Dropping of Logging Ban in National Forests

All,

I saw the following article posted on CNN.com today, and thought it was something that we should all be aware of. Whether you agree or disagree is up to you, but I thought everyone might like to at least see what is being said.

BootJockey
==============
http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/07/13/forest.rules.change.ap.ap/index.html

Bush plan drops logging ban for national forests

BOISE, Idaho (AP) -- Environmentalists are blasting a Bush administration proposal to lift a ban on logging in remote areas of national forests, saying the move ignores popular support for protecting forests.

The plan announced Monday would allow logging by permitting roads to be constructed in national forests. Governors would have to petition the federal government to block road building.

"When the Forest Service originally proposed protecting these special places to hunt, fish and camp, the millions of public comments received were overwhelmingly supportive," Idaho Conservation League spokesman John Robinson said. "There's no reason to drag out this fight."

The rule would replace one adopted by the Clinton administration and still under challenge in federal court. It covers about 58 million of the 191 million acres of national forest nationwide.

Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman, visiting the state Capitol in Boise on Monday, argued that the administration's new approach will end the legal uncertainty surrounding the Clinton administration's attempt to protect forests as it was leaving office in January 2001.

Veneman said the new plan gives governors a chance to weigh in on how the roadless land in their states should be managed -- something Idaho Gov. Dirk Kempthorne said was long overdue.

"There are areas in Idaho that should appropriately be designated as roadless," said Kempthorne, a Republican. "I don't dispute that. But there is a right way and a wrong way. Today the Bush administration is doing it the right way."

Administration officials predicted governors would petition to keep areas roadless as well as to open tracts up to development.

Idaho was one of the first states to go to court to block the Clinton plan since it affected 9.3 million acres in the state, the most in the lower 48 states.

Jim Riley of the Intermountain Forest Association, which represents the timber industry, embraced the proposal, maintaining that "these decisions are far better made by local folks than through broad national policy."

But New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, a Democrat, said the Forest Service was "walking away from environmental protection."

Richardson said he would ask that all 1.1 million acres of roadless land in his state remain protected and planned to urge other western governors to do the same.

"They should not open these areas, period," Richardson said.

Under the proposal, the 58.5 million acres designated as roadless among the 191 million acres of national forest will be protected from development for another 18 months.

In 2006, each governor may submit a proposal either to continue protecting the roadless land or allow it opened to multiple use. The federal government would consider each state petition and then issue a regulation determining the extent of future roadless protection.

"To take it down to the state level like this really undermines having a national forest system," said Craig Gehrke, spokesman for The Wilderness Society. "You don't have state Social Security plans. Why should we have state roadless plans?"

Philip Clapp, president of National Environmental Trust, called the proposal "the biggest single giveaway to the timber industry in the history of the national forests."

"The Bush administration is trying to short-circuit court proceedings that might end up leaving protections for the untouched 30 percent of the national forests in place," he said.

What is it with Bush. Doesn't he want to leave any resources for future generations. I think the Greens and the Sierra Club go to far to the left and the republicans are going to far to the right. Why can't we get common sense centric middle of the road decision making here. :argue:

"National Take A Friend Hiking Day"

noreaster said:

What is it with Bush. Doesn't he want to leave any resources for future generations. I think the Greens and the Sierra Club go to far to the left and the republicans are going to far to the right. Why can't we get common sense centric middle of the road decision making here. :argue:

Click to expand...

V O T E ! ! !

I wonder if we should sponsor a National Take A Friend Hiking Day. I'm thoroughly convinced that if we all got took one new person a year into the woods with us, the number of people who suddenly appreciate the wilderness would expand rapidly.

BootJockey / Dave

yet more proof of the degree to which the administration is beholden to big industry.

mryan said:

yet more proof of the degree to which the administration is beholden to big industry.

Click to expand...

Good thing Kerry has NO ties to big industry, eh?

-Stephen

In response to uphillklimber; If you want to see an area that has been clear cut more recently and is recovering nicely take a hike down Caribou Valley Road to Mt. Redington in Maine. I'm not sure when the area was cut, but trees range in height from 6' to 30'. The vast majority are pine, so I'm also not sure if the area was replanted or if the trees moved in naturally.

Another thing you never hear mentioned in the clear cutting argument is the fact that one forest fire will clear an area much larger than any timber company could do in the same amount of time. I was in Yellowstone about 5 years after their big fire and even then you could see the forest recovering nicely.

I'm not sure how I feel about clear cutting. I believe we need responsible forest management, but at the same time I would hate to see big sections of the Whites striped down to stumps.

All things in moderation...

"All things in moderation..." That's my view on life. It seems to apply so well to nearly every aspect of life.

I believe responsible forest management can have room for lumber harvesting. But I (personally) don't see clear cutting as a moderate approach, but a bomb-and-burn approach. I know it'll grow back, eventually, but it still seems like an extreme approach to me.

I'd rather see selective harvesting.

BootJockey

I believe logging should be donein the Whites, in a responsible manner, so that we don't end up with out of control blazes during a dry season. A forest can actually benefit from careful cutting as the remaining trees can thrive without having to compete for water, sunlight, and soil nutrients.

I saw a bumper sticker in town the other day that made me think:
"If you're against logging, try going without toilet paper."

It (paper products) has to come from somewhere, so lets take a little from everywhere instead of a lot from just a few places.

Logging plan

I don't like it when I read the Bush administration is overturning a "Clinton-era" environmental plan. The Clinton administration never operated under the plan, adopting it only in its final days so it would cause a headache for Bush with his Western supporters. Just a dirty trick by Clinton.

jj makes a good point about Clinton's last minute regulations. They way I see it, he wanted to avoid any impact on the 2000 elections.

Some clear cutting can make sense, but I wish they wouldn't replace clear cut areas with mono-culture forests (just one kind of tree).

I think some kind of reasonable equation for clear cutting would make sense. Figure out the number of years it takes for a mature forest to develop, then figure out how many acres can be cleared (by fire and clear cutting combined) while keeping a stable amoung of mature forest around.

Bottom line is any woodcutting in the National Forests is a jobs program, whether it is defined as a local or national program. A high risk, low pay job for very few people. Recycling paper, plastics, etc... works and provides more jobs than wood cutting will. Why waste a natural resource that benefits people & wildlife in many more ways than I can type at this moment. Write your congressman if you are unhappy with the proposed change in policy.