Irrelevant. Using the public resource without paying the full price.
We accept it because much of the recreation impact is intangible and difficult to quantify. 3 miles of hiking trail built to specs is equivalent to a one acre clearcut. Actually worse, since the timber sale contract requires using Best Management Practices and mitigation measures, enforced by a Forest Service Timber Sale Administrator. No such monitoring for the average recreationist.
The Forest Service in California has not held a pure green sale (harvesting timber to produce a product) in over thirty years. All timber harvesting is done to derive an ecological benefit -- forest health, wildlife habitat, watershed, fire threat reduction, et al. The market value of the timber removed is incidental to the purpose of the project. The purchaser pays fair market price for the product after allowing for his costs for complying with the terms of the rest of the contract.
Grazing fees are set according to formula written into law. The BLM actually determines the fee each year, and the FS must follow the amount determined by BLM. Neither party in Congress has shown any inclination to alter the fee formula. Several studies have shown public land grazing actually benefits the forest overall, besides being legally required to allow grazing. Without public land grazing, most ranchers would go out of business, and be forced by economics to sell the family ranch. That ranch would become another subdivision and part of urban sprawl. The worst managed ranch is still better habitat than the best planned residential development.
Mining is governed by the 1872 Mining Act. The Forest Service and BLM are required by law to allow mining.
Much of what the public criticizes the land agencies over are legal mandates the agencies must follow whether they want to or not.
