4x4princess
July 16th, 2004, 01:03 PM
Another YJ posted this on general chit chat. I thought it usefull to place it here also. Happy reading.
This commentary appeared in today's Colorado Springs Gazette. Three cheers for the Bush Administration.
Our patented Hysterical Hyperbole Meter is registering off the scales following Tuesday?s news that the Bush administration was finally doing away with the endlessly controversial "roadless rule." Green extremists are painting the action ? which returns decision-making authority over forest roads to forest managers, and permits governors to retain roadless tracts where they see fit ? as some monstrous "rollback" of environmental protections, an engraved invitation to the pillaging of public lands by loggers, miners, ranchers and wild mushroom collectors.
But that?s what they say every time a policy decision doesn?t go their way ? haven?t they ever heard of the boy who cried wolf? Can you really "roll back" rules that never took effect and were twice declared unlawful by federal courts?
Last week we explained in detail why the rule was not only stupid public policy ? coming at a time when we need more, not less, access to public lands ? but a typically underhanded attempt by the Clinton White House to create 60 million acres of de-facto wilderness without having to bother with the normal designation process. This was a flouting of procedure Greens are normally quick to decry, at least when it suits them. But today we?ll just respond to some of the latest hysteria.
Much of the media?s coverage myopically portrays this as all about logging. But the existence or non-existence of forest roads has consequences that transcend their impact on timber cutting. These roads provide invaluable recreational opportunities for those seeking access to their public lands, but who might not be inclined or able to hike in with a backpack. It reflects a form of recreational snobbery to advance a policy that excludes all but the rugged, able-bodied backcountry enthusiast from these areas.
In parts of the rural West, these roads are central to the economic and cultural life of many communities. Some provide the only access owners of private ?inholdings" on federal lands have. The roads improve the ability of wildland firefighters to do their work (and increase their safety). And they?re vital to the success of a national initiative to deal with a host of other forest health problems. They not only are used by those who harvest trees or graze livestock on public lands, but by American Indians involved in religious rites and wild mushroom collectors . . . and for a hundred other activities that might escape the notice of urbanites or recreational snobs, but aren?t unimportant to the people doing them.
These other functions of forest roads aren?t lost on those pushing the roadless agenda ? for the very reasons we believe these roads should stay open, they want them closed. That?s because the roadless rule was never about roads, as such, but about control, and about limiting the people?s access to "public" lands. It was a roundabout way for the Clinton White House to do away with the "multiple use" mandate that long has guided national forest policy, without having to confront Congress on the matter.
The push for roadlessness is symptomatic of a creeping recreational correctness in which one group of outdoor enthusiasts attempts to dictate to all others how, when and where they can enjoy public lands. Too many politicians today pay deference to these eco-exclusionists, fearing a powerful lobby. But House Resource Committee Chairman Richard Pombo, from California, this week offered an admirably blunt rebuttal to those mourning the roadless rule?s much deserved dead end.
"Every federal land and forest management policy in the last 20 years has been shamelessly decried as a giveaway to industry by so-called environmentalists in this country," said Pombo. "In that time, however, national timber sales have plummeted by 80 percent, from 11 billion board feet a year to less than 2 billion board feet today. Domestic oil production has also decreased by roughly 40 percent.
So what industry benefits from these supposed giveaways?" Pombo asked. "Most of the companies that once bought federal timber have been forced out of business in America, and the number, size, and intensity of our catastrophic forest fires have quadrupled. Neither timber, nor oil, nor forest health have benefited. The only industry that has benefited from these supposed giveaways is the environmental scare-peddling and fundraising industry. The size and scope of this special interest has increased dramatically, at the expense of honest Americans who have lost good jobs in the resource sector."
We couldn?t have put it better.
This commentary appeared in today's Colorado Springs Gazette. Three cheers for the Bush Administration.
Our patented Hysterical Hyperbole Meter is registering off the scales following Tuesday?s news that the Bush administration was finally doing away with the endlessly controversial "roadless rule." Green extremists are painting the action ? which returns decision-making authority over forest roads to forest managers, and permits governors to retain roadless tracts where they see fit ? as some monstrous "rollback" of environmental protections, an engraved invitation to the pillaging of public lands by loggers, miners, ranchers and wild mushroom collectors.
But that?s what they say every time a policy decision doesn?t go their way ? haven?t they ever heard of the boy who cried wolf? Can you really "roll back" rules that never took effect and were twice declared unlawful by federal courts?
Last week we explained in detail why the rule was not only stupid public policy ? coming at a time when we need more, not less, access to public lands ? but a typically underhanded attempt by the Clinton White House to create 60 million acres of de-facto wilderness without having to bother with the normal designation process. This was a flouting of procedure Greens are normally quick to decry, at least when it suits them. But today we?ll just respond to some of the latest hysteria.
Much of the media?s coverage myopically portrays this as all about logging. But the existence or non-existence of forest roads has consequences that transcend their impact on timber cutting. These roads provide invaluable recreational opportunities for those seeking access to their public lands, but who might not be inclined or able to hike in with a backpack. It reflects a form of recreational snobbery to advance a policy that excludes all but the rugged, able-bodied backcountry enthusiast from these areas.
In parts of the rural West, these roads are central to the economic and cultural life of many communities. Some provide the only access owners of private ?inholdings" on federal lands have. The roads improve the ability of wildland firefighters to do their work (and increase their safety). And they?re vital to the success of a national initiative to deal with a host of other forest health problems. They not only are used by those who harvest trees or graze livestock on public lands, but by American Indians involved in religious rites and wild mushroom collectors . . . and for a hundred other activities that might escape the notice of urbanites or recreational snobs, but aren?t unimportant to the people doing them.
These other functions of forest roads aren?t lost on those pushing the roadless agenda ? for the very reasons we believe these roads should stay open, they want them closed. That?s because the roadless rule was never about roads, as such, but about control, and about limiting the people?s access to "public" lands. It was a roundabout way for the Clinton White House to do away with the "multiple use" mandate that long has guided national forest policy, without having to confront Congress on the matter.
The push for roadlessness is symptomatic of a creeping recreational correctness in which one group of outdoor enthusiasts attempts to dictate to all others how, when and where they can enjoy public lands. Too many politicians today pay deference to these eco-exclusionists, fearing a powerful lobby. But House Resource Committee Chairman Richard Pombo, from California, this week offered an admirably blunt rebuttal to those mourning the roadless rule?s much deserved dead end.
"Every federal land and forest management policy in the last 20 years has been shamelessly decried as a giveaway to industry by so-called environmentalists in this country," said Pombo. "In that time, however, national timber sales have plummeted by 80 percent, from 11 billion board feet a year to less than 2 billion board feet today. Domestic oil production has also decreased by roughly 40 percent.
So what industry benefits from these supposed giveaways?" Pombo asked. "Most of the companies that once bought federal timber have been forced out of business in America, and the number, size, and intensity of our catastrophic forest fires have quadrupled. Neither timber, nor oil, nor forest health have benefited. The only industry that has benefited from these supposed giveaways is the environmental scare-peddling and fundraising industry. The size and scope of this special interest has increased dramatically, at the expense of honest Americans who have lost good jobs in the resource sector."
We couldn?t have put it better.