That conclusion doesn't stand up to scrutiny, however. While the Forest Service is reducing timber sale volume, at least some of those reductions are related to supply. Because of that, the Forest Service has less of a backlog of older timber than does the DNR, or the counties. And the DNR is cutting back significantly on its timber harvests in northeastern Minnesota, as well, in part because the backlog of older timber has been reduced and also to retain a percentage of older forests for wildlife habitat. In other words, there is no reason to believe that a change in ownership would impact the volume of timber being sold from existing Forest Service lands.
Legislators claims to the contrary are just rhetoric.
Neither does the proposed buyout have any conceivable impact on sportsmen, as Senator Doug Johnson asserted to the Outdoor News, since the regulations in the wilderness are the same on state lands as they are on federal. I'm not suggesting that the federal buyout is a great idea. It's not a perfect solution. And in either case, the proposal would only address some of the trust fund lands in the wilderness. Some of the state lands would be retained, at least until additional federal buyout funding could be allocated or until the Forest Service changes its mind on the possibility of a land exchange.