The Nantahala-Pisgah National Forests Need Your Voice.

Unfortunately I do not see much value of the National Forest other than aesthetics. I am opposed to any and all developing of the land, from my views developing is stripping the land and building on it. I am however extremely open to Timber Harvest especially if it will put money back into our local school systems in accordance to the Secure Rural Schools Act of 1908. Also, the forest is designed to be used and managed for multi-use. I am an avid outdoorsman, anytime I purchase any gear related to hunting or fishing a percentage goes into a fund set aside for conservation in the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act. I pay a yearly fee in order to be licensed to hunt in our state. I started a branch of a non-profit conservation organization, to be able to educate others on conservation and unite sportsman and other recreational forest users in conservation. Conservation is what needs to be practiced in order to have the land being used for multi-purpose, preservation however, benefits a select few, it is pretty to look at, but from a biological and ecological stance, is doing very little to support wildlife. It is my personal belief that Gods greatest creation is man and his second greatest is the Earth we reside on. Unfortunately, we have screwed up more than help. There have been instances in the past that management caused more damage than helped. But, if SMZ and BMP are put into place while managing, disturbance will minimal. I remember my grandfather talking about hunting in the NF, I remember while pursuing my degree seeing the deer harvested in the NF from the 1900's to the 60's. Now, if I want to hunt, I have to find private land. if I were not educated in this area and wanted to effectively manage my wildlife for both game and non-game species, I would look towards private landowners, not the Forest Service. I want my children to have opportunities to pursue wild game in our NF that I was not privileged to. I know this goes against what the Wild South had in mind for this comment and to have voices heard, I am thankful they created this avenue to have voices heard and appreciate it. But, this is my opinion, and I am exercising my right to express it. In short, we need sustainable harvest of the Timber in the NF, Timber Stand Improvement, re-introduction of the fire regime, any practices that favor early-successional habitat. Thank you

The forest should first and foremost (in a sustainable yield manner) benefit the local community's practical needs, not primarily view-shed values, as has been the trend in our NC National Forests for far too long. This, along with providing plentiful habitat needs for ALL wildlife, not strictly some species, as it has been,by only maintaining a status quo of strictly "mature forests". It is incomprehensible why organizations such as yours and some in the wilderness society continue to dispute local timber harvests on USFS lands here in NC, especially when you claim that early-successional habitat (ESH) is necessary. If the goal established in the 1987 plan was 10% ESH (as decided with professional biologists, and foresters of the fed and state gov't, who actually carry out these day-to-day tasks of creating habitat, thus have practical experience, not just university knowledge) and we have arrived at a mere 0.6%, YEP, that is just a tish over 0.5%...absolutely pitiful. How do you propose we create "early-successional" habitat if we cannot remove trees from the landscape? Why do you perceive that cutting trees is not visually appealing? (as a statement was made that economic benefit to WNC would suffer due to ugly timber cutting that would keep tourism away in a recent article on the WildSouth website regarding the Courthouse project)? I suspect that the ruffed grouse, bobwhite quail, cottontail & Appalachian rabbits, alder flycatcher, white-tailed deer, golden-winged warbler, smooth green-snake, whip-poor-will, American woodcock, blue-winged warbler, among MANY others, would definitely disagree with you! And not only they, but many folks as myself, who are wildlife watchers first, and hunters second disagree with you. The tremendous economic benefit that would come from the increase in wildlife, would also draw more Sportsmen along with their money, would definitely defer any of the perceived loss of tourism dollars. In fact, I believe your supposition is incorrect, in that the different variety of birds should/would attract more birders and such. I am tired of either actively exploring, and at other times, sitting in a hunting stand, on the Pisgah NF, patiently waiting for some critter to cross my path, (most of whom most thrive in a shrubby, or opening, grassy, or vine-y area)…and nearly never seeing very much of anything. I am not primarily concerned with harvest more game, as I am to at least see critters, such as deer and or grouse and quail for instance, so that I can enjoy studying them, their behavior and beauty. But so it seems, that preservation minded folks as yourself, focus on one group of species, (those that need mature forest only), to the detriment of the others. Please, do inform the US Forest Service and the public, that if ALL the proposed timber harvests are seemingly designated in the wrong & environmentally sensitive areas, would you mind to inform us with specificity, where all the appropriate areas happen to be?

For an in-depth look at the impacts of timber non-management and possible solutions for the Nantahala/Pisgah N.F.s take a look at my web-page http://www.wvmcconnell.net/?page_id=162. You'll note that the forests are cutting less that 4% of their gross annual growth while 12 times that volume dies. While the environmental costs of non-management are huge, the social and economic impacts of non-management are perhaps.even greater. These effects on people - communities, local governments and families - are enormous and are given minimal attention in decision making.