Bush erases Clinton's ban on development in forests

[Ithaca 37]

Hunters and fishermen get screwed by Dubya again! What kinda idiots voted for this guy?

"The Bush administration Thursday tossed Gov. Dirk Kempthorne one of Idaho's hottest potatoes: how to manage 9.3 million acres of roadless forests.

The U.S. Forest Service released its final rule for managing 58 million of the 191 million acres of the national forests that have no roads. The rule replaces a ban on road-building issued in 2001 by the departing Clinton administration.........."

http://www.idahostatesman.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050506/NEWS0105/505060311/1002/NEWS01

 

[Tom]

I think people who believe in this kind of stuff, instead of pure "waco" environmentalists. That's kind of what a lot of people think about not having a multiuse road, every once in a while, in the woods. It doesn't have to go through the heart of the woods. Here's what the voters like about it:

"Environmentalists condemned Bush's plan, calling it backsliding from Clinton's broadly supported roadless plan. Timber industry officials expressed support for the rule, saying it will be easier to log and thin forests to protect them from insects, disease and fire.

The rule offers Kempthorne the opportunity to bring preservationists, the timber industry, motorized users and others together to try and make the kind of deal they have not made in the past, said Jim Riley, executive vice president of the Intermountain Forest Industry Association."

Clinton just threw a bunch of environmental stuff out at the end. It never was discussed much. Now is the time to really discuss it. Idahoans have 18 months to discuss it, it looks like.

 

[Bandit]

Sounds to me like someone trying to kiss some backside to get in there and destroy the place. But I may be wrong. That's just my underdstanding.

 

[MattK]

Those who don't like hunting and fishing, love GWB. If you like Texas style hunting, GW is your hero!

 

[Tom]

The Idaho Statesman said this:

"Why is the Bush administration doing this? The administration believes it has to do something. A federal district judge in Wyoming threw out a roadless rule in 2003 that had banned road-building since 2001. Bush's political supporters in the West resented the Clinton roadless plan because it shut down logging in roadless areas and made it hard to thin forests threatened by forest fires."

Its in the right column there in the link Ithaca gave. There's to good reasons to do this, right? 1) A federal judge threw out a roadless rule. 2) Its easier to protect forests from really hot and devestating fires with roads.

Why not do that?

 

[Nemont]

The U.S. Forest Service released its final rule for managing 58 million of the 191 million acres of the national forests that have no roads. The rule replaces a ban on road-building issued in 2001 by the departing Clinton administration

I am just curious but isn't that the way democracy works? If a road ban was such a terrific idea why did WJC wait until the twilight of his Presidency to issue the roadless order. Ithaca, MattK et al.,Why didn't WJC ban road building in 93,94,95,96,97,98,99 or 2000 the years he was in power?

Did you read the part that it will left up to our govenor to petition for roadless areas to remain roadless? Last time I checked on the Govenor of Montana he was a democrat and pro environment. It is not an outright end to the ban. Just like you guys accuse GWB supporters of not thinking for themselves, it seems you guys have quit thinking for yourselves also. Your knee jerk response is, "If Bush did it then it must be bad". Don't drink the environmental Koolade either.

"Environmentalists condemned Bush's plan, calling it backsliding from Clinton's broadly supported roadless plan. Timber industry officials expressed support for the rule, saying it will be easier to log and thin forests to protect them from insects, disease and fire.

Lets see the Clinton Administration recieved 2.5 million responses to the road ban, with about 75% of them in support of the roadless intiative. That means the policy was based upon 1,870,000 positive response. That is .0068% of the population. Don't know if less then 1% of the population should get to set public policy nor that it was a "broadly supported" program.

Please read the entire proposal before you comment as you may find things you like about it.

Nemont

 

[FAIRCHASEBEN]

You nailed it Nemont ,

" If Bush did it then it must be bad "

That's not just their creed , Buzz & HoseGummer , it's the reason they exist ( I'd throw in MattC , but he's just pivot man between the two of them ) And what a pathetic existence it must be to have your whole life revolve around hating GWB .

 

[ELKCHSR]

Those who don't like hunting and fishing, love GWB. If you like Texas style hunting, GW is your hero!

Learned from a true believer that Missoula is the center of the universe..

Thanks Nemont that was very well stated.

I was wondering when things would really start to be repealed, I would venture a guess that more of it would have hit the shredder quicker if it weren't for Iraq, so if I was those against any thing to use and process some of our natural resources... (Notice I didn't say all, nor did I say to devastate or any other far out on a limb comments a few of you can possibly dream up).

It is high time, we have a few choices...

1. Spend gazillions of bucks and hand clean the entire forest (There is not enough money in the entire economy to do this)

2. Light it "all" off and burn it up (not very feasible or politically correct)

3. Process it into a usable resource for some of the wealth of this nation.

Unless of course any of you Einstein’s that whine and cry about every little thing that goes wrong can come up with an idea that is better, I have yet to see this scenario though, it has been so much easier to sit back and be a pessimist and doom and gloomer than it is to get off your butts and actually do some thing or put workable solutions on the table.

 

[Ithaca 37]

This is from the topic "Extinct Ivory Billed Woodpecker found".


http://www.hunttalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=21754&page=2&pp=25

Quote:
We have posters who think there should be roads and trails for motorized vehicles over every inch of forest in our country. We have posters who actually believe that every bit of forest should be logged and "managed" to maximize short term timber harvest profits. We have posters who think every bit of public land should be opened up for multiple use including mining development, overgrazing by cattle, ATV travel and everything else



I have been on here since the end of 2001 and I haven't seen any one... Nope, not one individual (well ceptin maybe in jest) who has ever advocated any thing remotely resembling this part of your post

You used to be very good at coming up with data and proof of things you say... I would like to see some on this...

The closest I have seen is people hitting the middle of the road and utilizing resources for this country as long as it is done in a sound manor. But not to go to this extent… I would say you stretched it just a wee bit… No I should say stretched it clear out of the ball park on this one…
__________________


Nemont, "That means the policy was based upon 1,870,000 positive response. That is .0068% of the population. Don't know if less then 1% of the population should get to set public policy nor that it was a "broadly supported" program."

So if only that many people voted in the Presidential election you wouldn't think it was valid?

Smarten up. How many people do you think should comment on a public policy to make it valid? Careful now, we have grazing policies that got a lot less comments than 2 million.

 

[noharleyyet]

Those who don't like hunting and fishing, love GWB. If you like Texas style hunting, GW is your hero!

No condescension there, huh pal? I happen to like my style of Texas hunting and probably your style of Montana hunting. Maybe one day I can judge both from your moral highground.

Oh, one more thing, and sorry to disappoint, but I have no need for heroes.

 

[Nemont]

Smarten up. How many people do you think should comment on a public policy to make it valid? Careful now, we have grazing policies that got a lot less comments than 2 million.

Ithaca,
My point was that the roadless areas are not destined to be leveled overnight and most won't be logged ever. We have a lot of public policy that is driven by a very low number of participants.

Nemont

 

[ELKCHSR]

We have posters who think there should be roads and trails for motorized vehicles over every inch of forest in our country. We have posters who actually believe that every bit of forest should be logged and "managed" to maximize short term timber harvest profits. We have posters who think every bit of public land should be opened up for multiple use including mining development, overgrazing by cattle, ATV travel and everything else

So Ithaca, what is your point, trying to start some thing that really doesn't exist???

I am not sure, but I haven't seen you trying to purchase "Millions" of acres and donating them for the cause...

I am guessing you are trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill here... What is it exactly that I said which would lead you to believe "I" think it is necessary to cover "EVERY SQUARE INCH" of ground with roads, remover "EVERY SINGLE TREE" and to mine out "EVERY SPECK OF MARKETABLE MINERAL" on the planet...

You will have to show me where I have every said any thing even remotely resembling this one...."maximize short term timber harvest profits" That is what those you buy your over seas stuff from are doing so that you have product for your store.

It is no different than me telling you that you are wanting to maximize your short term bird killing forays until they are all gone, only for a short term self satisfaction to keep your dogs exercised.... Do you even eat all those birds you shoot, or just leave them lie???

Come on now, let’s not be silly and over extend what I have said, unless of course you can actually prove this is some thing I have ever stated any thing to the extent of your allegations...

 

[1_pointer]

What is the governor of any state doing managing the roadless systems on Federal Land? That's the part I dislike and am scared of the most! Basically, give the governor of the state power over the federal agencies, which in turn give the public outside of that state less say in the management of public lands. I don't like this at all.

 

[Muledeer4me]

"Sounds to me like someone trying to kiss some backside to get in there and destroy the place. But I may be wrong. That's just my underdstanding."

Bandit,
No one wants to go in and destory anything.
Some of us see the need for keeping the access we now enjoy and the ability to manage our public lands in the hands of people that are closes to the land.
Not handing it off to some green leaning gronala cruncher .

 

[Nemont]

1-Pointer, Ithaca and MattK,

Have any of you went and read the actual rule changes? It does not "erase" the roadless rule that was put into effect in the waning days of the Clinton Administration. In fact it is an attempt to do what all of you guys say the government should be doing on public lands: enforcing the laws, such as NEPA. I think you need to spend some time studying the proposal and the lawsuits that resulted from the orginal

In essence, the rule invites governors to petition the secretary of agriculture for state-specific roadless rules. The governors have 18 months to file such a petition. Upon receipt of a petition from an affected governor, rulemaking would then start, with states acting as cooperating agencies in the development of the rule, as provided for under the procedures of the National Environmental Policy Act.

Upon completion of the public notice and comment process for each state rule, a final federal rule for each state that is interested would be provided.

Let me emphasize that these will be federal regulations governing the disposition of roadless areas in each state. These are federal lands; therefore they are federal decisions and federal rulemakings.

If a governor does not petition for the development of a state-specific roadless rule, the disposition of the roadless issue in that state would then revert to the Forest Service's regular land and resource management planning process under the National Forest Management Act of 1976.

Interim direction for protecting roadless areas, which was first issued in 2001, remains in place now and through the completion of any state-specific rulemaking. Under that interim direction, any decision to enter roadless areas must be approved by the chief of the Forest Service.

In the ensuing four years since that was first developed, the chief has approved no such request. Indeed, nothing has occurred in roadless areas in the ensuing four years that would not have been allowed by one or another of the exceptions in the 2001 rule that this rule will now replace.

Also, the rule we're announcing today establishes a National Advisory Committee to advise the secretary of agriculture and the governors of each of the affected and interested states on the development of state-specific rules. The notice for the establishment of that National Advisory Committee will also be included on the website today.

Within the forest plans, 24 million acres-or 41 percent of the 58-million-acre total-were already protected prior to the 2001 rule and will remain so today and thereafter.
The January 2001 rule was, to say the least, highly controversial, becoming the subject of nine separate lawsuits in federal district courts in Idaho, Utah, North Dakota, Wyoming, Alaska and Washington, D.C. Plaintiffs in those suits involved seven states, tribes, various local governments and private interests.

On July 14, 2003, the U.S. district court for the District of Wyoming found the 2001 Roadless Rule to be unlawful and ordered that the rule be permanently enjoined. In reaching his decision, Wyoming Judge Clarence Brimmer held that, I'm quoting now, "In promulgating the January 12, 2001, Roadless Rule, the Forest Service violated the National Environmental Policy Act and the Wilderness Act. In a case as important as this where the agency action was driven by political haste and evidenced pro forma compliance with NEPA, it is the province of the court under NEPA to safeguard the public by telling the government that more study is needed."

So are you guys telling me the environmental laws should only be followed when they benefit one side of the issue? Everytime WWP or Earth Justice! take the government to court they cite NEPA or the Wilderness act.

Our conclusion was at that time-and still is today-that the 2001 rule would face at best an uncertain legal future, with the only certainty being several more years of litigation in four different judicial circuits, with some substantial likelihood of an eventual Supreme Court review.

We think the path that we are setting out on today represents a better way, and let me tell you why that's the case. First, our final rule today will involve decisions that are more informed by better site-specific information. We will be able to correct errors in the 2001 rule and eliminate from coverage areas that have structures or roads in them, roughly 2 million acres of the total that was included in the 2001 rule.

I don't understand why none of you are taking the time to look at the details of the actual rules rather then relying on the media to interpret them for you.

The sky is not falling nor are trees being cut in formerly roadless areas. If the environmentalist wish to they can appeal these rules to the courts and let a judge decide. That is the way environmental policy is set in this country.

Nemont

 

[MattK]

1 POINTER- I agree with your assessment. I have listened to the tv, radio and read the paper about managing the roadless system. Basically, it says all will be open and the governor of a given state can petition to have certain areas closed. There may be a lot more to it but the responsibility will be left with a governor, who at some point in time may not give a shit about the environment.

Nemont- Broadly supported is the term used when 78% of the respondents are in favor of something. You know that as well as anyone. Just because a census of every person in the United States wasn't taken doesn't mean they too would not have supported more roadless area. Also, a lot can happen in a very short period of time, given the wrong group of people controlling the government. I would like to say the checks and balances catch up with any administration but GWB is repealing roadless areas, exploring for oil in Alaska, and tried to explore natural gas on the front. Tell me if there is any balance to what he is doing!

I hope people will be able to understand that once an area is no longer roadless, the environment is impacted and the value of having something "untouched" is gone. You don't get that back for a few hundred years. Think about the places you used to go hunting and fishing when you were young. Some may still be there but many of them are just gone. They don't come back. Why not save what we have and hold it for as long as possible? It seems redundant to say "save it for the next generation" so I will put it in more recent terms, "save it now so you can at least see it when you are older".

 

[Nemont]

MattK,
Again have you read the actual changes to the Roadless policy?

Also, a lot can happen in a very short period of time, given the wrong group of people controlling the government

I thought we lived in a democracy where people are elected to office to represent the constituents interests. How can there be the "wrong people" in office if they weren't elected by a vote of the majority? Answer this question: Why did WJC wait until 9 days before he was out of office to issue the Roadless rules? He did it by Presidential order, basically by fiat, not by having a bill introduced, voted upon and passed and then signed into law? Why didn't he, or Hillary, push this through earlier during his 8 years in office? So in "political haste" he signed and executive order for the roadless areas and the courts have said the new rules violate the law. I am for roadless areas but the law has to be applied equally on both sides of the issue.

Nemont

 

[Nemont]

I agree with your assessment. I have listened to the tv, radio and read the paper about managing the roadless system. Basically, it says all will be open and the governor of a given state can petition to have certain areas closed. There may be a lot more to it but the responsibility will be left with a governor, who at some point in time may not give a shit about the environment.

MattK,
Don't get your info from the biased media go directly to the source and read the rules. You are wrong, the rules do not state that Governor has "authority" nor do they state that a Govenor petitions to close an area but rather to open it. If the govenor's petition is not a final decision it has to be passed and recommended by a national panel. If a govenor does not petition to open an area it reverts to the roadless area designation. Again, if the orginal rule was found to violate NEPA, the law of the land, doesn't that mean it needs to be changed? I am begging you go read the actual rules and don't just get your news just from AirAmerica Radio.

Nemont

 

[1_pointer]

I thought we lived in a democracy where people are elected to office to represent the constituents interests.

That statement is contradictory. In a democracy, everyone (those that meet the voting requirements) votes on every issue. The US is a represetative republic in which elected officials vote for us on the issues. Big difference.

Nemont- I still don't see the need for a governor to even have to be able to make recommendation to open roadless areas. There are already provisions in NEPA that allow for their comment and suggestions in addition to the flexibility for the federal agencies to ammend their plans to keep up to date with new local or state plans.

MD- So, you can't be closest to the land and like granola? Who do see as being closest to the land? The USFS or BLM employee or the 3rd generation logger/rancher/miner? I can tell who usually has more influence....

 

[Nemont]

Nemont- I still don't see the need for a governor to even have to be able to make recommendation to open roadless areas. There are already provisions in NEPA that allow for their comment and suggestions in addition to the flexibility for the federal agencies to ammend their plans to keep up to date with new local or state plans.

1 Pointer,

Score one for you on the representative Republic. The statement I made should be altered to fit that reality however it doesn't change the issue much.

I have never said that a Govenor should be given any say in what goes on. What I was pointing out that it was that the new rules do not allow a govenor to rape and pillage federal lands. The new rules will be tested in court just like the old rules were. All I am asking is for people to go read the actual language of the rules instead of saying the Bush administration is raping the roadless areas of the forests when that isn't what was stated at all.

I did not say the rules were good, bad or otherwise.

Nemont