Ithaca 37
New member
"And remember, the biggest elk, the best fishing, the cleanest creeks are in roadless forests for a reason — roads and clearcuts fragment habitat and destabilize soils."
*********************************************
http://www.idahostatesman.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040725/NEWS05/407250345/1052/NEWS05
The only certain outcome in the new Bush administration scheme for our roadless forests is uncertainty.
The Roadless Area Conservation Rule is now no rules. The supervisors of each national forest may decide in a forest plan what roadless lands get logged — or not. Or the U.S. Forest Service chief will decide where roads are built — or not — if there is no updated forest plan. Or the governor of each of the 39 states with roadless forests can submit a plan to protect forests or carve up forests, which the Forest Service may accept — or not.
So the forest supervisor, or the chief, or maybe one of 39 governors, or some combination of the three will set national forest roadless policy.
The certain intention for the 2001 roadless conservation plan was to protect all 58 million roadless acres in all national forests and to establish national, uniform standards to do it. All roadless national forests must be protected in a national policy. Simple.
After three-and-a-half years of doublespeak on roadless forests, the Bush administration now says forget it — no certain protection and no national plan.
Step aside from the endless court cases, the largest public process in Forest Service history with 2.5 million comments supporting a national roadless protection plan, and the fish, wildlife and recreation values. Just look at it from a land management standpoint.
The three most recent Forest Service chiefs say roadless areas are the most controversial issues they've faced. So Bush and company turn it over to 39 governors, who can cook their own schemes to meet corporate backers and shut up the public.
There are no roadless forests on Idaho state land, because it's all been cut up and logged. If national forests were state forests, we'd have no roadless forests. So that's where the state of Idaho will get us running the show.
And throwing roadless forest management into separate forest plans is also a development scheme. Back in 1999, with no roadless protection, Idaho national forests had 95 roadless area logging projects in the works — for a potential 209 miles of new roads and 148,000 roadless acres developed.
Another wrinkle is governors have 18 months to bake roadless plans, on the federal taxpayers' dime. Costs are estimated between $3.9 million and $9.8 million. More time and money wasted.
The roadless conservation plan Bush scuttled allowed thinning and other management to protect communities, watersheds and endangered species, which my organization and other conservationists supported. There is a lot of this work to be done, but it remains in limbo.
By the way, the administration claims its plan is a no-action alternative — with no need for environmental analysis. It's true. It's all special-interest politics.
And remember, the biggest elk, the best fishing, the cleanest creeks are in roadless forests for a reason — roads and clearcuts fragment habitat and destabilize soils.
John McCarthy is conservation director with the Idaho Conservation League.
*********************************************
http://www.idahostatesman.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040725/NEWS05/407250345/1052/NEWS05
The only certain outcome in the new Bush administration scheme for our roadless forests is uncertainty.
The Roadless Area Conservation Rule is now no rules. The supervisors of each national forest may decide in a forest plan what roadless lands get logged — or not. Or the U.S. Forest Service chief will decide where roads are built — or not — if there is no updated forest plan. Or the governor of each of the 39 states with roadless forests can submit a plan to protect forests or carve up forests, which the Forest Service may accept — or not.
So the forest supervisor, or the chief, or maybe one of 39 governors, or some combination of the three will set national forest roadless policy.
The certain intention for the 2001 roadless conservation plan was to protect all 58 million roadless acres in all national forests and to establish national, uniform standards to do it. All roadless national forests must be protected in a national policy. Simple.
After three-and-a-half years of doublespeak on roadless forests, the Bush administration now says forget it — no certain protection and no national plan.
Step aside from the endless court cases, the largest public process in Forest Service history with 2.5 million comments supporting a national roadless protection plan, and the fish, wildlife and recreation values. Just look at it from a land management standpoint.
The three most recent Forest Service chiefs say roadless areas are the most controversial issues they've faced. So Bush and company turn it over to 39 governors, who can cook their own schemes to meet corporate backers and shut up the public.
There are no roadless forests on Idaho state land, because it's all been cut up and logged. If national forests were state forests, we'd have no roadless forests. So that's where the state of Idaho will get us running the show.
And throwing roadless forest management into separate forest plans is also a development scheme. Back in 1999, with no roadless protection, Idaho national forests had 95 roadless area logging projects in the works — for a potential 209 miles of new roads and 148,000 roadless acres developed.
Another wrinkle is governors have 18 months to bake roadless plans, on the federal taxpayers' dime. Costs are estimated between $3.9 million and $9.8 million. More time and money wasted.
The roadless conservation plan Bush scuttled allowed thinning and other management to protect communities, watersheds and endangered species, which my organization and other conservationists supported. There is a lot of this work to be done, but it remains in limbo.
By the way, the administration claims its plan is a no-action alternative — with no need for environmental analysis. It's true. It's all special-interest politics.
And remember, the biggest elk, the best fishing, the cleanest creeks are in roadless forests for a reason — roads and clearcuts fragment habitat and destabilize soils.
John McCarthy is conservation director with the Idaho Conservation League.
