Bush to rescind immoral Clinton order

[Cyrus]

In a bold act of political courage, President Bush intends to reverse an executive order issued in 2001 by President Clinton that prohibits road construction on almost 60 million acres of federal forestland. No roads has meant no logging, mining or oil and gas development. That preposterous order slowed down development for corporate America and prevented the average American from enjoying the sight of roads, mines, drilling and other such eyefuls in federally-protected forests. I say good riddance.

Go, Dubya!..


CNN Report (http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/08/20/roadlesslogging.ap/index.html)

[Phat Mack]

I say good riddance.

I'm with you, Bubba. If trees are the major source of polution, imagine what a whole forrest does.

[Utah]

Do you not think that the average American also enjoys fuel, wood, and the everyday pleasures to which they have become accustomed to?

Who do you think buys corporate America's goods?

The reality is that Americans are no where near the point of making the sacrifices neccessarily to protect the environment. Its that simple.

[oljumpstart]

I for one enjoy plastic toilet paper.

[Rooster71]

[ QUOTE ]
In a bold act of political courage, President Bush intends to reverse an executive order issued in 2001 by President Clinton that prohibits road construction on almost 60 million acres of federal forestland. No roads has meant no logging, mining or oil and gas development. That preposterous order slowed down development for corporate America and prevented the average American from enjoying the sight of roads, mines, drilling and other such eyefuls in federally-protected forests. I say good riddance.

Go, Dubya!..


CNN Report (http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/08/20/roadlesslogging.ap/index.html)

[/ QUOTE ]
What was Clinton thinking? Why would anyone want to slow the growth of corporate America? This must mean that Clinton was a socialist.

To make up for this atrocity committed against corporate America, Bush should provide corporations incentives to do business in these federal forests such as tax abatements and deregulation. He should also exempt them from being required to provide any pesky overtime wages to their employees.

[vulturesrow]

Yeah lets just have 60 million acres worth of tree museums. Wouldnt want to disturb the habitat of the brown mouse humper pigeon or the spotted bananna slime snail. And god forbid there be roads so that so hikers and campers and hunters and fishermen could enjoy new wilderness areas too. No we cant take a chance that some corporation might be able to make more profit and employ more people and thus help strengthen the economy. Nope, lets keep those tree museums intact!! Fight the power!! Someone call Michael Moore to make a faux documentary!

[ThaSaltCracka]

where do you live vulture?

[cardcounter0]

"And god forbid there be roads so that so hikers and campers and hunters and fishermen could enjoy new wilderness areas too."

Uh, if there were roads then it wouldn't be a 'wilderness' area.

But I say why stop there? Let's build huge asphalt plants all over the country. PAVE the entire country from sea to shining sea. Make all 50 States one huge parking lot.

Think of all the jobs that project would create! Plus, get rid of traffic congestion which would help the air pollution problem.

[vulturesrow]

PM me. That has no relevance to this thread.

Edit:

sorry that came off a bit abrupt. I actually think it says where I live in the who plays video games the best thread.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
And god forbid there be roads so that so hikers and campers and hunters and fishermen could enjoy new wilderness areas too."

Uh, if there were roads then it wouldn't be a 'wilderness' area

[/ QUOTE ]

That is just ridiculous..so if a forest has a road through it , than it is no longer wilderness? /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[ QUOTE ]
But I say why stop there? Let's build huge asphalt plants all over the country. PAVE the entire country from sea to shining sea. Make all 50 States one huge parking lot.

Think of all the jobs that project would create! Plus, get rid of traffic congestion which would help the air pollution problem

[/ QUOTE ]

Way to be absurd. Putting roads in a forest is hardly akin to paving over the entire country.

[ThaSaltCracka]

I think it does actually, because you seem to think 60 million acres of untouched wildnerness is worthless. Up here in WA we have millions of trees and plenty of forests, and I think they are all worthwhile. There should be areas in our country which have not been ruined by humans. Don't post your location if you don't want, thats fine, but with your cavalier attitude torwards the enviroment, I was just curious where you live.

[vulturesrow]

Wrong I dont think it is worthless. I happen to think you can responsibly use said environment. I just dont see allowing roads being put in as a major threat to the environment. I think people should have a way to interact with the environment too and roads would facilitate that.

As to where I live, I actually used to live very close to you for about the past 4 years. Now I live in Virginia Beach. I grew up mostly in the rural south.

[cardcounter0]

"That is just ridiculous..so if a forest has a road through it , than it is no longer wilderness?"

Exactly. A bunch of bushes 20 feet from a roadway isn't exactly 'the great outdoors'.

But don't worry, the wilderness just has a bunch of pesky wild animals in it, once we get every square foot of the country paved, then we can start having hundreds of thousands of people start painting all the parking stripes (no overtime pay, of course).

[Rooster71]

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah lets just have 60 million acres worth of tree museums. Wouldnt want to disturb the habitat of the brown mouse humper pigeon or the spotted bananna slime snail. And god forbid there be roads so that so hikers and campers and hunters and fishermen could enjoy new wilderness areas too. No we cant take a chance that some corporation might be able to make more profit and employ more people and thus help strengthen the economy. Nope, lets keep those tree museums intact!! Fight the power!! Someone call Michael Moore to make a faux documentary!

[/ QUOTE ]
Employ more people and strength the economy? Yea, we would all really feel that 0.000000000001% bump in the GNP.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but it is important to remember that public lands are just that, public lands, not corporate lands. If the majority of US citizens want roads and drilling, etc. on public lands then so be it. But I seriously doubt that would be the case.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
Employ more people and strength the economy? Yea, we would all really feel that 0.000000000001% bump in the GNP.

[/ QUOTE ]

How did you come up with that figure? Any way, the point wasnt so much that it would cause major increase in GDP, rather to illustrate one of the positive effects of allowing roads.

[ QUOTE ]
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but it is important to remember that public lands are just that, public lands, not corporate lands.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you, one my points exactly. It is hard for people to enjoy public lands if they have no way to access them. I think many people would be thrilled to have access to heretofore inaccessible wilderness so they could enjoy outdoor activities there.

[Garbonzo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Employ more people and strength the economy? Yea, we would all really feel that 0.000000000001% bump in the GNP.

[/ QUOTE ]

How did you come up with that figure? Any way, the point wasnt so much that it would cause major increase in GDP, rather to illustrate one of the positive effects of allowing roads.

[ QUOTE ]
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but it is important to remember that public lands are just that, public lands, not corporate lands.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you, one my points exactly. It is hard for people to enjoy public lands if they have no way to access them. I think many people would be thrilled to have access to heretofore inaccessible wilderness so they could enjoy outdoor activities there.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think if you polled those people that use public lands the most, roads are not what they are looking for.

[adios]

You ommitted the long term environmental impact assessments from each side in this debate. I'm sure we can guess as to the respective side's conclusions but how they arrived at those conclusions is what's worth reviewing.

[vulturesrow]

Ok I'll bite. What do you think those people who use public lands the most would want?

[riverflush]

Why don't we just stop ALL new growth? Let's just set some arbitrary number of acres that we're allowed to build on - say, only the land we've currently developed - and ban all further growth.

That way, eventually, we'll all be living stacked up like sardines (a la NYC), using only public transportation, paying $20 to cross a bridge, coming home to our rent-controlled 700sq ft box so we can legally smoke and watch nature on the Discovery channel.

And while we're at it, let's also make sure nobody is allowed to water their grass (not enough water), or drive SUVs, use paper products, ride their mountain bikes on trails, eat meat, build golf courses, shop at big box stores, etc. etc. etc.

Humans use the resources they were given on earth - why is that so shocking? You can't stop it. What makes people think they can change human behavior through government demands?

[Rooster71]

[ QUOTE ]
I think if you polled those people that use public lands the most, roads are not what they are looking for.

[/ QUOTE ]
My point exactly. These areas would no longer be considered "wilderness" if roads were running through them.

[Rooster71]

[ QUOTE ]
Why don't we just stop ALL new growth? Let's just set some arbitrary number of acres that we're allowed to build on - say, only the land we've currently developed - and ban all further growth.

That way, eventually, we'll all be living stacked up like sardines (a la NYC), using only public transportation, paying $20 to cross a bridge, coming home to our rent-controlled 700sq ft box so we can legally smoke and watch nature on the Discovery channel.

And while we're at it, let's also make sure nobody is allowed to water their grass (not enough water), or drive SUVs, use paper products, ride their mountain bikes on trails, eat meat, build golf courses, shop at big box stores, etc. etc. etc.

Humans use the resources they were given on earth - why is that so shocking? You can't stop it. What makes people think they can change human behavior through government demands?

[/ QUOTE ]
That post totally misses the point. There is plenty of private land in this country for development. Any individual or group that has the funds can purchase land and develop it. We are talking about public lands.

"What makes people think they can change human behavior through government demands?" I don't see how anyone is trying to change human behavior. Unless you are implying that by not allowing roads, drilling, etc on public lands this would be an attempt to stifle human consumption. I don't see this as an issue unless there are major shortages in the marketplace. But that is another topic altogether.

[vulturesrow]

I seriously cant believe people are posting this. Just because a forest has a road through means it isnt wilderness anymore? Guess what, when I living in SaltCracka's beloved washington state, I used to go fishing a lot. We would drive up a LOGGING ROAD, in a NATIONAL FOREST and go fishing. Trust me it was about as much wilderness as you can get. You wouldnt want your car to die on you up there because you would be stuck in the wilderness.

[riverflush]

Rooster...

I'll admit...just an emotional post that rolled off the top of my head. This fanaticism about the environment really chaps my ass. (Especially when you've got a CNN article that quotes a logger who's merely trying to use a government ban to boost his own damn profits! )

That's the real estate investor in me coming out.

I understand public vs. private lands.

Just pissed off for a moment there...now back to your regularly scheduled programming.

[Randy_Refeld]

I am glad to see this progress. If people wnat to enjoiy the wilderness they can buy some wilderness and protect it themselves. Wildernes is not a public good, to be a public good everyone must receive benefit from it.

RR

[Randy_Refeld]

"I think if you polled those people that use public lands the most, roads are not what they are looking for."

Exactly, this isn't about saving the public lands for people that have nothing better to do then go sit in the woods for weeks at a time. Allowing roads makes it possible for poeple that aren't currently enjoying the lands to do so and it also makes the tress accessible to be harvested if that is what market forces dictate.

RR

[wacki]

This is why I can't stand CNN, they constantly only report one side of the story.

heres a clue:
--------------------------------------
"Those forests are worrisome to farmers such as Woodall, who has enjoyed the rising price of sawtimber pinewood over the last 15 years. Prices now reach almost $40 a ton.
The restrictions doubled our prices, so if you went back it could cut our prices in half," he said. "A 50 percent cut in our paycheck could not be good"
--------------------------------------
They admit the man they are interviewing has a conflict of interest yet they play it off as something deeper more meaningfull when it's not.


I'm suprised no one has brought up the point that there is 23 million acres of federal land that is currently being described as a "vast, dry tinderbox" that is in major risk of a catastrophic fire. The government has two options. Either spend hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer money to cut down trees in 23 million acres of land and let them decompose naturally, or let the loggers in to cut them down for free. The advantage of the loggers is that they build dirt roads so that firefighters as well as people who want to enjoy the great outdoors, such as campers and bicycle riders, they will still be able to enjoy the great outdoors. Also, the risk of a catastrophic fire will be all but eliminated, which means the forest will be safer for the trees and animals that live there.

The disadvantage, the forest isn't as prestine and untouched as extreme environmentalists want it to be.

Petition Link (http://www.petitiononline.com/NOonBOXR/petition.html)

Democrat Dianne Feinstein of California joined 12 Republican senators in identified 23 million acres of federal land constituting what they described as a "vast, dry tinderbox" that could ignite at the careless drop of a match. California has 7 million of the 23 million acres scattered among the 50 states under federal control.

Feinstein stated "We have to move quickly otherwise we risk losing the majesty of the West."

Wilderness Designations do not allow the type of fire suppression proposed by the senators, which exposes the forests to the same type of catastrophic fires that have devastated not only the Forests in the Western U.S., but also the various species that call the forest home.

Many within the Forest Service and those involved in firefighting, in local cities, counties and the state, have voiced their objections to Boxer's wilderness bill because of the negative effect it would have on fire suppression and firefighting.

Tom Bohigian, Boxer's deputy state director keeps insisting that wilderness designations won't affect fire fighting.

But Jim Wright, deputy director of fire protection for the California Department of Forestry, said it's not that simple. He has seen wilderness fires grow because federal officials would not use a bulldozer to carve out a firebreak.

And while most federal agencies like the Forest Service are willing to negotiate on firefighting tactics - especially when fires threaten state-owned land - Wright has often agreed to tactics less aggressive than he would normally use.

"Once (a fire) is in a wilderness area, it's going to get bigger because of the prohibitions you have," Wright said. "You cannot . . . get right next to the fire line and work it directly with fire engines."

Bohigian's assurances have not persuaded the Regional Council of Rural Counties to drop its opposition to Boxer's plan. The council's 29 members represent half of the state's 58 counties. "I had a fire in my district, and when it went into (federal) wilderness areas, we had to just watch it go up the sides of the mountain," said council Chairwoman Linda Arcularius, who is also chairwoman of the Inyo County Board of Supervisors. "The engines couldn't go in, and a lot of their field crews couldn't go in."


Link 2- Lots of info (http://www.warriorssociety.org/News/WildernessAlert15.html)

My opinion: I am a huge outdoorsman. I cave, mountainclimb, camp, fish etc. I am all for having some untouched, mechanized free backcountry, Quetico Park and Boundary Waters is a perfect example. But if there is a risk of a raging wildfire, by all means let the loggers in. Plus I have been camping when a wildfire broke out, let me tell you, nothing looks better than a dirt road or a lake when you can see a forest fire on the horizon. In July 1994, a fire raced through a forest in Colorado at 52 miles per hour! Since American antelope is the world's fastest land animal over distance, and it can run at 35 miles per hour (17 mph less than the colorado fire), and only for four miles, I would think the antelope would be happy too.

[Garbonzo]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok I'll bite. What do you think those people who use public lands the most would want?

[/ QUOTE ]

More importantly, why do you think it was so RIGHT for this environmental protection law to be removed? Have you been fighting against it? Do you generally think public land is issued and should be put to more practical use? Or...are you supporting something your party did because that's what you do?

For the other answer...people who like wilderness, nature, forests....like things that are normal in those places. Not honking horns, ashphalt trucks, pollution, gobs of people, traffic, strip malls or anything else....they like FRESH streams and rivers and thoroughly enjoy being in NATURE, not ....roads, which are followed my interesections, then street lights, then power supply lines etc etc until you can drive to the forest to get the oil in your car changed, grocery shop and go to Target!

[Garbonzo]

[ QUOTE ]
I seriously cant believe people are posting this. Just because a forest has a road through means it isnt wilderness anymore? Guess what, when I living in SaltCracka's beloved washington state, I used to go fishing a lot. We would drive up a LOGGING ROAD, in a NATIONAL FOREST and go fishing. Trust me it was about as much wilderness as you can get. You wouldnt want your car to die on you up there because you would be stuck in the wilderness.

[/ QUOTE ]

Slippery slope, one road leads to more roads.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
More importantly, why do you think it was so RIGHT for this environmental protection law to be removed? Have you been fighting against it? Do you generally think public land is issued and should be put to more practical use? Or...are you supporting something your party did because that's what you do?


[/ QUOTE ]

I think public land should be put to better use than being some vast tree museum that has absolutely no utility other than just being there. do I have to be actively fighting for or against something to have an opinion on it? In this particular case, I support the party opinion. In spite of what it may seem like, I am not a Republican kool-aid drinker. I disagree on many points but not on this one.

[ QUOTE ]
For the other answer...people who like wilderness, nature, forests....like things that are normal in those places. Not honking horns, ashphalt trucks, pollution, gobs of people, traffic, strip malls or anything else....they like FRESH streams and rivers and thoroughly enjoy being in NATURE, not ....roads, which are followed my interesections, then street lights, then power supply lines etc etc until you can drive to the forest to get the oil in your car changed, grocery shop and go to Target!

[/ QUOTE ]

A does not necessarily lead to B in this case in spite of your desire to make it so. I noticed my personal anecdote, although certainly not overwhelming empirical evidence, was conveniently ignored. It is not hard to find national forests with *Gasp* ROADS in them that havent been overrun by strip malls, gobs of people, etc. etc.

[Cyrus]

So let me get this straight. Bill Clinton and his whole administration were really a bunch of pyromaniacs. That executive order was aimed at helping fires! While George W Bush and his guys are keen on saving the forests and protecting the environment.

Do I have it right, man?

/images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif
/images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif
/images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif
/images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
So let me get this straight. Bill Clinton and his whole administration were really a bunch of pyromaniacs.

[/ QUOTE ]


If you remove the pyro prefix then you are indeed correct! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
So let me get this straight. Bill Clinton and his whole administration were really a bunch of pyromaniacs. That executive order was aimed at helping fires! While George W Bush and his guys are keen on saving the forests and protecting the environment.

Do I have it right, man?

/images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif
/images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif
/images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif
/images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]


Link to everything I have to say (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=950852&page=0&view=collap sed&sb=5&o=14&fpart=1#950852)

[HDPM]

Many of the posts in this thread hit the issues concerning public lands management, but miss the point about Clinton's executive order. Wilderness designation means wilderness. No roads, development of any kind, etc... National Forests aren't wilderness. It is supposed to take an act of congress to designate wilderness. At the stroke of a pen, the roadless initiative took land that was meant for multiple uses and turned it into quasi wilderness. If the people want wilderness, presumably they will elect congressmen who want that too. The issue was one that should have gone through a legislative process, not just had an executive order issued. IMO this is true whichever side of the issue you are on. Bush shouldn't be able to order mining of wilderness by executive order, and Clinton should not have changed the rules the way he did.

There are some other problems abotu the roadless thing that my wife researched. I forget the details, but the whole thing was flawed.


Anyway, this and Clinton's desiganation of the escalante thing in Utah were crap. Congress has found a way to designate wilderness and have things like national parks. Congress is the appropriate place to change designations of public lands.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
Many of the posts in this thread hit the issues concerning public lands management, but miss the point about Clinton's executive order. Wilderness designation means wilderness. No roads, development of any kind, etc... National Forests aren't wilderness. It is supposed to take an act of congress to designate wilderness. At the stroke of a pen, the roadless initiative took land that was meant for multiple uses and turned it into quasi wilderness. If the people want wilderness, presumably they will elect congressmen who want that too. The issue was one that should have gone through a legislative process, not just had an executive order issued. IMO this is true whichever side of the issue you are on. Bush shouldn't be able to order mining of wilderness by executive order, and Clinton should not have changed the rules the way he did.

There are some other problems abotu the roadless thing that my wife researched. I forget the details, but the whole thing was flawed.


Anyway, this and Clinton's desiganation of the escalante thing in Utah were crap. Congress has found a way to designate wilderness and have things like national parks. Congress is the appropriate place to change designations of public lands.

[/ QUOTE ]

A valid arguement on the Clinton/Bush exec order.

If you have any more information on those flaws, please post.

[AceHigh]

No forests, ergo no forest fires.

That will allow us to keep more firefighters/Army reserves where they belong fighting in IRAQ.

[Cyrus]

"Bill Clinton and his whole administration were really a bunch of pyromaniacs." ---> If you remove the pyro prefix then you are indeed correct!

You mean Clinton was a maniac? Hmmm. Maybe not. I saw Clinton making some stupid plays (Monica, Oval office, denial) but I have not seen him pressing into a disadvantage nor betting wildly into "every hand". As a matter of hand, I have seen him making some pretty nifty folds!

But as to that calling station, Dubya, now there's a mark if I ever saw one.

/images/graemlins/cool.gif