Posted on 01/03/2003 10:20:05 AM PST by farmfriend
Ruling: Private logging must comply with ESA
PORTLAND (AP) -- A Portland judge recently ruled that Oregon's state forester must hold private landowners to tighter logging regulations.
U.S. District Judge Anna J. Brown ruled that the state must ensure that the private logging projects it approves adhere to the federal Endangered Species Act.
The ruling was in response to a February lawsuit five conservation groups brought against State Forester James Brown, who reviews all logging in Oregon to see that it complies with the state Forest Practices Act. The five groups said Brown routinely violated the U.S. Endangered Species Act by approving clear-cut logging in northwest Oregon that leads to landslides and erosion harmful to protected coho salmon.
The decision raises the environmental bar for private-lands logging, now the mainstay of logging in the Northwest and often more closely overseen by the state than the federal government.
Trying to head off a broader ruling on whether such logging is harming salmon, the state, joined by timber industry groups and forested Tillamook County, asked Brown to dismiss the case. They said the lawsuit was misplaced because it's not the state's job to enforce federal law.
But the judge rejected the state's arguments, saying the state forester is liable if he authorizes actions that harm endangered species.
The judge did not rule on whether state-permitted actions are in fact harming species, and state officials strongly deny that they are. But by refusing to dismiss the case, the judge clears the way so she can decide that question.
"The idea that they don't have to show they are complying with the Endangered Species Act has been a pretty prominent piece of their defense, and now the judge has taken that away," said attorney Patti Goldman of Earthjustice, which represents the conservation groups including the Pacific Rivers Council, Audubon Society of Portland and Native Fish Society.
If the judge does determine the state is allowing harm to protected species, the conservation groups want her to order the state forester not to allow logging on steep slopes, along streams and in other sensitive sites. Such a ban could affect thousands of acres of private timberlands in northwest Oregon and echo through other parts of the state with species issues, prompting what landowners may see as onerous new mandates.
"It could create a whole new atmosphere for forest stewardship in Oregon, and not necessarily a good one," said John Poppino, president of the Oregon Small Woodlands Association, which intervened in the lawsuit on behalf of the state.
Assistant State Forester Charlie Stone played down last week's ruling because it did not address the underlying issue of whether state-approved logging harms coho salmon.
"It was a ruling simply that she did not find the state arguments powerful enough to dismiss the case out of hand," he said.
I wonder just how many people know that is in the Constitution?
I've heard this for years, and believed it when I was a little younger and gullible. Unfortunately, the intent of the provision was not meant to apply to the common-place "esquire" title which does not mean nobility to anyone in America. If the FF's had meant what you guys claim, then they would have explicity said that no attorneys could hold office. But that's not what they meant. It was to stop people who were still on the Kings side from holding office.
Sounds more like a Soviet era judge than an American.
Private property is dead.
You guys will have to do a little better to convince anyone that the FF's wrote something preclduing attorneys from holding office.
errrrr??
I Made NO Reference to State Bar Associations nor the word "esquire"! I simply quoted the Constitution!
What IS Your Problem?
You may think I am not addressing the real problem but I do address the real solution everyday. Natural Process, the real solution.
The only one I can think of is Shakespears, I guess.
I was addressing your post that was attacking a Judge for simply following a law congress passed. The judge is not the problem here, and I get a bit tired of everyone assuming that judges rule this country and blaming them for everything that congress has mandated they do. IMO, the judge made the right call. The problem isn't with the Judge, it's with the ESA itself, and the lawmakers that pass such laws. IMO, the ESA and the ADA are two of the worst laws ever passed by congress. I don't fault Judges that do their sworn duty to uphold the laws when they do so. I don't find that attacking judges serves any useful purpose in correcting bad law that is mandated by our legislators. From your link, I would think you would feel the same; at least about the ESA.
An interesting statement. Could you elaboarate a bit? IMO, it wasn't lawsuits as such: It was professionalism . The removal of personal responsibility from the individual to the various professionals (Medical, Legal, Political,etc.) Same thing we are seeing today in our society. What used to be considered a personal responsibility is now left up to the various professionals.
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.