Posted on 12/23/2003 6:34:58 PM PST by carlo3b
Bush opens 300,000 acres of Alaskan national forest to loggingJohn Heilprin, Associated Press
Published December 24, 2003 TLOG24
WASHINGTON -- Reversing a Clinton-era policy, the Bush administration on Tuesday opened 300,000 more acres of Alaska's Tongass National Forest, the nation's largest, to possible logging or other development.The administration will allow 3 percent of the forest's 9.3 million acres that were put off-limits to road-building by former President Clinton, to have roads built on them and perhaps opened to use by the timber industry. The Tongass comprises 16.8 million acres.
``The people of Alaska benefit,'' said spokesman Bill Bradshaw of the U.S. Forest Service, part of the Agriculture Department. ``What's behind this is the legal challenge by the state. The main point is that it brought a resolution to the Alaska challenge.''
The ruling builds on the Bush administration's decision in June to settle a lawsuit filed by Alaska that challenged the road-building ban. As part of the settlement, the administration agreed to exempt the Tongass and Chugach national forests from its planned revisions to the roadless rule.
Mark Rey, the Agriculture Department's undersecretary in charge of forest policy, said that as a practical matter, 95 percent of the roadless areas in the two national forests would remain off-limits to development.
That's because the administration, while reversing the ban on road-building in Alaska's forests that Clinton adopted just before he left office in 2001, is reverting to an earlier Clinton plan in 1997 that set special management rules for Alaskan forests.
``The bottom line is we've affirmed the 1997 Clinton Tongass plan, which affirms protection for 95 percent of the roadless (area) on the Tongass ... based on the best science available,'' Rey said.
John Passacantando, executive director of Greenpeace USA, accused the Bush administration of ``gutting the last pristine temperate rain forest'' in the United States. Tiernan Sittenfeld of the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, an advocacy organization, called it ``yet another holiday gift to the timber industry.''
But Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, said the decision ``paves the way for a resumption of some wood harvest for the Tongass, enough to support the surviving timber industry in southeast Alaska.''
Agriculture Department officials, with approval from the White House Office of Management and Budget, decided to exempt the acreage from the so-called roadless rule, an often-challenged Clinton-era policy.
Imposed in January 2001, the rule had sought to block development of 58.5 million acres, or nearly one-third of the national forests.
The rule was struck down in July by a federal district judge in Wyoming and currently is before the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Forest Service officials said their decision ``maintains the balance for roadless area protection'' while providing opportunities for sustainable economic development.
``People in 32 communities within the Tongass National Forest depend on the forest for subsistence and social and economic health,'' officials said in a statement. ``Most communities lack road and utility connections to other communities.''
In August, Alaska Gov. Frank Murkowski said the roadless rule, which effectively has locked away portions of the Tongass and the 5.3 million-acre Chugach national forests from major timber development, was ``unlawful and unwise.''
The Republican governor, a former senator, demanded that the Forest Service exempt Alaska from the roadless rule on grounds it violates the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, the Wilderness Act, the National Environmental Policy Act and the National Forest Management Act.
Former Democrat Gov. Tony Knowles also had filed a federal lawsuit in 2001 challenging the rule. A federal judge in Idaho blocked the roadless ban in May 2001, saying it needed to be amended, but that ruling was overturned last year by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Environmentalists said they were alarmed by the decision, and that it would mean the loss of protection for all 9.3 million acres of inventoried roadless areas.
``Our public lands are under attack,'' said Cindy Shogan of the Alaska Wilderness League. ``The Bush administration won't be happy until the timber industry has reduced the heart of America's rain forest to stumps.''
(Excerpt) Read more at startribune.com ...
Pray for W and Merry Christmas to Our Troops
The Government sells "Stumpage". (an area long studied for env.impact, and alotted for harvest under strict guidlines) The private contractor harvests the timber under those requirements and markets the timber at a small profit for themselves. Our government itself does nothing more than allow the contractor to proceed.
The Timber industry as a whole is also in serious financial trouble. They are not profiteers as the whackos would have us believe. Most timber companies are run by low income families struggling to earn a living in remote areas. I have lived there myself and have seen the reality for what it is. In other words, be aware of the truth before you buy into Big City Propaganda.
I will have to check it out.
Look, all I want is lots of forests, natural forests, I dont want pine tree farms where there was once hickroy and cherry trees and lots of squirrels.
I dont want any corruption/stealing, no payoffs to anyone, no lobbyests, no kickbacks, no favors, no contributions to politicians campaign chests, etc.
I also dont want to lose taxpayer money in order to make somebody else rich.
If we can sell the trees/gold/iron/oil/gas/manganese/water power/etc on public property which is owned by american citizens for a very good profit, then lets do it, and lower our taxes. If not, then dont.
YOu are right, I dont know.
But what I do know is this. If you sell my 200 foot tree for $1 and it then costs me $2.50 to replant a seedling, that is all I need to know to want it to stop.
If the timber is worth $300 and you only give me $200 then that is not right either, and somebody somewhere is stealing.
As I pointed out earlier, the Timber industry has been near bankruptcy for nearly a decade. If the government sells stumpage for such a low rate, it is to help this struggling industry survive. There are many hungry, out of work families who do not wish to move to a city, who are benefiting from this sale.
And since when is a huge conglomorate news agency in New York City, an expert on what happens in the rural, forested West, over 4,000 miles away from the Concrete Jungle?
It would be MORE benificial if the timber was given for free, in trade for the jobs for TAXPAYERS, They are the ones who pay for all the civilization destroying "social programs" you seem to favor. GET REAL!!
Your house is made of wood, at least in part. These "giveaways" enable lumber prices to remain low enough to make the American dream of home ownership possible for more people.
I could go on, but any further logic would be lost on the socialist mind.
The socialist is you. Giving away our resources for less than market value, and at a loss, in order to give money to some people(logging families), is socialist welfare.
Ok, so you make them cut down a tree first before you give them something for nothing, so what? it is still socialist welfare.
If your real goal is to give logging families money, then quit trying to hide it by making them cut down trees first, just give them the money.
Believe me, the forests are greatly untouched. So untouched in fact, that they are in very poor health. 50 years of fire supression has caused our mature forest to become seriously diseased, from bark beetle infestations to low level fuels that devastates a forest when a fire breaks out.
You should also educate yourself about how Federal land is harvested. The Timber allotment is a follows: Of the entire 100% of available old-growth forest, only 5% is allowed for harvest. of that available 5%, less than 2 has actually been harvested.
Due to such difficulties as legal battles by environmentalists, the forest is regrowing itself faster that it can be harvested.
Ill have to talk to God about that, but I dont think you fully understand the forests of Alaska, and how God made them, and kept them over all these years, with or without your observations.
Seems to me, that over the past 5000 years the forests in Alaska have done very well on their own. (for that matter, so did the forests of California, Michigan, Minnesota, Virginia, etc long before there even was a United States or any logging companies in the area. There were trees in Alaska before we started selling them below cost, and before the grandfathers of the current day loggers were even born.
Alaska's forests are so vast I cannot explain it to your simple mind. The majority of AK's timber is also unmarketable other than chipping, because it is a sub-standard Black Spruce as well as very unaccessable.
They did all the hard work so you could live in luxury and complain about government give-aways, while asking for a $20,000.00 check each year. If the logging industry is such a give-away, why don't you become a logger and get in on it.
True. Black spruce is weak. Sometimes it cannot support its own weight. As reference [we have to source everything even remotely interesting no matter how blatantly obvious] I point to my yard where there are several that have broken off, some in summer.
There should be very little "publically owned" land. Sell it into private ownership where it can be properly managed. The federal government alone "owns" about 60% of California as it is now. States like Nevada and Alaska are considerably higher.
We now have enough people here, 300 million, and no unclaimed land, which is why homesteads can no longer be obtained in Nebraska anymore. Furthermore, we no longer need homestead acts to get immigrants to come here, 50,000 come here each week without the homestead act.
What are you saying, that you want to sell my trees for less than what they are worth and at a loss so that you can populate the land that is now forested?
On the other hand, if what you want is a "make work" government project to provide welfare to logging families, then just say so. Selling our trees below market value and cutting down our forests is not the best make work project that can be thought of. We would be better off starting a new make work federal project(like building dams, highways, creating indexes for old U.S. censuses, etc) that actually creates something, or is of benefit to some people, instead of selling our trees for much less than what they are worth and cutting them down.
I never said I was against welfare for american logging families, if they are in need of help.
Seems like it, esp if it is the same person who wants BOTH to cut down our forests AND continue to have so many (legal and illegal) immigrants flood into this country.
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.