Skip to comments.
New rules will Broaden firefighting, Logging in U.S. forests
Associated Press ^
| May 31, 2003
| Robert Gehrke
Posted on 05/31/2003 6:09:15 AM PDT by wallcrawlr
Edited on 04/13/2004 3:39:26 AM PDT by Jim Robinson.
[history]
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The Bush administration is about to drop a requirement to conduct environmental studies before logging or burning trees to prevent forest fires. And it wants to end consultations over whether such actions would affect endangered species.
Environmentalist organizations said the new rule is a carte blanche for loggers.
(Excerpt) Read more at startribune.com ...
TOPICS: Business/Economy; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Extended News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: enviralists; environment; forest; logging
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-23 next last
...finally.
To: wallcrawlr
"loot public forests and pocket the proceeds." This sounds suspiciously like capitalism. TOO MUCH CONSUMIN GOIN ON OUT DERE!
To: *Enviralists; farmfriend
3
posted on
05/31/2003 9:15:00 AM PDT
by
Free the USA
(Stooge for the Rich)
To: wallcrawlr; marsh2; dixiechick2000; Mama_Bear; doug from upland; WolfsView; Issaquahking; amom; ...
rights/farms/environment ping.
On or off, let me know.
4
posted on
05/31/2003 10:12:56 AM PDT
by
farmfriend
( Isaiah 55:10,11)
To: farmfriend
BTTT!!!!!
5
posted on
05/31/2003 10:33:01 AM PDT
by
E.G.C.
To: EBUCK
pinging!
6
posted on
05/31/2003 10:36:45 AM PDT
by
kstewskis
("Aim small, miss small....." Benjamin Martin to Nathan and Samuel)
To: farmfriend
Logging is appropriate!
7
posted on
05/31/2003 11:05:12 AM PDT
by
blackie
To: wallcrawlr
would love to be on your ping list -- my son an Army National Guardsman was recently trained to fight the fires this summer....
To: farmfriend
woops. I pinged the wrong person. Yes, please put me on your ping list. Many Thanks.
To: EverOnward
Most happy to.
10
posted on
05/31/2003 11:41:12 AM PDT
by
farmfriend
( Isaiah 55:10,11)
To: widowithfoursons; farmfriend; risk
haha. I guess it is better to let the forests burn to the ground and all of the trees die, than an industry make some money and employee some folks! Geez these greenies are complete idiots!
To: sauropod; AAABEST; TonyWojo
ping
To: wallcrawlr
And it wants to end consultations over whether such actions would affect endangered species. Hey libbielefters! Whatcherbeef??? Dontcha believe in Darwin???
To: wallcrawlr
Under the new policy, the Forest Service and Interior Department would not need an environmental study before cutting or burning excess trees on as many as 190 million acres of federal land considered to be at-risk for a catastrophic wildfire As a former firefighter who lost 5 fellow brothers some twenty years ago, in a woods fire.....about time.
You don't know fear until you see a crown fire approaching you.
14
posted on
05/31/2003 3:44:01 PM PDT
by
Focault's Pendulum
(Living under a rock is looking better every day.)
To: Focault's Pendulum
None of this is a surprise. The enviro wackos care more for trees than they do for people. And if it suits their purposes, the trees be damned.
15
posted on
05/31/2003 3:49:08 PM PDT
by
goldstategop
(In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
To: The Red Zone
Hey libbielefters! Whatcherbeef??? Dontcha believe in Darwin??? Only when there's money to be made.
16
posted on
05/31/2003 3:50:26 PM PDT
by
uglybiker
(Fishing: The only sport one can engage in while sitting down and drinking beer....I like to fish.)
To: The Red Zone
but..but..but..black churches and green forrests will burn!! dman republicans!!!!!!!!!!!
To: farmfriend
Off, please. Thank you.
18
posted on
05/31/2003 4:43:03 PM PDT
by
JudyB1938
(It's a wild world. There's a lot of bad and beware.)
To: cajun-jack
"but..but..but..black churches and green forrests will burn!!" More likely their Green Churches will become Black Forests :o)
19
posted on
05/31/2003 8:15:07 PM PDT
by
editor-surveyor
( . Best policy RE: Environmentalists, - ZERO TOLERANCE !!)
To: countrydummy; farmfriend
I guess it is better to let the forests burn to the ground and all of the trees die, than an industry make some money and employee some folks! I'm sure there's some element of fear that President Bush's commitment to protecting the environment aren't strong enough. But as he said recently about winning the war in Iraq, when he says he's going to do something, people are finding out he says what he means and does what he says.
Anyway, this act looks quite reasonable to me. It doesn't change the rules that require environmental impact studies before logging in the monuments and national parks, so it just encourages thinning where we've already had a lot of human activity. Again, I might have reservations about how to monitor the increased logging activity, but the fire hazzards we've seen must be addressed. (And anyway, on BLM and non-monument/parkland, why shouldn't we be more aggressive about human-intervention in the tree growth cycle?)
The Bush team seems to be on top of things by including the pre-positioning of firefighting crews this summer. That's also impressive.
The exemptions requiring impact studies for logging and preemptive burns of under 1,000 acres will only be for areas outside the parks. Also, endangered species impact would be eliminated. Given that species come and go all the time, this sounds reasonable, as well. As a conservationist, I used to see the species angle as a good way to protect the forests. But in practice, it has opened up a floodgate of lawsuit ideas and redtape for the econuts to exploit.
20
posted on
05/31/2003 10:43:39 PM PDT
by
risk
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-23 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson