Posted on 03/10/2010 12:56:43 PM PST by SmithL
DENVER (AP) -- Lawyers for the state of Wyoming and the Colorado Mining Association say a 2001 federal rule banning construction of new roads on National Forest land violates the law.
The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver heard oral arguments Wednesday in Wyoming's lawsuit challenging the rule.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture — the parent agency of the National Forest Service — and environmental groups argue the rule is legal.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
I like going out in the forest, and in the mountains,,jeeping, fishing, etc. Here’s a fun game for next time you go out there. Stop and think how much we wouldn’t have if the people in the 1930s, ‘40s, and 50s thought like this bunch today.
Think there would be a Golden Gate Bridge? Not on your life. Think there would be a road and a train you could take up Pikes Peak? Think all those Ski Areas would be there? Carlsbad Caverns with a road and paved walking tril with handrails?
Environmentalists are convinced those places only belong to those who have the money, time, and health to backpack out there for 6 weeks at a time. If you are 70 or 80, worked all your life, and want to drive out to the woods, take a few photos, and see some sights, they only have the big finger for you. Damned extremists,,and outrageously selfish.
If you go to some hiker websites, the feeling is widespread that these forests, created to be long-term wood, water and mineral reserves available for mining and forestry, are their “sanctuaries.” They get ticked off if they hear other voices or if campers who don’t live by their rules have campfires, drink alcohol in small groups, or have groups larger than four. They want snowmobiles, ATVs, mountain bikes, foresters all banned from our taxpayer purchased and supported national forests. They have had great political success in converting former industrial areas into “Wilderness.”
I know it’s laughable to walk into a Wilderness and find bridge supports, railroad ties, rusty soup cans, old saws, etc., but they look you right in the eye and say it’s a Wilderness.
I would say, that the National Forests, Monuments, Wilderness Areas, etc, are not in compliance with the Americans With Disabilities Act. For starters, they aren’t wheelchair accessible.
Wyoming and the Colorado Mining Association argue the rule violates the 1964 Wilderness Act, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture did not follow National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA, regulations.
Wyoming attorneys argue the definition of roadless lands is synonymous with wilderness lands. The 1964 Wilderness Act states only Congress can designate wilderness lands.
More than 1 million comments were received, and the comment period lasted 69 days. NEPA requires a minimum of 45 days, but Wyoming Senior Assistant Attorney General James Kaste said comments periods usually last years longer.
Kaste said Wednesday that the USDA shortened the comment period because it was rushing the plan through before the end of the Clinton administration.
In the interim, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack was given sole decision-making authority over proposed forest management or road construction projects in roadless areas.
The premise of the Wilderness Act is that “wilderness”, defined in the original act as, “an area of the earth and its community of life that is untrammeled by the presence of man” existed in the Continental USA.
No such areas existed at the time of the passage of the Wilderness Act of 1964.
The indigenous peoples of what is now the USA has imposed fire management across the country. As should be clear to the meanest of intellects, land subjected to thousands of years of fire management has been “trammeled by the presence of man”
The Endangered Species Act was therefore null and void ab initio. It attempted to protect that which did not exist, and that had not existed for thousands of years.
The nasty commies who created and passed the original Endangered Species Act passed a law which defines “wilderness” as something that had disappeared from the USA many thousands of years ago.
Sounds to me like WY and CO way have a case, sure hope they do.
Sounds to me like WY and CO way have a case, sure hope they do.
One of the things the government does is stop maintaining the roads through forested areas. Without grading, without adding gravel, without clearing the roads of downed trees, the roads quickly disappear.
When someone wants maintenance on the roads, then lawsuits are filed against it. I wish I could remember the number of the law that was being fought by ranchers, loggers, and recreational users of the land...there was a big stink around southern MO about it, probably 5-10 years ago.
One of the things the government does is stop maintaining the roads through forested areas. Without grading, without adding gravel, without clearing the roads of downed trees, the roads quickly disappear.
When someone wants maintenance on the roads, then lawsuits are filed against it. I wish I could remember the number of the law that was being fought by ranchers, loggers, and recreational users of the land...there was a big stink around southern MO about it, probably 5-10 years ago.
A big double post “DUH” to me. :(
I don’t think it’s us, I believe FR is having a probem.
For many years in Eastern OR where I’ve hunted we’d go over two or three days early to set up and check out the areas we hunt. Would clear fallen trees or do other minor things to keep access roads open. Up until 25 or so years ago BLM and FS wouldn’t say anything about it, they then started putting up signs and/or gates to keep people off them.
When I say roads, many were just tracks but they didn’t want anyone in there unless they were on foot.
As I recall, the first roads to go were the logging access roads, and ranchers’ access roads to back pastures.
Nobody paid any attention to the ranchers or loggers, though.
Thank you!
Thanks Seadog. It looks for all the world like some of the States are starting to feel their oats! That’s probably a good thing.
Well, for whatever reasons and FWIW, it’s not uncommon to see dark, unmarked choppers around these parts. Not sure what they’re up to but I have never considered them a threat. Maybe I should reconsider??? ;^)
RE: ‘Well, for whatever reasons and FWIW, it’s not uncommon to see dark, unmarked choppers around these parts.’
Probably just the friendly neighborhood drug runners. Nothing to worry about...(?)
They must be moving a lot of "product". I counted 12 pass almost directly overhead single file a year or so ago. They were flying just above the treetops and I not only heard but actually felt the whop, whop, whop from their blades as they cruised by. Odd that.
Nothing to worry about...(?)
Yeah well, I'm keep my eyes on 'em just the same.
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.