AT in Georgia opened to roads, logging

[SavageLlama]

Sad.


Bush OKs opening forests
By Charles Seabrook
The <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com /><st1:City w:st=<?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = " /><st1:place w:st="on">Atlanta</st1:place> Journal - Constitution
May 6, 2005
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>

The Bush administration, in one of its most controversial environmental decisions, on Thursday put in place a new rule that will allow the building of roads in many of the most remote, pristine areas of the country's national forests --- and open them to logging and mining. <o:p></o:p>

The rule, which becomes effective next week, overturns a regulation introduced in the waning days of President Bill Clinton's administration to protect 58.5 million acres of so-called "roadless areas" --- huge tracts of national forests that have been accorded extra protection for their special ecological significance, such as harboring headwaters of streams. <o:p></o:p>

Governors will be able, if they wish, to petition the federal government during the next 18 months to leave roadless areas untouched in their states. Georgia Gov. Sonny Perdue has not said what approach he would take. <o:p></o:p>

In <st1:country-region w:st="on">Georgia</st1:country-region>, the rule will affect 63,000 acres of the 750,000-acre <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:PlaceName w:st="on">Chattahoochee</st1:PlaceName> <st1:PlaceType w:st="on">National Forest</st1:PlaceType></st1:place> in the northern part of the state. One such tract is the 8,350-acre Kelly Ridge roadless area straddling the Appalachian Trail near the mountain town of Helen, about 120 miles northeast of downtown Atlanta. A high, wild and rugged area, it is adjacent to the 9,700-acre Tray Mountain Wilderness Area and harbors one of <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Georgia</st1:place></st1:country-region>'s largest old-growth forests.<o:p></o:p>

Officials with the Department of Agriculture, which encompasses the U.S. Forest Service, said the rule was intended, in part, to protect national forests and adjacent private property from wildfires by providing access into the forests to fight the blazes. <o:p></o:p>

Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns, who announced the rule on Thursday, said the administration was committed "to protecting and restoring the health and beauty of our national forests."
<o:p></o:p>

Agriculture Undersecretary Mark Ray said the new regulation also was intended to help avoid the litigation that has plagued the agency over the Clinton-era rule. The governors of <st1:State w:st="on">Alaska</st1:State>, <st1:State w:st="on">Utah</st1:State>, <st1:State w:st="on">Wyoming</st1:State> and <st1:State w:st="on">North Dakota</st1:State> have fought the rule, saying it was a last-minute maneuver to place nearly 60 million acres of <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">America</st1:place></st1:country-region>'s 191 million acres of national forests off-limits to any commercial activity.<o:p></o:p>

A U.S. District Court in <st1:State w:st="on">Wyoming</st1:State> overturned the <st1:City w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Clinton</st1:place></st1:City> rule in 2003. But environmentalists appealed the decision before the Denver-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, which heard arguments Wednesday.<o:p></o:p>

It is not clear what will happen to the new rule should the appeals court rule in favor of the environmental groups.<o:p></o:p>

The groups said the new rule jeopardizes the natural integrity of the nation's remaining unspoiled public lands. "The administration's decision . . . shows blatant disregard for the concerns of the public," said William Meadows, president of the Wilderness Society. <o:p></o:p>

Robert Vandermark, director of the Heritage Forests Campaign, said that "millions of acres of our last wild forests are now immediately at risk. . . . National forests deserve national protection, and should not be subject to the whims of local politics and federal political cronies."<o:p></o:p>

But U.S. Rep. Richard Pombo (R-Calif.) said the rule would bring about better management of national forests. It will move the management away "from the political bickering in Washington and closer to the people that live, work and recreate on and near these lands," he said.<o:p></o:p>

# # #<o:p></o:p>

[hikerjohnd]

I wonder how this will impact the proposed interstates out of Savannah???

[gr8fulyankee]

Knowing how tightly Gov. Sonny Perdue ( a true good ol' boy ) has his lips wrapped around Bush's sphincter, He will undoubtly do nothing to stop this from happening.

[SavageLlama]

Even Republicans think is a terrible idea.. I have new found respect for Arnold.


Schwarzenegger Announces that Roadless Areas Will Remain Roadless in California
"California's forests are one of our state's most treasured and valued resources. I am committed to protecting the vibrant health and sustainable future of our forests," said Gov. Schwarzenegger. "In keeping with that commitment and the assurances we have from the U.S. Forest Service, roadless areas in California will remain roadless."


Oregon Governor’s office blasts Bush admistration roadless policy
http://www.newsreview.info/article/20050506/NEWS/50506004 (http://www.newsreview.info/article/20050506/NEWS/50506004)

[SavageLlama]

Forest Protections Repealed for Sham Process


Statement of Sean Cosgrove, National Forest Policy Specialist, Sierra Club

"By formally repealing the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, the Bush administration is, yet again, doing its hardest to ignore over 4 million public comments in support of wild forest protection as well as an exceptionally strong ruling from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upholding the legality of the rule.

"By creating a sham process requiring a multi-step unfunded mandate, the Federal government is shirking its responsibility to protect these few remaining roadless areas. The concerns of millions of Americans meet deaf ears, while the administration hangs on the words of a handful of timber industry lobbyists.

"Instead of finding ways to provide millions of dollars in subsidies to the timber industry, the government should be working to permanently protect all remaining roadless areas in each state and across the National Forest System. These are areas of national significance and they deserve a single, nation-wide policy to protect them--not a piecemeal state-by-state approach.

"The original Roadless Rule was the product of exhaustive studies and scientific, economic and public input, including 600 public meetings. Unprecedented in its overwhelming popularity, the rule garnered 10 times more public comments than any federal rule in history. Sadly, the Bush administration hastily replaced it with an ill-conceived plan that forces a convoluted process on governors and leaves America’s last remaining wild forests at risk.

"By revoking the landmark Roadless Rule, the Bush administration is leaving wild forests across the country vulnerable to destructive commercial timber sales and road building. This move is part of the Bush administration’s overall assault on National Forest protections. From day one, the administration has worked to weaken or eliminate the core protections for America’s wild forests, putting the interests of the timber industry ahead of the clean water, recreational opportunities, economic benefits and wildlife habitat that these forests provide the country."

# # #

[SavageLlama]

The Bush administration is continuing on a path of environmental destruction:

Drilling the Alaskan Artic Refuge... Opening up National Forests to Logging/Mining... and repealing the roadless rule are just a few of Bush's notable achievements.

MEANWHILE... crude oil prices hit yet another record high again today, further boosting the stock prices of oil conglomerates like Halliburton.

It's both sad and shameful that our president is nothing more than a puppet for the oil industry. But what may be worse is that most Americans are too naive to see it.

[MedicineMan]

how can you leave the Mexican and Canadian border open to whoever wants to cross.....and i also lost faith in him when he called those property owners (minutemen) guarding their own land 'vigillantes'....its almost like his administratin actually wants a terrorist to cross and destroy an American city....please help me to understand why the borders are not shut down?????

[lumpy]

how can you leave the Mexican and Canadian border open to whoever wants to cross.....and i also lost faith in him when he called those property owners (minutemen) guarding their own land 'vigillantes'....its almost like his administratin actually wants a terrorist to cross and destroy an American city....please help me to understand why the borders are not shut down?????
Well, we wouldn't want to completely shut the borders down due to NAFTA however, we should allow people to LEGALLY enter our country not illegally. Guard our borders and prevent illegal immigrants from entering, absolutely but shutting them down completely is isolationism and will only throw gasoline on an already out of control fire.

[Tim Seaver]

Meanwhile, in the Sequoia's (http://www.natcath.com/NCR_Online/archives/031403/031403l.htm)....


....As it moves to reverse Clinton-era policies, the Bush administration has been arguing that cutting trees reduces forest fire danger. Conservationists point out that the federal government’s own scientists have consistently reported in study after study that removal of large trees increases fire risks by removing the most fire-resistant elements, the big trees themselves, from the forest and by reducing the cooling shade of the forest’s canopy. The logging of mature trees also causes flammable brush to grow more quickly.

The monument is home to a giant sequoia tree named for George Bush, the elder. Bush made a campaign stop a decade ago and a proclamation to protect the giant sequoias. “At least he felt like he had to make a gesture,” said Bill Corcoran, the Sierra Club’s Southern California regional representative. “His son’s administration seems to have foregone even that.”

Art Gaffrey, supervisor of both the sequoia monument and the nearby national forest, said the proposed timber cutting is needed to groom the forest and improve it. “No longer do we manage this public land based on market demands,” he said. The future goal will be “to maintain forest health and protect objects of interest from wildfire.”

Chad Hanson, executive director of the John Muir Project, a California forest conservation group, told NCR: “What’s really disturbing about this proposal is the limit on public input. This is an international treasure. These trees belong to the whole country, and the Forest Service is only allowing limited public hearings in Southern California. It’s a complete U-turn in how the federal government administers the public forests. During the Clinton administration there were two years of widespread public hearings on forest policies. The Bush administration, it seems, is shamelessly bent on turning over all our trees to the timber industry.”

Time after time, public input is being ignored as to how our forests are being "managed". Bush and his cronies are simply disgraceful.

[Drum Stick]

We could recover the methane gases from this thread and power quite a bit IMO.

Unfortuantely my time is short right now but I do look forward to injecting some much needed logic into this thread.

Are there any firefighters amongst us? Our forests are very vulnerable to eco-terrorists.
Drum Stick

[Drum Stick]

I have been doing some research regarding forest roads and my opinion is we need them and more of them. I am not going to sit here however and slam my gavel down, say case closed, and reject good logical arguments. I will also not be shaken by those who throw words at their countrymen like "naive", claiming superior intellect, and who use Whiteblaze to promote their ideology.

Oil prices are rising in large part because China is growing thirsty for more oil and at the same time we Americans are consuming more than ever. This is a simple supply and demand equation and we are the demand side. George Bush is not the cause of our consumption, consumers are. I would like to know very much Savage Llama, your personal energy situation if you care to converse...(you already know mine) I assume that the dwelling you live in (NYC) is heated by oil or gas, and your cooling power / electricity is likely from a coal fired plant. No one is twisting your arm, and forcing these fuel choices upon you, yet you find George Bush at fault because your prices are going up and also claim that W is responsible for ruining the environment. All this while you say NO to drilling in ANWAR (and NO to wind turbines best I can tell). Drilling in ANWAR would help the supply side of the equation but NO! you would rather falsely claim that (1) there really is not much oil in ANWAR and (2) we can not drill in ANWAR in an environmentally sound way. BS, I do not agree with this stand AT ALL, but anyway we will see what happens to the Energy Bill in the coming days. I think the 2005 Energy Bill will pass ONLY because Democrats know that shooting it down 'AGAIN' will be terrible for the security of our country and political suicide.

Over the past couple of days I have seen a few websites on forest road construction. And much like cutting in a new hiking trail, cutting in a road needs to be done correctly, carefully, and supervised by environmental experts. BUT undoubtedly forest roads can be constructed correctly, we have the technolgy and the wise people to make it happen.

Tangent sort of:
My neighbor monitors emmissions from power plant smoke stacks and she is a brilliant environmental consultant to say the least. Power companies pay her 'HUGE bucks' to help reduce their emmissions. Back in the 80's I was working for a company that devised a monitoring instrument that would sit down stream from power plants and monitor / sample their discharge 24/7/365. I thought my environmentalist friend would embrace the technology but she slammed it and taught me something valuable in the process. These power (forestry, wind etc.) companies are part of our economy, and they employ our countrymen. We need to help these companies stay in business and keep them profitable while simultaneously cleaning up 'OUR' acts. Saying that George Bush is opening forest lands to loggers just because he is in their pocket is all wrong. So either you do not fully understand the 'SCIENCE' of forestry management, OR you do, BUT would just rather run a campaign of misinformation and bash our republican president for your selfish ideological reasons and simultaneously hurt our economy, our countrymen, their families, and supporting industries who rely on the forestry industry.

I do not really want to talk a lot about the vulnerability of our forests and promote ideas, I have said enough already... But my friends I have seen a cell phone come in mighty handy in a medical situation on the trail so there is one good reason to carry a phone. Also reaction time is critical to beating forest fires so why not be ready to make the call... Above all we do not want to see firefighters or hikers losing their lives to fire storms if we can help it. I just saw a report today about 34-firefighters who lost their lives battling a forest fire... Roads through forests will provide fire breaks and access for firefighters. Gates and gatekeepers at forest roadways will help monitor who is in the backcountry and where, for everyones safety and our security. Forest fragmentation is not necessarily a bad thing when done wisely.

Regarding the Mexican border situation. I feel like many of you that we need to stop the 'illegals'. But at the same time we need to speed up the immigration process so we can welcome hard working Mexicans. I feel strongly that our energy future will rely on agriculture / bio-feedstocks and we need to partner with our Mexican neighbors, not battle them. What kind of neighbors are we? I think we also need to learn something from Switzerland. In Switzerland if an immigrant wants to take a job he/she must run an add in the news paper informing Swiss citizens of the open position. If no 'qualified' citizen wants the job then the immigrant can fill the position. Slamming businesses who do not play by the rules by hiring illegals is also a no-brainer to me.

If you are the wiser, please educate me.
Drum Stick

[Moon Monster]

Even Republicans think is a terrible idea.. I have new found respect for Arnold.


Schwarzenegger Announces that Roadless Areas Will Remain Roadless in California
"California's forests are one of our state's most treasured and valued resources. I am committed to protecting the vibrant health and sustainable future of our forests," said Gov. Schwarzenegger. "In keeping with that commitment and the assurances we have from the U.S. Forest Service, roadless areas in California will remain roadless."


Oregon Governor’s office blasts Bush admistration roadless policy


There's a good point here in that gubenatorial administrations will now be at the center of the paperwork for getting permission to build new roads. Governors are marginally easier to lobby than is the Federal Executive Branch. So any of us concerned should now start lobbying our state's governor with our wishes for the roadless areas in our state. The fight's not over just because the Clinton rule is in jeopardy. There's still a whole process to be done before any roads can be built.

[jmaclennan]

Drum Stick, I believe you know more about this than me and perhaps most on whiteblaze. I definitely respect your personal energy usage from what I've read on other threads. I do have a couple of questions about your post though. I have been wondering about the extent to which it is consumers who are to blame for our energy problems and pollution. Makes sense to me that it is at least partly the result of our behaviors as individuals. However, governments can (and have) done things that basically force increased efficiency and/or less environmental degredation mainly through legislation. For example, why (besides the fact that the auto industry is against it) did the Senate (or House, or whoever) not mandate higher fuel effiency standards for SUVs and trucks? Why is Bush trying to get nuclear going again (when most are strongly against it) and not invest more heavily in alternative energy? I'd like to hear more about the issue of individual responsibility and government action. On a slightly different note, do you know about how much oil is expected to come from ANWR? How much will this do to address the supply side of the equation? I had heard it was a rather small percentage and would not have a significant long-term effect on our energy situation. Another question, why was your friend so mad about the monitoring of power plants. Seems like a good idea to me. Some businesses and industries need to be watched and should not be promoted (e.g. those engaged in mountaintop removal mining); or do you disagree? It just seemed like somewhat of a blanket statement. I'd really like to hear your thoughts cause I'm concerned about these matters and like hearing about them from different perspectives.

[Tha Wookie]

The Bush puppet is the biggest terrorist of them all, sitting back, watching the oil prices climb and the forests fall.

Worst president EVER (accept for Andrew Jackson).

[Drum Stick]

Hey Wookie, I am not here to get you to like George Bush brother, to each their own I always say. In fact my father taught me "to each their own" and they are words to live by in my book. Wasn't Jackson the guy who literally stole California from Mexico?

Howdy J Maclennan and thank you for your confidence. I do wonder how I appear to my fellow Whiteblazers, I am not here to be combative etc. JM I know just enough to make me dangerous sir. I am always looking for more facts and the TRUTH about a plethora of subjects. The truth is sometimes hard to find when people, articles / news reports are so pathetically biased. I often find that people argue based on idelogy and feelings rather than fact. What blows my mind even more is when you present the facts and they are rejected because people are so strong (literally brain washed) in their ideology that they can not accept truth. I conducted a search to find the views of reasonable democrats on this logging road issue but I was unable to find much, maybe this issue is too fresh for a Democratic response...OR is the Democratic response via biased media and orgaizations? John Kerry is right on the money when it comes to energy so if some of you folks will only listen to someone on your side of the isle, please tune in to JFK (try C-SPAN) and Bill Richardson of AZ (former energy secretary). The only thing that troubles me about some of these big wigs is that they preach about the environment and then you hear about the multiple mansions they heat and cool, the large yachts etc. Hypocrites! Nah no SUV or personal jet here.

We all bare a responsibility to conserve in our personal lives, and on the job we can look for ways to help our employers do better. If you have worked for a big corporation that uses chemicals for instance, then you know how much things have changed and that corporate pollution is not what it once was, thank goodness. I do not know enough to comment on the recent squashing of higher fuel efficiencies, I would have to look into it (i.e. DO THE HOMEWORK) but probably to protect American auto (guzzler) makers / jobs. But no one is twisting anyones arm to purchase one of these guzzlers. Have you ever been to Europe? There are mini cars everywhere. I am disappointed that George Bush and company is not making special appearances to rally us citizens to new fuels, the focus seems to be on hydrogen but we are years away from hydrogen cars, residential fuel cells and infrastructure (from sea to shining sea) without a massive national effort to accelerate the process. The 2005 Energy Bill I understand contains funding for a conservation campaign but why wait for that? On the oher hand after doing a great deal of research I am impressed over all of the work that is beig done by scientists around the world to further alternative energy sources. There are bio feedstocks galore around the world just waiting to be tapped, and this will put farmers in high gear. RocksnRoots was concerned about soil depletion by massive agriclture but I have yet to find negative information from a scientific source. However Saudi Arabia is poised to sell us all of the fertilizer we need. Also there maybe a possibility that feed stocks can be grown hydroponically. I don't know what to say about the mountain top off mining in WV, it does not look like a good practice to me. But trying to make lemonade out of lemons, I imagine that the property might make a nice location for a massive green house.

I think the move to further clean(?) nuclear technology is because of the realities of our massive consumption and global warming issues. Even if we quickly tapped other sources of clean energy we would still be short in our strive for energy independence. This is just my 'guess'. But the sooner we individuals change our sources of energy the quicker we change the supply side of the equation. For instance anyone of us could purchase a pellet stove (pelletstove.com) and start to drive up the demand for corn and other biomass products. I think corn will be a huge bio feedstock because we can burn it directly in a pellet stove OR refine it into Ethanol. Current Ethanol refining is a cluncky process but I believe there is funding for refining research in the 2005 Energy Bill, as well as other feedstock research like mustard seed. If the Democrats hold up this Bill I hope they all go straight to hell. If you want to see technology in action do a search on biomass in Sweden. I read that all of Stockholm is powered by biomass.

The reason my environmentalist friend was against the monitoring device is because it was designed to catch and punish companies which in her opinion was the wrong side of the environmental war. These power companies are trully spending big money on environmental consultants and internal hardware (including monitoring devices of their own) to clean up their acts. Lets say that we did find a company to be in emmissions violaton... then we would have to bring a law suit against the company which is just a terribe waste of time and money and does nothing to bring the plant into compliance. Of course intentional gross emmissions violations are another matter and this is why we have environmental police. It is true that some older power plants just make the emmissions limit, but there are many power plants that are below limit and exceed the standards. Why? Because it is far cheaper to stay within the standards than it is to be fined and receive bad publicity and have stock prices drop. If a power company loses profits it affects not only our countrymen (and women) who work for the plant but the many supporting businesses and their employees too, a chain reaction that ultimately hits the consumer. Negative economic impact is bad for all Americans and the world for that matter.

For more information on economic affects in general look at the USDA 'forestry road' page and see how forestry affects communities. Sorry I can not provide you with the link.

I don't really know how much oil is in ANWAR but I think it is far more than what nay sayers see in their crystal ball. Nay sayers lead a campaign of disinformation for the brainwashable. I understand that ANWAR is pristine wilderness and I do not want to see it destroyed any more than the next person. But I have confidence in technology and good people to get the job done right. If there are accidents or violations on site companies should be held responsible of course. That said I am not really for drilling in ANWAR but unfortunately we (as a country) have huge demands. It does kill me that the same people who are bitching about drilling in ANWAR are the ones who are bitching about high prices / the consumers. And it is all someone elses fault! Go figure!
Nice talking with you all
Drum Stick

[weary]

I don't really know how much oil is in ANWAR but I think it is far more than what nay sayers see in their crystal ball. Nay sayers lead a campaign of disinformation for the brainwashable. I understand that ANWAR is pristine wilderness and I do not want to see it destroyed any more than the next person. But I have confidence in technology and good people to get the job done right. If there are accidents or violations on site companies should be held responsible of course. That said I am not really for drilling in ANWAR but unfortunately we (as a country) have huge demands. It does kill me that the same people who are bitching about drilling in ANWAR are the ones who are bitching about high prices / the consumers. And it is all someone elses fault! Drum Stick
The estimates, mostly by the oil industry and government scientists, estimate that ANWR contains about the amount of oil America uses in six months.

This talk about "naysayers" being wrong and leading a "campaign of disinformation" is mostly nonsense. Yes. As always, you can find someone, some place, who makes silly claims. But the debate has been pretty straight forward for those who are truly paying attention. It's between those who would destroy anything to get the last scrap of energy and those who recognize that in the grand scheme of things it matters not whether the era of cheap fossil fuels ends six months earlier or later.

We, as a society, have a choice. We can make rational decisions about our energy future. Or we can continue to do as we are doing now -- grasping at any straw that promises to extend our wasteful ways.

Weary
__________________

[Drum Stick]

I take your point well Weary. But I have been told by very biased people that there was less that a months worth of oil in ANWAR. And I have been told by biomass folks that there is less than five years supply left on earth (I doubt that). The truth is that we will only know how much oil and gas there is by exploration. Even Saudi Arabia can only estimate how much is under foot. I am just beginning to see what is being said regarding ANWAR supply and this is the first link I found for our consideration.
warriorsfortruth.com

I am going back to read.
Drum Stick

[Colter]

The estimates, mostly by the oil industry and government scientists, estimate that ANWR contains about the amount of oil America uses in six months....But the debate has been pretty straight forward for those who are truly paying attention. It's between those who would destroy anything to get the last scrap of energy and those who recognize that in the grand scheme of things it matters not whether the era of cheap fossil fuels ends six months earlier or later.

Well said Weary. IF we drill in ANWR we will give away the wilderness and get the gift of oil, but in the end we've lost both the oil AND the wilderness.

Again, I offer this quote:

"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, A Sand County Almanac, 1949.

[Tha Wookie]

You guys might find this interesting. This is a speech that I watched in the streets of Athens, GA, at the 27th annual Human Right's Festival.

The speech was given by Don Wilkes, a UGA professor of the School of Law.

Here's a good exerpt that fits here nicely:

"Well, I certainly understand the arguments of those who say that Bush should be deemed perhaps the arch-right-wing nutcase. But I must disagree with them. For how can you be a right-wing nutcase if, mentally and intellectually, you are in a persistent vegetative state? If you are so mentally feeble that you doubt global warming? If you are so clueless that you doubt an essential aspect of modern science, the scientific principle of biological evolution - or, as the right-wing nutcase running Georgia's schools called it - "biological change over time"?"

Read the rest of this enlightening talk at http://flagpole.com/articles.php?fp=5221

It is about HUMAN rights, but destroying our forests is also a violation of our human rights. They seek to destroy our living heritage for the power of votes and the floundering promise of a better economy.

"I will finish by again quoting the words of James Montgomery Flagg:"

"Wake up, America!
Civilization calls every man, woman, and child!"

[Tha Wookie]

http://flagpole.com/images/jpgs/2005/05/04/comment-wakeupamerica.jpg

[RockyTrail]

Ad-hominem attacks will get a person nowhere.

The professor's language is an embarrassment to the citizens of Georgia; it's bad enough being 49th in education without him demonstrating it.:datz

[Drum Stick]

I would like to tell you about another flagpole, it sits outside the Thoratec Coporation and it is dedicated to my former co-worker Tom Burnett, A TRUE AMERICAN HERO. Please take a look and honor a hero.
tomburnettfoundation.org

Human rights huh. Yah they just keep finding more mass graves in iraq. Too bad George Bush had the guts to do something about human rights. President Clinton lobbed a few bombs into Iraq but unfortunately he missed the mark. And I bet you were really upset about that. Please tell me what form did your protest take the few times that president Cinton used military force? None? Why is it that.
Drum Stick

[Lilred]

Hey Wasn't Jackson the guy who literally stole California from Mexico?
Drum Stick


I'm pretty sure it was Florida that he stole from Spain. California didn't become a state till 1850, five years after Jackson died. From what I remember, Mexico pretty much ignored California after it won its independence from Spain. We kinda just moved in and took over.

Jackson, however, went into Florida after the Spanish-American war had ended and 'won' the battle that got us Florida from Spain. I think that's how it went.... Any historians out there that can set me straight?

[Colter]

Clearly Tom Burnett was a hero. Most of our troops fighting overseas are heroes. Unfotunately, Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11. Most of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, our ally.

Our President lectured the world, telling them we had to go into Iraq because of "weapons of mass destruction." Of course, there weren't any. Bush's primary reason for going to war was, AT BEST, wrong.

I think the reason there wasn't a huge outcry to our military actions in Somalia and the Balkans is that most of the world, including most Americans, believed and still believe, that we were in those places primarily for humanitarian reasons.

Where was our concern for Saddam's humanitarian policies when we supported him in his war against our enemy, Iran? Where is our concern for democracy in Saudi Arabia or when a military dictarorship is on OUR side, like in Pakistan?

Is Saddam evil? Certainly, but I believe it takes a certain innocence to believe that our administration went to war in Iraq primarily for the good of the Iraqi people.

Most of the world, including most of our allies, think that our administration invaded Iraq not for humanitarian reasons, but for selfish reasons. Where's our concern about genocide in Sudan? Where's Bush's guts there? Where's his concern for international law when it applies to the U.S.?

We aren't right just because we're Americans.

[TJ aka Teej]

Too bad George Bush had the guts to do something about human rights.
Drum Stick, please show us where/when/if George W. Bush spoke of "human rights" as a reason to attack Iraq prior to invasion. When Ronald Reagan, Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld were supporting Saddam with funds and arms, did you complain that they should not, because of "human rights"?

[JoeHiker]

I'm pretty sure it was Florida that he stole from Spain.
Is it too late to give it back?

:rolleyes:

[Drum Stick]

I saw a show on the history channel a few weeks ago and indeed some American(s) stole California from the Mexicans. The Mexicans occupied California and according to the History Channel ditty I saw, the Mexicans simply did not have the strength to hold on to it. History was never my favorite class either but I do like to watch some TV.
Drum Stick

[Drum Stick]

I agree that Iraq had nothing to do with 911. And indeed you are correct that the hijackers came from Saudi Arabia. So why do we still buy their oil? No choice?

George Bush never said we were going into Iraq for humanitarian reasons, I know. 19-failed UN resolutions and Saddam shooting at our aircraft in the no fly zone sends a signal to me that he did not want to cooperate, let alone comply with the UN. That is enough for me brothers. Before 911, I would have probably given inspections more time, but post 911 NO WAY! Maybe the death of my countrymen, women, and children had something to do with it. God damn right I took it personally when children / loved ones waited at the door for parents they would never see again. (maybe a bad route but) Why did we take on Germany? they posed no threat to us, Japan attacked us right... or was it Germany that attacked Pearl Harbor?... Road trip!. But wasn't it worth saving all of those innocent Jewish people?

Of course we initially propped up Saddam when the enemy of our enemy was our friend, I don't know what I would have done myself on that one, I was just a kid and don't know much about all of that unfortunate history.
Drum Stick

[BookBurner]

Does the new bill require a governor to petition Dubyah to continue roadless area protection or does the bill require a governor to petition to change the management plan to something other than roadless protection? I've read the articles and I've also read the actual bill's decision memo at (www.roadless.fs.fed.us/documents) and I can't tell. They seem to conflict. Who's telling the truth?

Regarding ANWR, in The Final Frontiersman, James Compbell cites a U.S. Geological survey from 1987, 1998, and 2001 and reports that oil from ANWR would satisfy 2 percent of America's daily oil needs. Increasing automobile efficiency by less than 1 1/2 mpg would accomplish the exact same end. In 20 years, that increased fuel efficiency would eclipse the total recoverable oil output that ANWR is expected to yield.

-- BookBurner
www.enlightenedthruhiker.com

[Drum Stick]

Freemont was the name of the guy who led the band that stole California from Mexico. Although Mexicans did steal the property from someone else. So I guess you could say what goes around comes around. Also, on my road trip, I was told that Germany (Hitler) declared war on us after we declared war on Japan Germany's ally.

Given our current national energy and security situations, our domestic oil AND NATURAL GAS production situation (=dwindling), and the fact that there is no new technology that can replace oil OR NATURAL GAS 'in a hurry', I don't see how anyone can say NO to drilling in ANWR. Jimmy Carter was the one who set aside ANWR, and a 'tiny' chunk of it was designated for energy exploration... so what is wrong with using the land as intended by our forefather? (anwar.org) On this web site (which I admit may be biased but I have seen similar data on other websites) the wildlife impacts are said to be (take a look), can these figures be disputed? And it is said that the foot print of the operation will be small. And oil companies are cleaning up former energy sites showing a commitment to lands afer the energies are gone......

Regarding how much oil is actually in ANWAR, it is enough to run my VW for an estimated 215,7000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000...000 miles. I think that Weary's estimate of 6-months may be right. However the estimte of 6-months assumes that all of the energies comes from ANWAR, and this will simply NOT BE THE CASE. It is predicted / estimated that the energies will be extracted over a 20-year period and raise our dwinding domestic supplies. If we use the amount of energy that a particular location could supply the country for X years (6-months) as a gauge we would be shutting down much of our domestic energy operations. The small figures are very misleading... by design??????

I am glad to see though that each state will make up its own mind on the forest roads. Naturally each state may have different conditions.
Drum

[Drum Stick]

Sorry Book Burner, I had problems with the link you provided and typing in the URL just hung my browser...?
Drum Stick

[BookBurner]

Knock off the "/documents" and give it another try.

[Drum Stick]

I see what you are talking about BookBurner... Based on information from a negative (against the bill) article it states that "The bill wrongly puts the fate of national treasures in the hands of states". I read this as, the governors petitions are to make changes to a 'new plan'. NOT whether to continue with roadless forests.???.... NO! scratch that, reverse it.

It is interesting though, that Clinton / Gore jammed the roadless act through in the last few days of their administration 'with out much debate' and it caused a slew of lawsuits from states. The Gore roadless act was found to be illegal and in violation of previous acts... Was Gore trying to say "I know what is better for you naive states". What is wrong with a state looking out for its own land, people and local economics?
Drum Stick

[Drum Stick]

While I do not doubt for a second the good heart of the founder of this thread regarding the wilderness, the environment, the AT, and the community, I just can not accept him placing the blame for high oil prices on the wrong person (George Bush). And apparently using Whiteblaze to promote his "naive" (IMO) point of view and party line speeches. I also do not appreciate the way he crafted the few words 'that were his own' to imply that if you do not agree with him that you are naive.

I notice that Llama has decided not to return to this thread to back up his statements or just say, "hmmm I did not know the facts" or better, to discuss solutions. Perhaps my earlier comments seemed to rhetorical? If so I am sorry. The fact is that the only thing standing in the way of lower oil prices in the short term is increased production. This is why George Bush asked Saudi Arabia to pump more oil. In the longer term, drilling in ANWAR will help keep domestic oil/gas production up (as the flows from older domestic wells decrease) and keep oil and gasoline prices stable. The only thing standing in the way of drilling in ANWAR are naive (so-called) environmentalists and just about every Democrat in Washington. The decision / votes to drill in ANWAR are splitting pretty much right down party lines (Republicans YES, Democrats NO). So the next time you want to complain about high oil and gasoline prices, please thank Democrats and politically biased 'environmental lobbyists'.

I mentioned "campaigns of misinformation" (brainwashing) earlier and this is exactly how this thread began. Either that or it was ingnorance (unaware). To give another example of misinformation FYI, John Kerry ran a commercial that showed beautiful scenery from a completely different part of Alaska than in ANWAR where drilling is proposed. Why? to get citizens to believe that a pristine wilderness was about to be compromised, (AND George Bush was irresponsible) when nothing could be further from the truth 'regarding ANWAR' (specificly where drilling is proposed). Look into the proposed site and see pictures for yourselves.

I apologize if it seems that I am carrying on about this, but our nations health (security / economy) is serious business and I obviously do not take it lightly. If we looked for long term environmentally sound energy solutions back in the 1970's we would not be in the mess we are in now. But unfortunately we were not looking far enough ahead and we need the oil in ANWAR as greener technoogies and infrastructures are put in place, this is just reality. I wish we could just stop burning fossil fuel in the snap of a finger but we can't, and it is in our best interest as a nation to drill in ANWAR.
"DO SOMETHING" so we are not faced with the same situation in another 50-years.

... I guess Savage Llama that like yourself, I feel strongly about my views. And I don't deny you your point of view sir, not at all, I just strongly disagree with it. If it is possible, please don't take this as an attack from me.
Respectfully,
Drum Stick

[Colter]

To give another example of misinformation FYI, John Kerry ran a commercial that showed beautiful scenery from a completely different part of Alaska than in ANWAR where drilling is proposed. Why? to get citizens to believe that a pristine wilderness was about to be compromised, (AND George Bush was irresponsible) when nothing could be further from the truth 'regarding ANWAR' (specificly where drilling is proposed). Look into the proposed site and see pictures for yourselves.


I've made two long trips into ANWR. On the first, I was with my dad. We spent about 12 days there and never saw another human being. The second I was alone in ANWR for a month. I saw my first human on the 20th day. I didn't see one oil well, one building, or one road the whole time, in hundreds of miles. It was wilderness so pristine that some people would find it hard to imagine. Here's a couple of photos I took in ANWR: Porcupine Herd Crossing a River, ANWR (http://www.bucktrack.com/Alaska/Caribou_Mountain.jpg)
Alaska Tundra: Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (http://www.bucktrack.com/Alaska/Colorful_Berries.jpg)

Will they put the oil wells right there? They will if we open ANWR and they decide there's oil there.

Even the flat "barren" tundra country is pristine wilderness, with caribou and tundra swans and wolves, grizzlies, musk oxen and much, much more. I'm afraid that it's one of those situations where if people don't just feel in their bones that roads and developments in remote wilderness automatically destroys something, it simply won't help to explain. I hope my photos will "paint a thousand words."

[Caleb]

I agree that Iraq had nothing to do with 911. And indeed you are correct that the hijackers came from Saudi Arabia. So why do we still buy their oil? No choice?

George Bush never said we were going into Iraq for humanitarian reasons, I know. 19-failed UN resolutions and Saddam shooting at our aircraft in the no fly zone sends a signal to me that he did not want to cooperate, let alone comply with the UN. That is enough for me brothers. Before 911, I would have probably given inspections more time, but post 911 NO WAY! Maybe the death of my countrymen, women, and children had something to do with it. God damn right I took it personally when children / loved ones waited at the door for parents they would never see again. (maybe a bad route but) Why did we take on Germany? they posed no threat to us, Japan attacked us right... or was it Germany that attacked Pearl Harbor?... Road trip!. But wasn't it worth saving all of those innocent Jewish people?

Of course we initially propped up Saddam when the enemy of our enemy was our friend, I don't know what I would have done myself on that one, I was just a kid and don't know much about all of that unfortunate history.
Drum Stick
Hi. I've been away but have now caught up on the turbine thread..nice exchange bewtween you and Weary. But this is bizarre. Let me see if i have this straight..you're pissed off at the folks who rammed the heavies into the WT towers, so that makes it OK to invade Iraq, a country that didn't pose any threat to the US, and kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people in the process? Please help me cause you otherwise seem to have a lot on the ball.

You've got an interesting eco-friendly groove going on with yourself - but your misplaced anger - your foam-flecked support of the war in Iraq - makes me question what kind of human being you are. There were other rationales for the war (all equally miserable IMO) but here, as you've indicated your willingness to exchange your pain for the deaths of hundred of thousands of innocents, you've revealed yourself as a real brute. If you have a bad day at the office do you go home and beat your wife? Same logic applies. I'm sad for you brother.

[Drum Stick]

Nice picture Colter... now I have to do some more research for the TRUTH. I have seen pictures and read accounts regarding the exact spot (supposedly) where the drilling is to take place, and the pictures do not look like the one you offered. ANWAR is huge and the exact location proposed for drilling is small. Where exactly was your picture taken Colter. And I also respect the fact that you are an Alaskan. Why are so many (a super majority) Alaskans for the ANWAR drilling?

But still, all of the logic in the world tells me that that as a nation with energy needs we need to drill in ANWAR. Showing pictures is nice but this is not proof that the land will be spoiled (FOREVER). The sites of former wells have been dismantled and the land reseeded with vegetation. Why should we not assume that as soon as ANWAR runs dry the same will not happen? I understand that as soon as the Alaskan pipeline is no longer useful it will be removed. Also windmills currently have a lifespan of twenty years, and I hope that in twenty years that we will have our energy needs in order and not need to put new turbines up. I look at all of the technologies developed to make the drilling environmentally friendly and I have high confidence that we can do this right.

All this said, my house is heated by 100% biomass and because I conserve, my electric bill is very very low. I drive a very economical VW and drive as necessary. As soon as I can get into a car running on vegetable oil I am there, assuming that a hydrogen infrastructure is not in place. So I personally am not thirsting for ANWAR oil or gas. But unfortunately we have a nation that is, and an economy that heads south when oil prices are high. The reality is to keep this country running we need more domestic energy. And right now our infrastructure is oil and gas. When the economy takes a hit because of rising energy costs, and jobs are lost, some people will cry that our goverment is at fault.

I want to say that I do not belong to a particular political party I try to live by logic (Vulcan if you will).

Caleb I threw the Iraq War on the table because I knew that someone would tell me that we get most of our foriegn oil from Saudi Arabia. Then I could ask why? So we either do not mind getting our oil from the middle east and living with market conditions and rising energy prices (and 'potentially' supporting terrorists) OR we are prepared to engage in domestic energy exploration. The only other choice is to utilize alternative energy sources...

I am absolutely not a war monger (sp?) and of course I am for projecting military power ONLY when absolutely necessary. Sweet LOGIC. It baffles me that anyone could look at the intelligence leading up to the war and reach a different conclusion than George Bush did. I honestly believe that there is a large number of people in this country who bash Bush for going to war, and who would have cheered if Bill Clinton did so. Just listen to the words of Bill Clinton when he said (paraphrasing) 'I guarantee you that some day Saddam will use those weapons against the US'. Bill Clinton was convinced that Saddam was a mad man and posed a danger to us. And he believed it to the point of using military force. Where was the outrage when Clinton used force in Iraq? There was none! why? because democrats felt that if Bill Clinton was using force then it must be necessary.??

Hind sight is 20/20 and of course we did not find WMD's but no one reasonble can deny that the word thought Saddam had them. What we did find was an extremely elaborate 2-billion dollar bunker that was built as children of Iraq were starving, all financed by the Oil For Food Program. Mass graves are being dug up and we are finding WOMEN AND CHILDREN for god sake with multiple gun shot wounds............. What the heck! But Saddam had no bad intentions right.? I know you agree Saddam was eveil Caleb. Are you telling me that you would sit idley by as women and children are being murdered. I will answer my own question, NO. I just do not see the Logic, please help me to.
Drum Stick

[Drum Stick]

BTW Caleb, I am the most mellow person that you ever might to meet, at least this is what people tell me. I aplogize if my words sound angry, but I honestly do not have an angry bone in my body, I am extremely passive. You would have to bludgeon me before I would strike back brother. I do not have a wife and I sure as heck would not beat her if I did...I don't know how you boys fron NH handle things but (just kidding) That wife beating comment was from left field brother.

People tell me, no! close family members and friends tell me that I think to much and I must admit they are correct. But the mind is a wonderful thing and I honestly 'love' to think. Sound strange? It is true. I am currently consulting on demand with a couple of different medical companies so the work is spotty but we improve and extend lives not exterminate them. And when medical work is sparse I work in the floor laying business. Yah floor laying is mostly physical... but it gives me time to think... The mind is a wonderful thing.

Despite the fact that we seemingly sometimes 'go at it' here on Whiteblaze there is not one person here that I would not like to have a beer with.
Peace
Drum Stick

[Colter]

Alaskans support drilling in ANWR for money, plain and simple. More oil means more money. Maybe 2% of Alaskans have ever been in ANWR, but they all get their oil dividend check every year.

Those pictures were taken near the continental divide in the eastern Brooks, smack dab in the middle of ANWR. And knowing exactly where they'll drill in ANWR is irrelevant. People used to think all undeveloped land was ugly and useless. Some people still do.

Will they remove the oil pipeline? I don't know, but I DO know that a GAS pipleline is now in the works. And I'm sure the Haul Road built along the pipeline will stay either way. Once you open up ANWR or build roads in a wilderness, the genie is out of the bottle.

Let me frame my argument this way... If America was running out of timber, should we log Central Park?

[weary]

.....Let me frame my argument this way... If America was running out of timber, should we log Central Park?
That of course is the central question that for some reason only a few of us have asked.

The question applies equally to the wisdom of installing an industrial wind power complex 3/4 of a mile from a 2,000-mile-long National Park, damming the last of the wild rivers, damaging willy, nilly without thought or remorse anything that promises the tiniest scrap of energy.

Few seem able to understand the illogic. If energy needs are so dire that we are tempted to sacrifice the last of our nation's wildness, that sacrifice will do absolutely nothing to significantly change the future of energy supplies, but will only leave us with a diminished nation.

We truly are addicted to energy. We truly are willing to do anything for one last fix.

Weary

[Drum Stick]

Colter you make terrible arguments for not drilling in ANWR my friend. First you say that your picture is from smack dab in the middle of ANWR.... No where near the proposed drilling site (ala John Kerry). Then you say that only 2% of Alaskans have ever been to ANWR. How many Alaskans (or people) have ever been to the exact drilling site? and why so few?

Knowing exactly where drilling will take place is irrelevant you say...? I had no idea people were still eating lead paint. (I mean that humorously if you can take a joke) Suggesting that once drilling begins ("letting the genie out of the bottle") that petroleum companies will just roam the tundra and drill where they please is just.....ludicrous.

I apologize for the inactive links and hopefully no typos
www.pwsrcac.org/DRnR.html
an example of restoration projects

Clinton Speech 1998:
www.wsws.org/news/1998/dec1998/iraq-d17.shtml
Letter to Clinton 1998:
www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

Weary you and I see very much eye-to-eye on a lot of things (I think), and I do respect my elders, and all you have to say. And I will say it again, that ideally we would not have to put up windmills or drill in Alaska. Assuming that we do not drill in Alaska isn't it pretty obvious that energy prices will rise, the economy will suffer and this will hit 'many' companies and employees with negative impacts and lost jobs. For instance many medical research companies will suffer and slow research, and that is the tip of the iceburg. We could just let this happen and maybe it will be the slap people need to change their energy consuming ways...

Years ago there were very bad practices adopted by petroleum companies and maybe there is still some bad acts taking place. But technology has come a long way and I refuse to believe that we can not drill in Alaska in an environmentally sound way. Environmentalists will oversee the project as well as native Alaskan employees who are I geuss (I read) whistle blowers (not bad) Did you know that drillers can drill down for miles and then make a 90-degree turn and continue drilling for miles? This ability alone greatly reduces the foot-print of drilling.

Hey Weary! your book just arrived, it will be a busy day! Thanks man!
Drum Stick

[Drum Stick]

I see that the Whiteblaze forum software created active hyperlinks. But unfortunately the Clinton speech did not come up, instead some politically motivated stuff.
Drum Stick

[Drum Stick]

www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/decbomb.htm

[Tha Wookie]

I would like to tell you about another flagpole, it sits outside the Thoratec Coporation and it is dedicated to my former co-worker Tom Burnett, A TRUE AMERICAN HERO. Please take a look and honor a hero.
tomburnettfoundation.org

Human rights huh. Yah they just keep finding more mass graves in iraq. Too bad George Bush had the guts to do something about human rights. President Clinton lobbed a few bombs into Iraq but unfortunately he missed the mark. And I bet you were really upset about that. Please tell me what form did your protest take the few times that president Cinton used military force? None? Why is it that.
Drum Stick
I have protested in the streets against both wars. I'm not a democrat or a liberal. I'm not some stupified braindead republican either. Nor am I running for any office. Nor am I a pacifist. Nor I am a warfreak.

The sooner you figure that out, the more time you'll have to do other things.

[Drum Stick]

I am glad to hear that you are consistent Wookie, that I respect very very very much.
Drum Stick

[weary]

....Weary you and I see very much eye-to-eye on a lot of things (I think), and I do respect my elders, and all you have to say. And I will say it again, that ideally we would not have to put up windmills or drill in Alaska. Assuming that we do not drill in Alaska isn't it pretty obvious that energy prices will rise, the economy will suffer and this will hit 'many' companies and employees with negative impacts and lost jobs. For instance many medical research companies will suffer and slow research, and that is the tip of the iceburg. We could just let this happen and maybe it will be the slap people need to change their energy consuming ways....Drum Stick
Humans have more than fullfilled the biblical injunctive to "go forth and populate the earth." Humans live most everywhere, these days from the antarctic to the arctic. Oil drilling in ANWR just brings the roads closer, human traffic closer, development closer to one of the few large wild places that are left. Drilling will make ANWR less wild, less remote, and more civilized.

I think oil prices will rise regardless of whether we drill or not. And I doubt if the drilling will have any effect, one way or the other on prices, other than to make the investors quite a bit of money.

The best information I have seen is that the refuge would begin producing oil in about a decade, and over the ensuing 28 years would increase the potential oil available to this country by about 1 percent. If other Alaskan oil projects are any indication, however, most of the oil will never see the lower 48 states. It will all be shipped to Asia.

I doubt if ANWR will have any significant impact on prices, employment, medical research, or many companies. Increasing pickup truck and SUV mileage by an average of a mile and a half a gallon would make more petroleum available than ANWR probably can.

I'm glad my book "Housewarming" finally arrived. I was getting worried. I put it in the pickup box at my nearest "big" city post office (population 9,800) a week ago Sunday, May 1. If nothing else it will answer your questions about my wood boiler, which I very reluctantly abandoned -- and increasingly wish I hadn't.

Our local hospital is having a big indoor yard sale Saturday. Usually, I find a few more copies on sale in their used book section. If anyone else wants a copy, send me a snail mail address and I'll send one along.

With luck you may find something in the book that is useful as you rebuild your Wells, ME house. It began as a energy house remodeling book and sort of morphed into a general energy efficiency manual.

I liked your comment about laying floors giving you an opportunity to think. I worked assembly lines -- winding coils and putting sticks in popcicles and ice cream bars between the ages of 17 and 22. It was probably my greatest period of serious thought.

Serious thinking pretty much stopped for the next six years of Army and College, but luckily my job for 35 years forced a return. Thinking seems pretty ingrained now, though I try to break the habit. It is a bother. People are all the time getting teed off.

Weary

[Dances with Mice]

As interesting as the discussions about California Governors, the Alaska Arctic Refuge, Mexican border security and NAFTA, the price of oil in China, the presidency of Andrew Jackson, ANWR’s capacity, competitive flagpoles, Iraqi mass graves, UN resolutions, the exact locations of undrilled Alaskan oil wells, Vulcan logic, personal mellowness, caribou migration routes, Weary’s elderliness and Wook’s political activities are…

…and they are interesting, don’t get me wrong, but my goodness how y’all do carry on!...

I was wondering if anyone knows anything about the subject of this thread?

Remember Georgia? Someone started this very thread about threatened roadless areas in Georgia. I'm sorry to interrupt, I apologize. Should I start another thread and entitle it “Buncha Politcal Posturing NOT related to Georgia” to discuss roadless areas in Georgia? It’s no problem, really, I’d be glad to do it. But there’s this perfectly well-titled thread already here and I thought I’d use it. So excuse me for staying on topic, but I’m having a little trouble locating the Kelly Ridge roadless area. Does anyone know anything about it?

Looking at a topo of N Ga, I see Kelly ridge running parallel to the north fork of Moccasin Creek and roughly equidistant and parallel to US76 to the north and Forest Service Rd 26, the Addis Gap road, to the south. Actually, FS Rd 164 along Dicks Creek more closely parallels the ridge than US-76. State Hiway 197 borders the National Forest to the east, US 75 to the west. Basically, the area bordered east and west by the heavily developed Lakes Burton and Chatuge, US 76 to the north, and the Tray Mountain Wilderness to the south. Right?

My map may be a bit dated, but I can’t find any point along the Kelly Ridge that is further than 2 crow-flying miles from a road. And I know that crow-flying miles are different than foot-pounding miles, but how roadless does an area have to be to earn the designation?

So can anyone help me locate the borders of the Kelly Ridge roadless area?

Hint: It’s in Georgia.

[Drum Stick]

I will be thinking about what you had to say Weary, thanks.

Yah (like rain man, the other one) yah. OK Dances With Mice, back to Foret roads I guess. Sorry I can't help you bud. I do like your trail name though, and I envision how you got it. We called a guy I worked with Dances With Sheep, that is a Maine thing.
Drum Stick

[smokymtnsteve]

I hear it's in Northern GA

[Dances with Mice]

To put it another way...

If I wanted to drive around, circumnavigate, the Kelly Ridge roadless area as closely as possible on existing roads, what routes should I take?

I might want to take a drive through that roadless area this weekend.

[weary]

...I was wondering if anyone knows anything about the subject of this thread?

Remember Georgia? Someone started this very thread about threatened roadless areas in Georgia. I'm sorry to interrupt, I apologize. Should I start another thread and entitle it “Buncha Politcal Posturing NOT related to Georgia” to discuss roadless areas in Georgia? It’s no problem, really, I’d be glad to do it. But there’s this perfectly well-titled thread already here and I thought I’d use it. So excuse me for staying on topic, but I’m having a little trouble locating the Kelly Ridge roadless area. Does anyone know anything about it?

.....So can anyone help me locate the borders of the Kelly Ridge roadless area? .

The best summary I've seen about the Bush decision and it's possible impact on the Southern Appalachians and Georgia is:

http://www.safc.org/campaigns/roadless_fact_sheet.php

The best physical description of the Kelly Ridge roadless area is:

http://www.gafw.org/sierra_magazine.htm

Basically, "roadless areas" are a forest service designation. I don't know the rules that govern the designation, but though 8,000 acres may not look roadless on a map, such areas are fun to explore as the Sierra Magazine piece demonstrates.

Weary

[Dances with Mice]

The best summary I've seen about the Bush decision and it's impact on the Southern Appalachians and Georgia is:

http://www.safc.org/campaigns/roadless_fact_sheet.php

WearyAlready been there, didn't help. General discussion site, long on history and proposals but short on locations. Thanks, though.

[smokymtnsteve]

us 76 dicks creek gap

[fiddlehead]

Americans need to wake up to the fact that they are the world's biggest polluters, drive the biggest cars, and think that closing their borders is gonna solve a lot of problems. And now thinking that we can prolong our image of driving the biggest cars by raping our national forests!

This is a horrible thought! what is the matter with solar and wind energy? It works in Denmark, Netherlands, even here in Thailand i see more and more windmills and solar panels. The world has huge problems in the energy game and building Hummers and exploring our National Forests and especially the Alaska Wildlife Refuge is moving the wrong direction. There are other ways to stay warm, heat the planet less, and drive more efficiently. Unfortunately the head dude is looking the wrong way. He's an oil man and he probably ain't going to change. I just can't understand why anyone would vote for him!
They have a capitalist leader here in Thailand too but when he gets out of hand (last year he tried to allow the govt to buy a British Soccor Team) the king steps in and gives him a few words of wisdom. One guy with that much power is not right! I think he believes he is above the law and at least the American public was smart enough to get rid of the last president who believed that (richard nixon). But i'm having my doubts whether we're still smart enough. HOw many years do you think it's going to take to get out of Iraq? My guess is at least 10 or maybe never. I hope all you guys are making lots of money to pay for all of that! Or maybe you think mining and logging our national forests will do it.

[Drum Stick]

I was for the forest roads 'mostly' because of fire danger and I think that people are under playing this. I would like to hear some 'expert testimony' regarding forest fires. But I am hearing everyones passion for the wilderness and I am beginning to lean towards 'no new roads'... Perhaps fires can be extinguished from the air well enough that we do not need roads. I wonder.

George Bush (re-elected), Tony Blair (re-elected), President of Australia(?) (re-elected). Maybe you are right fiddlehead, we should probably let monsters like Saddam Hussein line WOMEN AND CHILDREN up, let the children clutch their mommies one LAST time before they are brutally riddled with bullets and pushed ino a ditch and covered with sand.

Sorry for going back there boys.
Drum Stick

[Dances with Mice]

I was for the forest roads 'mostly' because of fire danger and I think that people are under playing this. I would like to hear some 'expert testimony' regarding forest fires. But I am hearing everyones passion for the wilderness and I am beginning to lean towards 'no new roads'... Perhaps fires can be extinguished from the air well enough that we do not need roads. I wonder.


Speaking, somewhat stubbornly still, of the Kelly Ridge area - it appears to be surrounded by existing roads and bisected by a well-known footpath. I say "appears" because I can find neither a map showing the boundaries nor a description of the roadless area's boundaries.

The geographic Kelly Ridge is easy to define, it's a narrow line of mountains running NE-SW and is closely bounded to the N, E, & W by paved state highways. To the east and west are large lakes, reservoirs, with much development around them. Like Hiawasee, for example. To the south is an existing forest service road that I haven't driven but have heard that it requires a high clearance vehicle. Being familiar with other FS roads in the area, I can believe that. I also believe that if I were to get up from my desk (near Atlanta) right now and leave, I could be standing anyplace on the Kelly Ridge by noon. Depending on where the boundaries of the area lie, as I've said that hasn't been clarified yet. So fire crews already have access to the Kelly Ridge area on existing roads. It may be a remote area, but it is hardly inaccessible.

Roads would only have to be built for one of two reasons: The first is logging. Logging would affect the viewshed of a certain well-known footpath, I hesitate to be the first to mention its name on this thread (...it might be considered off-topic...). I don't think that's going to happen soon. Loggers are doing quite well right now in N GA harvesting trees from all the new subdivisions and other commercial development. And that development is the second reason roads might be built.

Looking at satellite photos of the area, clearings extending from nearby major highways are pointing at the Kelly Ridge area like daggers. Those clearings contain both open fields and buildings. That may be the real threat.

I haven't even started looking at the Mountaintown area yet. Does anyone know anything about it? Like, maybe, where it's at?

[MileMonster]

A rudimentary map showing the Kelly Ridge Roadless Area can be found in the FEIS, CH 3, pg 37. Use the link and scroll down to it. It may or may not help you circumnavigate it. Probably not as useful as your topo, but it may help.

http://www.fs.fed.us/conf/200401-plan/FEIS-3B5.pdf

Now, what I know (or think I know) about roadless/wilderness-

As far as "how roadless does an area have to be," I believe it can vary. Due to population densities and historical development/land use, the West and East differ. That is to say, you can find much larger "roadless" areas in the West so their criteria are ususally different. In the East, "2 miles from the nearest road" is a substantial roadless area.

The Jefferson National Forest Plan states that "No law, manual or handbook references a minimum size for roadless areas in the east" (http://www.fs.fed.us/r8/gwj/lrmp/plandocs/amsrdless.html). Historically in the East it's been difficult to find areas as large as in the West. However, managers have been wary to include areas less than 5000 acres in roadless inventories or designate as wilderness because of the requirement for solitude and primitive recreation, ie they're too small to retain the qualities of roadless or wilderness. As you can see from the Jefferson link, "roadless" has to do with meeting a standard for "improved road desnity", less than 0.5 miles in the Jefferson. So, presumably if an area is above 5000 acres, has a road density of less than 0.5 miles, and meets the other requirements, it would be included in the roadless inventory (at least in the Jefferson).

You said Kelly Ridge looks like it is 2 miles from the nearest road. If my math is right, a circle with a center point 2 miles from any road would be about 8000 acres and thus, qualifies as far as size is concerned. A=pi*r^2, 1 mi^2=640 acres. pi=3.14, r=2. This right? Assuming there aren't improved roads within and it meets the other requirements, then an area like that should be incuded in the roadless inventory. A square with a center 2 miles from the nearest road would be over 10,000 acres.

Again, this is my understanding of the system. Things may have changed.

[weary]

Speaking, somewhat stubbornly still, of the Kelly Ridge area - it appears to be surrounded by existing roads and bisected by a well-known footpath. I say "appears" because I can find neither a map showing the boundaries nor a description of the roadless area's boundaries.

The geographic Kelly Ridge is easy to define, it's a narrow line of mountains running NE-SW and is closely bounded to the N, E, & W by paved state highways. To the east and west are large lakes, reservoirs, with much development around them. Like Hiawasee, for example. To the south is an existing forest service road that I haven't driven but have heard that it requires a high clearance vehicle. Being familiar with other FS roads in the area, I can believe that. I also believe that if I were to get up from my desk (near Atlanta) right now and leave, I could be standing anyplace on the Kelly Ridge by noon. Depending on where the boundaries of the area lie, as I've said that hasn't been clarified yet. So fire crews already have access to the Kelly Ridge area on existing roads. It may be a remote area, but it is hardly inaccessible.

Roads would only have to be built for one of two reasons: The first is logging. Logging would affect the viewshed of a certain well-known footpath, I hesitate to be the first to mention its name on this thread (...it might be considered off-topic...). I don't think that's going to happen soon. Loggers are doing quite well right now in N GA harvesting trees from all the new subdivisions and other commercial development. And that development is the second reason roads might be built.

Looking at satellite photos of the area, clearings extending from nearby major highways are pointing at the Kelly Ridge area like daggers. Those clearings contain both open fields and buildings. That may be the real threat.

I haven't even started looking at the Mountaintown area yet. Does anyone know anything about it? Like, maybe, where it's at?
Part of the problem is a fundamental dishonesty of the administration in Washington. The headline on the Department of Agriculture press release announcing the reversal of the Clinton policy of protecting roadless areas reads:

"USDA Forest Service Acts to Conserve Roadless Areas in National Forests"

I can't find how the forest service defines a roadless area. But it's my understanding that primitive, mostly unmaintained roads are not counted when calculating roadless areas.

AMC, which works closely with the forest service in the Whites, has done an analysis of roadless areas in Maine, I assume using forest service criteria.

That survey found Redington and Black Nubble, where the wind power complex would be located, to be among the largest roadless areas in western Maine, though a complex of logging roads winds through the area from the west and a rather major haul road extends up the Carrabasset Valley to the east.

The alleged fire danger, at least in the northeast in my opinion is mostly hype. Harvesting leaves brush that drys and becomes a danger. But the natural forest is too wet and is largely immune to major fires.

Henry Thoreau in the 1850s told of walking through "swamps" on his Maine trips. That remains true where the forest cover has not been disturbed.

When lightning started a fire on the border of Baxter State Park 30 years ago, the soil on the adjacent private forest which had been harvested and the brush left on the ground was totally burned away, leaving mostly sand.

In the park the fire swept through the top of the trees and left the soil undamaged. Only particularly observant visitors to the park now even recognize that a fire had occurred, the forest has recovered so well.

The damage to the private lands remains obvious, though not everyone may recognize that fire was the cause.

Weary

[Drum Stick]

Fellas please forgive me for going back to an earlier point, but if I can help one person see something, I think it is worth it.

TJ AKA TEEJ wrote: Drum Stick, please show us where/when/if George W Bush spoke of human rights regarding invading Iraq.

Teej, George Bush never uttered the words "human rights" that I know of. But he did say that Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons against 'human beings' (and so did everyone else), and that Saddam Hussein was a "mad man" as he cleary was shooting innocent 'human beings' and letting 'human beings' starve to death including the most precious 'human beings' of all ,children, to divert money to his sick ways. This implies 'human rights' were being violated and we just were not going to turn our heads any longer. The threat of what Saddam would do to more human beings if left to fester was unacceptable.
Drum Stick

[weary]

Fellas please forgive me for going back to an earlier point, but if I can help one person see something, I think it is worth it.

TJ AKA TEEJ wrote: Drum Stick, please show us where/when/if George W Bush spoke of human rights regarding invading Iraq.

Teej, George Bush never uttered the words "human rights" that I know of. But he did say that Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons against 'human beings' (and so did everyone else), and that Saddam Hussein was a "mad man" as he cleary was shooting innocent 'human beings' and letting 'human beings' starve to death including the most precious 'human beings' of all ,children, to divert money to his sick ways. This implies 'human rights' were being violated and we just were not going to turn our heads any longer. The threat of what Saddam would do to more human beings if left to fester was unacceptable.
Drum Stick
There's no doubt that Saddam is an evil person. But there is also no doubt that we cannot take on the role of being the policeman of the world. An equally evil person controls North Korea. His people are starving. He once had his barber shot because he didn't like his haircut.

Evil rulers exist throughout the world. Even America is less than perfect.

I know of no evidence that we invaded Iraq because Saddam was evil. I see quite a bit of evidence that we ignored much of the evidence available so that we would have an excuse to invade.

I see very little evidence that this was a wise thing to do.

Weary

[Dances with Mice]

A rudimentary map showing the Kelly Ridge Roadless Area can be found in the FEIS, CH 3, pg 37. Use the link and scroll down to it. It may or may not help you circumnavigate it. Probably not as useful as your topo, but it may help.

http://www.fs.fed.us/conf/200401-plan/FEIS-3B5.pdf

................
You said Kelly Ridge looks like it is 2 miles from the nearest road. If my math is right, a circle with a center point 2 miles from any road would be about 8000 acres and thus, qualifies as far as size is concerned. ....Bingo! Your link (horrid maps, btw, tho not your fault) lists the Kelly Ridge as being 8396 acres. Parts of it may further from a road, depending on how 'road' is defined.

It's a rugged area containing old-growth forest, isolated coves, and maps in the Nature Conservancy's Guide to the N. GA Mtns even list sites of rattlesnake dens! I believe the KR forms most of the panaroma seen by AT hikers from the Swag of the Blue Ridge.

[PROFILE]

My question is who is trying to put a raod thru the Kelly ridge area. I have looked and can find no one lobbing for the right.

Even if they did it is still protected unless the Ga Govener opts the area out of the roadless area. Has any one heard of him wanting to doing so?

And if the Gov Purdue opts out the area, should it not be the right of the states to decide. from what I read that was the intent form the start to let states judge how the land is used to best help the state because of the tax revenue lost by the Feds owning the land.

If the people of GA do not like what happens (either way) Let us vote them out and get a person who will do what we want?

I would like some of these questions answered and if the answers are what I think they will be, why are we radleing our sabers so much over it. Just for the principle or can we not just go without hearing our self talk.

JMO

[weary]

My question is who is trying to put a raod thru the Kelly ridge area. I have looked and can find no one lobbing for the right.

Even if they did it is still protected unless the Ga Govener opts the area out of the roadless area. Has any one heard of him wanting to doing so?

And if the Gov Purdue opts out the area, should it not be the right of the states to decide. from what I read that was the intent form the start to let states judge how the land is used to best help the state because of the tax revenue lost by the Feds owning the land.

If the people of GA do not like what happens (either way) Let us vote them out and get a person who will do what we want?

I would like some of these questions answered and if the answers are what I think they will be, why are we radleing our sabers so much over it. Just for the principle or can we not just go without hearing our self talk.

JMO
National Forests are just that -- national. They should be managed by national standards for the benefit of people everywhere, not just to fit the whims of a state governor.

Weary

[Dances with Mice]

My question is who is trying to put a raod thru the Kelly ridge area. I have looked and can find no one lobbing for the right.

Even if they did it is still protected unless the Ga Govener opts the area out of the roadless area. Has any one heard of him wanting to doing so?
......
I would like some of these questions answered and if the answers are what I think they will be, why are we radleing our sabers so much over it. Just for the principle or can we not just go without hearing our self talk.JMO Those are all good questions! As far as KR, there are already roads near, maybe even in, the area. I don't know of any reason or pressure to build more. In my readings I haven't come across anyone planning to do so. If there were any road plans, they'd be trumpeted by the usual band of horn blowers. The interest by conservationists is to provide long-term protection to these areas, protection not subject to the whims of elected politicians or influenced by private companies, now or in the future.

That all being said, I doubt the Governor knows, or particularly cares, any more about the roadless areas in Georgia than some posters on ... oh nevermind, I won't go there. But as you know there's not a lot of voters in these areas and this issue is probably not on the Gov's front burner. I wonder if it's even on his radar.

[PROFILE]

On Anwar here is a little light reading. Most will not because they like to remain ignorant (I did not say stupid)

http://www.doi.gov/news/030312.htm

For the full affect click on the links at the bottom of my link that show the graphs of oil production. Remember, these numbers are from the Dept of the Interior. These numbers are used by both sides just stated in different ways. And these # of barrells came during the Clinton admin, not Bush.

And for those who went to government schools. Yes the oil would go to Asia because it is closer. But if Asia buys their oil from us then they are not buying it from South America or the Middle east. The people in the middle east will have extra oil (with the law of supply and demand) with more supply than demand prices will fall. I know you have to think and follow the logic but I think we can do it.

I do not want to come off the wrong way I wish we could get off oil but IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN. We will always need it and use it.

[Drum Stick]

Weary I agree that we can not police the world and maybe that is the reason we did not 'invade' Somalia(?) (I think that was Teej's geographic 'for instance')?? and the reason we have not yet invaded other countries like North Korea and Iran. = "not 'yet' a clear and present danger to us".

It is the job of our president (Republican and Democrat alike) to protect the American people from harm. Saddam was cleary a gathering THREAT, there is not a 'reasonable' person who thought otherwise looking at the intelligence at the time. Sure we found out after invading Iraq that there were no weapons programs (as far as we know). But Saddam agreed to unfettered access by UNSCOM as part of a cease fire agreement (YOU KNOW! AFTER HE INVADED KUWAIT TO OPEN AN ICE CREAM STAND FOR LITTLE CHILDREN) so that we could verify that he was not restarting weapons programs. Instead of living up to the agreement he flipped the world (UN) the bird. So why did Saddam try to cover his tracks when UNSCOM was coming if he was not engaging in illegal activity?? (I WANT AN ANSWER WEARY, THANK YOU) And why did Saddam instruct scientists to hide weapons program related documents? Did you read the documents that I linked to earlier in this thread Weary? Please go back and read them and then tell me that Saddam was not a threat (by definition) to the US. Sure Saddam did not a military force sitting off of our coastline waiting to invade our country, Neither did Osama Bin Laden (19-hijackers from Saudi Arabia). And lets not forget that Muhammad Atta went to an airfield to check out cropdusters and actually went to a bank to look into a loan for the 'human duster'. Cleary laying the groundwork for their next act of terror. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" and Saddam could easily have passed chemical or biological weapons off to just one sicko pilot. But instead of letting inspectors do their job as agreed to... Saddam expressed his intent of non cooperation with the world.

Speaking of pilots, how about JUST ONE ulta-light pilot taking a low altitude tour of our national forests.? Or one driver taking a tour from Amicalola Falls to TN, maybe hopping a flight from TN to the west coast to SEE another forest. Hopping, skipping, jumping from forest to forest finally ending up at the golden road in Maine. Impossible scenario? Like 19-high jackers was an impossible scenario. Still with me?

I actually have to work a few hours this afternoon! I'll be thinkin!
Drum Stick

[weary]

Weary I agree that we can not police the world and maybe that is the reason we did not 'invade' Somalia(?) (I think that was Teej's geographic 'for instance')?? and the reason we have not yet invaded other countries like North Korea and Iran. = "not 'yet' a clear and present danger to us".

It is the job of our president (Republican and Democrat alike) to protect the American people from harm. Saddam was cleary a gathering THREAT, there is not a 'reasonable' person who thought otherwise looking at the intelligence at the time. Sure we found out after invading Iraq that there were no weapons programs (as far as we know). But Saddam agreed to unfettered access by UNSCOM as part of a cease fire agreement (YOU KNOW! AFTER HE INVADED KUWAIT TO OPEN AN ICE CREAM STAND FOR LITTLE CHILDREN) so that we could verify that he was not restarting weapons programs. Instead of living up to the agreement he flipped the world (UN) the bird. So why did Saddam try to cover his tracks when UNSCOM was coming if he was not engaging in illegal activity?? (I WANT AN ANSWER WEARY, THANK YOU) And why did Saddam instruct scientists to hide weapons program related documents? Did you read the documents that I linked to earlier in this thread Weary? Please go back and read them and then tell me that Saddam was not a threat (by definition) to the US. Sure Saddam did not a military force sitting off of our coastline waiting to invade our country, Neither did Osama Bin Laden (19-hijackers from Saudi Arabia). And lets not forget that Muhammad Atta went to an airfield to check out cropdusters and actually went to a bank to look into a loan for the 'human duster'. Cleary laying the groundwork for their next act of terror. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" and Saddam could easily have passed chemical or biological weapons off to just one sicko pilot. But instead of letting inspectors do their job as agreed to... Saddam expressed his intent of non cooperation with the world.

Speaking of pilots, how about JUST ONE ulta-light pilot taking a low altitude tour of our national forests.? Or one driver taking a tour from Amicalola Falls to TN, maybe hopping a flight from TN to the west coast to SEE another forest. Hopping, skipping, jumping from forest to forest finally ending up at the golden road in Maine. Impossible scenario? Like 19-high jackers was an impossible scenario. Still with me?

I actually have to work a few hours this afternoon! I'll be thinkin!
Drum Stick
There are multiple possible (probable) reasons why Saddam tried to suggest he had weapons that didn't exist.

He wanted to intimidate Iran, and other neighbors.

He was afraid he'd be overthrown.

His ego wouldn't let him admit his country was essentially defenseless.

....

There is no doubt that he would have had WMD if he could have. But the inspections essentially had stymied him. As long as they continued he couldn't do anything. Yes. Other countries were waivering over continuing the sanctions.

But the solution to that is to make the case openly and honestly to the rest of the world to continue. If that fails, we obviously have to reevaluate the situation. But war should always be a last resort. We chose to make it a first resort and it's my prediction we will increasingly regret that decision.

It's hard to conceive of a stable goverment emerging in a nation and region of religious fanatics, a nation where day after day young people blow themselves up in order to prevent a stable government from emerging.

Eventually, they will vote us out. What do we do then? Ignore all our fancy words about freedom and democracy and stay?

Or allow the country to descend into theocratic dictatorship. My vote is for the latter. Countries like humans and all creatures evolve.

58,000 Americans died in Vietnam trying to make people do what they didn't want to do. A total waste. Vietnam is now pushing as hard as it can to be our friend and trading partner. Iraq will evolve to do so also, or descend into a third world status governed by corrupt oil shieks. Either way, they won't be a threat.

Voluntary war doesn't have a good record as an instrument of policy.

Weary

[Caleb]

Despite the fact that we seemingly sometimes 'go at it' here on Whiteblaze there is not one person here that I would not like to have a beer with.
Peace
Drum Stick
yes, a beer sounds good (non-alcoholic for me though). I'm on the NH seacoast but Wells is close...I'm actually going be working in K'bunk the next few weeks so I'll be driving back and forth thru Wells regularly. Hiking-wise i can't do much for the next few months but I'm always taking the little ones out for day hikes...Vaughns Wood, Ft. Foster, Mt Ag..those are closeby. I'll PM you my #. Call me. Caleb

[Drum Stick]

I just watched Roscoe Bartlett testify on the floor of the Senate and he had some things to say about our coming energy crisis. RB was on last night and I understand he will be testifying again tonight on C-SPAN.

Familiarize yourselves with the term: Peak Oil
www.peakoil.org
www.hubbertpeak.com
Drum Stick

[Colter]

I was for the forest roads 'mostly' because of fire danger and I think that people are under playing this. I would like to hear some 'expert testimony' regarding forest fires. But I am hearing everyones passion for the wilderness and I am beginning to lean towards 'no new roads'... Perhaps fires can be extinguished from the air well enough that we do not need roads. I wonder.


I've been fighting wildfire since 1976. I have canoed to at least one fire. I have hiked in to several fires. I have flown by helicopter to maybe 50 fires. I have parachuted to over 200 fires. You don't need roads to fight fires, and more importantly, most of the time you don't need to fight wilderness fires at all. And roads bring people, and people bring fire.

My Smokejumping Page (http://www.bucktrack.com/Smokejumping.html)

I showed you some of the only ANWR photos I have, and I showed you a tundra photo to give you a good idea of the beauty of a random spot in ANWR. The reason it doesn't matter exactly where any ANWR photo is taken is that they want to open ANWR for oil exploration. If they do, and there's oil where I took the picture of the caribou crossing the river, they will drill there, right? Surely you'd support drilling in any area of ANWR with oil in it? And they will destroy pristine wilderness whereever they drill, because it's ALL pristine wilderness. And all wilderness: mountains, desert, tundra, prairie, jungle; is beautiful in it's own way.

Why have so few Alaskans been in ANWR? Because it's remote wilderness.

[Don]

but how roadless does an area have to be to earn the designation?


DWM... this is from the Forest Service Manual for the HIgh Uintas Wilderness in Utah..... not sure if all Forest Service areas adopt the same definition but it does sketch out when a road is a road and when it is something else!!!

http://www.fs.fed.us/r4/uinta/projects/planning/docs/roadless/draft_roadless.htm#appa

B. ROADS

Over the years, various roadless area inventories have defined "roads" in different manners. Original RARE I inventories often considered any two-track travelway a road and eliminated the area from the inventory. In the RARE II inventory, the roads/roadless area relationship was described as an area exclusive of improved roads constructed or maintained for travel by means of motorized vehicles intended for highway use. The RARE II criteria includes the word "constructed" in addition to the term "improved" included in the current Forest Service Handbook direction. Both terms imply something more than a two-track travelway that just developed over time. This suggests that user developed roads (i.e. not constructed as such) may not meet the definition of an improved road unless they have since been constructed or reconstructed (e.g. road prism established, drainage structures installed, etc.) and maintained.

1. Roadless areas "do not contain improved roads maintained for travel by standard passenger-type vehicles..." (FSH 1909.12).

a. As a starting point for validation/update of the roadless inventory, "improved roads" will be interpreted to mean roads that have been mechanically constructed for passage of standard passenger vehicles and/or that have been maintained for use by standard passenger vehicles. Evaluate each route against this criteria. It is possible to use Forest Development Road Maintenance Level classes as a rough screen for whether a road has been constructed and/or maintained over time. In practice this criteria would typically include all Forest Development Roads in Maintenance Level 3-5 as "improved roads". Since Maintenance Level is a reflection of current management of the route rather than the actual condition of whether a route was constructed or is maintained, rely on the basic roads criteria to make decisions on what is an "improved road." Regional guidance indicates that roads that do not meet specific definitions and criteria for "improved roads" but still exhibit substantially noticeable impacts may be "significant developments" and therefore, not appropriate for inclusion in an inventory of roadless and undeveloped areas.

b. Generally Forest Development Roads in Maintenance Level 2 would be considered "improved roads" if they have been constructed or received periodic (albeit possibly infrequent) maintenance. Each route segment must be evaluated as to whether it meets the definition of an "improved road". Adjust the Forest Road inventory as necessary.

c. Forest Development Roads in Maintenance Level 1 should be reviewed to determine whether they were constructed or maintained prior to closure. Those that would meet this criteria should be considered "improved roads". Just because a route is closed does not preclude it being an improved road. Apply the criteria for a road as if the route was open to make this determination.

d. In addition, "improved roads" not under the jurisdiction of the Forest Service but which pass through National Forest should be identified. These could include State, County, other Federal, or private roads. These transportation routes typically will meet the definition of "improved roads". These routes would not be appropriate within a roadless area.

2. Roadless areas can include "other vehicle travelways". These travelways would not disqualify an area for consideration as roadless. It is important that these routes do not show evidence of being constructed or maintained for vehicle use by standard vehicles.

3. A temporary road is allowable in a roadless area provided it has been obliterated, put back to original grade and/or is substantially unnoticeable.

4. Some travel routes, otherwise absent evidence of construction or improvement, may have been improved in the past in spots along their length. These travel routes will have to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis to determine if they are "improved roads" or "other vehicle travelways" considering the extent and intensity of the improvement.

[Drum Stick]

!!!!!!!! Now Colter that is what I call an expert opinion regarding fighting fire. I just took a quick look at your page but indeed I am going back to scour around. Thank you very much dude!

Regarding ANWAR, I am not sure that you know what the facts are there, either that or I am losing my mind, which is not entirely impossible. Please checkout the post from Profile (#65) of this thread and do as Profile suggests and follow the links at the bottom of the webpage, and tell me where you disagree. Thanks

You got guts jumping out of an airplane man! And thank you for the job you are doing to fight fire. I heard a report about 34-firefighters who got killed in a forest fire, do you how it happened?
Drum Stick

[Dances with Mice]

DWM... this is from the Forest Service Manual for the HIgh Uintas Wilderness in Utah..... <snip>.

OK, thanks for that. The major FS road in the Kelly Ridge area will definitely not carry normal passenger vehicle traffic. So the nearest improved road, by those definitions, to the south might be the FS road that deadends at the base of Tray Mtn. (I don't have my maps with me right now, but I believe that's correct.)

I've looked up the Mountaintown area & it's in an even more remote area.

The differences between the two roadless areas may be (over-) simplified to this: The Mountaintown roadless area is used for a variety of non-motorized outdoor recreation activities, from hunting and fishing to backpacking, kayaking, and mountain biking. If it were threatened there are a variety of outside rec. groups that would quickly come together to protect it.

The Kelly Ridge by comparison is less well known: there are no trails traversing the ridge, no streams for kayakers, the streams aren't even easily accessed by trout fishermen. The AT is probably the main gateway into Kelly and very few stray from that path except hunters, and big game hunters don't like to get too far from road access either.

[Colter]

Regarding ANWAR, I am not sure that you know what the facts are there, either that or I am losing my mind, which is not entirely impossible. Please checkout the post from Profile (#65) of this thread and do as Profile suggests and follow the links at the bottom of the webpage, and tell me where you disagree. Thanks

...I heard a report about 34-firefighters who got killed in a forest fire, do you how it happened?
Drum Stick

Hi Drumstick,

I went to that link, and it was obvious, immediately, that it wasn't a fair and balanced look at the pros and cons of drilling in ANWR. You can just as easily find sites that, if you believe everything they say, will convince you that drilling in ANWR is just shy of criminal.

The main link simply represents the views of the administration, probably the most environmentally unaware administration of modern times. It does not represent the views of most U.S. government environmental experts. Among the many points I could make that that page didn't...
Yes, there are an estimated 10 billion barrels of oil there, but only about 3 billion are economically recoverable.
ANWR oil is enough for the US for less than six months.
Increasing fuel efficiency standards by 2 mpg would save that much oil, or more. That is doable. Easily.
Increasing fuel effiency to 39 mpg would save 100 times more oil than we are likely to get out of ANWR.
The oil won't start flowing for 10 years.
The "2,000 acres affected" is bull. If I am 5 miles away and can see the lights of a drilling site, hear the bulldozers and watch the helicopters flying over, am I in a wilderness?
How do they propose to move the oil out of there? Pipelines? That would cover vast areas! Oil tankers? Remember the Exxon Valdez? The current pipeline and haul road runs by Fairbanks. Each run for hundreds of miles. Each required vast amount of gravel that impacted much more land. It also, undeniably, has changed Alaska for countless lifetimes in the future.

Yes or no Drumstick, if they find oil farther afield in ANWR, should they drill there, too? That's kind of an important point, don't you think? If we drill in our greatest remaining wilderness, what WON'T we develop?

As far as 34 firefighters being killed, if you're talking about wildland firefighters in the US, maybe you're talking about a whole year, like in '94. Short of the World Trade Center, I'm not aware of such a big, recent firefighting disaster.

[RockyTrail]

Bingo! Your link (horrid maps, btw, tho not your fault) lists the Kelly Ridge as being 8396 acres. Parts of it may further from a road, depending on how 'road' is defined.

It's a rugged area containing old-growth forest, isolated coves, and maps in the Nature Conservancy's Guide to the N. GA Mtns even list sites of rattlesnake dens! I believe the KR forms most of the panaroma seen by AT hikers from the Swag of the Blue Ridge.The FEIS report says the Chattahoochee NF has 0% primitive areas defined as more than 3 miles from a road and exceeding 5000 acres. But if you limit it to 0.5-3.0 miles from a road, the forest percentage goes up to 20%. Apparently there really aren't that many places to get away from roads.

I think Kelly Ridge must be that ridge that Kelly Knob is on, just south of Deep Gap shelter. If they ever put a road on that one (hope not!), it would be a great opportunity for a brake repair shop in Hiawassee it's steep!:)

[Drum Stick]

Colter, NO, if oil is found "afield" in ANWR it should not be gone after. The only exception being if doing so means life or death for our species (just as a remote possibility). The area proposed for drilling was set aside "by us, for us" years ago and that should not be altered one way 'or the other' IMO.

I am digesting what else you had to say. gotta run.
Drum Stick

[Dances with Mice]

The FEIS report says the Chattahoochee NF has 0% primitive areas defined as more than 3 miles from a road and exceeding 5000 acres. But if you limit it to 0.5-3.0 miles from a road, the forest percentage goes up to 20%. Apparently there really aren't that many places to get away from roads.

I think Kelly Ridge must be that ridge that Kelly Knob is on, just south of Deep Gap shelter. If they ever put a road on that one (hope not!), it would be a great opportunity for a brake repair shop in Hiawassee it's steep!:)True, there aren't that many areas in the Chatt that are far from roads as the crow flies. That would also depend, as noted before, on the definition of what a 'road' is. Sounds Clitonesque, doesn't it? Locals with redneck cadillacs (jeeps) know and use routes not marked on maps, abandoned FS roads mostly, to hunt all over the Chatt. I've walked up on vehicles in unlikely areas more than once during the turkey and deer seasons.

The AT crosses Kelly Ridge NORTH of Deep Gap shelter, actually. It's the rise between Deep Gap and Moreland Gap. I think Powell Mountain is where the AT climbs across the ridge, roughly halfway between Deep Gap & Dicks Creek.

After studying the situation, I've concluded there's no immediate threat to either Mountaintown or Kelly Ridge roadless areas. The goal of concerned conservationists is to pass these legacies on to the next generations.

[Drum Stick]

Weary I did not forget you. I have a huge argument to make but I am going to spare the forum the long version complete with analogies. But quickly, Weary you said that Saddam (probably) pretended to have weapons that he did not have to "intimidate his neighbors". In a world where oceans provide no security (911) we were Saddams neighbors. (Intimidate: to make fearful). When some makes you fearful I would say that is 'threating'. President Clinton did his duty using miltary force and so did Georeg Bush to eliminate the threat to US ctizens...

Colter you have got this idea in your head that petroleum companies are going to 'migrate' from the proposed area of drilling in ANWR and rape the wilderness, this is simply NOT the case. Lights and a little bulldozer noise PLEASE Colter! They will need light yes, because the proposed area is in complete darkness for how many days a year Colter? My question as to why so few Alaskans have ever been to ANWR was a stupid one. But my good question was, why have so few people ever been to "the exact proposed drilling site" was a good one, but you did not answer that question. I have come across at least a few pictures of "the exact proposed drilling site" and it does not look like getting upset over. I will have to find a link to pictures for you. You say that there is only a 6-month supply of oil in ANWAR... I addressed that estimate in post #30 of this thread, please read. Increasing the fuel standards is something that is going to take place and the faster the better, but it is weak argument not to explore in the "proposed drilling site because of Peak Oil. Anyway the Energy Bill is enroute to the president, the amendment to exclude ANWR is dead, and it looks like this bill is going to pass, we will see.

Colter I have a basic question to ask regarding forest fires but I am going to private message you.
Drum Stick

[Dances with Mice]

Weary I did not forget you. I have a huge argument to make but I am going to spare the forum the long version complete with analogies. ...maybe there is a God after all...

[Drum Stick]

All anyone has to do is go to the best search engine in the world www.dogpile.com (IMHO) and use the keywords 'anwr pictures' to get the real scoop.

Colter you are either the victim of misinformation on ANWR or you are spreading misinformation and fear to help things go the way you would like.

The best idea I have heard yet are all of you anti-drilling folks boycotting petroleum companies. Now that is conservation!

The proposed, "REAL" drilling site might be two thousand acres, but the actual foot print is esimated at being 3 square miles (from one thing I read). Those petroleum companies are really getting good! They will use ice roads in the winter to minimize impact.

Regarding the Valdez accident, I have often said that a pipeline accident would be easier to clean up than an accident off the coast. Regardless, the oil is on its way, one way or the other.
Drum Stick

[Dances with Mice]

And you, Sparky, are ignoring the real issues threatening Western Civilization.

I mean, of course, the conspiracy begat by the Illuminati and the Masonic Brotherhood, and their intentions for world domination using Sports Juggling as their means.

[Drum Stick]

Sports Juggling? You lost me.

[Dances with Mice]

Sports Juggling? You lost me.
I believe that Sports Juggling is part of the Albert Pike Masonic Lodges' Conspiracy for World Domination.

And I know you're probably asking yourself right now "Gee, Mr. Dances with Mice? Sir? What does Sports Juggling have to do with the Appalachian Trail?" And if you are then you are just another mindless, clueless victim of the World Wide Illuminati Conspiracy to deflect attention from the very cornerstone of their plan for World Domination! Is it just a "coincidence" that the very first Sports Juggling competition was held during the USA's "election" year? I think not!

And I know you're thinking to yourself right now "Gee, Mr. Dances with Mice? Sir? Since you've proved so convincingly, and inarguably, that the "national election" was merely a cover-up for Sports Juggling.....what the heck is Sports Juggling?"

Well, good. Let's forget all the debate about "politics" and turn our attention now to the most serious issue that confronts mankind in the 20th Century. Or 21st. Whatever. I never can keep that straight.

Juggling, as I'm sure you all know, is an art form best expressed by either circus clowns or sequin vested performers in Las Vegas stage shows. The Shrine Circus clowns with their little cars, big shoes, red foam noses, and water squirting lapel flowers represent the highest attainable degree in the Masonic Lodge. Thus juggling is linked inextricably to the Illuminati's New World Order! And the until now secret 34th Order of the Lodge is graduation to sequined costumes and juggling onstage in, where else, "SIN CITY"! Can there be any doubt that juggling is an art form directly linked to Satanism?

I think not.

And now someone wants to change juggling from an art into a sport? This is sacrilege within an already God-less art! What could be worse?

And I know you're probably thinking to yourself right now "Gee, Mr. Dances with Mice? Sir? What can we do about this?" And the answer, of course, is both education and taking action! So start by previewing the website of the so-called "World Juggling Federation" - and if World Domination was NOT their intent, why would they choose that name? For your own protection, spit between your fingers, turn around twice, and make the sign of the cross before entering, although I'm sure you already know that - http://www.jugglingcompetition.com/

Notice how their own rules state "No sequins or vests allowed." This is sure to upset the entire Balance of the Universe!

And take action! Call 386-532-2506 and leave the following message:
"Stop Your Attempt at World Domination by Sports Juggling!"
------------------------------------------------

Which was all just as relevant to Roadless Areas in Georgia as the majority of the other posts on this thread.

[Drum Stick]

Dances With Mice
Please note that this particular thread is not a 'strict' one. If the founder of this thread wanted it to be a thread held to 'strict content' I think he would have placed this thread elsewhere. Instead he placed it where it might get maximum viewing, and not in the 'Trail Concerns section'. The fact is that the first three words of the content were "The Bush Admnistration". The content went on to 'use' Whiteblaze for political gain and further 'the actual intent' of this thread. Please notice that the founders of this thread did not return to further the conversation of roads in GA, instead they returned to continue on with political statements, AND I DO NOT LIKE IT ANY MORE THAN YOU DO....... Actually the subject of forest roads is tied to politics, however the jump was made to OIL (which is not tied to forest roads) by the founders of this thread and as far as I am concerned the subject had to be followed to a truthful conclusion. We would not want anyone to be the victim of propaganda would we?

Why you made the jump to religion and juggling... Admittedly I made my own jump in this thread, but please show me in the Whiteblaze law book where it says that I can not do so. Now I just wonder whether it is really the arguments that I am making that has you 'upset', or just subject jumping? No one is stopping you from creating a strict thread, or a thread in the Trail Concerns section.

Respectfully
Drum Stick

[Dances with Mice]

Not at all. I'm simply bemused. My post against the growing evil of Sports Juggling is just as on topic as any other off topic post on this thread.

And thank you for reading it! I'm only here to educate. If I can change just one person's mind about Sports Juggling, it will all be worth it.

[FatMan]

Gee, Mr. Dances with Mice? Sir?........What a great post.:clap:clap

[Drum Stick]

When you are right you are right. And you are right.
My apologies. I did get mighty carried away. I gotta get on to other things.
My apologies especially to Savage Lama for questioning his motives.
Drum Stick

[fiddlehead]

George Bush (re-elected), Tony Blair (re-elected), President of Australia(?) (re-elected). Maybe you are right fiddlehead, we should probably let monsters like Saddam Hussein line WOMEN AND CHILDREN up, let the children clutch their mommies one LAST time before they are brutally riddled with bullets and pushed ino a ditch and covered with sand.

Sorry for going back there boys.
Drum Stick[/QUOTE]
Well, if that's what you want, that's what you got. We are doing exactly that in Iraq right now!!! Over 10 tons of nuclear material have been used in Iraq. If this is not weapons of mass destruction, than please enlighten me to what is! Deformed Births are up 700% in Iraq because of this. This is not including all the civilians killed by the bombings they have had to live with over the past 2 years. Don't worry, we are killing a whole lot more of them than they are us. And we will very soon be up to the numbers that Saddam killed. (and this is only in Iraq)
I'm sorry, but i live now in a country where the media is not suppressed. Here in Thailand the newspapers are allowed to show dead bodies from the war. And they do! And it makes me sick! Every day! We need to get our servicemen and nuclear weapons out of there, and fast. Let the politicians send their kids to this horrible war. If you really think we are doing good over there, you REALLY need to wake up! Stop getting your info from the major networks, Cnn, Fox news, and newspapers. Start check out blogs from actual (unpaid) people who are there, living in the hell now! Ask them how they like the difference between Saddam and Bush. Ask them! the wonderful world of technology now allows you to do this. THere's a lot of very horrible stuff going on there RIGHT NOW! and we started it!

[TJ aka Teej]

Saddam was cleary a gathering THREAT, there is not a 'reasonable' person who thought otherwise looking at the intelligence at the time.
Where'd you hear that nonsense?

[bearbait2k4]

Wow, what a shocker.

[PROFILE]

Where'd you hear that nonsense?

Hmmm.....

I think we heard it from the head of just about every countries leader as well as their intel people. If you go back and look at minutes from UN meetings almost no country denied Iraq had banned weapons to include chemical and biological.

The differance is how some countries wanted to handel the threat. Some countries MAY have had a vested intrest in invading Iraq but we KNOW others (Russia, France, Germany,) and the UN, had reasons to let the power structure stand. ie oil for food scandel, and Illegal weapon sells that are all documented.

Was this intell wrong? Maybe! I am not so sure. With all the intel that was being gatherd from a multitude of countries, as the saying goes where there is smoke... Just think if you saw a guy walking around the room smacking people and and the guy a few feet away from you, after seeing this, said he wanted to smack some. the guy close to you then raises his hand to hit you would you let him hit you or would you smack him first. Sadam had a history and was raddleing his saber again at a sensitive time after 9/11. His mistake

And let us not forget, if Sadam had allowed the UN inspectors to do the job he agreed to this could have all been avoided.

Do not make America out to be the bad guy here. We have killed no where near the civilian Sadam did. The latest count of all cilivians deaths in Iraq is said to be a maz of about 25,000.

www.iraqbodycount.net/database/

This site counts in their figure all civilians killed by our troops the insurgents and those who died from reason to do with heatlh. ie bad water. Sadam gased over 100,000 Kurds. However, the biggest differance is We have never Tried or intented to kill civilian unlike Sadam.

Also, if you read your blogs (which I do as well) remember you can not know who is posting what or even where they are located. Would you really put it past people on the extreme of either sideof this debate to post false messages. Hell, it goes on here at whiteblaze quiet often. ie Thiland has a press that is more free than in America. What are you smoking over there.

Sorry for the rant.

[Colter]

My question as to why so few Alaskans have ever been to ANWR was a stupid one. But my good question was, why have so few people ever been to "the exact proposed drilling site" was a good one, but you did not answer that question.

If you understand why so few people visit ANWR, it is an even more foolish question to ask why so few people visit any given spot within ANWR, don't you think?

If there is oil beyond the current proposed drilling areas, their will be heavy pressure to expand the drilling and the same arguments about dwindling supplies and national emergencies will be made. Presumably the same logic will be applied and the same decision made: expand the oil drilling. Congress can vote to drill on the White House lawn or at Old Faithful if they like. That is reality.

Drumstick, clearly you and I don't value wilderness in the same way, and I'm wasting my time if I think I'm going to convince you. What I'm trying to do is convince the undecided Whiteblazer's here. It's said "We don't see things as they are, we see things as WE are." Clearly, I am NOT unbiased. I am enormously biased because the two greatest wilderness experiences of my life have been in ANWR. In all those many weeks in ANWR I've never seen a building or a road or a drilling platform or a man-made light. To me, that has value beyond measure.

You'll find lots of photos trying to make the 1002 area look as bland and unappealling as possible. Here's a shot you might want to take a look at: Caribou in the proposed ANWR drilling area (http://arctic.fws.gov/images/bouherd2.jpg ) There's a reason it's called America's Serengeti.

Gale Norton's "Department of the Interior" ANWR propoganda page is one side of the story, here's a little more balanced view of ANWR drilling from Fish and Wildlife, people who know a lot more about ANWR than Gale Norton. U.S. Fish and Wildlife: ANWR (http://arctic.fws.gov/issues1.htm) Completely different take on ANWR, right? BOTH from the Dept. of the Interior. Why so different? Because one is propoganda and the other is an evaluation based on generally accepted environmental principles (science.)

Any wilderness expert will tell you that the effects on the wilderness will extend far beyond any footprint estimates from the oil industry. One point many people don't grasp is that, ecologically, ALL wilderness is worthy of protection, regardless of how it looks. People once were in a hurry to drain all the swamplands. Now we're finding what a big mistake that was.

[fiddlehead]

Where'd you hear that nonsense?
I found that "nonsense" on many websites. (not in american newspapers) Here's one of them, i'm sure you can find many more on your own if you don't believe this one: http://www.xs4all.nl/~stgvisie/VISIE/afghan-du-dec01.html

What i'm saying is that many people think we are doing the right thing over in Iraq. WAR is wrong! You don't fight bad with worse. We are the only country that has used nuclear weapons. If that isn't weapons of mass destruction (even the future children are horribly affected) Here is a small portion from the above link: (DU meaning Depleted Uranium)(has a half-life of 300 billion years!)

The Legacy of DU in Iraq
Although downplayed by the U.S. administration and Western media, Iraqi
physicians have been reporting sharp increases in cancers such as
lymphomas and leukemia in Southern Iraq, as well as an increase in birth
defects. Since 1990, the incidence of leukemia in Iraq has grown by more
than 600 percent. One Iraqi oncologist who studied cases of rising
leukemia among southern Iraqi populations calls conditions in southern
Iraq “another Hiroshima.”
Most of the leukemia and cancer victims aren’t soldiers. They are
civilians. And many of them are children. According to mortality figures
compiled by UNICEF, as many as 180 children are dying every day in Iraq.

I don't want this awesome website (whiteblaze.net) to be a political one but the question was raised over whether Bush is doing the right or wrong thing in regards to Conservation, which got changed to oil, politics in general and eventually the war, which i feel very strongly about. I apologize for those who are offended but hope that some might be enlightened to the horrors our country is producing. (among our own servicemen too) fh

[TJ aka Teej]

Fiddlehead, please note that I had asked DrumStick, 'where'd you hear that nonsense?' after his posting:

Originally Posted by Drum Stick
Saddam was cleary a gathering THREAT, there is not a 'reasonable' person who thought otherwise looking at the intelligence at the time.

[Tha Wookie]

Fiddlehead, please note that I had asked DrumStick, 'where'd you hear that nonsense?' after his posting:

Originally Posted by Drum Stick
Saddam was cleary a gathering THREAT, there is not a 'reasonable' person who thought otherwise looking at the intelligence at the time.

Those hundreds of thousands of people missing work and protesting in the streets with their peaceful message sounded pretty reasonable to me. Now, they all look like genius compared to the White House.

The funny thing is, the only people in the world who really believed the White House and their lies were the same people who voted for him again.

It's because they really don't care about the war. They just wanted a war to make up for Bush's transparent economy. They are not a reasonable bunch at all -half of them fooled by the republican religotics, the other by the value of a dollar. It's a good thing at least one half hinges on forgiveness.

[fiddlehead]

[QUOTE=TJ aka Teej]Fiddlehead, please note that I had asked DrumStick, 'where'd you hear that nonsense?' after his posting:


Sorry man, you know, i get all kinds of anxiety and adrenaline rushes when i start thinking and talking about this damn war and the atrocities we are commiting there. I apologize for misunderstanding who said what.
My main point here is that if the American media would publish some of these birth defects going on because of our use of nuclear weapons in Iraq, the war would be over much sooner. Unfortunately, i don't think the people who control the media want that! Peace brother!

[Sly]

You want to make sure you subscribe to the "Non-AT Forums" It's a place on Whiteblaze.net where we get to bash Bush and his insane policies with impunity. :D

PS. At Trail Days, Hoff and George said we were in cahoots together, some secret business plan. Not quite sure what they were talking about but just let me know, I'm in!

[yellowtree]

Sad.
Bush OKs opening forests
Governors will be able, if they wish, to petition the federal government during the next 18 months to leave roadless areas untouched in their states. # # #<O:p></O:p>

So, http://www.emailyourgovernor.com/ let them know how you feel about the whole plan, and that overwhelming public sentiment to retain forest protections can't be ignored. The Final interstate routing would involve environmental and archeological studies, along with community input as well. But I ask.... how does a new interstate get so "far along already" without the community knowing about it? How will these new roads, and mining be protecting and restoring the health and beauty of our national forests? Isn't America based on a "government by the people", and not a "government by the industry"? It's time to stand up and be heard. E-mail public officials and let them know how you feel. I've already contacted 4 governors, and Gale Norton too.

word to ya mutha