[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [pct-l] editorial on logging
I'm new to the pct-l mailing list but I'll jump right in with a
couple of comments regarding Brick's letter in the PCT Communicator.
The comparison that he makes between the administration of the AT
(by the NPS) and the PCT (by the USFS) seems a key reason for the logging
that is occuring along the PCT.
I'm ignorant as to the political discussions that took place when
Congress created the PCT and the AT National Scenic Trails. Does anyone
know if the western congressional delegations (who are generally
pro-extraction) were the motivation for defining administration this way in
On the surface Brick's proposal (establishing a Visual Resource
Management classification along the PCT) sounds reasonable. However, there
are vested interests that would probably mount a strong defense against
this "simple administrative action" as an encroachment on their rights.
The PCTA should adopt Brick's proposal as a minimum response to the
logging along the PCT. I personally favor a stronger approach (similar to
the one that the Sierra Club recently adopted) that would prohibit all
logging on public lands.
Anyway, that's my feedback on Brick's excellent letter on a very
From email@example.com Thu Dec 19 14:40 MST 1996
X-Authentication-Warning: saffron.hack.net: majordom set sender to firstname.lastname@example.org using -f
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1996 01:22:07 +0100
From: John Koch <email@example.com>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC)