Healthy forests my ass!

“KYW News Radio in Philadelphia reports:

Bush Administration Defends Relaxed Forestry Plan

Environmentalists are blasting a Bush administration proposal to lift a ban on logging in remote areas of national 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 Idaho 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 governor Dirk Kempthorne said was long overdue:

"There are areas in Idaho that should appropriately be designated as roadless. 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."



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 governor 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.”

“This amounts to another attack on States' Rights.”

“It always cracks me up how politicians (from both conservative and liberal sides, sadly) avoid tough debates. Of course Veneman makes her announcement in Idaho, where Kempthorne, a staunch Republican, is governor. Why not make the announcement in New Mexico, where there's a governor with an opposing view? Chicken!”

“didn't we talk about this yesterday too?”

“This amounts to another attack on States' Rights

Logging and Gay Marriage, strange bedfellows indeed (pun intended-fellows)”

“Then again if lumber prices shot through the roof Geo would be all over the pres and blaming him for the whole thing.”

“Where's the Lorax?”

“But Nigal, why would they go through the roof, the measure is already in place? It's being lifted.”

“The percentage of wood products that come from National Forests is small. The overwelming majority of logging is done on privately held land.

We already pay for timber taken from National Forests whether we use it or not, because the cost of road building is vastly greater than what lumber companies pay the government. This is all a matter of public knowledge. So I don't think lumber prices are going to go through the roof because of roadless areas.

Secondly, the acreage of roadless areas nationwide is a fraction of overall National Forest land. And a good portion of roadless areas includes land not especially suited to timber production.”

“Secondly, the acreage of roadless areas nationwide is a fraction of overall National Forest land. And a good portion of roadless areas includes land not especially suited to timber production."
Geobeet
12:47:05 PM
07/14/04



which is one of the main reasons its still roadless in the first place.”

“Yes, Roam Around, we were talking about this yesterday. And forgive me my cut and paste from what I wrote on bp.com...

The Roadless Rule was crafted after the most extensive public outreach in this nation's history. Over a period of 3 years public comments were gathered and analyzed. The U.S. Forest Service held more than 600 meetings and hearings in 37 states, the majority in communities near National Forests. More than 25,000 people participated. Of the more than 1.6 million comments submitted, an overwhelming 95 percent favored the strongest possible protection for roadless areas. As well, in 18 separate opinion polls, conducted by both Republicans and Democrats, Americans demonstrated robust support for Roadless Area protection.

All told the drafting of the Roadless Rule had more than 10 times the public input than any other ruling in history. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, "Never before have the American people so actively participated in helping to decide how their public lands should be managed."

A few days into the Bush Administration, the Roadless Rule was placed on hold pending a review. In intervening months, additional comments on the Roadless Rule were collected by the US Forest Service, maintaining the public's overwhelming support for roadless protection. The Forest Service issued interim directives to guide the management of roadless areas until a final decision could be made - either through the courts, or by the Administration itself. These interim directives significantly decreased environmental protections for roadless areas.

On December 23rd, 2003 the Bush Administration exempted Alaska's Tongass and Chugach National Forests, this nation's two largest National Forests, from the Rule. More than 1/4 million Americans commented to the USDA in opposition to this exemption to no avail.

Two days ago the Bush administration proposed letting individual states decide whether or not Roadless areas should be protected in the National Forests that are in their states. So even though all of us pay federal taxes, a little of which goes to protecting your National Forests in Idaho, if the governor of Idaho decides to allow more roads to be built and timber to be cut down in the Roadless Areas in the National Forests that are in Idaho, well, so be it.

Does that make any sense to you? These are not state forests, they belong to the nation, and shouldn't they be managed for "the greatest good for the greatest number in the long run," as the founder of the US Forest Service, Gifford Pinchot, said when these Forests were first created?

And does building any more roads make any sense period? Economically, well, you decide. Our National Forests are already covered with 386,000 miles of roads -- enough to circle the earth 15 times -- and there’s a $10 billion backlog on their maintenance.

What about local jobs, won't they be lost? There is overwhelming evidence that the Roadless Rule makes the most sense for local economies across the country: According to the US Department of Commerce, Bureau of Labor Statistics, jobs in the extractive industries are a small portion of the total jobs in the Rocky Mountain Region, while recreation related employment is about 6 times as large for the region as a whole. And the USDA Forest Service estimated that in 1999, our National Forests provided four recreation- and conservation-based jobs for every job related to extraction.

What about all that timber and oil and gas that's in those Roadless Areas? Turns out the National Forests supply less than 4% of the nation’s timber from all of our national forestlands combined. Of that modest 4%, only a tiny fraction – 6% – will be affected by Roadless Area conservation. That’s 1/4 of 1%. Similarly, National Forests supply less than four tenths of 1% of the nation’s oil and gas, and far less from roadless areas.

Former Forest Service Chief Mike Dombeck said, "Is it worth one-quarter of 1 percent of our nation’s timber supply, or a fraction of a fraction of our oil and gas to protect 58.5 million acres of wild and unfragmented land in perpetuity? Seventy-five years ago, another Forest Service employee, Aldo Leopold, answered that question. “Such a policy would not subtract even a fraction of one per cent from our economic wealth, but would preserve a fraction of what has, since first the flight of years began, been wealth to the human spirit.””

“The crux of this issue is that the NRA wants more roads built so hunters can drive up in their 4WDs and ATVs and shoot critters, strap them to the fenders and drive out with them. The NRA dissed a Sierra Club proposal to join forces to protect hunting areas from excess road building and timbering. The NRA wants roads.

The more you learn about all this sleaze, the less you like it, unless you like walking along gravel roads lined with beer cans and through clearcuts.

Good analysis Bear Crossing. The percentages are actually lower than I might have surmised.

Incidentally, the National Forest lands being managed for timber harvest already have roads, so they don't need more roads. It costs money to maintain roads, and that money comes out of the National Forest Service's budget.

None of this makes any sense, so that's why it seems to be administration policy.”

“It's all part of Bush's "No Tree Left Behind Act", which is an agressive approach to making sure trees no longer pose a fire threat to the timber indistries and yuppies who live on hillsides.

George is doing a fine job!”

“This thread title reminded me of a song.

It's over on the music thread, LOL”

“"But Nigal, why would they go through the roof, the measure is already in place? It's being lifted."

Due to the rate of use outgrowing the rate of havestable trees weather it's on private or public lands. It's just like how everyone wanted the AWAR drilling blocked but then blame Bush for high gas prices.”

“No Buddha, that is called the Healthy Forests Initiative, and the war in Iraq is called the Healthy Soldiers Initiative.”

“How is one quarter of one percent of the total timber harvest going to keep lumber prices from rising?”

“No Tree left behind, lol”

“I'm going to steal that from you, Buddha, I hope you don't mind.”

“Nigal, you can drill ANWAR until the cows come home. It won't affect the price of gas, nor will it boost our reserves. I'll bet you five dollars, ANWAR oil gets sold to Japan, just like Prudhoe Bay oil.”

““I'll bet you five dollars, ANWAR oil gets sold to Japan, just like Prudhoe Bay oil."

This is due to the super strict regulations on refining. Refiners can’t afford to refine our own oils. I personally predict that if ANWAR was drilled (which I feel it should) that the regs would be loosened somewhat so we actually could refine our own oil. So I’ll take your bet.”