Administration Proposes More Leeway for Logging By John Heilprin Associated Press Writer Wednesday, November 27, 2002; 11:41 AM The Bush administration is proposing to give managers of the nation's 155 national forests greater leeway to approve logging and commercial activities with less examination of potential environmental damages. The administration said Wednesday its intent was to improve the forest management regulations issued by the Clinton administration two months before President Bush took office. The new land management rules would affect some 190 million acres of forests and grasslands overseen by the U.S. Forest Service. The changes are "designed to ... better harmonize the environmental, social and economic benefits of America's greatest natural resource - our forests and grasslands," said Sally Collins, the Forest Service's associated chief. The administration said the Clinton rules were too complicated and "neither straightforward nor easy to implement." Both the 2000 rule and the proposed revision provide for multiple uses of federal forestland, but the new proposal would turn more of the decision-making over to regional foresters. Environmentalists have complained that regional foresters often develop close ties with local timbering interests. The Bush administration proposal also would eliminate specific standards and procedures for maintaining and monitoring wildlife populations that foresters had to comply with, substituting broad goals in their place. Complying with the Clinton rule's requirements for ecological sustainability and reliance on consistent scientific data "would be difficult, if not impossible, to accomplish," the Bush administration said. It complained that the old regulation for implementing the 1976 National Forest Management Act also required "a level of involvement by scientists that may or may not be needed." Environmental groups complained that the proposal not only eliminates scientific oversight but also increases agency discretion so as to reduce public involvement to the benefit of the timber industry. "It's a blatant effort by the Bush administration to boost logging and help the timber industry, which had a clear hand on the pen of these regulations," said Robert Dewey, vice president of Defenders of Wildlife, an environmental advocacy group. The new proposal would allow local federal forestry officials to develop management plans for the land they supervise without having to first conduct an in-depth environmental impact study. The administration argues that such plans are essentially a zoning document, and that it would be better to do environmental studies on a case-by-basis when possible environmental concerns are anticipated. A regional forester, however, still could decide that a management plan itself has significant environmental impacts, triggering the need for a study. But the official no longer would have to formally assess the environmental impact every time the management plan is revised. Democrats accused the administration of attempting to "undo most of the environmental safeguards that protect our nation's forests." "We are at a loss to understand why ... (the draft rule) goes so far as to eliminate any assurance of protection for fish and wildlife and their habitat," said Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M. He said the plan provides no minimum standard for protecting endangered or threatened species and "no solid protections whatsoever for wildlife and environmental sustainability."
Daschle: Logging for Me but Not for Thee Environment-destroying "environmentalists" have caused ruinous wildfires throughout the West. Senate plurality leader Tom Daschle wants to stop the disaster - but only in his home state. For the rest of America, it's burn, baby, burn, as far as he's concerned. Daschle quietly slipped into a spending bill language exempting South Dakota from environmental regulations and lawsuits, to prevent forest fires by allowing much-needed logging, the Washington Times reported today. Other lawmakers discovered the Democrat's underhanded move, which "angered Western legislators whose states were forced to obey those same rules as they battled catastrophic wildfires," the Times reported. "What's good for the Black Hills should be good for every forest in the United States," said Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho. Daschle admitted that the language to expedite logging was essential to reduce the fire risk. 'Reduce This Risk' "As we have seen in the last several weeks, the fire danger in the Black Hills is high, and we need to get crews on the ground as soon as possible to reduce this risk and protect property and lives," he said in a statement Monday night after a House-Senate conference committee agreed on the language. Self-described "environmentalists" have filed dozens of nuisance lawsuits, some going back to 1985, to block timber projects that would remove underbrush and other wildfire fuel from western South Dakota. More than 50,000 fires have torched 3.7 million acres this summer, says the National Interagency Fire Center. Forest Service officials put much of the blame on "environmentalist" lawsuits that have stopped fire prevention. "Every other project we've tried to do, the environmentalists have filed a lawsuit," said California forest ranger Dale Pengilly. 'Frivolous Challenges' "After hearing all the hand-wringing from environmentalists downplaying the impact of appeals and litigation, it's nice to see that the highest-ranking Democrat in the nation agrees that these frivolous challenges have totally crippled forest managers," said Rep. Scott McInnis, R-Colo. "It will be interesting indeed to find out if what's good for Mr. Daschle's goose is also good for the West's gander. We intend to find out." Follow the Money Daschle, a White House wannabe, failed to say why he did not want the exemption to apply to the rest of America. Could it be because of greed, because his party is heavily funded by the same so-called "green" groups that have caused the fire fiasco? House and Senate Republicans want to extend the exemption to forests in their own states. "He should expect that, and he should support it," Craig said. Rep. J.D. Hayworth, R-Ariz., had these choice words for Daschle: "It certainly can only be described as blatant hypocrisy on behalf of the Senate leader to claim on one hand to be the champion of the environment and then on the other hand to cut a special deal for his home state. "What he is proving today is that true environmentalists are willing to have effective forest management. This is a classic case of somebody saying one thing for political posturing, and doing another for public policy."
Wow! A NewsMax blast from the past -- classic stuff. Here's the link for those who want to check it out in person: http://www.newsmax.com/showinside.shtml?a=2002/7/24/143443
This doesn't change any facts, does it Mrs. JB? Our nation, thanks to forest management, has not lost any forestland since 1920. The lumber companies have replanted all the trees that have been felled and more. (source- www.forestinformation.com ) The fact remains that environmentalists are often misguided in their sincere efforts to improve our lives.
More information- Today, the volume of wood in U.S. forests is about 25 percent greater than it was 40 years ago. Each year, there are 1.5 billion tree seedlings planted in the United States - that's more than five new trees for each American, and nearly 2,000 for every bear. Forest planting in the United States currently averages about 2.4 million acres per year. Nationally, annual forest growth has continually exceeded harvest since the 1940s. By 1992, forest growth exceeded harvest by 34 percent and the volume of timber in the forest was 360 percent greater than it had been in 1920. Conclusions- Lumber companies, to survive, must replant as many trees than they harvest. Too, lumber companies must practice intelligent forest management to protect their investment by preventing natural catastrophies. Environmental groups have hampered efforts by logging companies to properly manage the forests, and forest fires have resulted.
t8675309, Please take about five years of hiking around timber roads in Oregon, and then we can compare notes. a nation of seedlings is pretty sad looking, and swaths of clearcutting are devastating to forest life. Also, if you don't mind, please post references when you post quotes. it's important to most people on this board. thanks!
The classic conservative mistake. They just point to forest acreage and think that it's no big deal. Let me tell you, there is a difference between the forest that we had and the forest the logging companies have created. The responsible thing to do is selective cutting, but because it is cheaper, logging companies continue to clear cut forests. What happens when you cut down an entire forest? You destroy a habitat and cause the deaths of all the wildlife in that forest. Sure, they replant trees, but logging company replanted forests are only good for logging companies. Why do you think they are arranged in perfect rows? Easy access. It's not a real forest. A real forest has rich soil from thousands to millions of years of decomposing trees, leaves, and animals. A logging companie forest, because all the trees are the same age and in perfect rows, is perfect for allowing soil erosion. That's might not bug you now, but in the near future, if that soil erodes too much, you won't have land that can sustain a forest, you'll have a desert.
