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 ...
He is free, even encouraged, to buy his own land and plant his own trees to harvest if he thinks he can make more money that way. I have no problems with that.
Lots of companies do that, most of the big paper companies own hundreds of thousands of acres and they grow trees on it. Not only that, but their lands are open to hunters and fishermen. I not only dont mind private companies and citizens buying up land and creating forests, I kind of like the idea of an extra few hundred thousand acres of trees planted by private companies. The more trees the better as far as I am concerned. Georgia Pacific, Louisianna Pacific, Intl Paper, etc. all own substantial numbers of acres where they create forests. Even newspaper companies (e.g. Hearst) have been known to buy up and own hundreds of thousands of acres and make forests out of it.
I have been in forests where logging companies have cut down the trees and then it was replanted. Nearly all of the new trees are the same, no variety like in a natural forest, and the trees are in neat little rows, and I dont like that.
Also, I have seen big trees on public lands being sold for less than it would cost to replant little seedlings - which means I lose money for each tree I sell - not something I want to do. The Wall Street Journal had a story on it how it was costing more to replant the forests than what we were getting in payment for our big trees.
I have been in public forests where loggers came in and cut down all the trees, and then it was replanted with just one kind of tree in perfectly straight rows, and I didnt like it, and neither did the wildlife that used to live there.
As far as how much money each citizen could get, it would be substantial. Our forests, our gold, our ore, our water power, our land acreage, etc are all worth many trillions of dollars if sold at a fair price. Americas natural resources are very plentiful, and a high percentage of the land, and the resources in this country are owned by citizens.
As far as how many people you want to split up the royalties with depends on how many immigrants you want to let in each year. There doesnt have to be 280 million people here, nor 400 million, nor a billion, it could easily be 180 million depending on if we have reasonable controlled immigration or if you want to flood the country with record immigration, but that is another issue. Obviously, if we had declining population instead of increasing population, we would have more wild lands and less traffic and less encroachment.
For some reason I just don't think wildlife care if threes are in a straight row or not.
Maybe so, but the roads(commonly called truck trails) built by the logging companies a hundred years ago in Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, are still there. They are really not used much at all, not maintained by anyone, not plowed, etc. they are much enough of a road to be used - mostly by hunters. Even the abandoned railroad lines still seem to stay pretty clear many decades after they were stopped being used. One would think the road would disappear, but it doesnt seem to.
From the article:
The administration will allow 3 percent of the forest's 9.3 million acres ..... to have roads built on them and perhaps opened to use by the timber industry.
The enviro-nuts would rather see timber burn in place, than see it used to improve human lives.
No, youre right- the wildlife doesnt care if they are in sraight rows, but I care. It looks sick and unnatural to me. I really dont like to see a thousand straight rows of spruce trees, Id rather see a natual variety all scattered about. Also, sometimes in a replanted forest, straight line furrows are made(to make it easier to replant? or maybe it was done to clear the land?) in the ground, and holes/furrows in the ground take centuries to refill. These furrows are a foot deep, and dont make walking in a forest enjoyable when every other step is 12 inches higher or lower than your last step.
But the wildlife does care about the lack of variety, it is rare(non-existant?) for a replanted forest to have lots of different kinds of nut trees scattered all over, as well as hickory, cherry, oak, beech, maple, all randomly appearing in multiple colors.
Not a whole lot of hickory, cherry, oak, beech or maple in that part of Alaska.
Agreed, but you know what I mean.
Am I the only one who has been in both a natural forest with lots of random variety, and a well ordered one that was artificially created/replanted after logging? There is a difference, a big difference.
Just planting a whole lot of straight lines of baby pine trees is not recreating or replacing the forest that was cut down.
Although I wouldn't have any problem with them being in straight rows since it would make it easier to harvert, just like rows of corn. And when it comes down to it, trees in a forest preserve are nothing more then a crop.
Unless you're an environut, in which case they're deities worthy of worship.
Me too!
I've always thought there's no better way to give honor to a tree than to make it into something beautiful and functional - like furnture, floors, etc. Natural wood is one of my favorite things to look at. Maybe your family will get a chance to do some more logging?
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.