Posted on 02/17/2005 3:41:27 PM PST by NormsRevenge
WASHINGTON - Environmentalists sued the Bush administration on Thursday over new rules for managing the 192 million acres of national forests.
The rules issued in December give managers of the 155 national forests more discretion to approve logging and other commercial projects without lengthy environmental reviews.
The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in San Francisco, claims the rules water down protection of wildlife and the environment "to the point where they are virtually meaningless."
The suit filed by San Francisco-based Earthjustice on behalf of a coalition of conservation groups said the rules fail to include important environmental protection measures mandated by Congress under a 1976 law, the National Forest Management Act.
The suit contends the rules reverse more than 20 years of protection for wildlife and other resources without any scientific basis for doing so and removes requirements to use measurable standards to protect wildlife.
"The new Bush forest rules aren't rules at all — they're more like suggestions. They turn forest management to mush, mocking the intent of Congress and undermining public participation in the process," said Trent Orr, a lawyer with Earthjustice.
Forest Service officials declined comment Thursday.
But, in announcing the long-awaited rules, they said the changes allow forest managers to respond more quickly to changing conditions, such as wildfires, and emerging threats such as invasive species.
The rules were last updated in the 1970s. Officials long have complained that the analyses required under the law take up to seven years to complete. Under the new rules, forest plan revisions could be completed within two years to three years, officials said.
The new plan gives regional forest managers more discretion to approve logging, drilling and mining operations without having to conduct formal scientific investigations, known as environmental impact statements.
That approach could cut costs by as much as 30 percent, said Sally Collins, associate Forest Service chief. She also noted the new rules require independent audits of all forest plans.
"We really have a process that takes way too long, that really isn't as responsive ... as it should be," Collins said.
But environmentalists say the plan eliminates analyses required under the National Environment Policy Act, scraps wildlife protections established under President Reagan and limits public input into forest management decisions.
"The nation's forests and the people who own them deserve better than this," said Rodger Schlickeisen, president of Defenders of Wildlife, one of the plaintiffs in the suit.
The American Forest Resource Council, a timber industry group, said the new rules are "a lot more responsive" than the previous rules, which they called cumbersome and counterproductive.
___
On the Net:
Forest Service: www.fs.fed.us/
Earthjustice: www.earthjustice.org
No governmental entity will ever satisfy wackos such as these, so you resort to doing what is right and let it stand the test. BUT the courts have been infiltrated by allies of the wackos and now no telling what will happen. I thinking Rome is burning the environmenatlists are suing the firemen for using harmful chemicals - water.
There should be no such thing as national forests.
If a state wants to maintain a forest, great for them. Let them and their taxpayers pay for it.
The federal government seizing state land for 'federal' forests and parks just leads to higher taxes and higher costs of living, since it artificially restricts the amount of land available for building, thus driving up prices.
The process has been abused for years by enviro-weenies to stop all profitable uses of National Forests, whether there was an environmental impact of not. They were so cumbersome, arcane, and subject to manipulation that it was possible to put the keebosh on anything and everything. Now they are losing the enviro-veto over these decisions, and they don't like it one little bit.
There is no scientific basis for protecting wildlife. There is no reason to believe that harvesting timber does anything but improve conditions in the forests, but even if it didn't, there are no empirical data that indicate that any extinction of any species has ever done any harm to this planet.
Abolish the ESA and EPA ~ Now!
Let Freedom Reign!
Environmental Activist.......someone dumber than the tree they want to save.
Judge ... looking at envirowacko attorney over his glasses ...
"First you want water and now you have water but you think it's bad.
Counselor, you need help."
OK ... it's a very bad attempt at humor.
What I really want to tell the wacko's is ...
Rules are not law and they are made to be broken.
This is the aftermath of the Show Low/Chediski Fire, courtesy of America's environmental movemint.
This is some adjacent Apache land, where they graze and log.
These wackos have nothing better to do. Oh man!
I dated a girl named Sue Bush some time ago.
There is no reason to believe that harvesting timber does anything but improve conditions in the forests, but even if it didn't, there are no empirical data that indicate that any extinction of any species has ever done any harm to this planet.
Well improving or degrading habitat is a subjective issue. What's good for one species may not be good for another. Any management technique (which is essentially landscape modification)will inherently help some species while harming others. While the extirpation of species may not harm the planet is there anything wrong with preserving species for the sake of preserving species? At least to me, natural areas and wildlife, have value in and of themselves. I find it rather humorous that those who criticize the HFI are the same one who trumpet use of renewable resources. Let's face it we can't have it both ways. I've worked closely with the Forest Service and let me tell you HFI is a breath of fresh air. Previously you couldn't enact a management plan without several EISs and tons of paperwork, a bureaucratic nightmare.
The suit claims that the President's actions were without scientific basis, but it is their suit that is lacking in scientific underpinnings. None of us here seek the extirpation of any species, but if it is going to happen it won't be due to our actions nearly so much as our inaction.
The forests need constant care to remain healthy. Left to the random fickle finger of fate, decay and eventually death is the proven result. Conservation wins over pagan environmentalism every time.
I wouldn't go as far as to say that forests need constant care to maintain health, of course that depends on your definition of what health is. If your idea of a healthy forest is a productive stable ecosystem you are correct. However, ecosystems are dynamic. Natural succession and responses to environmental changes (human or natural) are innate. The key is to preserve natural ecological function and let nature take its course. For example maintain natural hydrological function does wonders in control invasive exotic species. I think too much time is spent on maintaining an appearance, rather than fixing the underlying problems.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.