RRC Archives

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.

Does this statement seem to contradict itself, or am I just imagining things?Remove environmental requirements in order to protect forests?

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.

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.

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.

show me just one case where the government/forest service has put forest health above the greed of the timber industy without intervention from environmentalists.
















I didn't think so.

Lynne,its not timber industry greed,they can cut trees anywhere and everywhere,Its the forest service and the goverment that profit from logging on public land.

FS sells the timber to what I am (probably incorrectly) referring to as the timber industry.

Funny, in my naive idealistic youth I believed the Forest Service was actually an organization which was tasked with protecting and preserving wild spaces. HA! What an idiot I was.

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!

Theres nothing pristine about a forest after its logged.

Well we have to get our pencils from somewhere.