PDA

View Full Version : Very Disheartening news



Lilred
05-05-2005, 17:13
This makes my heart hurt. The main reason I voted against this man was because of his anti-environmental stance. :mad:



New Rule Opens National Forest Areas to Roads
Land Had Been Put Off Limits to Development by President Clinton

WASHINGTON (May 5) - The Bush administration, in one of its biggest decisions on environmental issues, moved Thursday to open up nearly a third of all remote national forest lands to road building, logging and other commercial ventures.

The 58.5 million acres involved, mainly in Alaska and in western states, had been put off limits to development by former President Clinton, eight days before he left office in January 2001.

Under existing local forest management plans, some 34.3 million acres of these pristine woodlands could be opened to road construction. That would be the first step in allowing logging, mining and other industry and wider recreational uses of the land. Under proposed rules, new management plans have to be written for the other 24.2 million acres before road building can commence.

Governors have 18 months to submit petitions to the U.S. Forest Service, challenging either the old plan to stop development, or calling for new plans to allow it.

Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns said in announcing the rule that his agency "is committed to working closely with the nation's governors to meet the needs of our local communities while protecting and restoring the health and natural beauty of our national forests."

The Agriculture Department, which includes the Forest Service, said governors can base their petitions on requests to protect public health and safety; reduce wildfire risks to communities; conserve wildlife habitat; maintain dams, utilities or other infrastructure; or ensure that citizens have access to private property.

The Forest Service, which will review and have final say over the petitions, calls the new process voluntary and is setting up a national advisory committee on the rule. "If a governor does not want to propose changes ... then no petition need be submitted," the agency says in briefing documents obtained by The Associated Press.

Roadless areas in national forests stretch among 38 states and Puerto Rico. But 97 percent, or 56.6 million acres, are found in 12 states: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington and Wyoming.

Environmentalists say the new rule also would let the administration rewrite the forest management plans to lift restrictions against development on most of that forest land.

"Yesterday, nearly 60 million acres of national forests were protected and today as a result of deliberate action by the administration they are not," said Robert Vandermark, director of the Heritage Forests Campaign, run by a coalition of environment groups. "The Bush administration plan is a 'leave no tree behind' policy that paves the way for increased logging, drilling and mining in some of our last wild areas."

The Clinton-era rule has been much debated in federal court.

A federal court in Idaho had issued a preliminary injunction against the roadless rule in 2001, but the San Francisco-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit overturned the injunction based on an appeal by environmental groups.

Then in 2003, a federal court in Wyoming overturned the rule. Many of those same groups appeals to the Denver-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, which heard arguments Wednesday.

The Forest Service believes its new rule "helps us to move forward with a policy that is not clouded by legal uncertainty, as was the case with the 2001 rule," says a current agency document entitled "National Key Messages & Talking Points."

Jim Angell, an attorney with Earthjustice law firm in Denver, who argued the case, called that just an excuse for pushing through a new rule that represents "a huge step back for the protection of our most pristine lands."

"Really, this is an effort to rush this rule through before the 10th Circuit can reverse that Wyoming judge, just like the 9th Circuit did before," he said. "It's incredibly cynical of them to use that judge's ruling as an excuse."

HikerHobo
05-05-2005, 18:21
Hikers who voted for Bush deserve the road walk
that they helped create with their votes...
God help the rest of us...

Scrunchy
05-05-2005, 19:08
Oh, that is just awful! I hate this administration!!!!! And no, I didn't vote for them.

TakeABreak
05-05-2005, 19:08
Do you know what the title of the article is and what paper it was in, I would to find it on the web so I can send to some friends.

A-Train
05-05-2005, 20:41
Yea I was skeptical without a source or author. Sadly though, it is true, I just got a Wild Alert in my email about it. There is still possibility though, it can still be overturned.

Can't say I'm suprised though

Lilred
05-05-2005, 20:49
Do you know what the title of the article is and what paper it was in, I would to find it on the web so I can send to some friends.


http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20050505130309990029

Sly
05-05-2005, 21:16
Governors have 18 months to submit petitions to the U.S. Forest Service, challenging either the old plan to stop development, or calling for new plans to allow it.

The Bush option... Heads I win, tails you lose! :datz

.

fiddlehead
05-05-2005, 21:18
Tis indeed a sad day in the history of the USA!

Sly
05-05-2005, 21:24
Hey yeah Fiddlehead,

How goes it? What time is it over there anyway?

TakeABreak
05-05-2005, 22:40
Thanks for the link, Lilredmg. : )

Lone Wolf
05-05-2005, 23:44
Bush is a great Prez.

The Old Fhart
05-06-2005, 00:01
Bush is a great beer.

Lone Wolf
05-06-2005, 00:04
You spelled Busch wrong.

Lugnut
05-06-2005, 00:23
It's kind of interesting that hikers/outdoors people tend to be liberal. I belong to a local outdoor club and I'm the only conservative in the entire membership. I catch all kinds of grief but I just consider them to be uninformed and deserving of my sympathy. Maybe someday they will realize that Ann Coulter, John McCain and Ollie North were right after all! :banana

Ridge
05-06-2005, 01:01
I'm against development of any wild or scenic lands. In fact I wouldn't mind a little undevelopment like Hwy 441 dividing the GSMNP being removed. Should have never been put there. The entire Blue Ridge Parkway could also be removed, did you know that this parkway caused a good bit of the original AT to be relocated? And, if fuel cost get much higher, whos going to be able to afford to drive on the newly developed roads. hikerwife

zephyr1034
05-06-2005, 03:14
[QUOTE=Lugnut]It's kind of interesting that hikers/outdoors people tend to be liberal.
================================================== ==========
Some of them aren't, however. Hunters and fishermen. They read Field and Stream and belong to the NRA. They tend to vote Republican because they fear that Democrats will try to take their gun rights away. But the preservation of natural areas is as important to them as it is to us. If you cut down the trees, there won't be any wildlife to hunt. Poison the streams and there won't be any fish. And some of them are p***ed off at Bush because of this.

We need to reach out to these people, put aside any differences we might have, and present a united front to the Bush administration. If we were able to get the NRA on board, we'd have a lot more clout.

I have never owned a gun, and I've never been hunting. But I have absolutely no problem with people owning guns or going hunting. We should put those differences aside for the time being. The Sierra Club and other enviornmental organizations should start courting the hunters and fishermen.

I'm sure that if the hunters knew about the repeal of the roadless rule, they and the NRA would be raising hell.

shades of blue
05-06-2005, 07:41
The reason that most hunters and the NRA aren't up in arms (pun intended) about the roadless rule (if they are conservationists) is simply because they believe the rhetoric of the Republican party. And yes...the Democrats have their own set of rhetoric that is to the other extreme.
One of the greatest American conservationists was a damn...I mean...ah....Republican. President T. Roosevelt was a hunter also. He saw something that needed to be done before it was too late. Unfortunately, they don't make Republicans like that anymore...or, more likely, they don't have the support in their own party to push that agenda.
Wolf says Prez "Busch" is a great Prez. I have no doubt of Wolf's opinion about him...but do you agree with the repeal of the roadless rule? Every "great" man has a few flaws...is this one of his?

papa john
05-06-2005, 08:04
http://www.commondreams.org/cgi-bin/newsprint.cgi?file=/news2004/0901-03.htm

Doctari
05-06-2005, 08:37
Logging companys, mining companys, etc Have money.
Environmentalists (usually) don't have money.

Presidential & congresional favors/votes cost money. Lots of money.

They win.
The: trees, wildlife, scenery, quiet, humanity; LOOSE.

Do I imply the owners of the companys that benifit are not human? NO I am stating it outloud! Blood sucking leaches!


Doctari.

papa john
05-06-2005, 09:10
Not to start an argument but logging companies, mining companies, etc employ PEOPLE who depend on these jobs to support their families.

Environmentalists employ nobody.

Lugnut
05-06-2005, 09:54
I've read that the generally accepted reason that forest fires get so out of control is that logging is restricted thereby allowing an abundance of undergrowth which drives the fire. The fact that there are no logging roads to reach the fire only adds to the problem. Logging, in many cases, is desireable; it's called resource management by those who know a whole lot more about than any of us here. Old logging roads are the AT in many places and are a nice change from the green tunnel effect.

weary
05-06-2005, 10:42
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/05/AR2005050501579.html?referrer=email

halibut15
05-06-2005, 12:52
I've read that the generally accepted reason that forest fires get so out of control is that logging is restricted thereby allowing an abundance of undergrowth which drives the fire. The fact that there are no logging roads to reach the fire only adds to the problem. Logging, in many cases, is desireable; it's called resource management by those who know a whole lot more about than any of us here. Old logging roads are the AT in many places and are a nice change from the green tunnel effect.
Nice point, Lugnut. One of the reasons we have to worry about fires so much is that we've tried so hard to prevent them from "killing" the forest that we've let an overabundance of undergrowth form, making any fires very destructive. Fires are supposed to happen naturally, and usually burn just the undergrowth off, not harming the trees and actually renewing the forest. I'm VERY against opening the roadless areas to logging, but building some fire roads may be the only way we can get in to set controlled burns that will save these important areas for being scorched to nothing.

SGT Rock
05-06-2005, 13:51
Although I am also not happy to hear this, lets remember that this is Forrest Service land not Park Service land. The Forrest Service was created to do just what the President is now allowing which is save up forrest for loging and other industrial processes. The best way to change this is to get a shift in thinking about what these forrests should be for to something more along the lines of a park.

Skyline
05-06-2005, 14:04
Building fire roads, that is, roads that are not driven upon except for administrative and fire suppression purposes, is a worthy forest policy that Clinton's good intentions may have overlooked. And if the government wanted to issue permits to small-time operators to go in and clear out the undergrowth, salvage firewood, etc. that would be a legitimate "administrative" use of these roads.

But of course Bush wants to make it possible, even likely, that Big Lumber, Big Oil, etc. will be able to extract much more from these areas. And "opening for development" can mean different things to different people. Surely the GOP financial support base is salivating at the prospects for miles of hillside condos, ski resorts, and other man-made amusements in our current wildernesses.

weary
05-06-2005, 14:24
Although I am also not happy to hear this, lets remember that this is Forrest Service land not Park Service land. The Forrest Service was created to do just what the President is now allowing which is save up forrest for loging and other industrial processes. The best way to change this is to get a shift in thinking about what these forrests should be for to something more along the lines of a park.
I believe the law says equal consideration should be shown to recreation needs, or at least it used to. The National Forests are supposed to be multiple use. Instead they are increasingly treated as resources to enrich private mill owners.

Weary

ripple
05-06-2005, 15:09
Any body here use paper? Live in a house? Ever build yourself a shed? Trees must fall and that what that land is for. Or we could just keep 3rd world countries destroying their forests to give us timber.

HikerHobo
05-06-2005, 15:33
Robbers and thiefs are PEOPLE who depend on their stealing
to support their families. Just because these occupations
support families is no reason the rest of us have to condone
or provide our support for it...

Running logging roads thru the last remaining patches of
wilderness in America is just plain wrong... WRONG !

tlbj6142
05-06-2005, 15:39
I just read the article. Up 'till now I thought Bush was going to allow roads in Wilderness areas not just NF. This isn't as bad as I was led to believe a few months ago. Did his position on Wilderness areas change? Or was it just some press dude interchanging NF with Wilderness in hopes of making it sound worst than it actually is?

SGT Rock
05-06-2005, 16:27
I believe the law says equal consideration should be shown to recreation needs, or at least it used to. The National Forests are supposed to be multiple use. Instead they are increasingly treated as resources to enrich private mill owners.

Weary
You may be right Weary. But even so, these days it seems that everything must turn a profit, even recreation, and most forests don't show a measurable profit for them to judge the recreational value off of. I guess it is too bad President Bush got rained out of Cades Cove, as I hear it he was supposed to get out on the trail. Maybe then he could see the value in leaving some areas road-less.

bulldog49
05-06-2005, 16:42
I believe the law says equal consideration should be shown to recreation needs, or at least it used to. The National Forests are supposed to be multiple use. Instead they are increasingly treated as resources to enrich private mill owners.

Weary


Actually, I would say just the opposite is true, over the past decades more restrictions have been placed on harvesting than have been lifted. We need a balance and enviromentalists need to stop screaming "wolf" everytime we choose to use our natural resources.

I'm an avid hiker and love the forests and mountains, but if I didn't live in an economically healthy country I wouldn't have the time or means to enjoy them.

bulldog49
05-06-2005, 16:46
I just read the article. Up 'till now I thought Bush was going to allow roads in Wilderness areas not just NF. This isn't as bad as I was led to believe a few months ago. Did his position on Wilderness areas change? Or was it just some press dude interchanging NF with Wilderness in hopes of making it sound worst than it actually is?


Bingo! No group puts out more false information than the environmental lobby.

shades of blue
05-06-2005, 18:51
Bingo! No group puts out more false information than the environmental lobby.

Wow....no group? I could list a ton of different groups that put out MAJOR dissimformation....of course, I'd rather not start another useless flame war over politics.

Bulldog, you said we need balance, and you are correct. If we chose to conserve everything, we would freeze and starve. The problem is....large companies aren't into (for the most part) conserving anything. The bottom line is where it is at. It would be like putting a starving thru-hiker who was last in town a week ago at an AYCE and then say, you can only have one normal sized serving, and then you must go back to your hostel.

The environmental lobby is so rabid because the words in policy sound ok...but the actions have lead to global warming, scarred hillsides, poisoned streams and rivers that burn. Is this what ANYONE on this site really wants? There may be some companies that would do the responsible thing, but many wouldn't. I believe it is our government's responsibility and ours to keep reasonable bounderies for the environment. What worries me the most is that our current administration is well versed in the big oil world. Are they objective enough to protect what needs protecting, both in the environment and the people who live in it. My instincts say no....but then I really hope I'm wrong.

littlelaurel59
05-06-2005, 18:57
[QUOTE=Lugnut]It's kind of interesting that hikers/outdoors people tend to be liberal.
================================================== ==========
Some of them aren't, however. Hunters and fishermen. They read Field and Stream and belong to the NRA. They tend to vote Republican because they fear that Democrats will try to take their gun rights away. But the preservation of natural areas is as important to them as it is to us. If you cut down the trees, there won't be any wildlife to hunt. Poison the streams and there won't be any fish. And some of them are p***ed off at Bush because of this.

We need to reach out to these people, put aside any differences we might have, and present a united front to the Bush administration. If we were able to get the NRA on board, we'd have a lot more clout.

I have never owned a gun, and I've never been hunting. But I have absolutely no problem with people owning guns or going hunting. We should put those differences aside for the time being. The Sierra Club and other enviornmental organizations should start courting the hunters and fishermen.

I'm sure that if the hunters knew about the repeal of the roadless rule, they and the NRA would be raising hell.
Having an environmentalist ethic is not a liberal/conservative thing. Sierra Club has long been considered "liberal," but there are "conservative" environmental organizations out there too. Check out "Republicans for Environmental Protection" (www.repamerica.org (http://www.repamerica.org)). I am a member of both.

The politicians and lawyers make the rules. It is important that those of us (liberal or conservative) who value the earth and its natural beauty (not just for what we can extract from it) speak out and be heard. Many environmental organizations are beginning to see the importance of joining their efforts.

Otherwise, our grandchildren will see Wal-Marts and strip malls from the peaks of the Appalachians.

Colter
05-06-2005, 19:12
I believe the important point is that areas that have NEVER had roads will now have roads built into them. I find it further disheartening that there is so much support for such a measure on this forum.

I have spent 27 years of my life as a wildland firefighter, with 23 years of that as an Alaska Smokejumper. The "We have to make these roads to help fight fire" excuse is just that, an excuse. Most natural fire in wilderness areas (where these roads will be built) is good in the long term, and helps prevent more severe fires in the future. There are many reasons why there have been many destructive fire seasons recently. Among the causes are long-term drought, more and more homes being built further and further back into the wild country, and, partially, a long-held attitude of “all fire is bad.” Lack of roads in wilderness areas is NOT the problem.

The U.S. is not dependant on exploiting our last wilderness to have a healthy economy. “Environmentalists employ nobody??” I guess what you really mean is the timber will only have value if the trees are cut. Actually, those wilderness areas, including that narrow strip of wilderness we call the AT, have a huge economic value. Every penny spent by people hiking the AT comes from wilderness, in a sense. Hunting, fishing, and backpacking gear worth tens of millions of dollars is spent by people to enjoy the wilderness. That provides thousands of jobs. And hopefully I don’t have to point out that wilderness has an incalculable intrinsic value.

Should we log Central Park? Strip mine the AT corridor? NONE of us would think that’s a good idea.

There are very few places left in the Lower 48 where a person can get more than 2 miles from a road. Most of our country is criss-crossed by roads. Let’s save what little wilderness we have left.

Colter

"Having to squeeze the last drop of utility out of the land has the same desperate finality as having to chop up the furniture to keep warm." - Aldo Leopold

Dances with Mice
05-06-2005, 19:42
Speaking only of the roadless areas in Georgia, one problem is that when hunters and locals hear the words "Protected Wilderness Area" they believe that means no hunting.

That's not true. It does mean that no mechanical means may be used for wildlife habitat improvement projects, like http://www.whiteblaze.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/7072/sort/1/size/big/cat/578/page/

It means that game in non-road areas are more lightly hunted and can grow into trophies for those willing to make the effort to get back into these areas. Most sports hunters would support that as a good idea. Get hunters on your side and you'll have the support of the locals in rural areas. Get the locals supporting roadless areas and those areas will stay roadless.

You don't have to agree with everything that other potential supporters believe, you just have to recognize and accentuate common interests. Spreading the word that roadless areas are good for hunting will gain a lot of supporters that may often be at odds with environmentalists, like maybe the NRA.

Just a thought.

jmaclennan
05-06-2005, 21:07
Our current Prez will go down as the most anti-environmental ever. His administration is full of former industry lawyers. Shortsighted and greedy they all are. No balance; all industry. It's sad that some on this forum can't see that or don't want to. Lone Wolf, is your head so far up your arse that you can't admit the Prez blows chunks or are you just yanking our chains to see what we'll say? Seriously; what's going on inside that head of yours?

Sly
05-06-2005, 21:27
Lone Wolf, is your head so far up your arse that you can't admit the Prez blows chunks or are you just yanking our chains to see what we'll say? Seriously; what's going on inside that head of yours?

I was wondering that myself. :-?

Rocks 'n Roots
05-06-2005, 23:19
Our smoke jumper friend is directly in the know and he says the need for roads for fire protection is just a ploy. They are also heavily subsidized, which means the majority of Americans who don't want them are paying for them. Once those roads are in you'll get people who will say "Well, they're already roaded," or "it really isn't wild anyway," etc.

Party's over folks. Time to grow up and control population and demand. Pure theory is driving us to pure oblivion. I can just see someone who thought he was entitled because he was in a public forest, taking his economically-contributing gun and blowing away the last Ivory Bill Woodpecker under some of this backwards thinking...

Scribe
05-07-2005, 11:54
Only 4% of timber products come from OUR National Forests. So, the crap about using paper or living in a wood-frame house don't cut it...!

In addition, WE THE PEOPLE pay for roadbuilding and the logging program of the US Forest Service LOSES over ONE BILLION dollars per year. This is nothing short of a subsidy to the timber industry (BoiseCascade, GA Pacific, Plum Creek, Champion, International Paper, etc.) and one not in the public interest. We're paying private industry to destroy our national forests.

The most devastating forest fires have been at the edge of the forests, precisely because of the buildup of fuels (slash, undergrowth, scrub brush), not large trees. Yet, Dubya proposes to let the logging companies into the interior ot the forests --- doing nothing to prevent forest fires at the edge.

Calling Dubya a "great president" is akin to calling Atilla the Hum a "social worker". The man is bought and paid for by his industrial buddies.

tlbj6142
05-08-2005, 21:12
In addition, WE THE PEOPLE pay for roadbuilding and the logging program of the US Forest Service LOSES over ONE BILLION dollars per year. This is what bothers me more than anything else about logging. Why do we (the US Gov't) let ourselves get ripoff? I once heared it has something to do with an old law which sets the max price we can sell/rent an acre of land.

I have the same concerns with grazing lands out west. This "issue" isn't just a forest thing. And its "been around for years", so I doubt you could blame it on anyone administration.

Any ideas?

weary
05-08-2005, 21:24
Bingo! No group puts out more false information than the environmental lobby.
There are nutty people out there who claim to be environmentalists. But it strikes me that the mainstream environmental groups make major efforts to be accurate. The real problem is not false information. But being such a stickler for accuracy that major problems never get adequately debated.

I hear Bulldog's complaint often. I have yet to see any documentation.

Weary

Kozmic Zian
05-08-2005, 21:53
Our current Prez will go down as the most anti-environmental ever. His administration is full of former industry lawyers. Shortsighted and greedy they all are. No balance; all industry. It's sad that some on this forum can't see that or don't want to. Lone Wolf, is your head so far up your arse that you can't admit the Prez blows chunks or are you just yanking our chains to see what we'll say? Seriously; what's going on inside that head of yours?
Yea....Chains. He's a chain yanker from way back. I agree. Most of these, what are they, republicans, seem to think that it's now or never. Conservatives in general, seem to think that. To hell with manana. Live for today. The mony's here now....we don't want that to go away do we? America was founded on the priciple that the 'woods have bears and wolves there, it's dark there and dangerous.....Indian's live in there'. Cut it all down. And now of course, 'We got oil, we don't need no stinkin' woods. Cut it all down! Bush says, 'We need Energy and Oil and Religion'....you seen Delay lately....I think he thinks he's a preacher or something....I thought politics and religion didn't mix so well, what about you?
The 'Whole Damn Thing' is goin' to hell in a handbag, jack....Who cares about 'The Woods' when there's a damn war going on.......That fits right up their ally.....What's a hiker to do? Get out and walk while there's still time, I say. KZ@:eek:

Tha Wookie
05-08-2005, 21:59
Not to start an argument but logging companies, mining companies, etc employ PEOPLE who depend on these jobs to support their families.

Environmentalists employ nobody.
I work for the Nature Conservancy and NOLS. There goes your uneducated statement. Do you work for Georgia Pacific or any of the other giant logging corporations that continue to rape our country?

The truth is that sustainable timber harvest methods provide enough wood and jobs for our consumption and economy. Many educated and ethical logging companies do follow sustainable harvesting methods. But many people, who will stop at anything to maximize profit at the expense of our life-support systems, ecological balance, clean water, clean air, human life, and our recreational opportunities, simply don't care about anything else but power and greed.

Those people control all the fools who voted for Bush. They are so easily controled. So I don't see why you or anyone else in that herd of glazed-eyed sheep would be any better educated now. Hooved locusts as Muir called them, moving across the land eating everything down to the roots. I imagine the Bush puppet has a good laugh every now and then at all of the suckers financing his leaders' agendas.

They never question. The sheepherder can do no wrong in their eyes. They do whatever he says, too busy stuffing their fat bellies to even lift their head and find their own route.

Everybody needs to go out and get a copy of Ed Abbey's Monkeywrench Gang. It's time.

Over 90% percent of this country has been altered by Europeans. When will we put an end to the ecological genocide?

Kozmic Zian
05-08-2005, 22:04
This is what bothers me more than anything else about logging. Why do we (the US Gov't) let ourselves get ripoff? I once heared it has something to do with an old law which sets the max price we can sell/rent an acre of land.

I have the same concerns with grazing lands out west. This "issue" isn't just a forest thing. And its "been around for years", so I doubt you could blame it on anyone administration.

Any ideas? Yea....Don't vote for these dingwah's.....Clinton might have been a philanderer, but at least he knew about the environment. Look what he did at the end. Set into law the preservation of millions of acres of America's pristine lands. How can this current admin just change everything at will with no resistance. We should all write to our congressmen about this issue. If something isn't done, our children's children won't have anywhere to hike. Oh, boy. Here we go. I hate this issue 'cause it seems so out of control....whatever happened to the environmental respect the people of this country used to have for all things great and small. It's like everything else. Population out of control, immigration out of control, government out of control and addressing issues that really don't reflect the needs of the people. Ah, the foiables of Democracy.....It's best aspect, freedom is it's own downfall. KZ@:datz

papa john
05-08-2005, 22:21
Everything is so black and white to you isn't Wookie? If you look at the numbers of people working for timber, oil and other companies in similar industries, the number of people who work for environmental concerns pale in comparison.

You have every right to disagree, but please do so in a respectful manner. You know nothing about me, where do you get off calling me uneducated? I do not resort to name calling, please extend me the same courtesy.

jmaclennan
05-08-2005, 22:35
Papa John - "You know nothing about me, where do you get off calling me uneducated?"

Tha Wookie did not say you were uneducated. He said it was an uneducated statement. Tha Wookie - "There goes your uneducated statement."

Papa John - "Everything is so black and white to you isn't Wookie?" Actually, Papa John, you said that "environmetalists employ nobody." Forgetting Wookie's comments for a moment, that seems pretty black and white to me.

By the way, Papa John, companies that engage in mountaintop removal mining employ people. Does that mean we have to support what they do?

fiddlehead
05-08-2005, 22:40
Hey yeah Fiddlehead,

How goes it? What time is it over there anyway?Hey Sly, doin pretty good! Have taken up rock climbing and thinking about surfin. We're 12 hours different than you.
I've told a few Canadian friends about this (wilderness areas now a thing of the past) They weren't surprised at all. I am only surprised at the fact that the American public is not outraged! But then, they voted for him, aye? fh

Tha Wookie
05-08-2005, 22:43
Sorry papa, but you just said "Environmentalists employ nobody".

That is why I educated you on the matter. Don't take it personally. If you don't like being corrected, then don't say things that are false.

I'm the one seeing things black and white? funny! Keep reading...

True, logging provides jobs, but a job does not justify jack squat. War provides jobs. Drug dealing provides jobs. Prostitution provides jobs. Logging provides jobs.

Logging operations are not all the same. That's what I pointed out in my post. Many are sustainable, and use methods where they do not harvest old-growth or previously untouched or protected lands. In fact, I have met environmentalist loggers. How does that fit into your employment arguement? Do you think loggers all hate nature?

This issue is not about the pros and cons of the intrinsic nature of logging. It's about Bush opening what little untouched land we have left to be raped, clearcut, and destroyed. What those people commonly do out there in the National Forests is not sustainable. It's pig-headed greed. Then he and his masters can plant some nice green grass for his voters.

So you see it's not black and white at all. Some logging practices are responsible, but many (usually in the public lands) are not at all. Just because someone is hired doesn't mean the job is a good one.

What the logging groups mean when they whine about job loss is that they are too irresponsible or not smart enough to do things right and stay in business.

Plus, here's another thing I thought of:

When they clearcut an area, the new seedlings all start at the same time, creating an unbalanced forest with usually only one dominant tree
type (the most profitable). These trees grow roughly at the same rate, and crowd each other unaturally, creating a thick and unhealthy forest. It also creates a forest with thousands of dead trees (one study compared 300 trees to a natural plot to thousands in an adjacent recovering cleared plot), and those kinds of practices are part of the reason why forest fires have been so hot in recent years. The irresonsible loggers created the mess. Now we get to subsidize them to go clean it up, and to make whole new ones out of pristine nature.

tlbj6142
05-08-2005, 22:44
Clinton might have been a philanderer, but at least he knew about the environment. Look what he did at the end. Set into law the preservation of millions of acres of America's pristine lands.Did he really care, or did he just want to piss off the next administration? If it is done via "excutive order" its all politics, favors and positioning for the next guy's term.

bogey
05-08-2005, 22:47
Any body here use paper? Live in a house? Ever build yourself a shed? Trees must fall and that what that land is for. Or we could just keep 3rd world countries destroying their forests to give us timber.
Weyerhauser, Georgia-Pacific etc, have, to the best of my recollection, enough managed forrest growing, to sustain the needs of the paper industry.

I can't quote Dollars, number, and board-feet though, just, something I think I remember reading.

ripple
05-09-2005, 09:54
"Only 4% of timber products come from OUR National Forests. So, the crap about using paper or living in a wood-frame house don't cut it...!"



If that is true, where does the 96% of the timber products come from. Maybe those rain forrests we are always told to save. I quess some people rather exploit poor counties and talk out one side saying save your rain forrests but be happier saving our trees that were set aside for harvest.


"Weyerhauser, Georgia-Pacific etc, have, to the best of my recollection, enough managed forrest growing, to sustain the needs of the paper industry. "

Paper maybe, What about all the timber for all these houses that are be
built?



"Yea....Don't vote for these dingwah's.....Clinton might have been a philanderer, but at least he knew about the environment. Look what he did at the end."



Why do you think he did that at the end? Just to make it look bad for the next administration. He did the same thing w/ the Koyoto treaty signed it but knew it would destroy our economy. Left it up to the next administration to decide not to ratify it.

weary
05-09-2005, 12:36
Why do you think he did that at the end? Just to make it look bad for the next administration. He did the same thing w/ the Koyoto treaty signed it but knew it would destroy our economy. Left it up to the next administration to decide not to ratify it.
If so, Clinton took a complicated way of doing it. There were 600 public hearings over two years. No issue ever received more public comment, or more lopsided views in favor of protection of the roadless areas.

Roadless areas are a tiny subset of the National Forests. Most of the National Forest has been roaded again and again, harvested again and again. The issue is whether it is wise to keep a few places where nature is allow to do as nature wants.

I think it is. Just as we protect historical areas, it seems wise to me to keep a relatively few natural areas if only to see what a natural forest will look like over the decades, and centuries. Most forests have been harvested three or four times. Maine foresters talk of the "Fourth Forest," i.e. a forest that has been cut four times.

My town land trust, at least, has a policy of allowing our 500 acres to remain forever wild, so that over the decades something that approaches what the first first pioneers saw 400 years ago, may eventually emerge.

Just as the roadless national forests will never be a significant part of the total forests, our land trust will never be but a tiny percentage of the forests in my town. But that doesn't mean that it isn't worth protecting.

Our town land trust has owned significant forest land only about a decade. But already the logging roads are disappearing and a sense of wildness is gradually emerging.

Ideally, the roadless areas should have been a cross section of the National Forests. In fact politics made that impossible. The roadless areas that remain are mostly places where the logging companies found harvesting too expensive, or the quality not worth harvesting.

Now the administration wants to go out of its way to entice people to harvest these last of the wild lands.

Weary

Colter
05-09-2005, 13:16
Many conservatives refer to people fighting to save ANWR or to protect roadless areas as "extremists." But in these issues, who are the extremists, really?

About 4% of the US is wilderness. In other words, we are using 96% of our country for timber, oil, mining, farming, homes, malls, and other uses. I don't think anyone in this forum is suggesting we stop using this 96% of the land in a responsible manner.

What some people on this forum ARE suggesting is that we continue to develop the remaining 4% of the wilderness because we NEED those resources. Others are suggesting we save the remaining 4% because the wilderness has value and exploiting it will not solve the real problems.

Which is the extremist viewpoint?

bulldog49
05-09-2005, 13:41
What some people on this forum ARE suggesting is that we continue to develop the remaining 4% of the wilderness because we NEED those resources. Others are suggesting we save the remaining 4% because the wilderness has value and exploiting it will not solve the real problems.

Which is the extremist viewpoint?

Tell me who has said we should develop all the 4%. This is the typical rhetoric that comes from the left, always twist what others say to make them appear to be extremists.

I remember when the debate was going on about building the trans-Alaska pipeline environementalists where claiming it would disrupt the caribou migration and cause irrepairable damage to the permafrost. None of the dire predictions made have come to fruition. Likewise, the claims of acid rain killing off the eastern forests that were being thrown around 10 years ago have been proven to be invalid.

I've heard too many from that persusion cry wolf I tend to believe very little what they say.

TJ aka Teej
05-09-2005, 16:27
No group puts out more false information than the environmental lobby.
Here's two groups that you must not have heard of:
www.gop.com (http://www.gop.com)
www.foxnews.com (http://www.foxnews.com)

TJ aka Teej
05-09-2005, 16:33
...the claims of acid rain killing off the eastern forests that were being thrown around 10 years ago have been proven to be invalid.
"Researchers now know that acid rain causes slower growth, injury, or death of forests."
http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/acidrain/effects/forests.html
"Acid Rain Stunts Eastern Forests"
http://www.waterconserve.info/articles/reader.asp?linkid=40174

Rain Man
08-03-2005, 14:22
By GENE JOHNSON, Associated Press Writer Tue Aug 2, 8:01 PM ET

SEATTLE - A federal judge struck down a move by the Bush administration to ease logging restrictions in the Northwest, saying the government failed to consider the effect on rare plants and animals.

U.S. District Judge Marsha Pechman said in her ruling Monday that under federal law, authorities had an obligation to show why the logging restrictions should be changed.

Pechman said she would not issue any specific injunctions pending further hearings, and the U.S. Forest Service said Tuesday it hopes to salvage the Bush initiative by fixing the problems cited by the judge.

The rule change, which took effect in the spring of 2004, said forest managers no longer had to look for rare species before logging. The timber industry had complained for years that the rules were overly intrusive and could take years to complete.

Instead, the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management were to use information provided by state officials in Washington, Oregon and California in determining whether to allow logging, prescribed burns, and trail- or campground-building.

The change applied to 5.5 million acres of old-growth and other forests in the Northwest.

A coalition of environmental groups sued to stop the change, saying it would double logging on federal land in the region and have disastrous consequences for rare species. They cheered the ruling Tuesday.

"That's a huge decision for people who care about old-growth forests in our region and the species that depend on them," said Dominick DellaSala, a forest ecologist with the World Wildlife Fund, one of the plaintiffs in the case.

Rex Holloway, a regional spokesman for the Forest Service, said the agency's lawyers were reviewing the decision and the "inadequacies" pointed out by the judge.

Krag
08-03-2005, 18:05
This is a tired argument--if it weren't for "free trade" pacts, there would be a lot more jobs, better jobs than logging and mining which can admittedly be done well, but also often leave hills and mountains bare and desolate. Why not make agricultural hemp legal--now that would meet many of our pulp paper needs without the environmental degradation. That argument has been made well and often by both libertarians and the green party.

LEGS
08-04-2005, 01:29
DOES ANYONE ELSE HERE BELONG TO THE NRDC? THIS IS A GOOD GROUP WITH TIES TO MANY OTHER ENVIROMENTAL GROUPS SUCH AS THE SIERRA CLUB AND THE NATURE CONSERVACY. IF YOUR NOT A MEMBER YET OR WOULD LIKE TO FIND OUT MORE ABOUT THEM, WWW.NRDC.ORG (http://www.NRDC.ORG). THE NATIONAL RESOURCE DEFENSE COUNCIL IS WHAT THE INTIALS STAND FOR. TALK ABOUT SAVING ANWR AND MANY OTHER AREAS OF THIS COUNTRY AND OTHER REMOTE PLACES IN THE WORLD. THESE GUYS MEAN BUSINESS. I URGE ANY WHO ARE INTERESTED IN SAVING OUR COUNTRYS LAST REMAINING WILD PLACES TO LOOK INTO THIS GROUP. HOPE TO SEE YOU THERE. JOIN THE FIGHT IF YOU REALLY WANT TO DO SOME GOOD FOR THE BENIFIT OF OUR WAY OF LIFE. HIKE FREE AND SAFE.

Mountain Dew
08-04-2005, 02:11
BullDog49's post ---> :sun NICE