General Discussion

And important. Some posts obscure the difference and that's an important error.

Do you mean Mt. Lassen National Park, which is a part of Mt. Lassen National Forest but not included in the order because it's under the control of the National Parks? Does it include the many acres of BLM land that's on the NF's northern border? Any FWS land in the area?

Federal forest land in the country falls into four categories: BLM land (which has always been open to logging, provided all the regs are followed--meaning that some areas are de facto closed), national parks (which are open for all sorts of things and even have been for some logging), and national parks (in which logging is at most thinning), and FWS land (which, as far as I'm aware, is off limits and heavily regulated).

I like national forests, but they lack any kind of service and if you need help you'd better hope somebody else is hiking or fishing nearby. National parks have rangers and such that are fairly common and patrol the place; they have curators and interpretive trails, amenities, and typically include the most scenic areas, assuming that by "scenic" you don't just mean trees. But driving through some national parks, it's mile after mile of woods for 10, 15, 20 miles, and if you break down a ranger may pass through sometime that day on the way to work (or going home). When I parents and brother visited me in Oregon they said they'd never seen so many trees--Coos Bay to Yachats to Sisters, Salem to the Rogue River.

Often it's hard to tell where a national forest and BLM land change hands. Going hiking and fishing up in the Cascades and the western slopes you'd hike and only suspect you exited one if you ran into logging, and only know for sure if you were following a road that and the boundary was posted. (Oregon's over 52% federally owned and in more than a few places city and town limits are right up againt the border so if you want to build a house you need to tear something else down. That's true in a bunch of LA, too.)