|
|
|
Judge in Wyoming has overturned a Clinton-era ban on road construction
|
|
Judge in Wyoming has overturned a Clinton-era ban on road construction in nearly 60 million acres of national forest, extending a long-running dispute over U.S. Forest Service rules for large sections of undeveloped land.
U.S. District Judge Clarence Brimmer's ruling on Tuesday is the latest turn in a legal battle over the Clinton administration rule that limited logging and other development in roadless areas that make up nearly a third of national forest land.
Brimmer issued a permanent injunction against the so-called "roadless rule," saying that the ban was enacted in violation of the National Environmental Policy Act and the Wilderness Act.
"The Forest Service, in an attempt to bolster an outgoing President's environmental legacy, rammed through an environmental agenda that itself violates the country's well-established environmental laws," Brimmer wrote.
The ruling reflects a similar decision Brimmer issued in 2003 in response to a lawsuit filed by Wyoming challenging the roadless rule. Brimmer's 2003 ruling was rendered moot when the Bush administration decided not to appeal and instead issued its own rules for roadless areas.
Conservation groups and attorneys general from Oregon, Washington, California and New Mexico later challenged the Bush policy, which required governors to petition the federal government to protect roadless areas in their states.
In 2006, U.S. District Judge Elizabeth Laporte in San Francisco reinstated the 2001 rule created by the Clinton administration. That prompted Wyoming to renew its complaint in federal district.
On Tuesday, environmentalists vowed to appeal Brimmer's ruling to the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver, while also downplaying the scope of the decision.
Mike Anderson, an attorney with the Wilderness Society, said it was his opinion that the California decision was still in effect.
"It is not in any way overturned or compromised by Judge Brimmer's decision in Wyoming today," Anderson said. "What it does do is create two conflicting court decisions in different federal courts, different states, both issuing decisions with nationwide impact."
Wyoming Attorney General Bruce Salzburg praised Brimmer's ruling, saying the injunction was appropriate "in light of the potential harm the roadless rule poses to our national forests due to beetle infestation and forest fires."
"We anticipate an appeal by either the United States or one or more of the interveners," Salzburg said. "As such, we consider the matter still in litigation."
|
| Tags: |
None |
| Replies to Article: Judge in Wyoming has overturned a Clinton-era ban on road construction |
08-14-2008, 03:35 PM
|
|
Platinum Member
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Potomac River
Posts: 3,915
|
|
|
Well, I am sure Japan will be happy to have all out forests shipped to them as chipped wood.
The road hunters will be happy because they will have some more roads to drive down and throw out their beer cans, shoot does and cows and leave them lay.
The Yamaha Headquarters is probably drinking Saki right now celebrating all the ATVs they will be able to sell.
Looks like everybody is a winner!
__________________
The Smokin Fur Rifle Club
|
02-10-2009, 02:15 PM
|
|
Junior Member
|
|
Join Date: May 2007
Location: cali. siskiyou
Posts: 17
|
|
|
thats just about a bunny huging greenpeace stupid statement the fact of the matter is that logging not only creates job but it generates money for the school and road departments one of the biggest waist of tax payers money is the wilderness and to more like slick wille dick is not only insulting but is moronic to not allow managment of our public lands
|
02-11-2009, 05:45 PM
|
|
Junior Member
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 8
|
|
|
It seems to me that the statement that wilderness is a giant waste of taxpayer money has little traction. However, the removal of diseased trees, excessive underbrush that is a firehazard, does have merit. Yes, logging does create jobs, as long as there are trees. If there are no trees, then there are no jobs. Trees are not unlimited and logging companies that replant trees do not plant the same kind of trees harvested. They plant trees that are fast growing and a single species. This is also a problem, as it can affect what kind of wildlife lives there. So, it is a problem that needs thoughtful examination, not political rheteric. I think the subject should be examined in light of all those affected, including those that cannot represent themselves, that being the wildlife and forests themselves. When that is done, the decision will have more merit and more support.
|
02-11-2009, 08:51 PM
|
|
Bronze Member
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 38
|
|
|
Actually, wilderness may be a giant waste of taxpayer money. On the surface it would appear that it is cost free since the Forest Service does not manage it so it just sits there without anything being done. HOWEVER, almost all wilderness areas in the Forest Service system have "hiker trails" which the Forest Service has to maintain. In addition, when a wildfire strikes, the environmentalists cry foul and want the Forest Service to quickly take bulldozers and people in to put it out. With all of these costs come $0 in income.
The Forest Service pays counties a set sum of money in lieu of property taxes for schools and roads. The amount was set on the amount of timber that was once harvested on this property before the Clinton administration. Now, since no timber is being harvested YOUR taxpayer money is paying the counties in which Forest Service land resides.
Since no timber is being harvested and fires are not allowed to burn, fuels build up to intolerable levels until the final wildfire destroys what's left and leaves only bare earth.
The Forest Service has had problems with public perception in the past, brought on in a large part by not making the public aware of the science behind their actions. Now, no matter the purity of the science, someone jumps up and yells "CLEAR CUT" and everyone wants to haul their local Forest Ranger to the gallows.
As hunters and shooters, it is our duty to educate ourselves on the necessity of forest and wildlife management. Sometimes it bewilders me how hunters claim that hunting is a necessity to promote health in wildife populations, but can't accept that tree harvesting is a necessity to control forest health (which also increases wildlife health).
Cactus man. We are talking about wilderness, which is Forest Service, not industrial forests. The Forest Service is trying their hardest to restore National Forests to native trees and vegetation, but keep getting busted because to do this they HAVE GOT TO harvest trees. And also remember, industrial forests where once the greatest suppliers of public hunting in the nation. Only due to attitudes against industrial forests (by elitists from their giant homes built with timber from industrial forests) leading to unfair taxation and the sell off of over 100 million acres of industrial forests since 2000. This is timber land which we will never again get to hunt because it is being converted to golf courses, housing, shopping centers and bulldozed for "farms" occupied by the same doctors and lawyers who thought the industrial forest companies were destroying our environment.
I urge anybody who enjoys hunting and shooting to support your local Forest Service, Wildlife Refuge, or BLM offices when they want to use common sense to manage OUR land...the only land left where we can hunt without tresspass.
|
|
|
