Dubya to Shut Down Hunting on 31% of Forest Service Land

[JoseCuervo]

And to think, sadly, that the announcement was made in Idaho!!!!

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - State governors would gain more control over federal forests, under a Bush administration proposal on Monday that environmentalists said would gut a Clinton-era rule to protect nearly 60 million acres from logging.

The proposal, announced by U.S. Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman in Boise, Idaho , would effectively exempt states from federal restrictions on logging and road construction in environmentally sensitive forest areas unless a governor identified specific lands they wanted to be protected.

Veneman said the new rule would end costly litigation and give a greater voice to states, which she said were better able to determine forest needs.

The proposal marks a complete reversal of a 2001 rule developed under former President Bill Clinton, environmentalists and Democrats said. The Clinton rule restricted road construction, logging and oil mining in 58.5 million acres of federal forest deemed worthy of special protections to save endangered species or local habitats from irreversible damage.

The land represents about 31 percent of all federal forest areas.

"This (new proposal) could be potentially devastating for some of the last wild forests across the West," said Tiernan Sittenfeld, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Public Interest Research Group.

"What they're doing is gutting the (Clinton) rule," she said.

The proposal goes beyond the U.S. Forest Service's announcement in June 2003 that it would largely uphold the Clinton policy, but let governors seek exemptions from the ban on roads. Under the new proposal, the restrictions would not apply unless a governor petitioned the federal government to halt road-construction projects.

Democratic lawmakers said Monday's announcement was nothing more than a favor to timber companies. Environmentalists fear that states including Alaska, Colorado and Idaho, which support logging, would have little incentive to ask for restrictions in forests.

"The Bush administration is now throwing the door wide open to unlimited exploitation of national forests in every state," Nancy Pelosi of California, the U.S. House of Representatives Democratic leader.

 

[FAIRCHASEBEN]

ElfGummer ,
If you can read that story and conclude "Dubya to shut down hunting on 31% of forest service land" then you are definitely qualified to write fantasy documentaries for Michael Moron .

 

[JoseCuervo]

Hey Cali,

I thought you were cracking down on the name calling here in SI????


FCB,
I didn't think you were a road hunter. Are you now joining the Fat-Ass brigade that needs roads everywhere to "maximize" multiple use, and destroy the habitat of Deer, Elk, Salmon, etc.. etc..?

 

[FAIRCHASEBEN]

Elk
Anytime a state gains control of our own land it's a good thing . Hopefully we can manage them better than some Washington bureaucrat , but you're right about the roads , there's enough of them already .

I couldn't resist , ElfGummer is too funny .

 

[BuzzH]

FCB,

When previously unroaded country is cluttered with clearcuts and logging roads...and then packed with atv's and lardbutts...to me, and most other serious hunters, it effectively takes away decent hunting opportunities.

Speaking of fantasy documentaries....arent you tired of playing Rip Vanwinkle?

Also, you said, "Anytime a state gains control of our own land it's a good thing"

I disagree. For starters the land is still owned by the Federal Government, and as such, the various Western States should have no more authority or say in its management than any other U.S. State. Further, most Western States dont have the tax base, the manpower, or the know-how to manage the State lands already in their possession, let alone being given even more land to manage.

Besides, the land in question would not be turned over to State ownership. Dubyas new law would just allow the Governors to slide around existing Federal Laws and violate the will of the People.

Great Policy. Sure to secure Dubya a place of honor with his Resource Extraction buddies, and a place of shame with hunters, anglers, and outdoorsmen. Dubya is a total zero.

 

[FAIRCHASEBEN]

So Buzz , Do you think the Federal Government should control hunting and fishing on these lands too ?

 

[Oak]

Every time I read a story like this I think "finally, Dubya has done something that's going to make hunters stand up and holler." Then I come on here and see a bunch of "hunters" defending his actions. I really can't believe it.

Oak

 

[Oak]

FCB, I don't think so. Game and fish belong to the state. They should be the ones setting the regs. Do you think that private landowners should control hunting and fishing on their lands? They do in a way, but not harvest regulations, etc.

Oak

 

[BuzzH]

FCB,

No, I dont.

The big difference is that the states have proper resources (from hunting, fishing licenses) to fund good managment of the wildlife.

I guaranty that if license fees werent collected by the state(s) for fishing and hunting...control of those animals would be in Federal hands, and in a hurry.


The reason I wont ever, and I mean EVER support state control of Federal lands, or giving federal lands to the states, is because the States with the most Federal lands have a small tax base. If all the Federal Lands in WY, MT, UT, ID, CO, NV, etc. were turned over to the states, it would be a huge wreck. The only feasible way for the States to deal with that volume of land would be to immediately sell a majority of it to finance the management of whats left.

Which, would ultimately be less outdoor recreation for everyone. So, bitch all you want about the "bad" management job that the Feds do all you want...at least its still in PUBLIC trust for the use of the PUBLIC.

 

[JoseCuervo]

FCB,

When I go hunt Ducks on the local wildlife refuge here, I have to answer to the USFWS (the Feds). And in fact, the Feds even come out to our Goose hunting field and check on us, on private property, to make sure we are following the FEDERAL rules for hunting.
(And then the State guy comes out, and checks the same things), just part of the game.

The State Land Board of Idaho is one of the most incompetent bodies ever put together. Giving them control of Federal Land would be the stupidest thing this Nation could do.

 

[Hangar18]

As I understand it, the State is usually a lot more interested in generating revenue from land than the federal govt is.

 

[BuzzH]

FCB,

Tell us why you said this, "Anytime a state gains control of our own land it's a good thing . Hopefully we can manage them better than some Washington bureaucrat"

To the casual observor it would be intuitively obvious you arent too impressed with the Feds managing Federal lands.

So, could you elaborate and tell us why its a good idea for a state to seize control of federal lands? Further why is it a good idea for Dubya to allow Western Governors to bypass existing Federal regulations concerning land management?

Take your time.

 

[FAIRCHASEBEN]

So Buzz ,
Now you want Dubya to control the forests ? but I thought he was the anti-christ to you ?
The states however can manage the wildlife but not the trees ?

I love it !

I didn't think questioning the ridiculous name given to this topic would cause so many panties to get bunched up .

 

[Muledeer4me]

Fairchaseben, LOL .


"Further why is it a good idea for Dubya to allow Western Governors to bypass existing Federal regulations concerning land management?"

So we get the land in our state managed by the governors we as a state voted in !!!!
Then we dont have to worry about all the left leaning Michael Moore types trying to decide whats best for our state .

I understand how that doesnt work for any of the republican hating folks LOL but Idaho is at this time a republican run state .
We should not have to be under the strict reg. of a bunch of greenies from other states that have no clue what it takes to keep our area and the people vital and working.


If wilderness doesnt shut some people out I guess Bush's plan wont shut down hunting either.
It looks like multipal use at its finest.


Elkgunner, great SPIN ,Michael Moore would be proud.

 

[Tom]

I think the world is hard enough to figure out without making up stuff about it. Maybe some threads should be marked with a joke symbol, e.g. that clown head, when they are so missleading as to be fantasy type information?

 

[Ten Bears]

When I read the heading I knew there was going to be some wacko twist thrown into the context of the article.

 

[Nemont]

Well the title of the thread is pure spin. It isn't 31% of FS land it is

The land represents about 31 percent of all federal forest areas.

There is FS land that doesn't actually include any forest.

Anyway, I really don't think that turning management of Federal Lands over to states is the best idea. As much as I am in favor of public lands grazing and its continuation I just can't see how the state of Montana can do a better job. They are already working with very limited resources and simply do not have the wherewithal to manage the HUGE chunks of Federal land that exist within it's borders.

For example the CMR and the surrounding BLM land represent the single largest parcel of federally owned block land in the U.S. There is no way the state could begin to manage and balance all the uses of this block of land.

Nemont

 

[FAIRCHASEBEN]

How about ;

Fat-assed loggers on ATV's to drill for CBM on 31% of FS land ?

 

[JoseCuervo]

Not sure about other states, but the Idaho Land Board is mandated, by State Constitution, to maximize revenue for the school kids on State Lands.

Not to maximize Deer/elk/salmon hunting and fishing.

 

[Ithaca 37]

The State Land Board of Idaho does the worst job of managing their lands of any gummint agency I know of. Even loggers and welfare ranchers are appalled at how poorly the state lands are managed. Anyone who would want to turn over more land to the state of Idaho to manage doesn't have any idea what they're commenting on or else has some private financial interest in it-------or maybe they're just an idiot.