What is the difference between the Forest Service, the National Park Service, Department of Wildlife Resources and State Parks?

  The Forest Service manages the national forests and grasslands, forestry research and cooperation with forest managers on State and Private Lands. The Forest Service is dedicated to multiple-use management for the sustained yield of renewable resources such as water, forage, wildlife, wood and recreation. Multiple-use means managing resources under the best combination of uses to benefit the American people while ensuring the productivity of the land and protecting the quality of the environment.

  The National Park Service focuses on preservation. They preserve unimpaired, the natural and cultural resources and values of the national park system for the enjoyment, education, and inspiration of this and future generations. The Park Service cooperates with partners to extend the benefits of natural and cultural resource conservation and outdoor recreation.

 State Parks are similar to National Parks but are managed on a state level and can have fewer restrictions.
 Department of Wildlife Resources (DWR) can be under state or federal management

State DWRs handle fishing and hunting permits while federal DWRs Manage wildlife that crosses state boundaries such as migratory birds and whales.

State DNR  The Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR) manage over 3,000,000 acres (12,000 km2) of forest, range, agricultural, and commercial lands for the people of Washington State. DNR also manages 2,600,000 acres (11,000 km2) of aquatic areas which include shorelines, tidelands, lands under Puget Sound and the coast, and navigable lakes and rivers. Part of DNR's management responsibility includes monitoring of mining cleanup, environmental restoration, providing scientific information about earthquakes, landslides and ecologically sensitive areas. DNR also works towards conservation, in the form of Aquatic Reserves

The main sources of funds for the department's activities are forestry and geoduck harvesting, rather than taxes. In addition, the State uses revenue generated from DNR-managed lands to fund the construction of public schools, colleges, universities and other government institutions, and county and state services.


The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is an agency within the United States Department of the Interior which administers America's public lands, totaling approximately 253 million acres (1,020,000 km2), or one-eighth of the landmass of the country.[1] The BLM also manages 700 million acres (2,800,000 km2) of subsurface mineral estate underlying federal, state and private lands. Most public lands are located in western states, including Alaska. With approximately 10,000 permanent employees and close to 2,000 seasonal employees, this works out to over 21,000 acres (85 km2) per employee. Its budget is US$  960,000,000 for 2010 ($3.79 per surface acre, $9.38 per hectare).[2]

The BLM's stated mission; is to sustain the health, diversity and productivity of the public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations.


The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) manages 245 Million acres
US Forest Service manages 193 Million acres
National Park Service Manages 84 Million acres
DNR manages 3 Million

The HIGH RISE of inflation in 2012 allows even less $$$ available for land management per acre
no matter who manages it. The difference is;
 The U.S. Forest Service can create jobs that in turn allow the economy as a whole grow. Lots of jobs in the forest, providing there is funding to allow this agency to flourish.

DNR  focuses on distribution of these lands within our State to maintain a balanced level, so employment, recreation and conservation can perpetualy provide for much needed opportunities and secure  state funding .

   National Park-focuses on visual and interpitational opportunities to Hear and 
SEE.   Affording maintenence has been an ongoing problem since the parks creation here in the Olympics. Climate is the biggest draw back.  We are the wettest climate in the world. Most travelers are looking for a drier more compatible climate to get out into.  All year climates DO profit heavily on tourism.  They also leave an even heavier footprint.  

  BUT Olympic Park never has been profitable and making it bigger makes no sense. It won't change anything.  Guests pay their Fee and don't spend much money because, guests do not stay here for long.  As soon as the rain starts, they get in their cars and are gone!  
You have to have plenty of "rugged" in you, to conquer a climate and terrain such as the Olympics.  It's Back Country wilderness here around Quinault and a very small percentage of the tourist population fits into that catagory.  Back Country Packers (who we welcome) do not spend much money. They are truley out for the wilderness experience where money is a non essential.  There is NO money to be made in or around wilderness especially.

Now don't get us wrong. We agree. Parks are wonderful places.  Our enormous 1.5 million acre Olympic National Park is indeed a "special place". We are ALL happy to have it available to enjoy.  We believe that big enough park boundries, were already put in place years ago. Plenty of usable and preserved area for both visitors and wildlife habit alike. BUT Park lands are far less profitable and are economic "drainers" rather then "feeders".

We all have dreams of  becoming a strong, economically stable and prospering country again. Unfortunately our U.S. and local economic stability has deteriorated.  The world is a much larger place now. Parks and amusments are basically no longer affordable and a larger park does not replace the infratructures that support them or the jobs it takes to afford to visit them.  

Our advice to these Enviromental Groups
that are here to place rules on our land is;

If you are worried about running out of future resources
You are adding to the emense problem of over population

Who are the real threats to our furure?
We are not here to bail these urbanites out of
 the messes they have created for themselves.


Keep these "Special Interest" groups in their own neighborhoods
if they can't appreciate what they already have
and the efforts the local rural communities have put forth
in  keeping the Quinault Valley as beautiful as you see it today.

Where do National Park priorities lie?

Original National Park Takeover Document from 1938 ....HERE
Thank You to Pearl Rains Hewett
ONP Elwa Inholder