landusepbb
09-20-2004, 02:39 PM
This is a prime example of left wing liberal bias in the media. The Denver Post claims the comment period on the Roadless was extended until November to deflect backlash on the President, but in reality it was because there wasn't enough time for people to comment. Many people concerned with the Roadless also were concerned with the OHV Rule, and both of them initially were due at the same time. This, I believe, is the true reason behind the extension. :mad3:
Article Published: Sunday, September 19, 2004
editorial
Cynical move on roadless rule
The Bush administration has placed an unpopular rollback of national forest roadless rules on hold - but only until after the election. No matter what face the U.S. Forest Service puts on the maneuver, the timetable amounts to a cynical attempt to defuse a widespread controversy until after the polls are closed. Voters shouldn't be fooled.
Late in his second term, President Clinton approved a plan to prevent new roads from being built into 58 million acres of pristine national forests, mostly in the West. But this past July, President Bush's advisers announced new rules that would toss out the Clinton-era roadless area protections and hand crucial decisions about federal land management to state governors.
The maneuver simply calls attention to President Bush's overall record on environmental issues. During other conservation controversies, the Bush administration has plowed ahead with environmental rollbacks no matter how strongly public opinion and scientific evidence opposed the new policies. But this time, the Bush team says implementation of the new forest roadless rules has been postponed to give the public more time to comment. Oh, sure.
The roadless rollbacks ignited enormous controversy - and the political ramifications are impressive. Of the 58 million acres, about 4.4 million are in Colorado, 2.2 million acres each in Oregon and Washington state, and 1.6 million acres in New Mexico. All are considered swing states in the Nov. 2 election.
It's true that the Clinton-era rules were hastily drawn and thus flawed, but the errors could have been fixed without discarding the entire policy. While the Bush plan isn't the monstrosity that environmentalists say it is, it falls far short of any meaningful solution to a national problem that has particular consequences in the West.
States should have input into how federal lands inside their borders are managed, but it makes no sense to hand decision-making powers to the governors. State governments don't have the money or expertise to adequately analyze which areas of the national forests should stay off-limits to road building, or which could be opened without inflicting environmental damage. Indeed, the Bush plan may violate a long-standing legal principle that the federal government can't duck its proper responsibilities.
Given the sway timber and mineral companies have with some Western politicians, the administration's proposed process clearly seeks to favor industry over land protection. Pushing forward with the rules would have underscored how much the intensive development industries influence federal land management in the Bush administration.
The Clinton roadless rules should get a good going over, but they set a fair framework. If the current plan was fair, the Forest Service wouldn't have to hide behind the election calendar.
http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~417~2406895,00.html
Article Published: Sunday, September 19, 2004
editorial
Cynical move on roadless rule
The Bush administration has placed an unpopular rollback of national forest roadless rules on hold - but only until after the election. No matter what face the U.S. Forest Service puts on the maneuver, the timetable amounts to a cynical attempt to defuse a widespread controversy until after the polls are closed. Voters shouldn't be fooled.
Late in his second term, President Clinton approved a plan to prevent new roads from being built into 58 million acres of pristine national forests, mostly in the West. But this past July, President Bush's advisers announced new rules that would toss out the Clinton-era roadless area protections and hand crucial decisions about federal land management to state governors.
The maneuver simply calls attention to President Bush's overall record on environmental issues. During other conservation controversies, the Bush administration has plowed ahead with environmental rollbacks no matter how strongly public opinion and scientific evidence opposed the new policies. But this time, the Bush team says implementation of the new forest roadless rules has been postponed to give the public more time to comment. Oh, sure.
The roadless rollbacks ignited enormous controversy - and the political ramifications are impressive. Of the 58 million acres, about 4.4 million are in Colorado, 2.2 million acres each in Oregon and Washington state, and 1.6 million acres in New Mexico. All are considered swing states in the Nov. 2 election.
It's true that the Clinton-era rules were hastily drawn and thus flawed, but the errors could have been fixed without discarding the entire policy. While the Bush plan isn't the monstrosity that environmentalists say it is, it falls far short of any meaningful solution to a national problem that has particular consequences in the West.
States should have input into how federal lands inside their borders are managed, but it makes no sense to hand decision-making powers to the governors. State governments don't have the money or expertise to adequately analyze which areas of the national forests should stay off-limits to road building, or which could be opened without inflicting environmental damage. Indeed, the Bush plan may violate a long-standing legal principle that the federal government can't duck its proper responsibilities.
Given the sway timber and mineral companies have with some Western politicians, the administration's proposed process clearly seeks to favor industry over land protection. Pushing forward with the rules would have underscored how much the intensive development industries influence federal land management in the Bush administration.
The Clinton roadless rules should get a good going over, but they set a fair framework. If the current plan was fair, the Forest Service wouldn't have to hide behind the election calendar.
http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~417~2406895,00.html