Major Change To Delta National Forest Proposed

[tsbadb]

Ms they have been select cutting it for years and were I hunt the cutover sections are the best hunting around I've been hunting here now for almost 20yrs my dad over 40yrs I hated logging to but I see the cutovers growing out now the hunting has improved over the last 10 or so years and at the ripe old age of 35 It looks to me that the logging is helping the forest.

[Po Monkey Lounger]

don't worry ---if man doesn't manage it, then mother nature will --- a periodic naturally caused forest fire will thin it out and create new growth

I don't hunt there now, but I might want to some day. There is an allure to a natural, pristine wilderness area, without a lot of interference or disturbance by man. Hunting in such an area would be unique and not for everyone. While I have nothing against proper timber management for recreation, at the same time I can see the need to preserve certain areas for the purists. We need more places where hunters can get away from the crowds and enjoy the quiet solitude of the wilderness. Nothing wrong with DNF offering a little something for everyone.

[Don Miller]

I know Davis Mounger, went to high school with him. He is orginally from Greenwood. The boy got a hold of some bad acid when he was in college and all he has wanted to do since then is hug trees.

[MSDuckmen]

Ms they have been select cutting it for years

That is exactly why a section of it needs to be a wilderness reserve.
It is not simply about making it great to hunt.

The boy got a hold of some bad acid when he was in college and all he has wanted to do since then is hug trees.

Well I know him but very little, What I do know is that if saving part of a forest from human manipulation is a tree hugging thing then I guess I am a tree hugger, Hey Mounger pass that over here....

[timberjack]

but to allow any timber removal is in my opinion a huge mistake.

I don't understand this. Why is it a huge mistake to harvest timber in an ethical and environmentally responsible manner? Timber harvesting is an integral part of any sound forest management plan, where several factors come into play. I have bought and cut timber on federal lands before and let me tell you from personal experience that it is the most highly regulated (environmental regulations, etc.) of any harvesting operation known. Normally you have to put up several thousand dollars for performance bonds to insure adherence to all the regulations and if you screw up and don't do right then you lose that money. You also have to put up thousands of dollars in road repair and maintenance money, but you usually get that back. It strikes a nerve with me when somebody makes statements like " It will remove the Forest commission from being able to destroy the land." The 'Forest commission' doesn't have anything to do with Federal land, the Forest Service manages it and from what I've seen they do a pretty good job. Heck you can't get any more complicated than what they've got now, but hey, what do I know?

The Sierra Club has it's agenda just like any lumber company or any other business and I believe with all my heart that if you start letting them set public use policy on federal lands that you're making a big mistake...........and that's all I got to say 'bout that.

[MSDuckmen]

Good post timberjack,
As with you and as I stated it is my opinion.
The Delta is not like the forest around Choctaw and Noxubee. It is the last stand of virgin timber in this state.
Why is it that man has to manage it when it managed itself for all those thousands of years before man?
Why is it that man has to put his mark on everything natural? Why can't we have something wild and untouched? What is it about man that he believes he can do better than nature itself?
You talk of requirements and bonds. They are there so that regulations are met. However it still requires roads, destruction of habitat, and it changes the forest forever.
I don't understand why it is that people feel that is OK as long as some guy with a degree watches over it.

The Sierra Club has it's agenda just like any lumber company or any other business and I believe with all my heart that if you start letting them set public use policy on federal lands that you're making a big mistake...........and that's all I got to say 'bout that.

Yes it has an agenda, It wants to set aside a small section of timber so that one day your kids and mine will be able to go to a stand of forest that will look just as it did hundreds of years ago. Will be as true to real wilderness as possible without the mark of man all over it. I can't see the mistake in that. Wilderness land exist in enormous tracks in the mid west and western states. They hunt, trap, trail, and enjoy the resource without allowing it to become a product of large corporations and government involvement. I believe it will be a big mistake not to allow it to happen as the only place you will be able to see that in the future will be those states that had the foresight to set that land aside.

Thanks for your comments

[Bustin' Ducks]

Oh yeah...coordinates please...(just to verify)...

Well, I don't use a GPS, so I got no clue as to the coordinates. But I can tell you how to get there. Get out of the truck and walk into the woods. Walk a mile and take a left at the big oak. Walk another mile and hang a sharp right at the fallen log. Don't worry, you're almost there now. When you get to the three big cypress trees, figger out which way the wind is blowing and go a quarter of mile upwind. Throw out your decoys and get ready.

mottlet

...I thought your directions were gonna be harder to follow..

[Double R 2]

I don't have a problem "putting the wild into the wilderness act" at DNF on a limited scale (as understood only by my reading this thread). Limited, roadless Natural areas - unfettered by human disturbance for the research, human interest and biological diversity that such areas provide. I would lose not a moment of sleep. The remainder of the forest needs to be responsibly harvested per existing sound forest management and I'm of the professional and personal opinion that the Delta National Forest staff are among the elite of applied southern bottomand hardwood foresters.

There are two existing stands at DNF that come especially to mind, and everyone here should do a walk through when they get the chance: the sweetgum and green ash areas up on the nw end. The sweetgum natural area was formed prior to establishment of the mainline mississippi river levee system. For all the folks that think oaks are king or that the entire delta was once prolific to oak, think again. Sweetgum was likely the most common species across inherent forest types, and the sweetgums seen in this area are magnificent, old-growth redgums that are the most valuable stems in the woods. Betcha you've never seen trees so big in the delta!Loss of this "super emergent" species (canopies growing beyond the average forest canopy height) at teh landscape level has been to the derision of numerous wildlife species, such as the swallow tailed kite. Loss of "old growth", of veteran sized stems and unmanaged hardwood tracts at the landscape level led to teh demise of species such as the ivory-billed, a highly specialized bird that fed primarily on the underside of old growth hardwood limbs. Reckon WHY they REdiscovered the species where they did?

The problem with the Forest Service has nothing to do with it's field staff. The agency is subject to congressional mandate of "multiple use management" that integrates not only ducks, deer, squirrels, but all human desires that public forest land may possibly render. Consider making we few participants of this thread happy and then think about making 330 million taxpayers - the ultimate owners of DNF and the entire public land system - happy and then you might have new found appreciation for what DNF management staff is going through pursuant to multiple use management. And they continue to make it work despite budget cuts!

Of this I am sure: DNF is the largest remaining remnant hardwood stand in the delta, crown jewel of the delta's satellite image, and had it not been afforded National Forest protection, it'd likely be one helluva large bean field. As a forester and wildlife biologist, I'm first and foremost for optimal productivity. There are, however, yardsticks of productivity other than just boardfeet, ducks, and atv trails. Moreover, there are constituents (owners) that deservedly desire these values be represented on OUR public lands. IMHO.

[duckamateur]

I for one would love to be able to take my son to an "untouched" forrest to hunt duck, deer or any kind of hunting! I also understand not wanting to let an organization start making the rules on a public land. As far as motorized vehicles on public land. I am for it!!!!!! My first 3 deer I took, I was taught by my father how to quarter and pack them out!!!! I just could not understand that at the time. We were skinning an animal within sight of the 3-wheeler and he said no we are gonna take this animal out like "you are supposed too." First deer I had mounted me and my father packed out on a Cedar pole. There was never any question how we should get him out. I will teach my son as I was taught.

[crow]

As one who had the privilege to walk parts of Panther Creek Swamp when it was as close to virgin as could be ...after McGraw-Curran bought it, but still had places where it was impossible to log...and also have had the privilege to hunt Delta National before it became the garden spot for every dang body in the state...and having relatives in the logging business (including Timberjack, but he's so far up in the family tree as to be "dog kin" )...I have no hesitation in saying that the preservation of this chunk of DNF would be a godsend to those of us who relish the thought of taking a grandson or granddaughter into a place and being able to say, "This is what it used to look like when I was a boy." That is the only way to communicate this part of me and have them understand who I am and why I am like I am, at least the part of me that loves to stand in the woods and not hear any other presence of mankind.

I hesitate to say this, but those of you who don't favor a limited preservation (meaning not all of it, just enough to have a representative sample) of pristine public land seem to me to be willing to finance your present by selling a mortgage on the past...at the expense of the future.

We have to do more to honor a world that would be just fine without us. Can't we have just a little slice of land that is not marked by the arrogance of man!

crow

[MSDuckmen]

Can't we have just a little land that is not marked by the arrogance of man!

Bravo!!

[LODI QUACKER]

well, I don't know what the sierra club or any other group is planning or wants to do. I do know that I am for any thing that will protect the remaining virgin bottomland we have left. Everyone on here probably knows that the whole Ms delta was once one huge forest but the almighty rice crop and then soy bean led to a massive clearing and farming. Hey I am for the farmer but we should have saved a hell of a lot more than we did. My personal opinion is that there should have never been a piece of timber cut on the dnr in the first place and "if" this would protect the remaining timber and not limit hunting and fishing I am for it. Now as for as the vehicle issue I dont really think atvs if used only on existing roads are a problem, but I dont deer hunt much anymore. I know how frustrating it can be to have som sob drive right by your freakin stand that you walked half mile to get to. The boat traffic thing is a crock I dont think anybody can limit boat traffic on a river,I have just never heard of that. just my opinion but we must save what we have left at all cost!!!!!!!

[tsbadb]

Alot of good post guys but still no one can tell me who will set guidlines and regulate what goes on in this tract of land. One other thing except for a few nobody that is posting is from this area you may come and use it once in a while but we live here and nobody I've talked to around these parts is for it.

[Meeka]

I doubt the boat traffic thing will ever fly. And that is assuming that is what is actually being proposed. I don't doubt that it is, cause it would appeal to people who like to canoe and look at wildlife and untouched virgin forrests, without hearing the sounds of an engine. I haven't done that where they are talking about, but it might be nice to canoe down the LS and up six mile. It is a very, very pretty place.

Point is, a lot of the folks who care the most about this issue, whether for or against it, hang out here. If there is a proposal for change, could someone just post whatever is being proposed, whether to limit access or to manage more timber (cut down trees), or allow more ATV trails.

If anyone cares, I don't particularly like access I now have being taken away. Most reading this don't seem to realize it, but ATV access is extremely limited already. ATV's are only allowed on designated trails and there are virtually no trails. As a practical matter, IMO, there is no ATV access now.

But the roads are a different story. The whole road system is set up around the water areas and boundaries of the forrest, so basically, there are very few areas you can't walk to in an hour or so. So its the gravel roads that really cut up the forrest. Now you could take any one particular road out and cut off virtually all access to a huge chunk of forrest, EXCEPT from the adloining private lands or by boat. Without any given road, there would be vitually ZERO access to some duck holes. Is that good or bad. I don't know, but it would be a loss of use. A pristine forrest would be a gain, though.

I love walking through the big timber that you can't hardly find anywhere else. I get goosebumps walking through some places, but that's just me. And I have taken my son there and explained it. He'll appreciate what I have said later on.

By the way, we walked around the cutovers. They don't appeal to me. Sure they are good for the rabbits. But I ain't seen many squirrels in them. Sure they are good for the people who make a living in the timber industry. And they are good for the big companies who contribute to political campagns. And they are good for building houses. But I for one don't buy that the cost of the cutovers justifies taking trees out of the DNF. The very reason we shouldn't cut trees from the DNF is that we HAVE to cut trees everywhere else.

Others see it differently. Take SB, most respect him and his opinion, but he hasn't chimed in yet. He probably is taking all those comp days in advance of hunting season. But he thinks managing the timber is actually good for the bears, if I remember correctly. And that idea would fly directly in the face of the purpose behind the Mounger proposal.

I guess the point is that I like the forrest and think preserving it and making it better is a good thing. And if that makes me a "tree hugger", well I guess I'll be proud if you call me that. Question is, why aren't you? And ain't it remarkable that Poor Monkey and I are on the same side. Damn, we MUST be right!

[tsbadb]

Meeka great post but still have to disagree on the cutovers most of the deer and squirels I see and kill are all around them. My camp is on the east side of the Little Sunflower River I hunt on the west side in the block were the 720 & 721 road intersect this is the block closest to the river if that helps several cutovers and alot of huge trees best place to hunt ever as far as I'm concerend. I go in by boat because my camp sets on the river, but I believe without the cutovers you could see the dummy line from the camp(probably not) but the cutovers help to kinda thicking things up a little and that works for me.