[at-l] Bush opens forest roads

[jbryankramer at msn.com (J Bryan Kramer)]

So you refuse to answer the points I brought up, you prefer that the forests
go up in smoke.

Bryan

 Lex et Libertas -- Semper Vigilo, Paratus, et Fidelis!

> -----Original Message-----
> From: at-l-bounces@backcountry.net
> [mailto:at-l-bounces@backcountry.net]On Behalf Of RoksnRoots@aol.com
> Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2004 15:21
> To: AT-L@Backcountry.net
> Subject: Re: [at-l] Bush opens forest roads
>
>
> In a message dated 7/14/04 4:50:24 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
> Bror8588@aol.com
> writes:
>
> << The building of the roads is an issue that can be
>  seen from a positive stance in that roads can provide access to hikers,
>  birders, etc., who wish to go into places that up to now have been
> inaccessible.  The
>  roads proposed may provide access to fire fighting equipment in
> the event of
>  forest fires.  The whole picture is larger than what was stated in the
>  original announcement on this site. >>
>
>
>              ***   Wise people would see that the Clinton
> protections were in
> response to years-long exploitation and admitted overcutting.
>
>           Bror's response above makes me laugh because it is such
> a direct
> product of the doublespeak so popular with today's anti-environmental
> administration and its actions. To say new roads will give hiking
> access is like saying
> new condos will allow people to live closer to the Trail. I hope
> the politics
> from which this came and their sensitivity, or lack of, for primary Trail
> concerns are obvious.
>
>           The Times did an article on how this would impact the last
> remaining stands of old growth in Tongas. That is what should be
> looked at, not
> rhetoric.
>
>          Like the "forest thinning" program the best indicator
> for this new
> policy is that it provides no defined limit to the road building.
> This policy
> would literally allow all old growth and remaining stands to be roaded
> according to its wording. It pretends to be addressing state
> needs by leaving it up to
> individual governors, but ignores the fact that Oregon's governor
> is against
> it. Personally, I'd like to see how many conservation-concerned
> programs are
> left up to locals in federal forests.
>
>         I think some people are fooling themselves that this isn't just
> another one of Bush's outrageous, pro-industry acts at the
> expense of mainstay
> environmental protections. Since when has the log-exporting
> timber industry ever
> acted on behalf of the locals?
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> at-l mailing list
> at-l@backcountry.net
> http://mailman.hack.net/mailman/listinfo/at-l
>