TheLBLman
Well-Known Member
In the near term, very little.TLRanger said:
In the longterm, despite the relatively small acreage of crops and fields vs. woodlands, eliminating fields will signifcantly reduce wildlife food supplies as well as habitat and food supply diversity.
But let's look as some other consequences of eliminating farmed fields and fields in general (as I understand it, the plan is for all fields to generate into forests).
As fields become overgrown and start becoming "forests", there will be a reduction in public usage of LBL, as many people have enjoyed this area for wildlife viewing --- whether as riding bicycles, horses, hiking, or just driving around the area --- take the fields out and relatively little wildlife can be "viewed" by the public. This means less public funding. This also means it's easier to make the case for "wilderness" areas in which most forms of "recreation" would cease.
This is not just a "deer & turkey" and/or a "hunting" issue. It is also a "funding" issue. People pay to utilize and recreate on LBL. Even the farming brought in tens of thousands of dollars annually to help "manage" LBL. Over time, without the opportunity to view wildlife in fields, there will be fewer people purchasing those LBL User Permits. With less funding coming from users, more funding will be needed directly from the federal government, giving both the government and outside extremist groups yet more leverage in what ultimately happens to LBL.
This may happen (or may not) in the near term, but the goal of these "environmental" extremists is to convert everything to old growth forests.TLRanger said:
Within LBL, I totally agree: Proper forest management would provide far more benefits to the wildlife than has the current farming.TLRanger said:
Problem is, these environmental extremists want old growth forests, i.e. no tree cutting, no fields. LBL would become 170,000 acres of a single habitat, rather than a well managed diversified forest for wildlife.
delete the farming)
