree falling."
Received February 16, 2011 - Published February 17, 2011
Viewpoints - Opinion Letters:
and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Sitnews.
Your full name, city and state are required for letter publication.