Major Change To Delta National Forest Proposed

[Don Miller]

The problem that I have is where does it stop with wilderness status. It's kinda like gun control. I don't care for pistols and assault weapons and think some sould be banned. If they are banned it makes it that much easier for the government to ban hunting rifles and shot guns. Where does it stop?
I truly believe that in the next 20 years we will see some, if not all, of our hunting and fishing privileges taken away from us on Federal lands. Wildrerness status on a little part of Delta National is only the beginning of the end of hunting traditions as we know it on public lands.
Where does it stop boys

[bigwater]

long live peta and all those bad acid -trippen dirt eatin golf cheatin.. tree huggin fools!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[LODI QUACKER]

MILLER, WHAT YOU TALKIN BOUT BOAY?? For gun bans? dont like pistols? Somebody has stolen Don millers body folks!!!

[tsbadb]

Thats my point if it happens were will it end and this it whats bothers alot of people. And not just hunters even the Forest Service is worried if they get this they will want more and more.

[MSDuckmen]

Wildrerness status on a little part of Delta National is only the beginning of the end of hunting traditions as we know it on public lands.
Where does it stop boys

Well Don the areas out west have been under the Wilderness program for more than 3 decades. They are still hunting and fishing those areas.

Sad thing about all this is that it will be somthing we will lose if we don't make our minds up that it is important enough to set aside.
I don't sound the chicken little tunes until I see other places that it is not working in. That is not the case here.

Goose, It is no doubt that the men at DNR did what they felt was right for that Forest. I just think it was wrong. I have hunted those woods since I was eight years old and there was always flooded areas created by the beavers. They didn't just arrive in the last decade.

The timber will always have a certain portion that will be lost to the change in the environment. That is natures way. What I can tell you is that I have watched it change a great deal over the past 15 years. Much of it has to do with the way it is managed.

Back in 70 we hunted Wonsley's fields and had to put boats in off of the dummmy line just to get to them. Through out the 80's Delta Nat. would stay under water almost the entire season.

They didn't just remove a bunch of beaver they changed the entire structure of the forest near Spanish Fort. Where there were large creeks that held water year round in that area. Now they are dry to the point that they have filled with leaves making them almost non-existant.

We all have our views on this and will likely never agree. I hope for the sake of our youth that people will wake up to what can and will likely happen to this area in the next 30 years.

As a side note: I'll make sure to say I told ya so just as I have on the Spinner issue and what has happened to our duckhunting heritage as we know it now. And when I do there will still be those that say it had nothing to do with that....

Have a good day I'm headed to camp where no man can cut a tree without me saying so.

Dan

[Meeka]

I'll be there this weekend, so that does mean I don't get to go regular.

As to the drainage issue. The areas tsbad mentions don't drain good - with or without beavers. But that is the very reason it is the DNF. That large area at the time was not good for anything else cause it was too low and didn't drain well.

I see that in reality TS' argument is really typical of one common side in all arguments about what to do in the delta - one side is always driven by commercial-oriented interests. "Lets kill the beavers so the adjoining cropland will be better farmed". "Lets spend billions to drain the lower delta better so it does not flood in the low areas in May" (which are primarily hunting lands and DNF). "If we didn't have flooding events on all that low, swampy, wooded areas, maybe we could clear it so it will be better suited for farmland". And the timber industry says "We need to manage that forrest so it will be better"

Better for who, I ask.

And this is where will it all end - paranoia. Sounds like the argument of a man with no sound answers to the question of what about now. A tactic to scare people who cant think it through on their own. It is hard to jump in that argument - "You oughta be against something cause of fear about what will be next." The only response I can make to the "Where will it all end argument" is that the lady down on the square in New Orleans says that aint in the ball.

[gator]

yeah, meeka, but's that's just "one" weekend ....ain't NO WAY someone who doesn't live there possibly have a "right" answer....

you jes stay in mcomb where you belong......

wut's DNF anyway? gator

[Randy Wilson]

OK, boys.... I have read this thread from start to finish and on more than one occasion msduckman (who ever you are) has stated that we should support this effort because we should preserve the virgin forests of Delta National Forest. As a professional biologist working in the Delta region, I am left wondering how you derived this classification and more importantly...do you really believe that DNF is virgin old growth forest?

Secondly, do you know how much of Delta National Forest is already under a no timber harvest regime? I do, and its more than you think.

Answer: 3 natural areas plus a botanical area, plus areas not feasible to manage via silvicultural treatments, plus stream-side management zones up to circa 100 yards on both sides of rivers, lakes, and bayous, plus several other areas that are excluded from the current forest mgmt plan. I do not have the exact acreage values in front of me, but I am sure the staff at Delta National would be more than glad to discuss this with you.

Thirdly, what do we stand to gain from this wilderness area designation that is not currently offered? I for one believe we stand to loose a lot more than we will ever gain. For example, all of you guys that were bashing the beaver management program, what do you think this new wilderness area is going to look like in the future without any beaver control? Answer, a large dead timber swamp with no regeneration of canopy trees. Someone stated earlier that before beaver control there was something like 12,000 acres of "duck water"; the problem is this duck water created by beavers is usually present during the summer (little benefit to a mallard) but what it is really doing is killing trees, changing the soil characteristics and preventing the regeneration of oaks and other important tree species. If you want to talk duck water, you need to think about the GTRs currently managed plus the oxbow lakes, sloughs and did I mention the naturally flooded habitat (several thousand acres).

Enough for now, but in closing it sounds as if some of you guys should take double Rs advice and actually spend some time on the forest and see for yourself what the rest of us already know.

Cheers,

Randy Wilson

[mudsucker]

Here,here, Mr. Wilson, Good post and glad to have ya aboard!

[bigwater]

mr wilson..

i think you just put an end to any futher discussion..


very very good informed educated post!!!

[Cotten]

[quote="Randy Wilson"]For example, all of you guys that were bashing the beaver management program, what do you think this new wilderness area is going to look like in the future without any beaver control? Answer, a large dead timber swamp with no regeneration of canopy trees.[/quote]



I think that's called a marsh. And it ain't good.

We were loosing land to the beavers by "leaving it natural" and I can attest you will abandon that mind set quick when trees worth several hundred dollars a piece start hitting the ground; uh water. Trees that provide a food source I might add.

I don't know much about the Sierra Club so I will state herein no final opinion as of yet. However, while working and not paying much attention to the news the other night I caught the tale end of a story about how an almost extent population of wolves had done a 180 and were thriving so much they had become a nuisance to cattle farmers. I didn't catch which state. The cattle farmers wanted permission to protect their animals (livelihood) but the Sierra Club spokesperson (some chick who looked just old enough to barely be out of college) said they would not support this since they needed more wolves to relocate to other states. Of course this makes criminals out of hard working law abiding citizens since a man must protect what is his when the friggin government acts like idiots. So while the jury may still be out for me on the Sierra Club I'm not impressed so far.

It's just like the alligators on the Ross Barnett. Some kid will have to die before the morons in charge wake up like deer in headlights and say it's time to start a gator season.

[MSDuckmen]

I am left wondering how you derived this classification and more importantly...do you really believe that DNF is virgin old growth forest?

Well lets see I have only hunted there for the last 40+ years I think I have a bit of a handle on what old growth means...

Secondly, do you know how much of Delta National Forest is already under a no timber harvest regime? I do, and its more than you think.

What I do know is section of land within the forest not seen from any roads near by that is not around water or a road that and was butchered thus reduced to a cut over that I can remember large timber on at one time.
Many of these cutovers were done years ago and to this day you can spot them within the old growth forest and they suck. Would you care to take a ride with me to view a few?

Enough for now, but in closing it sounds as if some of you guys should take double Rs advice and actually spend some time on the forest and see for yourself what the rest of us already know.

What the rest of us already know? That statement alone tells why we can't get anything passed because you guys know so much more than the rest of us.

Yeah some of us do spend time in the forest. Like the last 10 weekends excluding the 4th.

Some people see the forest for what it is and some see it as a job and profit.

You said your piece and I said mine. The Delta has been managed to death between flood control and timber manipulation. I just would like to see it restricted to some degree.


Timber management is needed in many areas of the state. I just feel there should be a line drawn on parts of our federal land.

We were loosing land to the beavers by "leaving it natural" and I can attest you will abandon that mind set quick when trees worth several hundred dollars a piece start hitting the ground; uh water. Trees that provide a food source I might add.

Worth Hundreds of dollars... Yep money plays no part in this forest management program.

I'm all for seeing a return of the Black Bear in the delta. It is just not likely to happen because people tend to want it all their way regardless of how it impacts the resource.

Then we might have a bear season like it use to be.

Never happen to many people, to many wants, to many rights, to many I know more about it than you do people to ever allow it to develope. It is a prime example of what happens when you give the government total control.

So what,

Good day.

[Double R 2]

Welcome aboard Wilson.

MSDuckmen - finish reading Leopold's Sand County Almanac. You'll appreciate, especially, teh last 2/3rds of the book. And remember - he was a forester too.

[Cotten]

[quote="MSDuckmen"][b][quote]We were loosing land to the beavers by "leaving it natural" and I can attest you will abandon that mind set quick when trees worth several hundred dollars a piece start hitting the ground; uh water. Trees that provide a food source I might add.
[/quote][/b]

Worth Hundreds of dollars... Yep money plays no part in this forest management program.

I'm all for seeing a return of the Black Bear in the delta. It is just not likely to happen because people tend to want it all their way regardless of how it impacts the resource. Good day.[/quote]


MSDuckmen, first let me say I always respect your post since it is clear you are a straight shooter. I probably should not have used the $$$ value of trees since it may have caused the implication that the $$$ are what matters most. My point is there will be no "forest to manage" if the beavers take over. Beavers are like Al Qaeda; there is no negotiating with them and they want the whole friggin world under water. Now, if you seek a marsh with no forest to manage then "leave it natural" and unless you have a soil type that will not hold water, a marsh is what you will get. Otherwise, you have to kill the beavers. And that ain't leaving it natural.

[qckmstr]

[color=orange]Beavers are like Al Qaeda; there is no negotiating with them and they want the whole friggin world under water