Group wants full Bull Run type closures in the coast range

[miah66]

"At times, the document seems to be responding to citizen group concerns about forest management, rather than doing an unbiased analysis of threats to drinking water."

That's just like, his opinion man.

[Bosterson]

"At times, the document seems to be responding to citizen group concerns about forest management, rather than doing an unbiased analysis of threats to drinking water."

That's just, like, the opinion of a group of industry lobbyists who presumably are worried that conservation will hurt their profit margins.

Fixed that for ya.

Meanwhile, this is a pretty stupid "discussion" - I say we stop feeding the troll.

[miah66]

To state the obvious, closure of 10 feet of trail can be problematic. Supposedly, 20% of the Oregon Coast Trail is on trails and dirt roads (not on the beach).

Here is another quote of the letter:

"Private forest landholders should be incentivized to release their properties for drinking water protection. Structures need to be developed for low-cost ..., land-swaps, ..."

Depending on the particulars, the group's land swaps which would convert public land to private land could hinder future work to reroute the 40% of the Coast Trail that is currently on paved roads.

More generally, Bull Run type protection on the existing public lands, as well as land swap conversion of public land to private land, could hinder creation of new trails that would connect peopled areas to the network of existing hiking trails in the Coast Range.

http://www.oceansidefriends.org/wp-cont ... 150606.pdf

This is an interesting point, though given your post history, I'm kind of shocked you give a rip about trail continuity. Any more information about this land swap? Do you really think they would cordon off a million+ acres of coast range forest? That map of watersheds is alot of land.