Part of Alaskan Forest Opened to Logging
28 minutes ago Add White House - AP Cabinet & State to My Yahoo!

By JOHN HEILPRIN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration opened 300,000 more acres of Alaska's Tongass National Forest on Tuesday to possible logging or other development.

The decision allows 3 percent of the forest's 9.3 million acres, which were put off-limits to road-building by the Clinton administration, to have roads built on them and perhaps to be opened to use by the timber industry.

"The people of Alaska benefit," said spokesman Bill Bradshaw of the U.S. Forest Service, part of the Agriculture Department.

John Passacantando, executive director of Greenpeace USA, accused the administration of "gutting the last pristine temperate rain forest" in the United States.

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 during President Clinton (news - web sites)'s final days in office, the rule had sought to block development of 58.5 million acres, or nearly one-third of the national forests.

It was struck down in July by a federal district judge in Wyoming and currently is before the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (news - web sites).

Forest Service officials said their decision "maintains the balance for roadless area protection" while still "providing opportunities for sustainable economic development" in the 16.8 million-acre Tongass National Forest.

"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 have locked away portions of the Tongass and 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.

President Bush is really "EFF"ing things up environmentally. God I signed so many petitions and sent so many emails to try to get this blocked. What a disappointment

There are many who would say he's only putting balance back in environmental issuess after the anti-access damage done by the Clinton administration.

I'll bet the 32 surrounding communities who depend on that 3% he opened up don't think he's effing up too badly.

I guess it's all a matter of perspective.

Vicki

Didn't mean to ruffle everyone's feathers. Sorry but I am all for the environment folks. I didn't pour my heart out with the fires...its nature, those trees should've been cut because of the bark beetles.

The article also said this:
"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."

I belong to just about every environmental group out there, including the Sierra Club, and I read about all this kind of stuff on a daily basis. If you looked at all of the things Bush and his wonderful Secretary of Interior are doing you just might agree with me on a broader scale.

Check out this website...
http://www.nrdc.org/bushrecord/default.asp

Hey, I helped vote the guy into office but I DO NOT agree with what he is doing to the environment. So I guess it is all a matter of perspective.

Hey, Vicki, was was that thing about trolls again?

Here I thought everyone was entitled to their own opinion. I just try to do my part in what I think is right. I think it's right to save trees and the animals who inhabit the area. What you all think is right can be different...that's fine with me. I was just saying what I thought which I thought was what a forum was for-not throwing jabs at people. Thanks for the "uneducated" comment.
If you think Bush is good for the environment that's great. I personally don't. But you know, to each his own.

DirtGirl,
Are you really so weak and gulliable that you let those effen enviro POS good for nothing SOB's get to you? I cannot believe that even IF you really believe in what all those enviros tell you, then what the eff* are you doing riding and ATV, off road thru the very areas they fight to close? I don't know how long you have been going to the dunes, but you ever seen those closure stakes? THANK YOU to effen enviros, and their very deep pockets and thanks to people that support them (hint hint) that is why they are there. There are many orgs and a lot of people that have put their time, money and heart into getting it re-opened, and people like you that want to ride but yet you fork over money to the damned Sierra Club? um, DUH comes to mind! I personally have been to Alaska several times. Have you? I have seen first hand over the course of several years what destruction the enviros have caused by saving the forests. Have you? I have seen acres and acres of forest die as each year passes by...have you? I have spoken to and met these people that are isolated from the rest of the world because of CLINTON that son-of-a-bitch, they can't even make a forest road to get supplies like MEDICATION and FOOD that they need. The people that live there (I know many) want the forestation and to get rid of the diseased and dead trees and replant young ones.
I am not sure what you meant by this "Sorry but I am all for the environment folks. I didn't pour my heart out with the fires...its nature, those trees should've been cut because of the bark beetles" How can you not pour your heart out? I guess because your family did not lose everything. And now you are saying we should cut trees, but Bush is destroying the enviroment? You better get your priorities straight. I suggest if you like riding anywhere off pavement, you quit putting your time and money to these enviros that obviously have you blinded or at least do some serious research of what is really going on. you'd be better off to start supporting off road orgs. You may have done more than ruffled feathers, you might just opened a can of whoop ass! Unfortuately, we all, for the most part, HATE the enviros. We care about the enviroment, yes, but eff* the enviro groups like CBD, Sierra Club, and the list goes on and on. You said this is an open opinion forum. Well there is my opinion.

QG

Look I don't agree with every single thing that ANY organization does. I know that the people up there would benefit from a road and if people need a road they should get a road. I don't think anyone should go without the necessities in life.

And I think that we should get rid of diseased trees and replant. Its logging for profit that bothers me when there are so many other alternatives. Anything that is done to save the forests I am all for. Like I said we should've gotten rid of the diseased trees up the hill by cutting or doing prescribed burns. And when I said I didn't pour my heart over the fire...Maybe I took that remark in a different way than it was meant. I do have family that lives up the hill and were evacuated and almost lost everything they owned. So yeah it did affect me. And I have friends that are firefighters that were working in those fires. So my heart did go out to the people and animals that lost their homes and their loved ones.

I've seen the areas in Glamis where we can't ride but I have so much fun in all the open areas that it doesn't bother me all that much. I'm sure you'll all have a field day with this...but if the plants and animals out there can have a place and we can all have a place then I am fine with it. And I know all the people on this board make a huge effort in keeping Glamis clean and a fun, safe place to ride. I haven't known it any other way so I have nothing to compare it too, so its big enough for me. I've only been going out there for a little over a year. I don't know all the history on Glamis with the Sierra Club. And although I do support some enviro orgs, whether it be financially or just with signing my name, I think that there are a lot of good things they do too, as well as some bad. I know that they get overzealous/greedy sometimes and like I said I don't agree with everything they do. There are some things that I try to help with and others that I don't. I don't necessarily think that makes me a bad person. But I obviously stand alone in that opinion. I'm not here to throw stones or say bad things about other people on the board. I don't really know anyone well enough from here to say anything about them. And you certainly can't figure a person out by reading what they type on these posts so...maybe people are commonly misunderstood. Just so you know I voted for Bush and support his efforts around the world. But I don't necessarily agree with his views on the environment which last I checked was okay.

No, I've never been to Alaska. Would I like to? Of course. Who wouldn't?

I also know a lot of people that don't have access to all of life's necessities, that are closer than Alaska and I spend everyday at work, at school and at home trying to help those people. I focus a lot of time and energy on helping people who are without, whether they are here, in Alaska or in Africa.

Easy on the dirtgirl,
She is new here. She is young.
And probably a victim of the media and enviromental propaganda.
Perhaps a little education on the truth of what these organizations are really trying to acomplish is what she needs to know.

Seems to me that she's well educated. I don't think she's a victim of the media and environmental propaganda at all. I think she just has her own views and opinions on all of this. She's entitled to that. Isn't that what this forum is for?

I'm not gonna rag on her for having different views and opinions on these things. Not like she's preaching to us. She's only explaining how she feels.

I need sand now. DirtGirl, you're more than welcome to go with my group.

OK DirtGirl, fair enough. Can I ask what specifically you object to about Bush's environmental policy? What is your opinion on the Healthy Forests bill? What is your opinion on the recent Bush admin change in power plant emissions caps?

Yeah, don't run away or be put off. You are welcome here.

Sorry to come off harsh. Just so you know, I took Bambi out with a headshot so he didn't suffer. What couldn't be made into steak, was turned into hamburger. He was delicious. I honor Bambi for his sacrifice so others could live.

So what specifically has the Bush administration done to ruin the environment.

What are the many alternatives to lumber that are so prevalent.

Why is business for profit a bad thing?

What or how do you propose people support themselves?

Are you prepared to live in a world where you have absolutely zero choice on how you live? We already live in that world to some extent, but the environmental extremists want to limit those choices further in the name of "saving the environemt". What exactly does that mean?

Are you prepared to let people die for lack of technology, food or shelter, or to have them live in substandard pre modern conditions of squalor?

This too is already happening in other parts of the world. Fueled by the green machine policies.

Malaria, is making a come back thanks to the bans on pesticides that may or may not cause environmental damage. But the lack of pesticides has certainly condemned millions of people each year to die horribly from deseases that are able to proliferate due to the lack of these. Do you think this outweighs the negatives?

I could write a dissertation on the many ways people are caused to suffer and die all in the name of "saving the environment".

That's the one-when Vince made that map a few years back I think it really opened some "apathetic" duners eyes to what we have truly given up and that the enviros will NEVER be happy with the closed areas until they are ALL closed

Lets take these thoughts a little further....

Where exactly are America's rain forrests?

Thanks Doug... I tried to do that but only got a red x!

Vicki

That's close to Alaska...

yes, it is......

same timezone

The Alaskan Rain Forrest is in trouble.

Did you all know that the Amazon Rain Forests are considered the lungs of our planet.
It produces more than 20% of the oxygen in our atmosphere today.
The rainforests used to cover about 14% of our earths surface. Now they cover about 6%
They are disappearing at a rate of about 1 1/2 acres per second.

Enviro's are an important part of our society, without them, we may have already choked our planet to death with smog and lack of clean air. Without them we probably would have completely destroyed our ozone layer, you know the thing between us and the suns harmful rays...

Do I care for Enviro's? Eff NO !!! But, I am happy they are there sometimes. Do I think they push too far? Hell Yes ! But, I am also glad they try. Cause if they weren't there, our planet would probably be alot worse off now then it actually is.

Think about it folks... I want my kids to enjoy life the same way I do... But if we destroy the planet, which we are doing... What do they have to look forward to?
Is closing parts of the ISDRA saving our planet any? Probably not. Is losing our rainforests in another 50 years going to save our planet in any way? Definately not...

OK I know it is in AZ but this was in the paper the other day...
Show Low forces dead-tree removal
Some residents complain about high cost, 2-month timetable

Mark Shaffer
Republic Flagstaff Bureau
Jan. 5, 2004 12:00 AM

With a statewide drought deepening and bark beetles killing pines in wide swaths of some Arizona mountain towns, municipalities are starting to get tough on letting dead and dying trees hang around.

Last week, the state's most draconian law mandating tree removal took effect in Show Low.

In effect, if anyone complains about dead trees on private property, that property owner has about two months to remove the trees or find himself or herself in municipal court. The new ordinance defines a public nuisance as all trees infected with diseases, parasites and insects like bark beetles. Bark beetles have killed an estimated 1.1 million acres of forest statewide during the past two years.

That follows on the heels of another ordinance passed in neighboring Pinetop-Lakeside that gives homeowners two years to remove all flammable forest materials within 10 feet of homes, followed by two years to remove such dead fuels within 30 feet and two additional years to thin land within 100 feet of homes. "This drought isn't even providing enough water for non-dense stands of trees," said Steve Campbell, a University of Arizona cooperative extension agent who is a liaison to Navajo County. "We've got 30 to 40 percent mortality of trees in the western and northern parts of Show Low. It's a very serious situation, and action has to be taken now."

Not that people in these parts didn't already know that. The state's largest wildfire ever, the "Rodeo-Chediski" fire, burned to within one-quarter mile of western Show Low in the summer of 2002.

But many people in Show Low are complaining about how quickly they must remove their dead and dying trees and the high price tag involved. Even just one tree near a structure can cost $800 and up to remove.

"No one is denying that these trees need to be removed. But for them to demand this to happen so quickly and the cost that's involved really affects our personal liberty," said Show Low businessman Dennis Owens, whose family owns about 150 acres in the city limits. "A few years ago, they enacted an ordinance that you couldn't cut down trees over 6 inches in diameter, which really made the problem we have now a lot worse."

Owens' mother, Joy Owens, said she thinks Show Low should get its own house in order and do its own thinning on land it owns before coming down on private landowners.

"It's too bad they can't do like other cities and help the people who live here," Joy Owens said, referring to a tree-removal project in Prescott during the past year.

Jeremy Brinkerhoff, a Prescott Fire Department official, said that fire crews cut down more than 10,000 trees within the city limits in the heavily beetle-infested area and charged homeowners $50 a tree for removal.

"That program has been phenomenally successful, but we still have a lot of problems with dead trees in the (Yavapai) county areas near Prescott," Brinkerhoff said.

Campbell acknowledged that there was a price-gouging problem on the part of some of the 20 contractors removing trees in the Show Low area. Campbell said that he is putting on a one-week program in March about the forest crisis and will include a section on ethics and "not taking advantage of people."

Campbell said that the Show Low area has received $700,000 in federal money to do necessary cutting and that an additional $1 million has been approved for southern Navajo County from the recently passed Forest Health Initiative in Congress.

"This problem is so big that it's going to take 30 years to fix it," Campbell said. "I take the position that the private property owner has a responsibility to invest something in this process."