[at-l] Bush opens forest roads

[jbullar1 at twcny.rr.com (Jim Bullard)]

At 05:51 PM 7/14/2004 -0400, Bror8588@aol.com wrote:
>For
>those who do not read the whole package presented distortion can blur the 
>reality.

For those who are interested the following is "the whole package"
>SUMMARY:  The Department of Agriculture, Forest Service is proposing 
>changes to Subpart B of Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, Protection 
>of Inventoried Roadless Areas (the roadless rule), adopted on January 12, 
>2001 (66 FR 3244).  This proposed rule would replace the existing rule 
>with a petitioning process that would provide Governors an opportunity to 
>seek establishment of management requirements for National Forest System 
>inventoried roadless areas within their States.  This opportunity for 
>State petitions would be available for 18 months following the effective 
>date of the final rule.  It is anticipated that this timeframe will be 
>sufficient for States to collaborate effectively with local governments, 
>stakeholders and other interested parties to develop proposals that 
>consider a full range of public input.  A State petition would be 
>evaluated and, if accepted by the Secretary of Agriculture, the Forest 
>Service would initiate subsequent State-specific rulemaking for the 
>management of inventoried roadless areas in cooperation with the State 
>involved in the petitioning process, and in consultation with stakeholders 
>and experts.


>  The Bush Administration is not building the roads.  They are not advocating
>roads.  They do not plan to have roads.  But, they are allowing the state
>Governments to have input into the decisions made regarding the states 
>property.

 From the article Coosa posted a link to in the Atlanta Constitution:
>The Bush administration's new rule would leave the issue to governors, who 
>would have to petition the federal government to block road building 
>needed for logging or mining in the roadless areas in national forestlands 
>in their states.
(emphasis added by me)
Similarly the Idaho Mountain Express says:
>The new proposal would allow governors to petition the U.S. Forest Service 
>to establish road-free rules within their borders.
"Petition... to block" and "Establish road-free rules with their borders" 
suggests that the are no more roadless areas on Federal lands unless the 
governor of a state petitions to have them. Indeed the Seattle Times notes:
>Mike Anderson, an analyst with The Wilderness Society in Seattle, said 
>nothing in the Bush plan requires the Forest Service to heed any 
>governor's request.
>
>"If you look closely at the wording, there's nothing in the rule that 
>prevents the Forest Service from saying, 'Thanks for your input, but we're 
>going to log it anyway,' " he said.

It's a safe bet that the governors who protested the road-less rule are 
unlikely to request it's reinstatement. Also contrary to your post, this is 
not about "the states' property". The road-less rule applied to Federal 
lands. It is interesting that most arguments for 'state's rights' come from 
the western states that joined the union after the federal system of 
government was established. Sort of like protesting the noise of the 
airport you just built your house next to. It is also ironic that 
Jefferson, who was one of the leading advocates of state's rights in the 
Constitutional Convention and who favored a weak executive, behaved exactly 
the opposite when he was president. But the battle goes ever on. Whatever 
serves your own self interest I guess.