Dubya to Shut Down Hunting on 31% of Forest Service Land

[FAIRCHASEBEN]

OK Let's see ;
Elk called me a 'road hunter' (that hurts)

Oak has me aligned with a bunch of "hunters" defending Dubya .

Buzz thinks I sit around and bitch about "bad" management by the Feds .

This has all the making of a good fantasy documentary . Call Michael Moore , he needs talented writers .

 

[Muledeer4me]

Nemont


"Anyway, I really don't think that turning management of Federal Lands over to states is the best idea. As much as I am in favor of public lands grazing and its continuation I just can't see how the state of Montana can do a better job."

I agree with you.
The same thing could be said for Idaho.
Im not in total favor of it but I still think giving states more control is better then what we get with some of the nuckle heads that are in charge now.
At the fedreal level we could have people that think Michael Moore is the good guy .

 

[BuzzH]

FCB,

Why is it you're afraid to answer the tough questions?

I answered your question, yet you made a lame attempt at side-stepping mine...good job, you must get that from listening to Dubya.

 

[Nut]

The more roads you get out west the closer you all will look like Ohio. Only less flatter.

 

[JoseCuervo]

There is a "red state, blue state" political aspect to the issue as well. "This is a very bad decision for the environment," says Gov. Bill Richardson (D) of New Mexico, Energy Secretary in the Clinton administration. "The Forest Service is basically walking away from roadless protection. It's an abdication of federal responsibility."

Unlike many public lands issues, this one unites environmentalists with hunters.


"It's about open space and clean water and providing hunting and fishing opportunities as more and more land is posted 'no trespassing'," says Chris Wood, vice president of the conservation group Trout Unlimited. "This is an issue that certain people care very, very deeply about."

Bush officials say they're looking for a better balance to environmental protection and development, for more local and state input on such issues, and for a way to end the court battles.

"The prospect of endless lawsuits represents neither progress nor certainty for communities," says Secretary Veneman, whose agency oversees the US Forest Service. "We can do better."

Others see it as a potential opening for Democratic candidate Sen. John Kerry.

"The environment may come behind terrorism and the economy in the priorities of voters," says Phil Clapp, president of the National Environmental Trust. "But even the Bush administration knows very well that in key battleground states and with key swing voters like suburbanites and women the environment ranks very close to the top of the list of concerns."

 

[Nemont]

"The Forest Service is basically walking away from roadless protection. It's an abdication of federal responsibility

I didn't realize that roadless protection was a federal responsibility. I thought the Forest Service's mission was to produce timber products for the country to consume.

I am not saying roadless areas aren't important but we may need to redefine the forest service's role in all this.

Nemont

 

[Ithaca 37]

Nemont, You're right. The FS role needs to be redefined. Here's today's Idaho Statesman editorial:

Edition Date: 07-13-2004
The Bush administration's plan to replace the controversial Clinton roadless policy is long on ambition, but lacking in details.

The idea sounds simple on its surface: engage the states in managing 58 million acres of federal forest land.

A collaborative approach has some appeal in Idaho, where 9.3 million acres of roadless land make up about one-sixth of the land mass.

But this is a significant change in lands management, and without more details, we're skeptical about how — or whether — it would work.

U.S. Forest Service undersecretary Mark Rey boldly calls the plan an attempt to resolve the nation's roadless debate — and maybe even decades-old wilderness fights in states such as Idaho. Still, he realizes that this is a public policy experiment.

We've seen promising examples of collaboration in Idaho — talks that may produce good wilderness bills for the Owyhees and the Boulder-White Clouds. We favor a state role in managing wolves.

This roadless plan simply is too large and too vague, though. While state and federal officials talked glowingly Monday about partnerships and collaboration, we're left with questions:

• Where's the consistency? The administration hopes 12 Western governors, including Idaho's Gov. Dirk Kempthorne, will submit their plans for managing roadless lands. The feds would pick up the bills for the rule-making process. The Forest Service would review the plans, not in Washington, D.C., headquarters, but at seven regional forest offices around the West.

This plan invites a lot of different ways to decide what to protect and where to build roads or cut down timber.

Kempthorne made it clear Monday that he supports protecting some of Idaho's roadless acres. What makes Kempthorne's cut in Idaho may not make other governors' cuts — or vice versa. Regional foresters will bring their own ideas to the process.

The Forest Service would go in with the "presumption" that if a state roadless plan meets federal laws such as the Endangered Species Act, the state plan meets the national interests, Rey said. We don't think that goes far enough to set a consistent national standard for protecting the most sensitive roadless areas. These are, after all, federal lands.

• How do disputes get settled? Say two governors are dealing with a roadless area that straddles state lines — an uncommon possibility, but a possibility nonetheless. Whose plan takes precedent? Probably the governor who gets in a state plan first, Rey told the Statesman editorial board Monday.

Somehow, this doesn't sound like a strategy predicated on sound science. Disputes will be inevitable in trying to settle the fate of 58 million acres, a land mass larger than the entire state of Idaho. We'd like something more analytical than a first-come, first-served approach.

• What about logging? Environmentalists worry that the timber industry will lobby the states to allow more logging on federal lands. The plan could lead to a surge in backcountry logging that has nothing to do with protecting communities from wildfire, said Justin Hayes of the Idaho Conservation League.

In fairness, the administration's much-maligned but reasonable forest health initiative goes beyond the first priority of thinning forests near communities.

Sometimes, Rey said, it's necessary to thin remote fire-prone areas that threaten communities or local water supply.

That's a good point, but the suspicions about this plan's impact on logging are understandable, given the administration's industry-friendly environmental record.

The administration is trying to fix a Clinton-era roadless plan now mired in nine federal lawsuits in seven states. "Conflict and conservation are rarely compatible with each other," Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman said in Boise Monday.

Unfortunately, Bush's election-year roadless plan may create more conflicts than it resolves.

 

[FAIRCHASEBEN]

Originally posted by BuzzH:
FCB,

Why is it you're afraid to answer the tough questions?

I answered your question, yet you made a lame attempt at side-stepping mine...good job, you must get that from listening to Dubya.

Buzz

One word ; DECAF

As much as I enjoy our spirited debates , sometimes it's just more fun to push your buttons , which is not hard to do with your Dubya paranioa . You piss your pants and forget your name whenever you even suspect someone is a Dubya supporter .

Unfortunately , I'm not a big fan of Dubya , but it's sure fun playing one on the internet .

The FED vs. State debate is starting to grow hair , enlighten me with your views please . I will respond later , but right now it's time to kick off the boots , open a cold one and have a little 'me time'.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Uhhhh....FCB, the Sagebrush Rebellion died a long time ago.... You aren't one of those looney Nevadans who thinks Battle Mountain is the big city, are you???

 

[FAIRCHASEBEN]

No ....are you one of those looney Spudeaters who has a 'Save our Mother Earth' sticker on his Volvo ?

 

[BuzzH]

Nemont, I'm not sure where you get the idea that the FS mission is to sell timber?

Unfortunately, you arent alone in that belief.

Further, it absolutely IS the responsibility of the FS to manage in a way that "provides the greatest good for the greatest number for the longest time with equal consideration given to all resources and not necessarily the combination of uses that provides the greatest profit or unit output".

Further under the National Forest Management Act, the US Forest Service is bound by law to provide protection for "marginal lands" of which most are in Clintons roadless rule. I'm not going to bore you with Natural Resource Policy, but I will recommend you look up NFMA, RPA, MUSY,and the Wilderness Act.

Those Federal acts are pretty clear in the what the FS is required by law to provide.

I'm not anti-logging, not at all. But, I also understand Natural Resource Policy and law enough to know that providing logs is not the ONLY consideration of National Forests.

The thing I always find funny is that most of the lands in question with the roadless initiative are pretty well protected under NFMA and each Forests own MA's. Further, those areas have been basically off limits since the RARE II, when those areas were all considered for wilderness designation in 1964.

Why all of a sudden after 40 years are we finding it necessary to road, log, and mine the few areas that meet federal designation for wilderness? Why after 100 years of Federal Management does Dubya deem it necessary to give control to the States? Maybe he doesnt trust his own APPOINTED heads of the USDA and USDI?

Perhaps, THOSE are the real questions we all should be asking...

 

[Wapiti Slayer]

Originally posted by ElkGunner:
[qb] And to think, sadly, that the announcement was made in Idaho!!!!

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - State governors would gain more control over federal forests, under a Bush administration proposal on Monday that environmentalists said would gut a Clinton-era rule to protect nearly 60 million acres from logging.

The proposal, announced by U.S. Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman in Boise, Idaho , would effectively exempt states from federal restrictions on logging and road construction in environmentally sensitive forest areas unless a governor identified specific lands they wanted to be protected.

Veneman said the new rule would end costly litigation and give a greater voice to states, which she said were better able to determine forest needs.

The proposal marks a complete reversal of a 2001 rule developed under former President Bill Clinton, environmentalists and Democrats said. The Clinton rule restricted road construction, logging and oil mining in 58.5 million acres of federal forest deemed worthy of special protections to save endangered species or local habitats from irreversible damage.

The land represents about 31 percent of all federal forest areas.

"This (new proposal) could be potentially devastating for some of the last wild forests across the West," said Tiernan Sittenfeld, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Public Interest Research Group.

"What they're doing is gutting the (Clinton) rule," she said.

The proposal goes beyond the U.S. Forest Service's announcement in June 2003 that it would largely uphold the Clinton policy, but let governors seek exemptions from the ban on roads. Under the new proposal, the restrictions would not apply unless a governor petitioned the federal government to halt road-construction projects.

Democratic lawmakers said Monday's announcement was nothing more than a favor to timber companies. Environmentalists fear that states including Alaska, Colorado and Idaho, which support logging, would have little incentive to ask for restrictions in forests.

"The Bush administration is now throwing the door wide open to unlimited exploitation of national forests in every state," Nancy Pelosi of California, the U.S. House of Representatives Democratic leader.

[

Imagine, Elkcummer adding his own tree hugging twist to another story! Makes me want to believe everything the dipshit posts!! If this deal is gonna open up more roads then Elkcummer should be happy as hell.

"Well, with Moosie, we started up to make a quick check on Bait Site T, as I had arrived into Moosie and the Mrs.' Camp just a bit late on Saturday. So I had the wonderful experience of speeding along mountain roads with a "Bare" skinned Moosie trying to change clothes in the front of the pick-up".

"Speeding down mountain roads to see a naked man", my Idea of hunting! That's just putting a little Elkcummer twist to the story!

[ 07-13-2004, 22:24: Message edited by: Wapiti Slayer ]

 

[Nemont]

Buzz,
I have learned not to question you on resource laws and policy. You know your stuff so I cede to your expertise.

Let me ask you a question. Why are the lands that meet the wilderness designation not already protected? Many have been studied to death. Who do you think screams bloody murder when anyone attempts to get a permanent wilderness designation. I will give you a hint it isn't fatassed atvers or welfare ranchers or hunters.

Nemont

 

[Wapiti Slayer]

Originally posted by Nemont:
Buzz,
I have learned not to question you on resource laws and policy. You know your stuff so I cede to your expertise.

Let me ask you a question. Why are the lands that meet the wilderness designation not already protected? Many have been studied to death. Who do you think screams bloody murder when anyone attempts to get a permanent wilderness designation. I will give you a hint it isn't fatassed atvers or welfare ranchers or hunters.

Nemont

I've hunted the White Clouds since I was old enough to hunt and I ride 4 Wheelers & Motorcycles! I'd like nothing more than to see the whole area closed off to ATV riding!

 

[1_pointer]

Im not in total favor of it but I still think giving states more control is better then what we get with some of the nuckle heads that are in charge now.

Why should any one state/person/etc have more say on the management of the USFS lands than another? Also remember that many western states get more than $1 back for every $1 that is paid in federal taxes. That alone should be a huge clue as to why the state's cannot manage these lands as well as is being done now.

 

[BuzzH]

Nemont, thats a good question, and the answer is fairly easy...

For starters, I know it loggers that scream the loudest, and IMO they dont have a leg to stand on, more on that later.

In the 50's and early 60's after the first inventory of roadless areas (RARE I) had some problems, including ignoring lands in the Eastern U.S. for Wilderness. There was also some dispute by all sides on the designations in the West. Under the Conti decision about 56 million acres was withdrawn...which brings us to RARE II and the current definitions of "Roadless". Under RARE II all Federal land areas 5000 acres or greater that had no roads were considered for wilderness designation, including most (or maybe even all) of the 56 million acres under RARE I.

By the time RARE II was completed everyone conceded to an agreement of what we have today in wilderness...all sides were sick of the debate and wanted the Wilderness designations to be done. Some of the roadless areas went wilderness, some didnt.

The deal is though, that most of the areas identified in RARE II are still being managed as de facto "wilderness" anyway.

There was a big flap when Clinton passed the roadless initiative, but all it really did was further protect what was already protected, and SHOULD have been designated Wilderness in or around 1972. There had not been and has not been much logging, roading, or any other development in a vast majority of the areas Clintons plan protected.

But, the reason why there was a big hoopla about the Roadless initiative is more a function of some bad timber management on the part of private and public...I think more on the private end of things.

Many timber companies chose to liquidate timber at a very fast rate in the mid 70's to late 80's. At the same time, the FS also chose to pretty much do the same. Then all of sudden, all the small timber companies are screaming about timber shortages...shortages they created by a grossly accelerated timber harvest to maximize profit on their lands.

Enter the Roadless initiative. Since the private lands were over-harvested, all of sudden the FS is the bad guy for not supplying Joe Logger a job and timber. Suddenly the FS needs to start cutting in the roadless areas, every logger thought so anyway. Plus, the FS, under the gun for compliance with their own regulations, slashed their ASQ's as well.

So, who's really to blame? IMO, both the FS and the private timber companies. The private companies for liquidating timber and being greedy, and the FS for cutting beyond their ASQ's in the early 80's.

However, nowhere is the FS mission to supply timber, and thats been apparent for a long, long, long time. Any company that accelerated harvest on their own lands and expected the FS to take up the slack through the sale of Federal timber was a company ready to become extinct...and many did become extinct. A product of their own poor decisions.

I dont think opening up the "marginal" roadless areas will do much of anything for the timber industry at this point.

The FS has done a great job of protecting vast amounts of "marginal" lands under the Wilderness Act, or as my buddy says, "They've done a hell of a job protecting rock and ice"...

The best and most productive NF lands are already open to logging.

The world according to Buzz.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Originally posted by BuzzH:
FCB,

Why is it you're afraid to answer the tough questions?

I answered your question, yet you made a lame attempt at side-stepping mine...good job, you must get that from listening to Dubya.

Buzz,

Don't expect any quick answers from FCB. You have any idea how many miles of Nevada he has to drive around, waiting for his answer to be broadcast to him on AM radio???

He never thought that anyone would actually ask him a follow-up question as he drove past the truck stop in Fernley. That just ain't fair to expect somebody to have all the answers, when the AM radio only broadcasts during daylight hours in Nevada....

 

[JoseCuervo]

Hey WapSla,

Any reason you always QUOTE the entire post, instead of just the relevant sections? Is there some reason or are you just not very bright?

Why not just cut and paste the relevant paragraph that you are referring, instead of the entire post of the person you are addressing???

And could you edit the posts where you have butchered my screen name? Calif Hunter is trying to clean up SI with the name calling, and I would appreciate it if you would at least keep this section PG-13. Hopefully kids would be able to read some of the posts here and learn. If you are unable to have an adult discussion and change it, I understand.

 

[kiwi hunta]

E.G asked why quote entire post instead of relevant paragraph/sentence,

Maybe because that takes it out of context;
As in {insert quote by any Politician}

"I was quoted out of context", or our favourite


" I did not have sexual relations with that women"

 

[Muledeer4me]

1Pointer, We decided to move to out of Calif. along time ago leaving
the liberal treehugging pin heads there.(we thought)
Why would I now want these type's to follow trying to change this State, a Republican State over to one that is controled by the liberal treehugging Michael Moore loving pin heads????? LOL


"Why all of a sudden after 40 years are we finding it necessary to road, log, and mine the few areas that meet federal designation for wilderness? Why after 100 years of Federal Management does Dubya deem it necessary to give control to the States? Maybe he doesnt trust his own APPOINTED heads of the USDA and USDI? "


Buzz, the answer could be the fact that we now have more radical treehuggers trying to shove there ideas up everyones butt without really understanding the States they are doing it to.
When they start toning it down and getting real ,(understanding on there part or at least giving it some thought)about the predator issue,logging ,grazing,multipal use and what there choice of managment will do to the people closes to the issues,then it will be easer to give them more respect in looking at there ideas of managment.
Alot has changed in 100 year's.
We have more people that dont have a clue about wilderness,roadless areas,wolfs,or about the different people trying to make a living in these States they think they should have a say in managing.

I don't really think they should be left out of managing public lands.
But come on some ,of these people couldn't survive in a city park and they are the ones that want to tell us how to manage the pubilc lands that we work and play in all the time???
Some of them are so anti-anything they make you want to puke.


Why is it that the Liberal treehugger's are only liberal and open minded when it comes to what they want and believe?