PDA

View Full Version : AT Threatened by Bush Plan to Repeal Roadless Rule



SavageLlama
08-31-2004, 14:38
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=109&STORY=/www/story/08-31-2004/0002241628&EDATE (http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=109&STORY=/www/story/08-31-2004/0002241628&EDATE)=


Report: Appalachian Trail Threatened at Dozens of Points in Six States by Bush Plan to Repeal Roadless Forest Rule

August 31, 2004
PR Newswire (U.S.) (http://javascript<b></b>:NewWindow(%20'FIISrcDetails','?from=article&ids=prn');void(0);)

WASHINGTON, Aug. 31 /PRNewswire/ -- Nearly 50 segments of the popular 2,100-mile-long Appalachian Trail (AT) stretching from Georgia to Maine are endangered by the Bush Administration's controversial proposal to repeal the federal roadless rule in order to exploit national forests for clear-cut logging and other commercial uses, according to a detailed mapping analysis undertaken by the nonprofit Campaign to Protect America's Lands (CPAL).
As thousands of Americans make plans to hike the AT over the Labor Day holiday and in the coming weeks to see fall colors, the new CPAL report, "Hacking the Trail: How the Bush Administration's Roadless Rule Threatens the Appalachian Trail," exposes the peril posed to the recreational and ecological value of America's best known and most famous interstate footpath, much of which runs through federal forests that would be stripped of protections under the roadless forest rule.

Key CPAL report findings include: 163 miles of the Appalachian Trail go directly through endangered roadless forest areas at 31 different points in six states: Georgia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, New Hampshire and Vermont. There are 363,388 acres of roadless areas that either straddle the trail or actually "cross" the AT. Additionally, 16 roadless areas involving 38,017 acres are within a mile of the AT. The total of 47 AT trail segments in or near 401,405 acres of at-risk national forest areas include some of the most best known and most scenic sections of the trail, including Springer Mountain in Georgia, White Mountain National Forest in New Hampshire, and views from some of the highest peaks along the trail, including the Nantahala National Forest in North Carolina and the Cherokee National Forest in Tennessee.

Campaign to Protect America's Lands Director Peter Altman said: "The Bush Administration's repeal of the roadless rule threatens the Appalachian Trail's recreational and natural values by hacking apart the forest protections that preserve the character and ecology of the trail. The Bush Administration is not only threatening to destroy more public lands, it is insulting the efforts and commitments of the thousands of volunteers who have worked so hard to make the Trail a special treasure."

Heritage Forests Campaign Co-Director Robert Vandermark said: "The Bush plan eviscerates current forests protections embodied in the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, and instead abdicates national forest stewardship to state and local politicians who could either petition for protection of roadless areas in their states -- or for more logging, mining and drilling. The substitute policy announced is entirely unworkable. Few, if any, governors are going to spend their limited resources and political capital asking the Forest Service to protect these remaining wild areas."

The CPAL report -- including state-by-state impact details and downloadable maps for each threatened Appalachian Trail segment -- are available on the Web at http://www.protectamericaslands.org/appalachian_trail.asp.

On July 28, 2004, CPAL released a separate report showing that the Bush Administration's reversal of roadless rule protections for national forests jeopardizes 23 U.S. national parks and monuments in 16 states, raising the specter of serious harm being done to outdoor "crown jewels" that are traveled to each year by more than 40 million Americans -- over a third of all visits to U.S. national parks, monuments and parkways. The 23 endangered national parks/monuments account for no less than 15 percent of all the land found in the NPS system. Nearly 43 million people visited the jeopardized national parks and monuments in 2003, which represents more than 37 percent of all visits to national parks, monuments and parkways.

HOW CITIZENS CAN GET INVOLVED

CPAL outlined the following steps for individuals who want to protect the Appalachian Trail:

* Put the brakes on the Bush administration's proposal by submitting formal comments on the new rule. The Heritage Forests Campaign ( http://www.ourforests.org/), is leading a national organizing effort to make it easy for the public to express its disapproval of this plan.

* Call on public officials to fulfill and use the responsibility of their positions to stop the Bush proposal. Interior Secretary Gale Norton has a duty-bound obligation to protect the national parks, including National Scenic Trails. Norton can fulfill this responsibility by opposing the rule. The Campaign to Protect America's Land's own letter to Secretary Norton is posted to the Campaign's web site ( http://www.protectamericaslands.org/) and may be used by others who wish to write the Secretary. State Governors who are now being asked by the Bush administration to manage a federal asset from a state- level should reject this demand swiftly. Constituents should demand their Governors file comments rejecting the Bush proposal as unworkable and irresponsible.

ABOUT THE APPALACHIAN TRAIL

The Appalachian Trail is America's best known and best traveled trail system, established in 1937 and designated as the first National Scenic Trail in 1968. Visited by an estimated three-four million people per year, the AT wanders 2,174 miles through fifteen states, bringing hiker across ridgecrests, into valleys and through other scenic areas. Four thousand volunteers donate 185,000 hours of time per year to upkeep the trail.

The trail connects critical habitats of plants and animals. More than 1,400 discrete populations of rare plants and animals have been identified at approximately 350 sites along the Trail in nine states. Some of the notable rare, threatened or endangered species that live along the trail include golden eagles, peregrine falcons, bald eagles, lynxes and cougars.

While the roadless rule's repeal technically pertains to 58.5 million acres of U.S. Forest Service-controlled lands, its evisceration poses a variety of threats to the Appalachian Trail. Roadless areas actually cross or are immediately adjacent to or near the AT. The trail and the surrounding forests are intrinsically ecologically interconnected. Everything connects the two -- water, nutrients, wildlife, air and disease. There is no doubt that what happens in national forests affects adjacent national parks.

The potential harm to the AT could be substantial. The negative impacts of large scale timber-cutting or oil and gas development begin directly on its borders or just a short distance away could include detrimental effects through loss of habitat and migration corridors, destroyed viewscapes, vulnerability to disease, damage to river systems and fish populations, introduction of invasive species and noticeable disturbances of sound and smell.

ABOUT CPAL

The Campaign to Protect America's Lands ( http://www.protectamericaslands.org/) conserves our natural and historical heritage by exposing policies that permit destruction of our parks and public lands for private profit.

Web site: http://www.protectamericaslands.org/appalachian_trail.asphttp://www.ourforests.org/http://www.protectamericaslands.org/

CONTACT: Ailis Aaron, +1-703-276-3265, or [email protected], forCampaign to Protect America's Lands

steve hiker
08-31-2004, 15:07
Get that nut out of there.

SavageLlama
08-31-2004, 16:40
http://newsobserver.com/news/nc/ncwire_news/story/1586292p-7784483c.html

eyahiker
08-31-2004, 16:53
exploit national forests for clear-cut
logging and other commercial uses, according to a detailed mapping analysis
undertaken by the nonprofit Campaign to Protect America's Lands (CPAL).
According to a mapping analysis? Huh? What? Nice try.
Don't believe everything you read, or get your britches twisted over this liberal news outlet's report.

magic_game03
08-31-2004, 17:00
It’s really not surprising. The heartless moron would just side step congress and the national trail system act to dig up the entire trail if they said there was oil under it.

By the way eyahiker, this isn't a liberal or conservative issue, or a democratic or republican issue, it's about our future and the future of our children. Grow up and don't try to make this a political thing. This is about one man (GWB) who doesn't know his A$$ from a hole in the ground, there are as many republicans who like their national forest just as much as any leftist liberal.

of course this is nothing to get worked up about, it's the norm. And look at the bright side, if we can get someone besides JB to count the votes we'll have the next term. ;)

Lone Wolf
08-31-2004, 17:05
BLAH BLAH BLAH! Same old leftist, liberal doomsday rhetoric. :rolleyes:

trippclark
08-31-2004, 17:19
The sky is falling! :eek:

SavageLlama
08-31-2004, 17:28
This interactive map illustrates the exact sections of the trail that are in danger:

http://www.protectamericaslands.org/AT_Flash/AT_Flash.html

JimSproul
08-31-2004, 17:30
The title on the AP wire is closer to reality:

"Appalachian Trail Vulnerable to New Forest Rules, Environmental Group Claims"

Since the AT used to be mainly ON roads in its early years, I don't think there is too much risk.

art to linda
08-31-2004, 17:34
You had better believe it. In an election year the plums get passed out to bring in the bucks. Doesn't matter what party. If it passes, they won't start on the AT first. It's way to high profile, thank God, but it will only be a matter of time before it comes to a field or forest near you. Mineral rights are just as important as timber today. A lot of people would be very suprised to learn that they do not own the mineral rights to their own property. Something to check out if there are profitable minerals located on government land close by.

magic_game03
08-31-2004, 17:55
"Since the AT used to be mainly ON roads in its early years, I don't think there is too much risk."

humm...sounds moronic to me. "...in it's early years," hey jim how early are we talking.. like maybe 1930, '40, '50 when!?! there was road walks because the ATC had not aquired the lands and built the trails yet. to think the AT would slide backwards and start making road walks would defeat the purpose(hell, you could road walk the entire usa, why do the AT?). I'm sure the ATC would consider a major reroute if things turned bad, so i'm not to worried about any crap GWB sends our way. He's just trying to get his grubby little paws on whatever he can before he gets booted out.

Lone Wolf
08-31-2004, 18:01
More BS and paranoia from the left. :jump

JimSproul
08-31-2004, 18:12
name calling......the sign of a weak argument

Much of the AT, through the 1970's used more roads. Compared to the long trails out west PCT, CT & CDT, the AT is nearly suburban for most of its route. I think I crossed a road about every 5 miles in Georgia. Seemed pretty nice to me but then again being moronic I am sure I don't have your far more lofty perspective.

The bill allows STATES to decide. You know, the local people that live on the land. But no need to let the facts get in the way of your already developed viewpoint.

Chip
08-31-2004, 18:42
As an registered independant voter I have voted in the past for the candidate who hopefully had the country's best interest at heart. Right now the only Republican that has any integrity is John McCain.Too bad he isn't running for President !! GWB and his gang have shown us what their all about the last 3 1/2 years. Power & Greed that is their motto ! This country can't take another 4 years of this kind of leadership ! I would favor a moderate republican candidate or John Kerry over the far right conservative wing that thinks they have the right to tell the people of this country how to live. Right now this country is getting raped on the economy, environment, energy and education. This is no liberal BS. Look again !!! It's common sense!! Both parties have their good and bad ! Right now Power and Greed are in control.

bearbait2k4
08-31-2004, 18:58
Okay, I really, REALLY hate getting political on this page, but I would like to say something here.

First of all, I don't find that it's "no big deal" that almost every day, this administration finds no harm nor foul in opening up our protected national lands to commercial uses. This is our protected land, and we have these protected lands for a reason. We are killing our environment, especially under this administration. We're allowed more arsenic in our water supply. Alaska's being drilled. Florida's beaches on the east coast are soon to be opened for drilling. National forests and lands are being opened up for clear cutting. Air pollution regulations are being extended to help out bigger businesses. The endangered species act is being questioned for it's validity. The EPA's funding has been cut in half. I could keep going, but I think you get my point.

Any kind of future action, whether it threatens the AT or not, that exploits our environment should be questioned. Without an environment; without nature, we have no life. The fact that the AT used to be road walks isn't even the issue here. It's the preservation of our environment, and, by effect, our own preservation.

Thanks for the article.

steve hiker
08-31-2004, 19:13
Right now Power and Greed are in control.
You got that right. And Bush is the Greed Guru. He doesn't give a ***** about the environment and would chuckle to learn that you AT thru-hikers will have your strip of green taken away. Hell, he lives in a concrete jungle 24/7, it's no skin off his nose.

eyahiker
08-31-2004, 19:14
.............................

magic_game03
08-31-2004, 19:25
to make one buthead statement doesn't make you a complete buthead, to make one moronic statement doesn't meke you a complete moron. If you like hiking in the wilderness, I just think you should put a little more thought into making statements like that, jim. Why bother putting thousands of (wo)man hours into a beautiful trail if you have no respect for their efforts. we all could just walk the back roads, hey I'm not aginst that, but there is a difference.

ps. Jim, "moronic" was used as an adjective to descirbe the statement, not as a noun to describe you, though you are the one who made the statement. :)

SavageLlama
08-31-2004, 19:36
Fact: Bush repealed the Roadless Rule as one of the first things he did in office.

I hope to thru-hike the AT one day. And I'll be voting for the administration that passes laws to protect it, not the one that repealed current laws and put the trail in danger.

Chip
08-31-2004, 19:41
Fact: Bush repealed the Roadless Rule as one of the first things he did in office.

I hope to thru-hike the AT one day. And I'll be voting for the administration that passes laws to protect it, not the one that repealed current laws and put the trail in danger.
Too bad your not running for President !!! You would get my vote !!! :clap

MOWGLI
08-31-2004, 19:47
There is no doubt about where the Appalachian Trail Conference stands on this issue. They are very concerned about the proposed changes in the rules. At least 7 roadless areas in the south (GA-VA) are threatened as a result of the proposed rule changes. Don't take my word for it though. Call the ATC yourself. Ask them what you can do to make a difference.

rickb
08-31-2004, 20:36
The AP article showed up on my home page:

http://www.boston.com/dailynews/244/region/Appalachian_Trail_vulnerable_t:.shtml

Take note of the comments by Dave Starzel (Sp?) and the NFS spokesperson.

Rick B

Chip
08-31-2004, 20:41
I bet one of those areas is the proposed "North Shore Road" known as the "road to no where". Last info was that most of the folks in Swain County are for the cash payment which if invested right at 5% could yield 2.6 million per year back to the county. Last dollars quoted to build the road are now up to 400 to 500
million . That road would cut into the North Shore right at the Fontana Dam area of the AT. That 400 million could be better spent. Some of it could be appropriated to our National Parks and Forest for needed upgrades and repairs where needed. ;)

Tractor
08-31-2004, 21:11
this is the type of issue that we all need to question/research, regardless of political sway and website bond(s). I also agree that the prez, or prez-to-be, is not as big a deal (in this case) as the votes of our state reps. and the activity of the lobbists.

I have some reading to do, myself, before acting on this particular item. Hope it's not as bad as it seems...... thanks, ya'll, for the head's up, links & such.

Chip
08-31-2004, 21:18
Hello Tractor,

If you are interested regarding the North Shore road see;

www.NorthShoreRoad.info (http://www.NorthShoreRoad.info)

Happy Trails,
Chip ;)

Tractor
08-31-2004, 21:33
looking at the map, the road no longer seems necessary (unless i was a coca cola truck driver wanting to cut a few minutes off my route or something). I will watch this one as well as the whole. Thanks Chip.

Blue Jay
09-01-2004, 08:06
More BS and paranoia from the left. :jump

I truly thought the eloquent right win nuts would have jumped into this one. It must be hard to come up with their usual misdirection when it hits home so directly.

boulder
09-01-2004, 08:44
It is always interesting to have the "smaller gov't." crowd and those who oppose "hand outs" to the poor, stand up and support the hand outs given to logging companies. The roads built by the NFS, i.e., our money, allows for the harvesting of trees by private lumber companies. In fact, we, the taxpayers, lose money each year w/this program as the lumber companies' payments don't come near paying for the support, roads, mapping, ect., that we provide them. This is one of many corporate subsidies (welfare) taxpayers foot the bill for. The 1872 mining bill is another. It allows mining companies to purchase land for $5/acre-the same as when the bill was enacted. Then, we the taxpayers, get to clean up the mess.

The Bush policy of letting mining companies blow off the top of mountains again, outlawed under Clinton. While I do get tired of hiking up mountains, I wouldn't necessarily be in favor of flattening them.

One last point: allow STATES to handle this. Are these the same entities that are so cash strapped now that salaries are being frozen or cut along w/programs. I am fascinated by those who argue for "local control". 2/3s of americans can't tell you who there US house rep. is. 50% don't know who the VP is and only 4% can tell you who the Chief Justice of the US supreme court is. Now go and ask them who represents them in their state house? what kind of bills are before the legislature. I'd be willing to bet, you'd find a fair amount who couldn't tell you where the state house is. B/c local politics gets so little coverage, most Americans have no idea what goes on in their state, so the myth of local control is just that as state pols know no one is watching.

bailyrosco
09-01-2004, 08:46
I am not surprised by the turn this thread took. I encourage everyone to vote for the best canidate they feel can better the economy and continue to fight the war on terrisom. I am surprided that the far left seems to blame every issue on the Bush era. He has been in office for only 3 and 1/2 years the problems that OUR President is figting were in play way before he took office. Lets not forget he was a little pre-occupied by a liitle thing called 9/11. Give the Man more time to create his own legacy and to finish what he started in Iraq. YOu would not bring a new CEO into a company that was struggling and fire him in mid stream after a short period of time. I am not the most intelligent when it comes to politics. The AT is not at risk because of George Bush. The wilderness and other lands have been slowly comercialized way before he came into office. This is not a political issue it is an issue for people all people to get UNITED and stand up for what they believe in. Kerry or Bush would do the right thing if the people would stand up TOGETHER and force the issue. I can't believe I lowered myself to state my political position on whiteblaze.net

SavageLlama
09-01-2004, 11:24
Good article from Herald News:

http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=12821675&BRD=1710&PAG=461&dept_id=377222&rfi=6

SavageLlama
09-01-2004, 11:31
Everyone should read the entire report - it's really eye-opening:
http://www.protectamericaslands.org/documents/Hacking_Trail.pdf


Two snip-its:

"The Bush administration proposal eliminates the Roadless Rule in its entirety. The day this policy goes into effect, every acre of previously protected national forests will be at risk. Even worse, as written, it could easily serve as the pretext for actually reducing protections to a level even lower than they were before the Roadless Rule took effect in 2001."


"The bottom line is that without the permanent protections for roadless areas established in the original rule, the Appalachian Trail</ST1:p will be vulnerable to development along the trail on an ongoing basis."

Furlough
09-01-2004, 11:42
Fact: Bush repealed the Roadless Rule as one of the first things he did in office.

I hope to thru-hike the AT one day. And I'll be voting for the administration that passes laws to protect it, not the one that repealed current laws and put the trail in danger.I was looking through the DNC platform and could not find where they have any concrete purposals on how exactly they intend to pass any legislation to protect the AT. Could you please cite some specifics from Kerry/Edwards or the DNC that show exactly what they will do to protect the AT?

Chappy
09-01-2004, 11:58
You got that right. And Bush is the Greed Guru. He doesn't give a ***** about the environment and would chuckle to learn that you AT thru-hikers will have your strip of green taken away. Hell, he lives in a concrete jungle 24/7, it's no skin off his nose.
Crawford, Texas = concrete jungle??? If you're talking about Washington, DC, he didn't build that. He's just living there because he was elected president. :D

eyahiker
09-01-2004, 12:04
Why don't we just start a politics thread........all these are getting off topic, and sure spread out....I'm just as guilty of it as anyone else ;)

The #1 liberals and conservatives are alike: Both think they can run your life better than you can. Now pay attention - I will comment on BOTH sides here ( for those who think I am so closed minded :-)

Liberals want to manage the natural resources in this country because they think they think they know better than the Creator of it all.
Liberals want to raise taxes because they can spend your money better than you can. They don't believe in school choice because you're not capable of choosing a school for your children. They think they can handle your healthcare, your retirement and your charitable contributions better than you can.

Conservatives want to censor cable television because you're too dumb to decide what your family should watch. They want to ban drugs, pornography, gambling and gay marriage because you just don't know what's good for you.

The reality is, Americans aren't as polarized as the pundits say. Most want government out of their pocketbooks and personal lives. They want civil liberties and lower taxes, and green spaces. And they feel free to reject both liberals and conservatives when their ideas don't make sense.

SavageLlama
09-01-2004, 12:35
I was looking through the DNC platform and could not find where they have any concrete purposals on how exactly they intend to pass any legislation to protect the AT. Could you please cite some specifics from Kerry/Edwards or the DNC that show exactly what they will do to protect the AT?
Sure, here's an overview:

A. Clinton passed the Roadless Rule. (legislation that the Democrats support)
B. Bush weakened it in 2003.
C. Now Bush is moving to repeal it entirely.
D. Elect Kerry and it won't be eliminated.

Blue Jay
09-01-2004, 12:41
Self censored, Llama said it better.

bailyrosco
09-01-2004, 12:41
As the cable guy says "I don't care who you are that is funny"

Furlough
09-01-2004, 14:13
Sure, here's an overview:

A. Clinton passed the Roadless Rule. (legislation that the Democrats support)
B. Bush weakened it in 2003.
C. Now Bush is moving to repeal it entirely.
D. Elect Kerry and it won't be eliminated.Llama,
A nice and meaningless overview that does not actually answer the question.

This was not legislation passed by Clinton. Legislation is passed by the House and Senate and signed into law by the President. With just 2 weeks remaining in his presidency Clinton used Executive Authority to establish this management policy. IF Kerry is elected you can only HOPE that it won't be eliminated. Remember this policy still faces stiff opposition from many Western states, states Kerry needs in order to get elected.

If you go back in time you will find that the those pushing for this sort of action were by and large environmental and conservationist type organizations. (By the way I identify with those type of organizations and I am a republican, although still undecided as to who I will vote for.) Who in the Democratic party sponsored a bill to make this a law? Who in the Democratic party right now is attempting to introduce legislation that could counter the Bush administrations overturning of the Clinton policy?

So, now Llama I ask you again Could you please cite some specifics from Kerry/Edwards or the DNC that show exactly what they will do to protect the AT?

P.S. Just in case you did not read the link provided by Rick B. a few posts back here are a few qoutes form a Boston Globe article form the Aug. 31st:

''I don't think that walking through clear cuts or mines is what people are looking for,'' said Peter Altman, director of the campaign, which is part of the Rockefeller Family Fund's Environmental Integrity Project. About 90 miles of the trail runs through Massachusetts, in the western part of the state. Altman, however, said he knows of no plans to allow timbering along any of the 163 miles of trail in six states covered by the new policy in Georgia, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Tennessee, Vermont and Virginia.

Heidi Valetkevitch, a Forest Service spokeswoman, said the agency wants to protect the Appalachian Trail including the so-called ''roadless'' areas that are near or cross its path. ''We have no intention of putting the Appalachian Trail in jeopardy or harming the area in any way,'' she said. ''It was protected before the roadless rule, and it's protected now. We have no intention of going into these areas. They're going to remain protected.''
Most of the trail is protected by the Forest Service's existing management plans and by the National Park Service, which also manages the trail with backcountry users in mind, said David Startzell, executive director of the Appalachian Trail Conference. Startzell said there has typically been a couple timber harvests a year near the trail, but they are only distantly visible and the Forest Service tries to minimize the impacts. ''You're just not going to see much timbering, mining or road construction within the management zone that surrounds the trail,'' Startzell said.

SavageLlama
09-01-2004, 14:32
So, now Llama I ask you again Could you please cite some specifics from Kerry/Edwards or the DNC that show exactly what they will do to protect the AT?
Apparently my basic overview was too complex for you. I'll try to simplify it even further:

1. The AT is currently protected.
2. Bush is trying to repeal that protection.

Furlough
09-01-2004, 14:59
Apparently my basic overview was too complex for you. I'll try to simplify it even further:

1. The AT is currently protected.
2. Bush is trying to repeal that protection.Unfortunately the comprehension problem is yours not mine. I simply asked for specifics to a very basic question. You replied with some overview that seems inspired by a sound bite mentality that is clearly incapable of answering a question, a mentality that has been hijacked by the political spin doctor method of operation. Your latest overview only proves my point.

But, all is not lost. In a way your inability to answer the question is answer enough. So, before our discourse devolves any further I volunteer to call a halt to this discussion with you. Because as my old First Sergeant use to say "Everyone has opinions and a$$holes and they both usually stink":clap

eyahiker
09-01-2004, 15:00
Furlough, you are OK.:clap


Turn off your TV's folks......we'd all get a whole lot more hiking in as well.

Furlough
09-01-2004, 15:06
[Turn off your TV's folks......we'd all get a whole lot more hiking in as well.[/QUOTE]
EYAHIKER,
Hoping to get some hiking in 7-10 Sep. Possibily doing a section headed NOBO out of Damascus.

SavageLlama
09-01-2004, 15:24
Unfortunately the comprehension problem is yours not mine. Furlough- i'm being as straightforward as possible. However, you're long-winded rhetoric suggests you're a Republican that's trying to win an argument about the environment by trying to make the Democrats look bad.

Again, I will try to make this even more simple:

Question: What legislation are the Democrats proposing to pass to protect the trail?

Answer: The Democrats already passed legislation, called the Roadless Rule, that protects that Appalachian Trail. Bush is trying to repeal that legislation.

eyahiker
09-01-2004, 17:26
Have a great hike furlough........may see you out there.

TJ aka Teej
09-01-2004, 21:10
The ATC's view of this policy change is at the link below.
TJ
Advocacy Group Sees Danger to A.T. in “Roadless Rule” Repeal

The Campaign to Protect America's Lands is today releasing an analysis of the Forest Service’s proposed rollback of the “roadless area” rule that highlights dangers it sees to the forests around the Appalachian Trail in “several dozen specific points.” Detailed Web-based maps will be released at an afternoon news conference, an audio recording of which should be available by 5 p.m. EDT at http://www.protectamericaslands.org (http://www.protectamericaslands.org/). ATC's analyses of this policy change and a second one involving regulation of off-highway vehicles—public comment on both of which is open only for the next two weeks—are available here: http://www.appalachiantrail.org/protect/issues/fsrules.html (http://www.appalachiantrail.org/protect/issues/fsrules.html)

Chip
09-01-2004, 22:39
I will write/e-mail my Congressman and Senators to let them know I oppose the "Roadless Rule Repeal". Hope other Whiteblaze and fellow hikers will do the same.
It might help, can't hurt. Let them know they will lose my vote as well as others if they support another plan to feather up the "Power and Greed" group now in control. ;)

hiker dude
09-02-2004, 06:38
I will write/e-mail my Congressman and Senators to let them know I oppose the "Roadless Rule Repeal". Hope other Whiteblaze and fellow hikers will do the same.
It might help, can't hurt. Let them know they will lose my vote as well as others if they support another plan to feather up the "Power and Greed" group now in control. ;)
Chip; No wonder the worlds screwed up. Thanks Chip, I needed that.:)

SavageLlama
09-02-2004, 09:54
The ATC's view of this policy change is at the link below.

http://www.appalachiantrail.org/protect/issues/fsrules.html (http://www.appalachiantrail.org/protect/issues/fsrules.html)

Teej- thanks for the link. It's obvious that repealing the Roadless Rule would undo a lot of the protective measures the ATC and its many volunteers have worked so hard for over the years. We can only hope it won't happen.

eyahiker
09-02-2004, 12:09
Teej- thanks for the link. It's obvious that repealing the Roadless Rule would undo a lot of the protective measures the ATC and its many volunteers have worked so hard for over the years. We can only hope it won't happen.
Savage Llama, we agree on something:clap

Chip
09-02-2004, 20:50
Savage Llama, we agree on something:clap
:clap :clap :clap :sun :clap :clap :clap

eyahiker
09-02-2004, 21:02
I actually like Savage Llama, he has a strong way of expressing his opinions sometime, not necessarily a bad quality:jump

Chip
09-02-2004, 21:55
My compliments to you both in regards to your stand on the issue of the repeal.
The AT trail volunteers have worked hard over the years. As one of them I thank you both for you comments. Let's hope the Roadless Rule holds !

Happy Trails,
Chip ;)

SavageLlama
09-07-2004, 11:08
CNN has a story on this:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/09/06/bca.appalachiantrail.ap/

SavageLlama
09-07-2004, 12:35
A must read on the issue from the Boston Globe:
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2004/09/04/roads_to_ruin/


Roads to ruin

<NOBR>September 4, 2004</NOBR>

APPALACHIAN TRAIL vistas in New Hampshire, Vermont, and the South could be scarred by clear-cut timbering or new ski slopes if the Bush administration succeeds in reversing Bill Clinton's roadless rule, which protects one-third of the national forests. At this point the danger remains slight because even if the Bush version of the rule is adopted -- the public comment period ends Sept. 14 -- many of the affected forests have management plans that do not permit such uses.
But management plans are always subject to change. Without the protection of the roadless rule, not just the Appalachian Trail but millions of acres all over the country will be more exposed to logging and expanded recreational uses. Clinton's rule, which was his greatest environmental achievement, stops the taxpayer-financed construction of the roads that make exploitation of the forests possible.

A mapping analysis released this week by the Campaign to Protect America's Lands brings home to hikers that crucial sections of the Appalachian Trail, including the White Mountains, depend on roadless national forests for their long-term protection. The analysis should help rally support to preserve Clinton's roadless rule, which was adopted after the most public support ever recorded in the history of federal rule-making. It is now under attack in federal courts and by the Bush administration, which favors making governors responsible for proposing roadless designations.

If Bush succeeds and bulldozers start cutting up national forests, those tracts will no longer be eligible for action by Congress to make them wilderness areas, the highest level of preservation. Forty years ago yesterday President Lyndon Johnson signed the Wilderness Act. Initially it preserved 9 million acres; now it is 106 million acres, 4.7 percent of the country. In the law's history, no president has signed legislation protecting less wilderness than George W. Bush, just 500,000 acres. For Ronald Reagan, not famous as a conservationist, the total was 10.6 million acres.

The woods roads not only let in tree harvesting vehicles, they also make the national forests more accessible to recreational off-road vehicles. These cause erosion, noise, and air pollution. Hunters, anglers, and conservationists have all criticized the Bush administration's rejection of the Clinton rule.

Mark Rey, the former timber lobbyist who is Agriculture Department undersecretary for natural resources and the environment, calls the Appalachian Trail alarm a "red herring." He said protection of the trail is a "settled political issue." But no environmental dispute can be considered a "settled political issue" with an administration that tries to undo restrictions on poisons like arsenic and mercury. The Appalachian Trail and the national forests need the protection of Clinton's rule. http://cache.boston.com/bonzai-fba/File-Based_Image_Resource/dingbat_story_end_icon.gif

Chip
09-07-2004, 20:14
SavageLlama,
Thanks for the update. ;)

SavageLlama
09-15-2004, 16:05
Great article today on related issues.. which mentions the AT. :)


Protecting roadless lands
Staff Report
September 5, 2004
The Burlington Free Press (http://javascript<b></b>:NewWindow(%20'FIISrcDetails','?from=article&ids=brfp');void(0);)


Speak up for our national forests.

The Bush administration is taking comment through Sept. 14 on a proposal that could, ultimately, open up to 58 million acres of U.S. national forest to road development. That must not happen.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture has proposed a revision of the federal 'roadless rule," imposed in 2001 to protect pristine stretches of federal forests from roads and the development they inevitably carry. At risk are 23 U.S. National Parks in 16 states, as well as sections of the Appalachian Trail in six eastern states, including Vermont.

These include forested areas that directly impact sites visited by 43 million Americans last year: Bryce Canyon National Park in Utah, Grand Teton National Park in Wyoming, and Yellowstone National Park in Wyoming, Indiana and Montana.

Threats to the Appalachian Trail are particularly disturbing. Nearly 50 segments or 163 miles of the trail go directly through roadless forest areas at 31 points. Another 16 roadless areas covering 38,017 acres are within a mile of the trail. Experienced hikers might recognize some of the names: Springer Mountain in Georgia, Cherokee National Forest in Tennessee, and the White Mountain National Forest next door in New Hampshire.

The trail is largely maintained by dedicated volunteers who hike, clean and work the Georgia-to-Maine route. It, too, is a national treasure.

While Vermont would not be dramatically impacted by changes because only about 10,000 acres in small, scattered parcels meet the federal designation of 'roadless," those are 10,000 acres worthy of our protection.

More important, Vermonters are the taxpayer-owners of the U.S. National Forests in all states. Collectively, as a nation, we chose these special spots to preserve for future generations to enjoy, and after two years of testimony, agreed in 2001 to keep roads and development out. Big logging companies understandably don't like that ban. Some in Western states who want to log or develop those lands surely want more access.

That must not happen.

Giving individual states a say in whether their section of our national forests is developed opens the door for any governor for any political reason to seek and secure federal permission to do so. That raises the specter of politics wreaking havoc on America's open lands.

Clearly, states should have control over state lands. Vermonters shouldn't tell Montana what to do with its state forests. That's a decision for the residents of Montana.

However, federal forests are unique because they belong to all Americans. These beautiful areas should remain roadless in Vermont; these pristine stretches should remain roadless in Montana. As a nation, we made a choice to preserve our most open areas. That must not change.

Speak up for our national forests before Sept. 14. Once our undeveloped lands are lost, they are gone forever.

SavageLlama
09-17-2004, 10:27
"Bush has begun blazing a dangerous environmental path"

Waiting until November to tally all the damages might not be necessary. After reading the article, "Friends of Appalachian Trail fret over logging" [Sept. 1], I realized that Bush doesn't need Kerry and associates to point out his wrongdoing.


As an avid hiker, it was very distressing to read that Bush plans on lifting the ban that former President Clinton had imposed. Regulations now will allow logging (clear-cutting), road-building, and other development within national forests.

Anyone who spends significant time in our national forests understands all too well what ecological distress our forests are already under and how little is being done to preserve what we have.

Soon we will have a new opportunity to change administrations, and despite my reluctance to influence anyone's vote, a new bumper sticker will be adorning my truck. It reads: "MORE TREES--less Bush"!


http://www.fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2004/092004/09172004/1504119 (http://www.fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2004/092004/09172004/1504119)

Lone Wolf
09-17-2004, 10:29
Bush/Cheney 04

SavageLlama
09-17-2004, 10:34
From the ATC's website..

Forest Service Gives 60 More Days on Roadless Rule

The USDA Forest Service has extended until November 15 the deadline for the public to comment on its proposed changes to regulations affecting 58 million acres of inventoried roadless areas in national forests, including a number of areas surrounding or bordering the A.T. The proposal would rescind a rule adopted in January 2001 that the Appalachian Trail Conference supported. Under the proposed new rule, governors could petition the secretary of agriculture to initiate the development of management guidelines for any inventoried roadless areas within their states. If adopted, those guidelines would override management prescriptions developed for those areas through the more open forest planning process and also could permit uses, such as timber harvesting and road construction, that would have been prohibited under the 2001 rule. ATC members and A.T. hikers are being urged to study this issue and submit comments (http://www.appalachiantrail.org/protect/issues/fsrules.html). The announcement September 8 of the change in the deadline for “roadless rule” comments did not change the deadline for comments in new rules for managing off-highway vehicles, also a concern of ATC.

http://www.appalachiantrail.org/trailnews/index.html (http://www.appalachiantrail.org/trailnews/index.html)

http://www.appalachiantrail.org/protect/issues/fsrules.html (http://www.appalachiantrail.org/protect/issues/fsrules.html)

Bandana Man
09-17-2004, 23:27
So, for eight years from Jan. 1993 to Jan. 2001, this roadless rule COULD have been put into effect at anytime by the Clinton/Gore administration, but they didn't. They waited until the dying moments of their administration to enact this rule. During their eight years, no one from the left fretted about how the national forests would be ruined by logging without this rule. But now the Bush administration proposes rolling back that hastily enacted rule and suddenly the left is all atwitter that Bush is "ruining" the environment. Excuse me if I don't take these so-called concerns seriously.

SavageLlama
09-18-2004, 00:29
So, for eight years from Jan. 1993 to Jan. 2001, this roadless rule COULD have been put into effect at anytime.
Wrong. It took the work of four presidents (including Reagan) to enact this legislation.

Of course, it will only take one president to reverse all that work - putting the AT at risk of logging, clear-cutting and mining - and negating years and years of hard work by AT volunteers.

Bandana Man
09-18-2004, 15:39
Savage Llama,
Maybe you and I are talking about two different roadless rules. I am referring to the rule that Clinton/Gore proposed after more than six years of doing nothing. Their administration was inaugurated in Jan. 1993, but they did not propose this roadless rule until October 1999 -- six years and nine months later. The final version of this roadless rule was announced by the outgoing administration on Jan. 5, 2001, and issued by the Dept. of Agriculture on Jan. 12, 2001. Their administration ended on Jan. 20, 2001 when Bush/Cheney was inaugurated. This roadless rule was not a legislative act that began under Reagan and was not approved by Congress. It was an administrative rule issued by the executive branch without legislative input.

BTW, if the roadless rule you are referring to IS a legislative act, I don't think Bush or any president can simply reverse it on his (her? must be PC) say-so. I think it would require another legislative act passed by both houses of Congress to reverse it.

My point in posting is this: if a roadless rule was such a serious concern and was so needed to protect the forests, then Clinton/Gore could have pursued it a lot more aggressively and a whole lot earlier in their administration, don't ya think? The Bush opponents on the left are over-hyping the roadless rule issue as a campaign gimmick in an election year. The claim that millions of acres of forest will be clearcut if this rule is reversed and similar arguments that the AT will be ruined are just scare tactics.

SavageLlama
09-18-2004, 16:26
The claim that millions of acres of forest will be clearcut if this rule is reversed and similar arguments that the AT will be ruined are just scare tactics.
Wrong again Bandana. On 7/12/04 the Bush administration announced a proposal to repeal the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. The day this proposal takes effect, nearly 60 million acres of our last wild forests will be immediately at risk of commercial logging and development, including areas of the Appalachian Trail. The U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service recently extended the period for public comment by 60 days.

So, before spouting off on something you obviously know little about, you should do two things:

First, read up on the issue:
http://www.sierraclub.org/forests/ and http://www.ourforests.org/roadless/

Second, read the report about how it affects the AT:
http://www.protectamericaslands.org/documents/Hacking_Trail.pdf

This isn't about the election - It's about keeping in place a core piece of legislation that protects the AT. If you care about the trail, then you should want to keep this rule intact. It protects the AT and doesn't supercede the National Park Service by giving commercial logging, mining and road-building rights in our national parks and forests directly to corporations.

weary
09-18-2004, 16:43
Savage Llama,
Maybe you and I are talking about two different roadless rules. I am referring to the rule that Clinton/Gore proposed after more than six years of doing nothing. Their administration was inaugurated in Jan. 1993, but they did not propose this roadless rule until October 1999 -- six years and nine months later. The final version of this roadless rule was announced by the outgoing administration on Jan. 5, 2001, and issued by the Dept. of Agriculture on Jan. 12, 2001. Their administration ended on Jan. 20, 2001 when Bush/Cheney was inaugurated. This roadless rule was not a legislative act that began under Reagan and was not approved by Congress. It was an administrative rule issued by the executive branch without legislative input.

BTW, if the roadless rule you are referring to IS a legislative act, I don't think Bush or any president can simply reverse it on his (her? must be PC) say-so. I think it would require another legislative act passed by both houses of Congress to reverse it.

My point in posting is this: if a roadless rule was such a serious concern and was so needed to protect the forests, then Clinton/Gore could have pursued it a lot more aggressively and a whole lot earlier in their administration, don't ya think? The Bush opponents on the left are over-hyping the roadless rule issue as a campaign gimmick in an election year. The claim that millions of acres of forest will be clearcut if this rule is reversed and similar arguments that the AT will be ruined are just scare tactics.

Banana Man, by your reasoning anything that hasn't been accomplished years ago, we no longer have to worry about. That is nonsensible. We have many problems that have outlived the Clinton administration -- right alone just six years of the Clinton administration. Your comment is only a reflection of the rhetoric that has proclaimed Clington as a left wing radical, though in fact he was a very cautious conservative Democrat, who did everything cautiously (Monica was an exception).

People who have been paying attention know that many environmental problems outlived the Clinton administration -- polluted waters, unclean air, and global warming to name a few that immediately come to mind.

My concern is not one reversal of environmental progress (the roadless rule) by the Bush Adminsistration, but a pattern of such reversals involving national forests, national parks and other public lands, along with clean air and clean water. Compounding this assault on the environment, has been the deliberate use of environmentally friendly labels to disguise this wholesale reversal of important environmental policies.

BTW, your post reveals an unfamiliarity with Legislative and governmental processes. Congressional Laws set policy. They almost always leave it up to administrative bodies to establish the rules needed to carry out that policy. Both the laws as passed by Congress and the rules adopted pursuant to those laws have the power of law. Both must be followed, at least until the courts rule that the regulations are contrary to the law as passed by Congress or that the law as passed by Congress is unconstitutional.

This is a good system that works as long as Presidents are willing to follow the directives of Congress. Unfortunately, this President has demonstrated a contempt for Congress. No President in my memory has been reversed more often by the courts in matters dealing with environmental protection.

That in my opinion is the most critical issue of this election. A President with a record of trying to subvert the laws adopted by Congress to protect the environment should not be empowered to appoint new judges, that by the nature of our government would be beholden to a President that ignores or subverts Congressional decisions.

Weary

PROFILE
09-18-2004, 20:07
Wrong again Bandana. On 7/12/04 the Bush administration announced a proposal to repeal the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. The day this proposal takes effect, nearly 60 million acres of our last wild forests will be immediately at risk of commercial logging and development, including areas of the Appalachian Trail.

You are wrong as well. The rule will be intact with a slight change. The day the new change takes affect, the decision moves to each state to decide how the land is used and IF they want to make changes. And most Governors have said they will not do anything different with the plan. Also,While you are correct 60 million acres will be affect only 6 million will be affected in the lower 48 states which is only 2% of all Nat'l forrest land in the same area.



So, before spouting off on something you obviously know little about, you should do two things:

First, read up on the issue:
Second, read the report about how it affects the AT:

I would also say read up on the issue. However, one should read up on the issue from some better sources. The sites you show are all agenda based and while they do not lie they often only give the side of the story that benifits them. Try this site:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/16/
This is Cornell law archieve of rules for the Forrest Service.
If you read you will find the purpose of the forrest service is for logging and mining.


This isn't about the election - It's about keeping in place a core piece of legislation that protects the AT. If you care about the trail, then you should want to keep this rule intact. It protects the AT and doesn't supercede the National Park Service by giving commercial logging, mining and road-building rights in our national parks and forests directly to corporations.


I would disagree for you it may not be about the election but most have jumped on an "issue", which it barley is, and try to use it as a political talking point.
And to use talking points the Park Service is not affected at all only Natrional forrest and how will corporations going to have controll. I thought that it was the STATES that would have the controlled

Bandana Man
09-19-2004, 00:17
Savage Llama, I believe you have proven my point that Bush opponents on the left, like you, are over-hyping the roadless rule issue as a campaign gimmick in an election year to rev up the environmentalist vote for Kerry. You completely made my case when you said that one president (Bush) can reverse this one rule and it will reverse all the work that it took four presidents to enact going all the way back to Reagan. That's just ludicrous. This kind of overblown rhetoric is exactly why you and many others on the left cannot be taken seriously. The worse that would happen is that the roadless rules will be exactly like they were when Clinton was president -- and no one was accusing Clinton of endangering the AT by failing to act on this rule sooner. Also, you said this isn't about the election? Who are you kidding? Weary read your posts and concluded that the environmental issue is the most critical issues of this election. Oh and BTW, the rule is not being reversed with nothing to take its place, leaving the wilderness immediately at risk, as you put it. Rather, another rule will immediately take its place that may have more support in the states most affected. Since the Clinton rule was issued, it has been tied up in Federal courts because states have filed lawsuits.

Weary, I am sure that many people have called President Clinton many things, but "very cautious conservative Democrat?!?" That label does not apply! Also, nowhere in my post did I call Clinton a left wing radical. Those weren't my words at all, they were just the words you tried to put in my mouth. Now Kerry, he IS a left wing radical and he scares me. But to get back to the roadless rule issue, my posts were specifically about the Clinton roadless rule that was issued on Jan. 12, 2001. That specific rule was not enacted by Congress, it was issued by the executive branch, namely the Forest Service, at the direction of the president. I was correctly making a distinction between a law passed by Congress and a rule issued by an agency of the executive branch. I never said the rule did not carry the weight of law. Again, you are trying to put words in my mouth.

weary
09-19-2004, 09:38
Weary, I am sure that many people have called President Clinton many things, but "very cautious conservative Democrat?!?" That label does not apply! Also, nowhere in my post did I call Clinton a left wing radical. Those weren't my words at all, they were just the words you tried to put in my mouth. Now Kerry, he IS a left wing radical and he scares me. But to get back to the roadless rule issue, my posts were specifically about the Clinton roadless rule that was issued on Jan. 12, 2001. That specific rule was not enacted by Congress, it was issued by the executive branch, namely the Forest Service, at the direction of the president. I was correctly making a distinction between a law passed by Congress and a rule issued by an agency of the executive branch. I never said the rule did not carry the weight of law. Again, you are trying to put words in my mouth.
Compared with REagan and Bush two, Clinton easily qualifies as a "very cautious conservative Democrat."

He balanced the budget. Reagan borrowed more money than all previous presidents combined. Bush two is breaking Reagan's record of fiscal irresponsibility.

I agree with you that the roadless rule is being somewhat over hyped. If the rule was the only anti-environmental thing Bush has done it would not be considered serious. But the rule is part of a pattern of almost uniform attempts to roll back environmental protections.

My job required that i deal with environmental organizations for 35 years. I saw the growth of the movement that resulted in dramatic improvements in our nation's lakes, rivers, streams and ocean waters, and at least a start on cleaner air, and wiser use of land.

These groups are uniformly appalled by the pattern of environmental degradation initiated by Bush. They see the loss of decades of progress if he is reelected.

Weary

SavageLlama
09-20-2004, 21:54
Alright, alright.. enough political mumbo jumbo.

Bottom line is this: The Roadless Rule protects the AT.

Without it, forests like the Chattahoochee will be logged.

Why not read about it from a source everyone should respect - the ATC:
http://www.appalachiantrail.org/protect/issues/fsrules.html

PROFILE
09-21-2004, 22:35
Alright, alright.. enough political mumbo jumbo.

Bottom line is this: The Roadless Rule protects the AT.

Without it, forests like the Chattahoochee will be logged.

Why not read about it from a source everyone should respect - the ATC:
http://www.appalachiantrail.org/protect/issues/fsrules.html

Are you sure the Chattahoochee WILL be logged. I have not seen that anywhere, and somewhere I THOUGHT I had read that Purdue was not going to ask for an exception. If this has changed I would like to know. I do not want the forest logged either. I just feel as if the states should have the right to decide.
And I am tired of people misstating facts for what ever the reason.

pvtmorriscsa
09-21-2004, 22:46
I just feel as if the states should have the right to decide.
As far as I can figure the federal government won that arguement April 9th, 1865. :rolleyes:

SavageLlama
09-22-2004, 08:58
FROM THE ATC WEBSITE:

Officials of the Appalachian Trail Conference and affected clubs are preparing formal comments on the proposed regulations and encouraging A.T. hikers and ATC members to participate in this important public dialogue.


Both issues also are prominently featured on the American Hiking Society Web site www.americanhiking.org (http://www.americanhiking.org/).

SavageLlama
09-22-2004, 09:11
To answer all questions, everyone should read the ATC's review of the Roadless Rule:
http://www.appalachiantrail.org/protect/pdfs/RoadlessRulefinal.pdf


Summary of the ATC's position:

"ATC believes the [new] proposed rule, if adopted, would adversely affect the management of inventoried roadless areas along or near the Appalachian Trail, other trail systems, and the resource values associated with millions of acres contained within roadless areas in the National Forest System, including many thousands of acres in the eastern United States.

Although ATC has not yet developed detailed written comments on the proposed new roadless-area rule, we intend to vigorously oppose it. We encourage you to do the same. We are providing below some information that you may find helpful as you and other leaders and members within your club consider this issue."

SavageLlama
09-24-2004, 16:39
Just one example of how increased logging, due to repeal of the Roadless Rule, could ruin sections of the AT.


Lumber company makes hiking trail a logging road
September 24, 2004
Associated Press Newswires (http://javascript<b></b>:NewWindow(%20'FIISrcDetails','?from=article&ids=aprs');void(0);)

BRUCETON MILLS, W.Va. (AP) - Hikers on West Virginia's only long-distance hiking trail are furious after discovering a 9.5-mile section of their path through the Cheat River canyon is being converted to a log-hauling road.

Allegheny Wood Products has posted signs at the Muddy Run and Mount Nebo ends of the Allegheny Trail, warning against trespassing without permission.

Last year, Allegheny Wood Products bought 5,600 undeveloped acres in the Cheat River gorge and along the picturesque Big Sandy Creek from Allegheny Power for $9.75 million. The deal included a section of old railroad bed that is part of the trail.

"Hikers and heavy equipment are not comfortable in the same territory," said Elsa Nadler, who manages the northern section for the West Virginia Scenic Trails Association.

Nadler said she met with Allegheny Wood Products spokeswoman Donna Reckart after the June 2003 purchase and asked for warning of any closings so she could create detours and advise hikers.

"I thought we had it all settled when I got an e-mail from the Forks of Cheat folks about signs posted on the trail," Nadler said. "I went down to see for myself. I was furious, I was upset, I was mad."

Allegheny Wood Products on Friday referred questions to Reckart, who is out of the office until Monday.

"This is not only a major inconvenience," Nadler said Friday. "This is a slap in the face for out-of-state hikers."

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is also concerned about the logging road because the gorge is home to endangered species such as the flat-spired, three-toothed land snail, whose only known habitat is the canyon.

Fish and Wildlife Service spokesman Marty Miller said the agency is trying to contact the company "to engage them in a discussion ... and assist them with any compliance requirements that may be necessary for their proposed activities."

After the sale last year, Reckart urged recreational users of the canyon not to panic.

"We do definitely understand the recreational aspects of the property and what it has been used for," she told The Associated Press then. "We are very, very willing to sit down and talk to them and negotiate."

The 330-mile Allegheny Trail stretches southward from the Mason-Dixon line near Bruceton Mills to Peters Mountain, where it connects with the Appalachian Trail.

------

Blue Jay
09-24-2004, 19:22
Apparently the the Bush supporters have given up on this one. Make the AT into a logging road, what do they care. If Bush and the loggers win it looks like monkey wrenching is our only option.

smokymtnsteve
09-24-2004, 20:28
Apparently the the Bush supporters have given up on this one. Make the AT into a logging road, what do they care. If Bush and the loggers win it looks like monkey wrenching is our only option.

PLEASE STAND FOR THE GOSPEL OF ABBEY!


""always pull up survey stakes, anywhere you find them. anywhere."


"Humankind will not be free until the last Kremlin commissar is strangled with the entrails of the last Pentagon chief of staff."

THANKS BE TO ABBEY!

Bandana Man
09-24-2004, 23:40
Just one example of how increased logging, due to repeal of the Roadless Rule, could ruin sections of the AT.


Lumber company makes hiking trail a logging road
September 24, 2004
Associated Press Newswires (http://javascript<b></b>:NewWindow(%20'FIISrcDetails','?from=article&ids=aprs');void(0);)



Savage Llama -- According to the ATC link that you provided, the trail and a buffer zone around the trail are strongly protected. ATC is concerned about areas OUTSIDE that buffer zone. Nothing on their website says ANYTHING about sections of the AT being ruined by logging. Here is the quote from the ATC website with the relevant text highlighted.

"About forty percent of the Appalachian Trail is located in eight national forests. Forest plans, which prescribe the allowable uses of land, involve extensive public input and analyses. Many in the Trail community have participated actively in the formulation of those plans, and all of the eight affected forests include relatively strong protections for the footpath and a buffer around it. Lands surrounding the A.T. have been assigned a special “prescription” that excludes incompatible development and land-management activities. However, ATC and others are concerned about impacts on the now-roadless lands just outside that “management zone” and the effects of noise and other negative impacts from OHV use too close to it."

There is also this statement from the ATC, which was in the Issues Analysis .pdf document:

"ATC believes the proposed rule, if adopted, would adversely affect the management of inventoried roadless areas along or near the Appalachian Trail,..."

Again, nothing from the ATC that says anything about sections of the trail being logged.

*edited to highlight more text in red

Bandana Man
09-25-2004, 00:05
Savage Llama -- I just read this from ATtroll. It's on the WB front page:

"In the past several months there has been a lot of posting that has triggered bickering and un-needed posting on the site here. When I say un-needed posting I mean “crap” or issues not dealing with the Appalachian Trail. There has to be a point when we have to put our foot down. It seems like there may be some people out there that think it is fun to get others all stirred up and try to see how many post they can get in one thread. The goal of this site is not to see how many post one thread can get."

Just so you know, I do NOT think it's fun to "get others stirred up". I don't like bickering and name-calling. I just have an honest difference of opinion with you about this issue. If this discussion gets ugly, I'll just bow out.

Tha Wookie
09-25-2004, 04:10
It's curious how people here take so much time out of their day to suggest that just because the reversal of the "Roadless" rule doesn't mean they will saw right down the middle of the AT then it, and the politians behind the reversal, should not be held accountable.

Should OTHER trails continue to be protected also? Shouldn't land AROUND the paths (including the AT) remain roadless and covered in trees? Shouldn't lands with NO trails be allowed to recover from the recent centuries of clearcutting?

Forget the freaking WAR. Forget the ECONOMY. Forget EDUCATION.

Doesn't the damage ALREADY caused by Bush's so-called "Healthy Forest Innitiative" raise an eyebrow or a finger to the keyboard?

One candidate will lead us to MORE AND BETTER TRAILS. I don't have to say which.:-?

Bonehead
09-25-2004, 04:35
dam right wookie. even a bone haid like me can see who can see the fores from the tree$

MedicineMan
09-25-2004, 05:54
But the link was to a great map of several areas. Sorry I cant contribute to the political arguments.

Blue Jay
09-25-2004, 18:45
If this discussion gets ugly, I'll just bow out.

This is one of the most sensible statements anyone has posted in a long time, thank you.
It is too bad the nameless censors cannot do the same but must whine to the Troll to try and get him to become Wingfoot. I'm so grateful he did not take the bait.

MedicineMan
09-25-2004, 21:54
I've sat here for a long time listening to all the dribble....in my mind I see Lone Wolf in a contemplative pose in Damascus and so many others doing the same throughout the country and for a strange reason I juxtapose a scene from a movie I watched with my daughters:
'Merry: the fires of Isengard will spread, the woods of Tookburough and Buckland will burn, and ...and all that was once green and good in this world will be gone. There won't be a shire, Pippin.'
I love the AT and the woods as much as anybody but what many here and elsewhere have not realized yet is that World War III has begun, it is between Christianity (and the western world-our world) and Islam. It is a war that will like all World Wars that will spread even unto our shores (like that hasnt happened yet) and in time our beloved AT will be the least of our worries.
I suppose reading between the lines I am out of the closet-an exposed ultraconservative who totally concurs that it is best to get them before they get us, so be it. If they're dead, if we win-if the oil is ours then I get to hike my merry life onward....I dont like the alternative.

Blue Jay
09-26-2004, 07:27
I love the AT and the woods as much as anybody but what many here and elsewhere have not realized yet is that World War III has begun, it is between Christianity (and the western world-our world) and Islam. It is a war that will like all World Wars that will spread even unto our shores (like that hasnt happened yet) and in time our beloved AT will be the least of our worries.

Thank you for joining the dribble. I had always suspected that this was a holy war all along and we are the Crusaders. You might be right, but I hope not. I surely do not like the thought of America cuturally reverting back so many years.

weary
09-26-2004, 09:17
I've sat here for a long time listening to all the dribble....in my mind I see Lone Wolf in a contemplative pose in Damascus and so many others doing the same throughout the country and for a strange reason I juxtapose a scene from a movie I watched with my daughters:
'Merry: the fires of Isengard will spread, the woods of Tookburough and Buckland will burn, and ...and all that was once green and good in this world will be gone. There won't be a shire, Pippin.'
I love the AT and the woods as much as anybody but what many here and elsewhere have not realized yet is that World War III has begun, it is between Christianity (and the western world-our world) and Islam. It is a war that will like all World Wars that will spread even unto our shores (like that hasnt happened yet) and in time our beloved AT will be the least of our worries.
I suppose reading between the lines I am out of the closet-an exposed ultraconservative who totally concurs that it is best to get them before they get us, so be it. If they're dead, if we win-if the oil is ours then I get to hike my merry life onward....I dont like the alternative.

Those of us who can think and reason, know that our escapade in Iraq has weakened our ability to win against radical Muslins. Killing people on the basis of misinformation just recruits more people who are willing to die themselves to kill a few of us.

But no, you are not an ultra conservative. You are a radical zealot on a par with the worse of muslim "terrorists." Unfortunately, you also are part of what is wrongly called "conservatives" in this country. The meaning of ordinary language has been turned on its head. We now call "conservative", those who are abandoning the rule of law and are attempting to replace it with the rule of power.

Those who believe as you do have more in common with the politics of Nazi Germany, than with genuine conservatism.

Weary

smokymtnsteve
09-26-2004, 09:29
Thanks Medicineman ....a person shouldn't be ashamed to let thier true feelings known.

I agree with you this is a religious war and a war to take the oil,

this is not to say that I agree with this war and religion, just that I agree with you that this war is about Oil and religion.

PLEASE STAND FOR THE GOSPEL OF ABBEY!

"Man will never be free until the last king (or king george wanna be,)
is strangled with the entrails of the last priest."

THANKS BE TO ABBEY! (addendum by SMS)

TJ aka Teej
09-26-2004, 10:27
http://morningsentinel.mainetoday.com/news/local/1013909.shtml

From a Maine newspaper's interview with Jym St Pierre who recently testified before Congress about Bush's plan to open protected lands to development:

"Why is it important to maintain these protections?"


"Roads fragment habitat, are the source of accelerated erosion into clean waters, and open up remote areas to human-caused wildfire. The long-term value of preserving wildlife habitat, watershed protection and backcountry recreation on our National Forest roadless areas far outweighs their short-term utility for logging, drilling, tilling, filling and spilling."

"How many acres of federal lands in Maine and New England would be affected by this rule change and how would they be affected?"

"There are different interpretations of precisely which areas the roadless rule would impact. But it appears that up to 200,000 acres in the White and Green Mountain national forests could be affected. That includes 6,000 acres classified as roadless land on national forest in Maine. There already are hundreds miles of logging roads in the national forests in New England. We need more protected land there, not more roads."

"What can the average Mainer do to ensure continued protection of roadless areas from logging, mining and oil drilling?"

"In the most extensive public input process in our history, more than 90 percent of the 21Ú2 million Americans who commented voiced their support for protecting our national forest roadless areas. In a new effort, over a million citizens have now endorsed keeping the Roadless Rule. The public outcry has been so strong that the Bush administration has agreed to extend the comment period to Nov. 15. Mainers can write to Roadless State Petitions, USDA Forest Service, PO Box 221090, Salt Lake City, UT 84122, or by e-mail at [email protected]."

There is more information at www.americanlands.org (http://www.americanlands.org/).

"RESTORE has been a big proponent of a Maine Woods National Park. Where does that idea stand now?"

"Since the Maine Woods National Park and Preserve idea was first suggested, a million acres within the proposed boundary have been given stronger protection through full acquisition or conservation easements. According to a series of public opinion polls, a majority of Mainers have come to favor the creation of the proposed park. Tens of thousands of citizens have signed petitions calling for a feasibility study of the proposed park and alternatives. More than a hundred distinguished individuals from a wide diversity of fields have signed on to Americans for a Maine Woods National Park. We believe that the Maine Woods National Park & Preserve is needed more than ever to connect existing conservation lands in the Katahdin-Moosehead region into a single protected landscape, to ensure public recreational access, and to help revive the troubled northern Maine economy."



Follow the link above if you'd like to read more.

SavageLlama
09-26-2004, 17:35
http://morningsentinel.mainetoday.com/news/local/1013909.shtml

From a Maine newspaper's interview with Jym St Pierre who recently testified before Congress about Bush's plan to open protected lands to development:

"Roads fragment habitat, are the source of accelerated erosion into clean waters, and open up remote areas to human-caused wildfire. The long-term value of preserving wildlife habitat, watershed protection and backcountry recreation on our National Forest roadless areas far outweighs their short-term utility for logging, drilling, tilling, filling and spilling."

Follow the link above if you'd like to read more.
Great information. Thanks for posting TJ.

SavageLlama
09-28-2004, 09:16
Yet another article that proves lumber companies could care less about hikers. Give them an inch and they take a mile. But hey- why don't we do away with laws that let them run amok in forests like Chattahoochee? :rolleyes:



Hikers furious with lumber company cutting into trail
The Associated Press
September 25, 2004
Charleston Gazette (http://javascript<b></b>:NewWindow(%20'FIISrcDetails','?from=article&ids=cgaz');void(0);)

BRUCETON MILLS - Hikers on West Virginia's only long-distance hiking trail are furious after discovering a 9.5-mile section of their path through the Cheat River canyon is being converted to a log-hauling road.

Allegheny Wood Products has posted signs at the Muddy Run and Mount Nebo ends of the Allegheny Trail, warning against trespassing without permission.

Last year, Allegheny Wood Products bought 5,600 undeveloped acres in the Cheat River gorge and along the picturesque Big Sandy Creek from Allegheny Power for $9.75 million.

The deal included a section of old railroad bed that is part of the trail.

"Hikers and heavy equipment are not comfortable in the same territory," said Elsa Nadler, who manages the northern section for the West Virginia Scenic Trails Association.

Nadler said she met with Allegheny Wood Products spokeswoman Donna Reckart after the June 2003 purchase and asked for warning of any closings so she could create detours and advise hikers.

"I thought we had it all settled when I got an e-mail from the Forks of Cheat folks about signs posted on the trail," Nadler said. "I went down to see for myself. I was furious, I was upset, I was mad."

Allegheny Wood Products on Friday referred questions to Reckart, who is out of the office until Monday.

"This is not only a major inconvenience," Nadler said Friday. "This is a slap in the face for out-of-state hikers."

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is also concerned about the logging road because the gorge is home to endangered species such as the flat-spired, three-toothed land snail, whose only known habitat is the canyon.

Fish and Wildlife Service spokesman Marty Miller said the agency is trying to contact the company "to engage them in a discussion ... and assist them with any compliance requirements that may be necessary for their proposed activities."

After the sale last year, Reckart urged recreational users of the canyon not to panic.

"We do definitely understand the recreational aspects of the property and what it has been used for," she told The Associated Press then.

"We are very, very willing to sit down and talk to them and negotiate."

The 330-mile Allegheny Trail stretches southward from the Mason-Dixon line near Bruceton Mills to Peters Mountain, where it connects with the Appalachian Trail.

On the Net:

West Virginia Scenic Trails Association: www.wvonline.com/wvsta (http://www.wvonline.com/wvsta)

Allegheny Wood Products: www.alleghenywood.com (http://www.alleghenywood.com/)