Bush plan drops logging ban for national forests
 

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science....ap/index.html

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.

Thanks for posting.

"I would cry..." :( Bush needs to make the trek to Oz - he needs the works, Heart, Brain, Courage....
Amber

Uh...this is no surprise. Republicans hate the environment and feel it is their duty to rape the Earth.

I know...It just makes me really sad, every time. If you don't already know about it..
earthjustice.org
you fill in your email info and they send you updates where you send letters to your legislatures...

Don't you think that this is a overgeneralization? Nobody hates the environment. I agree that the Republicans are the weaker party on this issue, sure, but to say that they intentionally harm the Earth is a bit harsh. :xoxo:

Of course they do it intentionally. They know that by scaling back laws so that their corporate friends can make more money, they are hurting the environment. Gimme a break. The bottom line is money and the environment makes them none of it.

They intentionally are short sighted and greedy in trading what can never be replaced and hardly be repaired for profits - they don't support regulations which are easily scientifically possible and which companies can afford - short sighted greediness again. I could go on and on, and perhaps get specific - but i won't. But as intentional as one can get while harming the earth, "they" are. Don't worry, many Dems aren't real stand up for the issue either. I certainly don't wish to offend anybody, but Bush, especially, is a terrible, almost literally, anti-environment president. IMO. :D
Amber

And the environment was protected so much better during Clinton's administration?

He did some things, and i know because now Bush is trying to roll back structures and rules that were put in place during Clintons admin. But, of course, Clinton wasn't perfect.
Amber

I believe his record was so-so on the environment.

I know the general belief is you can't be a Republican and care about the environment, but I think you can. (not referring to you personally here, Amber.) :)

God, I hope you're right more generally, but i'm pretty sure you're not right about Bush. :D And I'm sure you are right. But if you vote republican, you're not voting for the environment, whether you care about it or not, IMO.
:xoxo:
Amber

thought this was kind of an interesting read, didnt know about this group "Republicans against Bush" :





An Open Letter to all Republicans

Fellow Republicans:

President George W. Bush today enjoys wide popularity, fostered I believe in part by the reluctance of Americans to criticize their president in "wartime". As Republicans, we bear a special responsibility to raise our voices, as we are more resistant to attacks on our patriotism, and more responsible for Bush's presence in the White House. Here are my top five reasons why Republicans should speak out today against President George W. Bush:

1. The drive for war on Iraq.

a) The Republican party used to be the party that kept America out of international entanglements. Until the Reagan years, the party had taken pride in the fact that all major wars in the last century had been entered into by Democrats (WW I, WW II, Korea, Vietnam). The peace treaty for WW I was signed under a Republican, Warren G. Harding, and Nixon had extracted the US from Vietnam. Why are the Republicans suddenly the party of war?

b) The war on Iraq is being justified as part of the "war on terrorism". What connection does Saddam Hussein have with anti-American terrorism? He has supported anti-Israeli terrorists, but so has much of the Arab world. There is no known link between al-Qaida and Iraq. Saddam certainly oppresses his own people and has invaded two of his neighbors (losing both times), but is presently largely contained and impoverished under the sanctions policy established by George Bush Sr. and continued under the Clinton administration. What real threat does he represent to the US?

c) The world in general fails to see our justification for war on Iraq; what little support exists seems to be clearly due to US arm-twisting. There have been massive anti-war rallies around the world. The US's international reputation is sinking. The idea of the "pre-emptive invasion" is widely viewed as an unwise precedent that will cause the world much trouble in the future.

2. The attacks on civil liberties, under the guise of the "war on terrorism". The US has a long tradition of civil liberties, and many Republicans have been strong defenders of those liberties. Now we have secret military courts? US and foriegn citizens held as neither prisoners of war nor criminals, denied access to lawyers or even their families? A "big brother" database where all transactions will be tracked (an idea many Republicans have opposed for years)? A French-Canadian thrown in jail in rural Maine for a month for driving 50 feet over the border to visit a gas station with a gun in the back of his pickup? Barry Goldwater would not be pleased...

3. The abandonment of the Kyoto Treaty on global warming. The Republican Party has not in recent years been known as the party of environmentalism (although Teddy Roosevelt, responsible for much of the modern National Park system, was a Republican). But as the party of business, Republicans know that once you have signed an agreement, you don't back out of it. Our renouncement of the Kyoto Treaty caused the US immense international embarrassment, and damaged our relations with Europe and Japan. I would also argue that scientific research seems to strongly suggest that doing something about global warming is a good idea. But after all, Hawaii is a Democratic state, so if a few low-lying islands got lost...

4. The crisis of confidence in corporate governance. I think it is fair to say that, except for SEC Chairman Harvey Pitt resigning under cover of the midterm elections, nothing has been done. It is surprising that a Republican administration has not done more to promote clean accounting and corporate accountability, conditions which are essential for investor confidence. (Update: Since I wrote this, the Bush administration finally got around to proposing an increase in the SEC budget for enforcement. How much follow-through this will get remains to be seen.)

5. The 2000 election. Yes, this is old news by now, but think - wouldn't the Republican party have looked better if Bush had asked his campaign to make sure that all the Florida votes were recounted fairly? And Bush might well have won anyways (authorities differ on this, but mostly I believe they say a careful recount would have still declared Bush the winner). The resulting scandal over the vulgar legal and extra-legal maneuvering has made it harder to persuade other countries to run fair elections - dictators such as Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe have pointed to the Florida scandal and said, "Hey, I ran elections at least as fair as that!"

I feel that Republicans should speak out against Bush, not only because of the damage which Bush is doing to our country and its international reputation, but because of the damage he is doing to the Republican party. The Republican party is not the party of warmongering, fascism, and stupidity - it is known for its defence of civil liberties, its good management, and its prudent conduct of foreign affairs. By not standing up to Bush, we risk a generation of election losses when the American people wake up from their obsession with safety after the 9/11 attacks. We should demand changes in Bush administration policy, and a new standard-bearer for 2004.

If you would like to send me a comment on this piece, your own list of reasons why Bush is not a good Republican or a good president, or perhaps express interest in creating a real "Republicans Against Bush" organization, I can be contacted at the following address: [email protected]. Please feel free to distribute this widely, as long as you don't alter the content without my permission.

Sincerely,

- Brian Youmans

A Republican party member in Boston, MA

Wait a minute. We're talking about the current president. Don't try to deflect criticism of him by bringing up the former administration. What the hell does Clinton have to do with this discussion? Was he mentioned in the article I posted? If you're going to do that, let's bring up the Reagan administration and James Watt. Want to go down that road? Bashing Clinton does nothing to further the debate about the damage of logging in protected areas. Does it?

You really don't want to compare their environmental policies, do you? It's a fight you will not win. ;)

Correction: you can't be a Republican serving in public office and care about the environment. :xoxo: