Use Promo Code Randy for 20% off OutdoorClass

Evil Legacy of Bush...

ELKCHSR

New member
Joined
Nov 28, 2001
Messages
13,765
Location
Montana
Bush May Create Largest Marine Reserves in World

The Bush Administration is planning to launch one if the biggest conservation programs in U.S. history. It could create several vast marine reserves in U.S. territorial waters in the Pacific, the Gulf of Mexico and off the Atlantic Coast. Supporters say it's an opportunity for President Bush to leave a "blue legacy." Alex Chadwick talks with John Nielsen about the plan

Bush Eyes Unprecedented Conservation Program
by John Nielsen and David Malakoff

The Highs and Lows of the Antiquities Act

Presidents' unilateral power to create national monuments has led to fierce political brawls. Here, a few key points in the history of the Antiquities Act.

The Bush administration is considering launching one of the biggest conservation programs in U.S. history.

If implemented, President George W. Bush could, with the stroke of a pen, protect vast stretches of U.S. territorial waters from fishing, oil exploration and other forms of commercial development. The initiative could also create some of the largest marine reserves in the world — far larger than national parks like Yellowstone or the Grand Canyon.

The White House is thinking about taking "big steps, not small ones," says Jack Sobel, a senior scientist at the Washington-based Ocean Conservancy, an environmental group.

A spokesman for the White House Council on Environmental Quality confirmed that the administration is considering the initiative but declined to discuss details, saying they are still under review.

The idea is drawing strong support from conservationists who typically have been harshly critical of the Bush administration's overall environmental record. But some of the possible reserves are already attracting opposition from local leaders and industry groups and from some members of Congress.

National Monuments in the Sea

Conservationists say that CEQ officials last year invited a small number of ocean advocates to an unusual, closed-door meeting to discuss the idea. The White House asked them to help identify potential reserves in waters within the United States' "exclusive economic zone," which extends 200 nautical miles out from the mainland and U.S.-owned islands around the world.

The idea, says Sobel, was to highlight areas where President Bush could create "marine monuments" under the Antiquities Act of 1906. This law gives the president broad powers to protect areas of "historic or scientific interest" without congressional approval.

Administration officials said they wanted things they could do before they left office, says Sobel. "They [also] wanted things that they could do without tremendous political blow back … [but] would have a conservation impact."

The groups took the invitation seriously, in part because Bush, in 2006, used the Antiquities Act to create one of the world's largest marine reserves, around the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands.

The groups — along with government agencies and other interested parties – ultimately developed a "wish list" that included about 30 potential marine monuments. They ranged from small reserves in U.S. coastal waters to vast swaths around U.S. territories in the distant Central Pacific. The candidates stretched "from Bar Harbor, Maine, to Dutch Harbor, Alaska" and beyond, says Jay Nelson of the Washington-based Pew Environment Group.

On the Short List

The White House has now shortened that list to about five finalists, say scientists involved in the process. The list hasn't been released to the public, and a CEQ spokesman says changes are still possible. But conservation groups have identified some of the leading nominees.

By far the most ambitious proposal is to protect more than 600,000 square miles around a number of small, mostly uninhabited islands in the Central Pacific. The islands — including Palmyra, Howland and Baker — are surrounded by biologically rich coral reefs and are home to huge seabird colonies. If implemented, the reserve would be among the largest in the world and about three times as large as the Hawaiian monument.

Another proposal calls for protecting more than 100,000 square miles of notoriously rough waters around the Northern Mariana Islands, in the Western Pacific. The area includes the 36,000-foot-deep Marianas Trench.

"It's the deepest point in the world," says Nelson. "If you dropped Mt. Everest in it, there would be a mile of water above the mountain."

Another proposal is to place a 500-square-mile reserve around Rose Atoll in the South Pacific east of Australia.

Nelson says it's important to protect these areas before fishing or energy companies begin to exploit them. The same argument is being made in favor of two other potential monuments closer to the U.S. mainland. One would protect a massive network of deep-water corals off the coasts of Florida, Georgia and the Carolinas. The other would protect coral reefs and ridges found mostly in the Gulf of Mexico.

"Once somebody's fishing there it will be a difficult and contentious fight," says Mike Hirschfeld of the nonprofit group Oceana. "It's simpler to set these areas aside when there isn't a problem rather than wait for one to develop."

A 'Blue Legacy' for President Bush

An array of ocean advocates — both Democrats and Republicans — are urging the White House to forge ahead with the proposals, saying it would enable President Bush to build a "blue legacy" that would make him a major figure in conservation history.

"These would all be terrific additions to what is already President Bush's greatest environmental legacy," the Hawaiian monument, says James Greenwood, a former Republican congressman from Pennsylvania, who now heads the Biotechnology Industry Organization. Greenwood, who has close ties to the White House, says that he has been lobbying Bush for years to take major action on ocean conservation.

Bush could become the "Teddy Roosevelt of the seas," conservationists say. President Theodore Roosevelt protected about 230 million acres in new parks and forests, notes Elliott Norse of the Marine Conservation Biology Institute in Washington. Bush has the chance "to protect more," he says.

Typically, creating marine reserves requires the approval of Congress and an extensive public comment process. By using the Antiquities Act, the White House can sidestep those requirements. President Bill Clinton, for instance, used the law to unilaterally protect a huge chunk of Utah, angering many state and local politicians. But a CEQ spokesman said that if the current initiative moves forward, it will very likely include some kind of public comment process.

Local Hurdles

There is already opposition to several of the potential reserves. This month, Republican Sen. David Vitter of Louisiana said he didn't like the plan to protect corals in the Gulf of Mexico, arguing that the economic consequences are "potentially grave," particularly for the fishing industry. Members of Congress from states along the Gulf also floated, and then withdrew, legislative language that would have prevented the government from spending money to establish the monument.

Out in the Pacific, local politicians and commercial interests also are voicing opposition to a Marianas Trench monument.

"We don't even have a voting member in Congress, and we've got the president of the U.S., who basically could slam the door on any future potential that is there," says John Gourley, an environmental consultant on the island of Saipan, who has worked for the fishing industry. "[We] should be able to use these resources in an environmentally sensitive manner."

A decision on the initiative could come within a month.
 
Don't forget the picture to go with the title.

wam1.jpg
 
I borrowed some pics from a few others here to go with yours Oak... ;)

I know this isn't a total part of Bushes legacy, but I believe a huge amount of wells would have been put in "almost" regardless of who happened to be in office

And to some, your representations are VAST bodies of land, but to the overall size and scope of the US, they are but small portions of this great country

I've only borrowed a few pics, the trophy room is full of them and before the great accident where Hunttalk lost the albums, there were hundreds and hundreds of like pics from around the U.S. discounting any out of the national parks...

DSC07652copy.jpg


cirquewaterfall.jpg


cirquevlake.jpg


And even these... :)

Looking over this individual’s photo album shows that it's not all doom and gloom and the world isn't covered in wanton destruction

Is there a lot of oil/gas wells?

Sure there are, does every one here use the by products of this energy resource, most certainly

Matter of fact, he even has a HUGE amount of areas that don't show any oil/gas fields

One more item, this individual seems to get pics of many good/great animals/birds/landscapes shots with out any sign of man except for maybe a lone individual sitting in the fore ground for effect

I will state again on this subject, when I see any one 100% give up those products they so despise and monger against, then I will give them my utmost respect for their willingness to live by their beliefs, other wise I just see individuals or groups blowing hot air, not wanting to live in reality

Propaganda is easy to manipulate into any thing we so desire others to see or believe... ;)

Dall39.jpg


Scenery.jpg


youngbull.jpg
 
Great logic...

Don't worry about development or resource extraction because there are still some good parts! Boy, am I glad you are in charge of nothing...
 
LOL Tyler... :)

100% lock up of ALL resources won't work either...

There has to be balance and some on both sides (mostly the left side of the political spectrum) are simply blinded by the other side due to lack of experience, inability to see bigger picture, lives inside a box, far to idealistic with very little foundation in reality, etc. etc., take your pick...

I see pics and hear stories from both sides, but very little or any concrete evidence from you on any of these topics, except knee jerk reactions and preconceived prejudices on these topics...

Should we take it all... No...

Should we save it all... No...

Can their be a balance to utilizing this nations' needs and still keep the beauty and splendor alive and well (that’s why we hire ‘ologists’ in the first place)... Yes...

Do I answer some of the questions posed to me...

Nope... Those questions aren’t for furthering knowledge or ideas, only as bait meant to discredit or change a subject...

I've seen Oak come up with tangible and well stated arguments for these debates, but you seem only capable of parroting others thoughts with none of your own...

Got any thing new to add, or you just going to spout old rhetoric and innuendos from days gone by on this board, hoping to gain points or favor from those you idolize

Or you going to start thinking for yourself and showing us what you’ve learned from your new job and experiences... :)

Your next post will show your capabilities and intent... ;)
 
Can their be a balance to utilizing this nations' needs and still keep the beauty and splendor alive and well (that’s why we hire ‘ologists’ in the first place)... Yes...

Who should decide where the balance lies? You are implying that it should be the 'ologists'.

Do you think that Dubya's environmental policies will leave him a legacy similar to Teddy's, as some people suggest in the article? How much exploration do you think will happen in the Mariana's Trench?

Dubya's administration came right out and admitted in the article that they were looking for something that would feel good but cause no political blowback. At least they were honest.
 
Who should decide where the balance lies? You are implying that it should be the 'ologists'

Did I imply??? I thought it's only the 'ologists' job to recommend from their findings of countless hours in the field and from real world experiences and for their bosses to send this information up the chain of command...

How much exploration do you think will happen in the Mariana's Trench

??? What ???

Now your starting to sound like guner and Buzz, picking only those "PARTS" of a post you want, adding words to my posts and jumping to conclusions never stated by me...

You may want to find a game that isn’t so simplistic, too many holes can be punched in it, and it’s too easy to be made a fool of (just a word to the wise ;))...

Propaganda is easy to manipulate into any thing we so desire others to see or believe... ;)

Come on now Oak, I was starting to assume (maybe misconceptions on my part, my bad...:)) that you were starting to become a better informed, well rounded, scientist/ologist...

But I'm forgetting myself... :eek:

We're only supposed to be paying for your services, not actually getting any thing but one sided, biased opinion based on emotions and feelings... tsk... tsk... :)

Shame on me for my silly assumptions... :D
 
My point about the Mariana's Trench is that Bush is making a big deal about "preserving" something that is in no danger of development. Sorry to assume that you actually read the article you posted.
 
Hey Cheese,

You need to learn how to comprehend what people write...the written English language is not one of your strong-points.

Whenever you think someone challenges your warped thought processes you immediately start with the "You're (your) one sided, biased, emotions, feeling" crap.

It gets old...you dont hold a candle to the combined experience, knowledge, information, networking, education, etc. of myself, Oak and Pointer. Yet, you dont let your lack of knowledge or experience get in the way of your rants...never have.

I suggest you open your ears, drop the attitude and quit trying to sound like you have even the foggiest fu*&ing clue about most of whats being discussed here.

For example on this thread:

Oak was not trying to slam you. He was pointing out some things that he felt you may have overlooked in your article.

You make it sound like Bush is doing such a great thing by "conserving" these marine areas. Oak pointed out the fact, that areas like the mariana's trench, by default...really dont need any "protecting" via Bush's legacy. How much development do you really think will happen in an area that is 36,000 feet below the ocean surface?

Thats about like protecting the area between the earths outer atmosphere to Pluto as a critical flyway for migratory waterfowl. Its just not in need of protecting, its remoteness pretty well precludes it from development.

Two things about these latest "conservation efforts" by Bush:

1. If there was any chance that the areas in question held readily available natural resources, there is no way they would be protected.

2. Bush knows these areas are absolutely worthless from a resource extraction standpoint.

Finally, if you actually believe that 'ologists' and science are considered on most of these issues...it really does prove how little you know of the process.

If you want people to believe that Bush really isnt a monster when it comes to developing/pillaging public lands show us the article where he protected something of value...roan plateau, powder river basin, Green River basin, etc. etc. etc.

Also, how do you feel about the monuments that Clinton protected as his legacy?

BTW, I dont expect an honest answer of you...nobody has ever gotten one yet.

Finally, one last thing...really look at and try to understand something about the "pristine" pictures you just posted. Notice anything?

I sure do.
 
(Article) But some of the possible reserves are already attracting opposition from local leaders and industry groups and from some members of Congress

Oak, must be some thing there, looks like 'some' industries are going to be affected, but I suppose it doesn't matter as long as more places are taken away from the use and utilization of evil industry and I’m betting it isn’t the “Mariana's Trench”, that location just happens to be inside the pencil markings on the map...

I was wondering when ol' Buzz would show up to help protect his guys... :)

Yet again Buzz...


(Buzz) I dont expect an honest answer of you...nobody has ever gotten one yet

You need to go thru the threads and look how many I've posted that aren't answered... Silly... Silly... :D

(ELKCHSR) Do I answer some of the questions posed to me...

Nope... Those questions aren’t for furthering knowledge or ideas, only as bait meant to discredit or change a subject...

As per usual, you go thru what I've posted and put your own spin to it, nice job I might add, but still easy to pick apart in the end...

(Buzz) Whenever you think someone challenges your warped thought processes you immediately start with the "You're (your) one sided, biased, emotions, feeling" crap

LMAO... I didn't realize I was being challenged :eek: :D

(ELKCHSR)We're only supposed to be paying for your services, not actually getting any thing but one sided, biased opinion based on emotions and feelings... tsk... tsk... :)

Proof is the last two posts...

Just full of self centered opinions and emotions...

Truth seems to set you off some thing fierce there Buzz, you may need to get a little help with that... :)

(Buzz) It gets old...you dont hold a candle to the combined experience, knowledge, information, networking, education, etc. of myself, Oak and Pointer. Yet, you dont let your lack of knowledge or experience get in the way of your rants...never have

If it gets that old, then maybe you should either put me on ignore or just bypass what I post... Easy enough... And it certainly would save you from a huge amount of heart burn you seem to continually suffer from...

It’s only you who seems to read "rant" into what I post because that’s all you could possibly see when with rage and anger in your heart... :p

(Buzz) I suggest you open your ears, drop the attitude and quit trying to sound like you have even the foggiest fu*&ing clue about most of whats being discussed here.

Attitude???

I don't see any attitude sitting here at "This" computer, only on your end. It does seem to tick you off when any one else shows you some thing different than what you pre-conceive as a set in stone truth or goes against the grain of your “cliquish circle” (and it isn’t just me that sees it)... ;)

(Buzz) Oak was not trying to slam you. He was pointing out some things that he felt you may have overlooked in your article

Now this has to be one of your funniest posts to date... :D

You will have to show me and every one else on this board where the bunch of you haven't put your whole being and soul into slamming almost every thing I say and/or do (except for the very earliest days)...

You’re not fooling any one except for yourself, but keep up the farce; it’s definitely your M.O. that is one certainty we can all count on... :)

(Buzz) Finally, if you actually believe that 'ologists' and science are considered on most of these issues...it really does prove how little you know of the process

LOL... and again, you only read what you want out of the thousands and thousands of posts I've submitted, this last quote from you proves above and beyond that after all these years, you still don't get me, and I think that’s what scares you the most... :)
 
Hmmm...

And thats supposed to hurt??? :)

Great statement though, it seems that at the end of all these long winded "dead end posts" this about sums up the total of what you guys have left...

All well, another thread trashed, time to move onward again... :D
 
Cheese,

Why is that Oak, Pointer, Miller, Myself...all people who are involved with natural resource management...are always on the same page in regard to these issues and you're the one that is not only on a different page, but not even in the same library?

Think about it Cheese, all the people with the most experience, insight, and education on these issues disagree with about 99% of what you rant about.

It must be a conspiracy against the Cheese...yeah thats it.

You're the common denominator...yet everyone else is always wrong.

I think oak is right...what an idiot.
 
(ELKCHSR)We're only supposed to be paying for your services, not actually getting any thing but one sided, biased opinion based on emotions and feelings... tsk... tsk...
 
Yeah Cheese...its only JC, Miller, Oak, Pointer, and myself that are all "one sided, biased opinion based on emotions and feelings".

Like I said, its all a big conspiracy against the Cheese...

Oh, and thanks for ignoring all the simple questions and avoiding the obvious in the article you posted.

Explains why you have a tough time with these discussions and issues.
 
A blue legacy, I see the attraction of the idea. We have a lot of off shore oil rigs here too, not just on shore. Doing something about oil dependence is important.
 
Here's more of that legacy.

Bush prepares parting shots

By Mark Jaffe
The Denver Post
Article Last Updated: 06/15/2008


The Bush administration is pressing in its waning months in office to implement a spate of rule and policy changes that could reshape the face of the West.

The changes at the federal Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Forest Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would open tracts to development while removing protections for land and species.

"The Bush administration is trying to set the rules of the game in stone," said Sharon Bucci, public-lands director for the Washington, D.C.-based Natural Resources Defense Council.

"They are trying to put their stamp and their management on public lands," Bucci said.

Bush administration officials say that many of the initiatives have taken years to develop and have been scrutinized by the public.

"The only thing the BLM is guilty of here is being late," said Celia Boddington, an agency spokeswoman. "Many of these changes were updates that are long overdue."

The most visible of the Bush administration moves in Colorado was the BLM's decision last week to open 52,000 acres of the Roan Plateau to oil and gas leasing. The lease sale is scheduled for August.
Among other actions are:

• The issuance of a new BLM handbook on implementing the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA, which exempts some drilling, logging and mining activities from environmental review.

• A commitment by the BLM's Utah office to issue six resource-management plans this summer that will set the stage to offer almost 9 million acres for oil and gas leases.

• Revisions of the BLM's manual on threatened and endangered species that would remove state-designated species from protection on BLM land. Among the species losing protection in Colorado would be the kit fox and boreal toad.

• New National Forest Management Act regulations, filed April 21, that would remove protecting species on national forest land as a management goal and loosen controls on logging.

• A commitment by the BLM to issue proposed oil-shale- leasing rules this summer — even though Congress has prohibited the bureau's spending money on issuing final rules.

• An effort by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to issue by December its final rule on whether to protect the greater sage grouse — even though in a court settlement the agency had agreed to issue it in 2009.

• The granting by the BLM of "categorical exemptions" created under the 2005 Energy Policy Act to spare drilling operations from environmental reviews in areas where drilling has already taken place.

In each of the cases, a succeeding presidential administration could reverse policies and rules — though it might take time.

"Virtually nothing is undoable," said Trent Orr, an attorney with Earthjustice, an advocacy law firm that has sued to block the Forest Service management rules.

"But the more that the Bush administration does, the longer it will take to undo," Orr said.

Not a new strategy

Departing administrations often take last-minute actions. President Clinton, for example, issued an executive order banning new roads on 60 million acres of public lands.

The Clinton administration also issued its own national forest management rules — adding protections for species. They were never enacted by the Bush administration.

Still, expressing his concern about last-minute rules and changes, Colorado Democratic Sen. Ken Salazar said, "We should not let political timelines overrun sensible and sound policy."

In a May memo, Josh Bolten, Bush's chief of staff, told federal agencies to refrain from issuing any new regulations after June 1.

Some of the Western initiatives, however, predate the memo or are policies, not rules.

"The NEPA handbook is not a federal regulation. It doesn't have to have a public review," said BLM spokesman Matt Spangler, "though we are inviting the public to comment."

The handbook was issued April 24 before the public could comment.
The manual for handling threatened and endangered species is a policy document that has not been released to the public.

A draft copy obtained by the Denver-based Center for Native Ecosystems shows there are about 33 species designated as sensitive by the Colorado Division of Wildlife that would lose protection on BLM lands.

Among those species are the river otter, the Western burrowing owl and the yellow mud turtle.

Another major decision that is likely to be made before Bush leaves office is whether the greater sage grouse should be listed as an endangered species.

A decision by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to list the bird — whose range stretches 258,000 square miles from Idaho through Montana, Utah, New Mexico, Colorado to Wyoming — could have far-reaching impacts.

"Every land use in the West will be on the table," said Todd Tucci, a lawyer with Advocates of the West, one of the groups that sued the service to reconsider placing the bird on the endangered-species list.

Under a court-approved agreement, a final determination would be made by a new and possibly more sympathetic administration in May 2009.
The Fish and Wildlife Service intends to issue its decision in December anyway.

"The service decided to move it up to comply with the Endangered Species Act," said Diane Katzenberger, an agency spokeswoman. "We still go back to the judge with updates. So a final decision could still be set by the court."

Another court fight between the Bush administration and environmental groups appears to be set over Forest Service management rules.
The service first issued the rules — which took steps to broaden and ease the areas where logging could be done — in 2005.

Among the management goals in the previous rules, adopted in 1982, was to preserve viable animal populations on forest land and to monitor key species.

"That language is completely gone from these rules," said Orr, of Earthjustice.

Headed back to court?

A coalition of environmental groups sued to block the rules, and in 2007 a federal court ruled that the Forest Service had failed to conduct a biological assessment or to consult with federal wildlife and fisheries agencies.

In April, the Forest Service filed the same rules, with a few modifications, and a finding that the rules had "no effect" on ecosystems.

"We are just going to end up back in court on this. I don't think the administration will get them implemented before they leave," Orr said.
Joe Walsh, a spokesman for the Forest Service, said the agency does not comment on litigation.

The issue the administration is pressing most is energy development.

"The Bush administration has pursued a single-minded policy of energy development," said Nada Culver, senior counsel for the Wilderness Society's BLM Action Center.

The BLM — which is blocked by a congressional moratorium from using money to issue final oil-shale-leasing rules — will try to put out draft rules this summer, according to C. Stephen Allred, assistant secretary for land and minerals management in the Department of the Interior.

Much of the opposition to the shale-oil rules stems from criticism that the agency's environmental impact statement on the effect of shale development was too general.

The Environmental Protection Agency in its comments said the report did "not contain sufficient information to fully assess environmental impacts."

Nevertheless, at a May 15 Senate hearing — when Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter testified in support of the moratorium — Allred told senators the BLM would issue proposed rules and urged the ban on final rules be lifted.

"Absent the certainty that final regulations would bring, the commercial oil-shale industry may not be willing to invest," Allred testified, ". . . and this vast domestic resource will remain untapped at a time when our nation is searching for ways to further its energy security."

In July and August, the BLM will issue six resource management plans for 11 million acres of eastern Utah — opening almost 9 million acres to energy development.

"It's not typical to have six in one state at one time," said Don Ogaard, lead planer for BLM in Utah. "But there has already been public comment on all these plans."

Ogaard said that each plan is open for a 30-day "protest period." The agency is aiming to issue final decisions on all six plans in October.
In the meantime, BLM is issuing a growing number of categorical exclusions, or CXs, for drilling wells.

The special drilling exclusions, which enable a company to avoid doing an environmental assessment, were created under the 2005 Energy Policy Act.

An exclusion can be granted to a drilling operation that disturbs less than 5 acres, is on a site were drilling has occurred in the past five years, or is a field that has had an environmental impact study in the past five years.

From August 2005 to September 2007, a total of 1,632 exclusions were issued in Colorado, Wyoming, Montana, New Mexico and Utah, according to the Wilderness Society.

"The sense is that the granting of CXs is accelerating," Culver said. The Moab and Price, Utah, field offices, for example, issued 70 CXs in the Wilderness Society study.

Since April, the Price office has issued more than 20, according to the Utah environmental notification bulletin board.

"Part of what is going here is that the price of oil and gas is driving exploration. There is more drilling — there are more wells and as a result more CXs," said BLM's Boddington.

Mark Jaffe: 303-954-1912 or [email protected]
 
GOHUNT Insider

Forum statistics

Threads
111,055
Messages
1,945,173
Members
34,992
Latest member
bgeary
Back
Top