Forum Index > Public Lands Stewardship > More bad news from the shrub administration
 Reply to topic
Previous :: Next Topic
Author Message
MCaver
Founder



Joined: 14 Dec 2001
Posts: 5124 | TRs | Pics
MCaver
Founder
PostWed Jan 01, 2003 6:43 pm 
I wasn't particularly impressed with the Clinton White House either, but to be honest I didn't follow politics as closely then. It's only been the last few years really. But the Bush Administration seems adamant on curtailing my two big issues -- civil liberties and environmental protection -- and that's why I'm so up-in-arms about it usually.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Sore Feet
Member
Member


Joined: 16 Dec 2001
Posts: 6304 | TRs | Pics
Location: Out There, Somewhere
Sore Feet
Member
PostThu Jan 02, 2003 1:21 am 
I don't believe that National Parks will be opened, but the way the article read, it certainly came off as implying that wilderness and roadless areas would be well within the restraints of what is being suggested. Now, it occurs to me that this article may have been written (by the so called "liberal" media) to encite more anti-bush feelings among the greenies out there (as it should), regardless of what facts are or aren't presented. That said, after last November's election, I've come to the realization that both sides are just as ruthless and power hungry as each other. Choosing either D or R's it like choosing between Brittney Spears and Christina Aguilera...there can't be a good outcome. Period. I have to believe that there are enough rational people out there that would raise hell if anything major happened to conservation policies, that something like this wouldn't really happen. However, as Michael said, I would not put ANYTHING passed this administration - Asbestos laced insulation anyone? http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/134604765_asbestos29.html I'm sure with all the war talk today, this isn't getting much press, but if Clinton can get impeached for lying about getting a BJ, the people behind this should get worse, imo. </rant> *breathes* But, I imagine, like most other crap permeating the "news" these days, this is largely hype to get the right vs. left arguement brewing harder. And people wonder why the world is so F***ed up. shakehead.gif

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
REJ
Member
Member


Joined: 21 Mar 2002
Posts: 100 | TRs | Pics
REJ
Member
PostThu Jan 02, 2003 8:29 am 
In my opinion, it is laughable to believe that roads could be opened in Washington's National Parks or Wilderness Areas anytime in the future based on this ruling. The proposed Wild Sky Wilderness area does include a road that may qualify as a mining road (Silver Creek-Mineral City). The so called RS 2477 roads are hot button issue in Utah. In theory federal lands, that have roads are not eligible for wilderness designation. Wilderness oponents claim that many of the areas proposed or given wilderness designation in Utah have been "roaded" in the past and therefore are not eligible for wilderness designation For info on the so called RS 2477 Roads see:RS 2477 website For another persective see: Wildland Center for Preventing Roads

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Rich Baldwin
Mister Eddie



Joined: 22 Dec 2001
Posts: 1686 | TRs | Pics
Location: Martinique
Rich Baldwin
Mister Eddie
PostThu Jan 02, 2003 9:50 pm 
Anyone who could appoint James Watt protoge Gale Norton in charge of Interior cannot have the slightest interest in protecting the environment. But I think it was Ashcroft's refusal to defend the Roadless rule, after he promised to do it, while under oath, to Sen. Cantwell that bothers me the most.

Was you ever bit by a dead bee?
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Malachai Constant
Member
Member


Joined: 13 Jan 2002
Posts: 16088 | TRs | Pics
Location: Back Again Like A Bad Penny
Malachai Constant
Member
PostThu Jan 02, 2003 11:25 pm 
The present regime has had an active program of direct confrontation with environmental groups since inception. This has included attempts to increase logging in roadless areas even though there is a glut of timber. The U.S. is the only major western country to not sign the Kyoto treaty. The fuel economy standards have been abrogated in spite of a purported energy shortage that necessitates further drilling in wildlife refuges and wilderness areas. Air pollution standards have been altered causing most of the eastern states to sue. There have been no actions of this administration that could remotely be considered pro environment with the possible exception of a prohibition of drilling in Florida shortly before the election.

"You do not laugh when you look at the mountains, or when you look at the sea." Lafcadio Hearn
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11992 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
Member
PostFri Jan 03, 2003 2:26 am 
well
for all the hyperbole (after reading the links provided on the last page) it seems to me this rule change probably makes sense. Anything that can clean up red tape over easements, right of way, and access issues sounds like a good deal to me. It's not like access decisions can ever occur in a vacuum, after all. If someon tries to open a road in designated wilderness that is already closed, it'll come to light and lots of people will be able to comment on it. This rule change grants *no one* carte blanche to do anything, as far as I can see, all it does is get rid of delays in decision making. Now I know some folks, notably anti development (and anti vehicle access types) tend to like any regulation that increases the cost of doing anything and the time it takes to do it, but folks interested in resolving issues with the least amount of open ended BS and paperwork should probably support this rule change. It allows states a bigger say in how lands should be used, which makes perfect sense to me, and state control does *not* mean no control. As for Kyoto and our non signature, thank heavens someone has had the guts to stand up to the hysteria. Especially to enter into a deal costing billions, or hundreds of billions, for a plan even the *proponents* admit will only have an impact of half a degree C in a hundred years. (assuming you can even separate that from natural variations). All that money for an effect that probably can't even be measured above background noise, after all that effort, isn't worth the effort in the first place.

Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Malachai Constant
Member
Member


Joined: 13 Jan 2002
Posts: 16088 | TRs | Pics
Location: Back Again Like A Bad Penny
Malachai Constant
Member
PostFri Jan 03, 2003 8:36 am 
Yeah I know "" "" http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/horsey/viewbydate.asp?id=766

"You do not laugh when you look at the mountains, or when you look at the sea." Lafcadio Hearn
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
kleet
meat tornado



Joined: 06 Feb 2002
Posts: 5303 | TRs | Pics
Location: O no they dih ent
kleet
meat tornado
PostFri Jan 03, 2003 9:15 am 
Quote:
If someon tries to open a road in designated wilderness that is already closed, it'll come to light and lots of people will be able to comment on it.
Something like 1.6 million people commented on the Clinton Administration's Roadless Area Conservation Plan. Of course that didn't stop the Bush Administration from proposing many amendments to weaken it, or trying to exempt nearly 10 million acres of federal land from environmental review procedures.
Quote:
It allows states a bigger say in how lands should be used, which makes perfect sense to me, and state control does *not* mean no control.
Localities all over the country are in deep fiscal do-do of their own. Unlike their "friends" in Washington, the people who run states, counties and localities can't legally keep piling up deficits. Local governments end up having to do all the things the president says he's against: cutting spending on schools, raising taxes, reducing budgets for security including police and fire. How the hell are they going to be able to afford to manage this new responsibility? devilsmile.gif

A fuxk, why do I not give one?
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11992 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
Member
PostFri Jan 03, 2003 12:24 pm 
Malachai Constant wrote:
Yeah I know "" "" http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/horsey/viewbydate.asp?id=766
Yes, cartoons are well known for deep insights into extremely complex issues, instead of tugging at emotions on issues practically *characterized* by the use of emotion by some in order to push their agenda. Climate model results vary all over the place, the IPCC "conclusions" have been misrepresented and manipulated, the IPCC meetings themselves were not a neutral body but one set up to validate carbon controls as a done deal not examine them or their validity from the ground up, and the Kyoto protocol as represented by it's adherents will do nearly nothing, the earths climate swings all over the place on it's *own*.... but a cartoon, well, that settles it all. Devastating.

Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Malachai Constant
Member
Member


Joined: 13 Jan 2002
Posts: 16088 | TRs | Pics
Location: Back Again Like A Bad Penny
Malachai Constant
Member
PostFri Jan 03, 2003 12:25 pm 
More Proof- Logging on Icicile Creek- The article is also posted on Cascade Climbers if you do not wish to log on to NYT http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/03/national/03FORE.html

"You do not laugh when you look at the mountains, or when you look at the sea." Lafcadio Hearn
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11992 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
Member
PostFri Jan 03, 2003 12:43 pm 
Quote:
Something like 1.6 million people commented on the Clinton Administration's Roadless Area Conservation Plan. Of course that didn't stop the Bush Administration from proposing many amendments to weaken it, or trying to exempt nearly 10 million acres of federal land from environmental review procedures.
They got their comment, didn't they? Nobody hid this, and they got their boy to write off huge tracts of land for their sake, in spite of other ideas for it's use, didn't they? If they wanted it protected as wildnerness permanently, why didn't they pressure Clinton to make it so, and why didn't he decide to make it so? Now it's a new admin and the rule is open to change because it wasn't implemented in a way that would be harder to undo, that's politics. Personally I disagreed with the huge scope of the roadless rules as they were myself, and see this merely as a step back from the extremist tack taken by enviros with influence in govt. As for "exempting" millions of acres from review procedures, that sounds a bit sweeping. Got any sources on that? I'm seeing a lot of broad claims here starting with the article that began this mess, and it's time to see the cards instead of taking the enviro bluff at face value. I'll guess there are still plenty of applicable standards and oversight left on these millions of acres, but to those folks to whom red tape, the costs of dealing with a huge and lengthly process (the more byzantine the better) mean they achieve their goal of obstructing all use anywhere by default, this removal of standards is merely a change in them, not removal. "Local governments end up having to do all the things the president says he's against: cutting spending on schools, raising taxes, reducing budgets for security including police and fire. How the hell are they going to be able to afford to manage this new responsibility? " The way they always get by, by making compromises. We do not owe *anyone* in govt the luxury of not making hard choices when they spend *our* money. If they cannot decide what to cut, then we'll hire someone else who will. The argument can always be made that we can't possibly afford to do something until everything is all settled, well, just when the heck is that, exactly?

Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
kleet
meat tornado



Joined: 06 Feb 2002
Posts: 5303 | TRs | Pics
Location: O no they dih ent
kleet
meat tornado
PostFri Jan 03, 2003 4:09 pm 
Quote:
As for "exempting" millions of acres from review procedures, that sounds a bit sweeping. Got any sources on that?
Seattle Times article Seattle P-I column It is a bit sweeping, and more than a little scary.

A fuxk, why do I not give one?
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
MCaver
Founder



Joined: 14 Dec 2001
Posts: 5124 | TRs | Pics
MCaver
Founder
PostFri Jan 03, 2003 4:50 pm 
kleet wrote:
It is a bit sweeping, and more than a little scary.
Interesting reading. Thanks for the links. I found this particularly noteworthy: "The U.S. General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, reported this summer that less than 1 percent of fire prevention projects planned on National Forest land were being held up by environmental lawsuits."

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11992 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
Member
PostFri Jan 03, 2003 5:03 pm 
Thanks for the links Kleet, I appreciate the effort. I'll comment after I've read 'em!

Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Rich Baldwin
Mister Eddie



Joined: 22 Dec 2001
Posts: 1686 | TRs | Pics
Location: Martinique
Rich Baldwin
Mister Eddie
PostSat Jan 04, 2003 1:01 am 
This thread reminds me of the old TT days. I'm glad to see the Great Environmental Debate renewed.

Was you ever bit by a dead bee?
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
   All times are GMT - 8 Hours
 Reply to topic
Forum Index > Public Lands Stewardship > More bad news from the shrub administration
  Happy Birthday noahk!
Jump to:   
Search this topic:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum