Not sure where I stand. Our forests need to be thinned for sure. Our 50 years of total suppression of fires has allowed our forests to be overrun by undergrowth and brush. When a fire does happen, they are usually massive wild fires on a huge scale due to inaccessability and the massive amounts of fuel on the ground. Before this era of total suppression, this didn't happen. A properly thinned and maintained forest will not burn out of control. Used to be you could walk through the forest anywhere you wanted to. Now, you couldn't get through the brush if you tried. This is because due to the total suppression of fire our forest canopies are so thick, that sunlight cannot reach the forest floor. Therefore, new trees cannot grow, but the dry brush flurishes and takes over the forest floor providing vast amounts of fuel for the wild fire waiting to happen. This is one reason why the Forest Service and other fire fighting agencies are starting to rethink their policies on fire supression in favor of natural fire thinning and thinning by saw.

Should individual states have control over national forests? I don't think that is such a good idea. This one will take time and more information to figure out what the agenda really is about. Building roads is not such a bad thing. I for one would like to be able to access the forest lands and enjoy them. Why else do we keep them if not for enjoyment?