A few thoughts regarding the Happy Camp article, if you please. The offered definition of an environmental extremist: person who wants the United States National Forest to remain in its natural state for all citizens to enjoy and to benefit from the clean water, air and wildlife produced. My definition of redneck ranchers who surround and beat up people: violent extremists.
I was okay with the article until the business owner started giving biology lessons for her sell-the-public-forest pitch. Why do people think they and their families are personally entitled to profit from a public asset simply because they live the closest? National forest is a homeland wealth to be shared and conserved. The old trees are gone, there is hardly an unmolested patch of forest with the advent of quads, and I don't care if your family did well cutting the public's trees back in the day. No more than you care about my family, amigo. Burned forest, downed and dead trees? That is where the eagles nest, the grouse roost, the elk graze and the bear rolls logs to eat insects. Lots of unstable land to fall into creeks.
No, I don't think telling people it is right to log burnt forest is very responsible. The same people who shoot, shovel and shut up when it comes to bears and cougars running out of food and moving on to private land might decide they need a logging job next season and get out the matches. Don't forget to buy a fire commemoration T-shirt. But not from Parry's. Wouldn't it be great to see a Murphy's out there?
Richard Sessions, McKinleyville