Does this statement seem to contradict itself, or am I just imagining things?Remove environmental requirements in order to protect forests?The Bush administration said the proposed forest rules were not intended to boost access to forests by large timber companies, but were needed to remove some unnecessary and cumbersome environmental requirements that slow down efforts to protect forests.
Bush and forest planning - what a shock
"I snatched defeat from the jaws of victory." --Paul
---
(Emails > PMs)
---
(Emails > PMs)
Disco;
The information provided says there will be a diameter limit to prevent loggers from taking advantage of the situation. Only words, but at least they acknowledge the threat.
Yas;
The info in those links explains it like this: Certain forests areas need maintenance to prevent catastrophic fires. The undergrowth gets so thick, it fuels fires that kill all trees, even the big ones, unlike old growth areas that don't have so much undergrowth. However, to go in and cut anything out (even a shrub), you need an environmental impact report, and other NEPA requirements. The average EIR takes 10 years to write. Then it must be reviewed, alternatives discussed, and appeals made. Environmental groups tie up the process by filing appeals in nearly 100% of all cases. Ask Gretchen about the speed of gov't bureaucracy. Meanwhile, statistically, these areas have a major fire about once every 26 years.
After the fires have occurred, you have areas with no vegetation at all. Then erosion starts working pretty fast. You could go in and plant trees, but guess what? You need an EIR and it must go through the whole process before you do anything.
You can take Bush at face value, or take your party line and say he just wants to kill everything green. What will really happen? I don't know, but it sounds like these are valid problems.
M.
The information provided says there will be a diameter limit to prevent loggers from taking advantage of the situation. Only words, but at least they acknowledge the threat.
Yas;
The info in those links explains it like this: Certain forests areas need maintenance to prevent catastrophic fires. The undergrowth gets so thick, it fuels fires that kill all trees, even the big ones, unlike old growth areas that don't have so much undergrowth. However, to go in and cut anything out (even a shrub), you need an environmental impact report, and other NEPA requirements. The average EIR takes 10 years to write. Then it must be reviewed, alternatives discussed, and appeals made. Environmental groups tie up the process by filing appeals in nearly 100% of all cases. Ask Gretchen about the speed of gov't bureaucracy. Meanwhile, statistically, these areas have a major fire about once every 26 years.
After the fires have occurred, you have areas with no vegetation at all. Then erosion starts working pretty fast. You could go in and plant trees, but guess what? You need an EIR and it must go through the whole process before you do anything.
You can take Bush at face value, or take your party line and say he just wants to kill everything green. What will really happen? I don't know, but it sounds like these are valid problems.
M.
No chalkbag since 1995.
100% of cases? Actually less than 10%. This is a fact. I know because I work for one of the groups that sue "100%" of the time. I think last year the number was 7% to be exact, and thats for all groups.
Again, if its thinning along the urban interface, where folks are at risk then its not a problem. It is not necessary in the backcountry, nature should be allowed free reign. This is common sense stuff.
Again, if its thinning along the urban interface, where folks are at risk then its not a problem. It is not necessary in the backcountry, nature should be allowed free reign. This is common sense stuff.
Southern Utah - Where the women are men and the sheep are scared
As I read it, the areas in question are areas that have been nearly clear cut in the past. Thus, process of letting nature have free reign has already been short circuited. The resulting growth is hazardous to young trees, where in undisturbed areas, mature trees would regulate the undergrowth.
Although part of the motivation is to protect urban areas, they also talking about restoring forests in the back-country.
Although part of the motivation is to protect urban areas, they also talking about restoring forests in the back-country.
-
Guest
-
Guest
From my understanding the FS, under the Dept. of Agriculture, is to protect RESOURCES ie. timber, oil, mineral, etc for later date consumption. The Dept. of Interiors was designed for Recreation. Wilderness was established for protection of & to create pristine enviroment.
Disclaimer: This is MY UNDERSTANDING, so correct me if I am wrong!
Disclaimer: This is MY UNDERSTANDING, so correct me if I am wrong!
Just genuinely disengenuous.