" The extent to which regional and individual federal forest managers can be trusted to do the right thing in balancing environmental protection and timber production. That's an evolving story as "timber beasts" within the Forest Service lose relative influence, and biologists, hydrologists, and other habitat scientists are more closely listened to. Part of the issue here is that local forest managers frequently are pressured by politicians to "get out the cut" in order to boost the local economy."
what kind of notion is "timber beasts... lose influence?" this whole change in the rules is about giving in to the timber beasts over the intelligence of the science...
• Whether or not vast areas need protection in order to stem the decline of key "indicator species" that scientists say are the best gauge of forest health.
i particularly like this one. it basically says all we need to do is protect a few species in specific places and log the rest; nothing about determining how the rest of the species are doing...
How to mitigate fire danger and manage burned areas, which typically includes thinning trees beforehand and "salvage logging" charred timber afterward."
of course the easiest way to mitigate fire danger is for there to be no forest, right?
• The administration (and Forest Service) urge to lessen the "analysis paralysis" they say prevents proper forest management versus activists' efforts to slow if not prevent virtually all timber sales - efforts that typically involve lawsuits.
yes, damn those pesky studies. oh wait, well, when it comes to global warming we need more analysis paralysis right??
The economics of forest management. Because of the cost of road building and other aspects of forest management, most timber sales are money losers for Uncle Sam. Still, they're often the economic lifeblood for rural communities.
could be because they just give it away to their corporate buddies, but then that would be corrupt...
"The new rules are designed to speed up the planning process. They give local and regional forest managers more responsibility and accountability for developing plans, including protection of ecosystems. Sustainability will be the key, officials say, and independent audits will be required."
sustainability of what??? the ability to mow down forests like hay and wheat on a regular basis... auditing the tax accounts of the timber companies--i don't think so..
Forest Service officials say the rules will make it easier for them to respond to the impact of wildfires as well as such emerging threats as invasive plant species. "This rule applies the most current thinking in natural resource management," says Ms. Collins, who supervised the Deschutes National Forest in Oregon for 13 years. "
rape pillage destroy maim desertify .. yep current thinking all right.. ever seen what is left of the deschutes national forest... try to find a tree that is older than 25 years.. that isn't in a private reserve or a park.
Sally Collins, associate chief of the U.S. Forest Service, said the changes will replace a bureaucratic planning process with a more corporate management approach that will allow officials to respond to changing ecological and social conditions.
aaaaahh because, well, corporations have a vested interest in ecology?? no no no i forgot. they are required by law to make money for their shareholders, and that law needs to take precedent over EPA, and Clean Air and Clean Water and the rest of those
The new rules give economic activity equal priority with preserving the ecological health of the forests in making management decisions and in potentially liberalizing caps on how much timber can be taken from a forest. Forest Service officials estimated the changes will cut their planning costs by 30 percent and will allow managers to finish what amounts to zoning requirements for forest users in two to three years, instead of the nine or 10 years they sometimes take now.
gosh darn it. how dare anyone consider that the ecological health of forests might be more valuable than how much money they can generate in the short term immediately.. these guys are nutballs.. but people are so susceptable to these sort of deception and lying.. they learn to ignore it and then are later surprised when they drive through clearcuts...
The government will no longer require that its managers prepare an environmental impact analysis with each forest's management plan, or use numerical counts to ensure there are "viable populations" of fish and wildlife. The changes will reduce the number of required scientific reports and ask federal officials to focus on a forest's overall health, rather than the fate of individual species, when evaluating how to protect local plants and animals.
no longer require??? yes... that's it... and certainly don't count species, just make up a new reality and say that three male salmon are viable and that two breeding buffalo wandering across leased range land are viable... forest's overall health???? like how much can be cut how fast right?? cause well species other than monoforest timber trees and humans are not healthy...
"We're really in a new world," Collins said. "You've got to have different plans for different places, and you've got to have more dynamic plans."
translate dynamic as creating new realities that don't include any notion or awareness of any species other than dollars and cents... yes yes.. different plans indeed....
"The White House is deliberately creating a legal controversy, knowing the rule will be struck down in court, so it can give Congress the justification to roll back the forest protection laws these new rules violate," says Amy Mall, senior forestry specialist with the Natural Resources Defense Council. "It's a backdoor ruse to cripple the law."
think about it this way.. a traffic light intersection will now require more study and research than clearcutting a forest... how's that for the US mandate...
While Forest Service officials pledge to base decisions on "the best available science" in order to protect air, water, wildlife, and other important natural resources, activists see an administration pattern of orders and policies that indicate otherwise.
this sounds vaguely like global warming rhetoric.. we all need to use the "available" science--which is bushspeak/doublespeak for saying they will not make themselves look at any science whatsoever... no way
A year ago, the administration announced it would open 300,000 acres in Alaska's Tongass National Forest to logging. White House officials have reversed a Clinton-era order to prevent road building in some 59 million acres of roadless national forest land. The administration's "Healthy Forests Initiative" emphasizes logging to deal with burned areas before they deteriorate. The administration also wants to lessen some of the restrictions on development required under the Endangered Species Act. Critics further note that President Bush has received large campaign contributions from timber industry executives and trade groups."
having worked to protect the Tongass, i think the only way to make sure it is protected is to take the fight into the forest, and not in the courts...
