WhiteBlaze Pages 2022
A Complete Appalachian Trail Guidebook.
$5 for printable PDF, AVAILABLE NOW. $9 for interactive PDF(smartphone version)
Read more here WhiteBlaze Pages Store

Results 1 to 11 of 11
  1. #1
    Registered User hopefulhiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-15-2005
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Age
    66
    Posts
    5,114

    Default Judge stops Bush's logging road policy

    US Judge Rejects Bush Rule on Logging Roads
    By Deborah Zabarenko
    Reuters
    Thursday 21 September 2006
    Washington - In a setback for the Bush administration, a federal judge rejected a rule that allowed logging roads in national forests and reinstated environmental protections put in place by former President Clinton.
    In a decision released Wednesday, US District Judge Elizabeth Laporte of California's Northern District ruled to set aside the Bush administration policy that gave states more control over whether to protect national forest land within state borders from development.
    Laporte ordered that the Clinton-era Roadless Rule, enacted in early 2001, should be put back into effect. That rule gave the federal government the responsibility for keeping roads and development out of some 50 million acres of wilderness lands.
    Environmental groups, including some that were plaintiffs in the case against the US Agriculture Department and Forest Service, hailed the decision.
    But Dave Tenny, deputy undersecretary of agriculture for natural resources and environment, defended the Bush administration policy, under which states must petition to protect roadless areas.
    "Obviously we don't agree with the court decision," Tenny said by telephone. "We had embarked on an effort to work with individual states to provide roadless area protection.... We've had great success with that."
    Tenny said five states - Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, California and Idaho - had asked for that protection, and Colorado was expected to do so soon. He added the administration was considering its legal options.
    The Bush rule was put in place in May 2005 and had the effect of allowing logging on national forest lands, said Michael Anderson, a legal analyst with the Wilderness Society.
    "It removed the protection from roadbuilding and logging," Anderson said in a telephone interview from Seattle. "It opened the door to development of these wilderness areas."
    "You have an administration who's trying to overcome the wishes of the American people," said Michael Francis of the Wilderness Society, which was a plaintiff along with 19 other ecology groups and the states of California, Oregon, New Mexico and Washington.
    "They've done it in such a way that the American people have had to fight every step of the way to try to protect these roadless areas, and the American people have won this round," Francis said by telephone.
    "Keeping America's remaining wild roadless forests in their current condition maintains an important balance between developing some already roaded forests and preserving special places for American traditions of hunting, fishing, hiking and boating," Sean Cosgrove of the Sierra Club said in a statement. The Forest Service, an agency of the Agriculture Department, manages some 193 million acres of national forests and grassla

  2. #2

    Default

    a federal judge rejected a rule that allowed logging roads in national forests and reinstated environmental protections put in place by former President Clinton
    That's what I'm talkin about
    2005 "No Legs" Springer to Clingman's
    2007 SloFar/DrClaw - GA-NJ

  3. #3
    Right at table height for bears in my hammock! speedy's Avatar
    Join Date
    08-30-2006
    Location
    Atlanta, Ga
    Age
    38
    Posts
    158

    Default

    I'm actually glad that the roads won't be there, but arbitrary judicial activism is getting really old. Maybe the forefathers should have included a 4th branch for deporting activist judges. At least the woods are safe again. speedy
    "i came to hike, not bail" neo

  4. #4
    Registered User weary's Avatar
    Join Date
    12-15-2003
    Location
    Phippsburg, Maine, United States
    Posts
    10,115
    Journal Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by speedy
    I'm actually glad that the roads won't be there, but arbitrary judicial activism is getting really old. Maybe the forefathers should have included a 4th branch for deporting activist judges. At least the woods are safe again. speedy
    I'm really glad that the roads won't be there, thanks to a judicial system willing to control an administration determined to undermine every conservation program, even to the extent of breaking the law of the land. Many thanks to our forefathers for creating a system that made the rule of law a key part of a Democratic society. The woods are safe again, at least briefly.

    For those of us who believe that we are rightly a nation of laws, it is critical that Democrats control the Senate after these midterm elections, thus providing a check on the further appointment of radical judges -- judges willing to dismiss the decisions of Congress for political gain.

    Weary

  5. #5
    Registered User
    Join Date
    12-06-2005
    Location
    Littleton, CO
    Posts
    863
    Images
    7

    Default

    yeah, lets not log on our land and that way we have got to have the wood imported from the middle east. good thing its not a renewable resource. moderation people.

  6. #6
    Right at table height for bears in my hammock! speedy's Avatar
    Join Date
    08-30-2006
    Location
    Atlanta, Ga
    Age
    38
    Posts
    158

    Default

    I appologize for my part in turning a news thread into a political thread. Judicial activism is a super hot button for me, but I should have focused on the good news. Hiking without roads! speedy
    "i came to hike, not bail" neo

  7. #7
    •Completed A.T. Section Hike GA to ME 1996 thru 2003 •Donating Member Skyline's Avatar
    Join Date
    10-08-2003
    Location
    Luray, Virginia
    Posts
    4,844
    Images
    3

    Default

    Sounds to me like this particular "activist" judge was only doing her job. The Shrubbies were thumbing their noses at laws they didn't like, and got spanked. What's so "activist" about that?

  8. #8
    Registered User
    Join Date
    06-19-2006
    Location
    From PA moved to Marquette MI, ontop of the Northern Country Trail
    Age
    38
    Posts
    203

    Default

    I think it is a great success Unfortunatly they didn't win the full battle 3rd paragraph...

    WASHINGTON, DC (Sep. 20, 2006) - “Today’s ruling is a victory for the millions of Americans from all walks of life who have told the US Forest Service, time and again, to protect our last wild national forests. Our national forests belong to the American people, who deserve to be heard when it comes to the fate of our wildest, most unspoiled forests. In fact, since 1999, millions of Americans have spoken loud and clear that they want the wildest parts of our national forests to stay that way.”



    “This decision is a stark repudiation of the Administration’s push to ignore the public’s wishes and turn over our public lands to special interests. In the past two months, trees have fallen in Oregon as the first timber sales in roadless areas were rammed through in defiance of the wishes of the people and the Governor. We hope that today’s decision will mean the end to such short-sighted and ill-considered timber sales.”


    “The one disappointment in today’s decision is that it also retains the controversial ‘Tongass exemption,’ which keeps the nation’s largest national forest – the Tongass in Alaska – from enjoying the same protections as the rest of America’s national forests. There are 9.3 million acres at stake on the Tongass, more than in any other forest, and they remain temporarily exempted from protection and open to industrial-scale logging. President Bush’s 2003 temporary exemption of the Tongass was justified by a Tongass forest plan that the 9th Circuit has since thrown out as illegal. Leaving the Tongass out of the Roadless Rule now won’t pass the red-faced test.”


    “As we continue to work to gain protections for the Tongass National Forest, we applaud today’s monumental decision, which clearly finds that the Bush Administration's roadless plan is flawed and most appropriately restores the valuable protections and preservations for America’s most pristine areas.”


    “History will show the 2001 Roadless Rule to be the right policy for protecting our nation’s unspoiled forests and today’s court decision to be a historic correction.”

    http://www.wilderness.org/NewsRoom/S...t/20060920.cfm
    There’s no point in the destination if you can't enjoy the journey.

  9. #9

    Default

    [QUOTE]"- In a setback for the Bush administration, "

    How far can the Bush Administration be set back before they cease to exist??
    Last edited by white rabbit; 09-23-2006 at 08:41.

  10. #10
    Registered User Long feet's Avatar
    Join Date
    11-02-2005
    Location
    Annapolis, MD
    Age
    51
    Posts
    133

    Default Bush

    Quote Originally Posted by white rabbit View Post
    [QUOTE]"- In a setback for the Bush administration, "

    How far can the Bush Administration be set back before they cease to exist??
    About two years? Unless they rig another election for Jeb Bush

  11. #11
    Registered User
    Join Date
    12-06-2005
    Location
    Littleton, CO
    Posts
    863
    Images
    7

    Default

    which we can all hope for. i like having a pres that love the good ol U.S.A

++ New Posts ++

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •