Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Judge reinstates ban on forest roads
AP ^ | 9/20/6 | TERENCE CHEA

Posted on 09/20/2006 11:04:48 AM PDT by SmithL

SAN FRANCISCO - A federal judge Wednesday reinstated a Clinton administration ban on the building of roads in untouched section.

U.S. District Judge Elizabeth Laporte sided with states and environmentalists who sued to protect forest land.

The Clinton administration prohibited logging, mining and other development on 58.5 million acres of forest land in 38 states and Puerto Rico. In 2005, the Bush administration replaced the rule with a voluntary state-by-state petition process.

The judge overturned the new regulations.


TOPICS: Extended News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: activistjudge
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-34 next last
Stroke of the pen, . . .
1 posted on 09/20/2006 11:04:50 AM PDT by SmithL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SmithL

2 posted on 09/20/2006 11:06:14 AM PDT by Recovering_Democrat (I am SO glad to no longer be associated with the party of "dependence on government"!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

Slap this bitch in jail


3 posted on 09/20/2006 11:06:44 AM PDT by pissant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
Good place for foreign armies to execute drlls..

Not such a far out thought, you know.

4 posted on 09/20/2006 11:08:35 AM PDT by Mad Dash
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

Bush needs to issue an EO


5 posted on 09/20/2006 11:09:04 AM PDT by hattend (Anytime you see a union building, think of it as a branch office of the Democratic Party. - Rush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

Judge shopping again, huh?


6 posted on 09/20/2006 11:09:30 AM PDT by CindyDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
The judge overturned the new regulations.

Because the judge thought Clinton was still president???? What a BS ruling.

7 posted on 09/20/2006 11:09:48 AM PDT by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

Judge reinstates ban on forest fire prevention.

There, fixed it.

8 posted on 09/20/2006 11:10:03 AM PDT by xcamel (Press to Test, Release to Detonate)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

yale law school clintonista


9 posted on 09/20/2006 11:10:53 AM PDT by JohnLongIsland
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

Not to throw cold water on such a prime opportunity to slam yet another megalomaniac Clinton-appointed judge, but won't this decision only apply in the Peopl's Respublik of California? Or even more tightly, the district suffering under this woman's jurisdiction?

I see yet another Ninth Circus reversal in our future.


10 posted on 09/20/2006 11:11:43 AM PDT by BelegStrongbow (www.stjosephssanford.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

She's a lib. Stopped U.S. Navy from using sonar that might hurt marine life.

http://www.law.com/regionals/ca/judges/usdistrict/laporte.htm


11 posted on 09/20/2006 11:12:21 AM PDT by rightinthemiddle (Without the Media, the Left and Islamofacists are Nothing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

ABC Radio is crowing about this...returning to the good ol' days of Slick Willie.


12 posted on 09/20/2006 11:13:28 AM PDT by rightinthemiddle (Without the Media, the Left and Islamofacists are Nothing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

Now their forests can burn freely without any intervention from those pesky firefighters.


13 posted on 09/20/2006 11:13:53 AM PDT by Ron in Acreage (VOTE DEMOCRAT--TERRORISTS ARE COUNTING ON IT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

Is it the law now that an aproved president's EOs are not revocable? Actually I am waiting for the 9th to declare unconstitutional an article of the Constitution. There is precedent, of sorts, for that. The Colorado court did that for a duly enacted provision of the State Constitution.


14 posted on 09/20/2006 11:14:20 AM PDT by ThanhPhero (di hanh huong den La Vang)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

....now we can watch them burn to the ground because fire crews won't have access.
What a moron.


15 posted on 09/20/2006 11:18:00 AM PDT by taxed2death (A few billion here, a few trillion there...we're all friends right?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ron in Acreage
Now their forests can burn freely without any intervention from those pesky firefighters.

And the Mexican Drug Cartels can grow their drugs without interference, causing more destruction to the environment than an access road so they can be caught, ever could.

http://towncriernews.blogspot.com/2006/09/mexican-border-has-moved-800-miles.html

16 posted on 09/20/2006 11:18:43 AM PDT by WatchingInAmazement ("Nothing is more expensive than cheap labor," prof. Vernon Briggs, labor economist Cornell Un.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

Federal Judge Agrees: LFA May Pose
"Irreparable Harm" to Marine Life

On August 26, 2003, United States Magistrate Judge for the Northern District of California, Elizabeth D. Laporte, imposed a "tailored" injunction on the Navy, preventing unfettered deployment of its Low Frequency Active sonar (LFA).

"The Marine Mammal Protection Act, for example, reflects the public's profound interest in safeguarding whales, dolphins and other magnificent mammals that still live in the ocean. Unfortunately, the populations of many of these creatures, once abundant, have shrunk and some are on the verge of extinction."

-U.S. Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte


Although the Judge was unwilling to ban the Navy from using LFA under any circumstances, especially in these days of heightened terrorism alert, she does make it quite clear that a drastic curtailment of the Navy's plans was vital to the protection of all ocean life. She concludes, "It is undisputed that marine mammals, many of whom depend on sensitive hearing for essential activities like finding food and mates and avoiding predators, and some of whom are endangered species, will at a minimum be harassed by the extremely loud and far traveling LFA sonar.... Further, endangered species including whales, listed salmon and sea turtles, will be in LFA sonar's path. There is little margin of error without threatening their survival."

Her detailed 73-page decision weighs the harms to the marine environment and its inhabitants of full deployment and to the United States Navy of banning deployment, and concludes that a permanent injunction could be "carefully tailored to reduce the risk to marine mammals and endangered species by restricting the sonar's use in areas that are particularly rich in marine life, while still allowing the Navy to use this technology for testing and training in a variety of oceanic conditions." Representatives for the environmental plaintiffs and Naval defendants have been ordered to meet on October 7 to iron out the details of the injunction.

Judge Laporte's decision notes that the buffer zones around biologically-rich coastal areas, in which LFA deployment would be prohibited, must be extended beyond the current limit of 12 miles. Additionally, the Navy will be prevented from deploying the sonar when marine mammals and endangered sea creatures such as turtles are known to migrate, breed, or feed, during certain times or in certain areas.

The Judge's decision came after years of rulings by the National Marine Fisheries Service in support of authorizing the Navy's LFA deployment and subsequent legal challenges by environmental and animal protection organizations.

The plaintiffs argued that the clear intent of the Marine Mammal Protection Act is to avoid any harm to marine mammals. LFA use could damage a high percentage of certain populations of threatened or endangered species such as the gray whale. Further, LFA use could harm other imperiled sea creatures such as sea turtles, cause anxiety and panic among unaware recreational human divers, and contribute to the further drastic reductions of some fish stocks.


17 posted on 09/20/2006 11:18:45 AM PDT by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xcamel
Exactly - how soon they choose to forget the large number of huge fires that occurred late in the Clinton years as a result of the inability to legally clear out dead/fallen trees, underbrush, etc
18 posted on 09/20/2006 11:18:57 AM PDT by VRWCTexan (History has a long memory - but still repeats itself)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Cicero

I'm trying to picture "anxiety and panic" among the sea turtle population.


19 posted on 09/20/2006 11:19:59 AM PDT by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

The "roadless" forests in our area had roads. When we were asked to comment on the rushed Clinton proposal, they couldn't even tell us where the "roadless" areas were going to be - yet we were supposed to comment under NEPA.

The Forest Service fighting the Titus, Hancock, Rush and Uncles Fires in my area have had to reopen roads they had decommissioned in order to fight the blazes.


20 posted on 09/20/2006 11:21:19 AM PDT by marsh2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-34 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson