Leavitt is considering 'roadless rule' detour

Deseret Morning News (Salt Lake City) ^ | 14 June 2003 | Donna Kemp Spangler

[glock rocks]

Deseret News, Saturday, June 14, 2003

Leavitt is considering 'roadless rule' detour

States can apply for exemption to ban

By Donna Kemp Spangler
Deseret Morning News

Gov. Mike Leavitt has never been a fan of the Clinton administration's so-called roadless rule that bans road building in 4 million acres of national forests in Utah.

But now the Bush administration is giving states a way out, and Leavitt isn't saying what he plans to do. At least not yet. But he expressed his dislike for the rule.

"We will review the policy and respond," Leavitt told the Deseret Morning News this week. "I had a lot of problems with Clinton's roadless rule."

The Bush administration announced Monday that although it has decided to reinstate the roadless rule that bans road building in 58.5 million acres of national forests, it would allow governors to seek exemptions from the rule. The proposal will likely undergo a public comment review, in which Utah will participate.

"That's likely to be our next move," added Leavitt spokeswoman Natalie Gochnour. "The governor welcomes the flexibility and has always felt the states deserved a place at the table and need to be involved in the process."

Environmentalists are outraged, calling the proposal "illegal" and "unconstitutional" as it attempts to cede federal control of public lands to the states.

"National forests are managed by the federal government. The states have no authority," said Denise Boggs, executive director of Utah Environmental Congress. "We aren't going to stand for it."

Other critics charged the move is simply to win favor with Western Republican governors who have long opposed the roadless rule and are likely to seek exemptions.

"The administration's clear objective here is to mask their intention to log and drill in roadless areas of our national forests until after the 2004 election," said Philip E. Clapp, president of the National Environmental Trust, an advocacy group that supports the roadless rule.

Several states, including Utah and Idaho, have challenged the rule in court. But a federal appeals court upheld the rule in December.

Yet many Western governors, Clapp predicted, "will undoubtedly petition to exempt roadless areas in their states from protection."

The Bush administration defended its position.

Agriculture Undersecretary Mark Rey said the proposed change would allow states to play a greater role in land-use decisions that affect them.

"These are federal lands (and) federal resources," he said. "We have an obligation to protect them. At the same time we have always welcomed the cooperative participation of state governments that have the broadest possible support."

The roadless rule, which blocks development on 58 million acres of federal land, "is the law of the land," Rey added, "but we will leave it up to the governors to see where on a limited basis relief might be appropriate."

Boggs disagrees.

"This is not letting the rule stand, this is gutting the rule for all practicality."

[glock rocks]

Environmentalists are outraged, calling the proposal "illegal" and "unconstitutional"

< snip >

Boggs disagrees.
"This is not letting the rule stand, this is gutting the rule for all practicality."

dang. stroke of the pen, law (rule?) of the land. so, a different stroke of the pen is unconstitutional? hahaha. twit.
these are fun, too...

Bush administration to allow roadless rule to stand

Bush plans to relax 'roadless rule

[glock rocks]

bonk. we're heading headlong into fire season in our fifth year of drought.

the enviral drumbeat of insanity continues.

[glock rocks]

I guess the envirals won't relent until we're all living in mud huts (well, all of us but their select few)... Logging to be allowed in 2 biggest U.S. forests

[JoeSixPack1]

Federal land control should be limited to national treasures like Mt Rushmore so federal dollars can help in maint and upkeep. Things like the NY/NJ Statue of Liberty (who owns it today NY or NJ, I lost track) should also be spared the indignity of statewide powerplays. But open land claimed by the feds is nothing but a Washington D.C appeasement to high dollar lobbyists.

If the feds can't maintain a federal border, states need to show em how it's done. Within constitutional limits, not EO's writen for political donations.

[marsh2]

The so called "roadless" rule is absurd. The areas are far from "roadless" in reality. It is just stage one of the plan to set up more areas to qualify for "Wilderness" designation.

The public has no concept of the difference between a National Park, a National Forest and a Wilderness. National Forests were reserved from the public lands to be managed for supplying a timber supply to the nation and protecting watersheds that supply our water. later on that was expanded to include "multiple use" and "sustained yield." Grazing and private split estate ownership interest in the water, forage and rights-of-way that pre-existed the creation of the Forests were grandfathered in.

With the Clinton "regime" and under European "Green" influence, the Forests began to be administered under executive policy for "ecosystem management." The Endangered Species Act was used to obtain court-directed management policies. Now in our local Forests, only 15% are available for timber harvest, while the rest is set aside.

In Wilderness, some pre-existing uses are grandfathered in. However, they are being squeezed out and no motorized vehicles or equipment (like chain saws) are allowed in. They also commonly have a "hands off" management emphasis and a "let it burn" policy.

The National Forest and the Wilderness and Parks are NOT federal enclaves where Congress has the exclusive right to make the laws. (Exclusive Legislative Jurisdiction.) However, Congress does have the right to make rules regarding management and public use of the resources it owns. It can also emforce those rules. States, tribes and local jurisdictions have a special part to play under NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) and the CFRs to provide joint environmental review of proposed actions with the feds. Also, state and local governments both have jurisdiction over the behavior of Forest users. just as the federal government has.

[glock rocks]

With the Clinton "regime" and under European "Green" influence, the Forests began to be administered under executive policy for "ecosystem management." The Endangered Species Act was used to obtain court-directed management policies. Now in our local Forests, only 15% are available for timber harvest, while the rest is set aside.

ahhh. the eurogreens. well funded America haters. throw in a touch of well organized marxists,
a compliant grubber in the white house, and voila... burn baby burn. xlinton legacy.

[Redbob]

"I guess the envirals won't relent until we're all living in mud huts...

Wrongo!
The enviro's don't want us "living" at all.
The Earth just has too many of one type of critter on it - no, not mosquitoes! - man!

There's only one thing that'll make 'em happy.

[glock rocks]

it's for your own good.

[Pete-R-Bilt]

I don't know man, it never seemed to stop San Jaun County from developing the Burr trail.

as far as Grand Staircase, there are already exemptions placed into that like for the Paria plateau.

I don't see it changing much for us...