Piece by piece, the legacy of arrogant incompetence is reversed

[link]

Judge overturns Bush administration logging rule

By JEFF BARNARD

AP Environmental Writer

GRANTS PASS, Ore. —
A federal judge has struck down the Bush administration's change to a rule designed to protect the northern spotted owl from logging in national forests.

U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken ruled from Oakland, Calif., on Tuesday that the U.S. Forest Service failed to take a hard look at the environmental impacts of changing the rule to make it easier to cut down forest habitat of species such as the spotted owl and salmon on 193 million acres of national forests.

"I am hopeful that this is the last nail in the coffin to (President George W.) Bush's assault on our public forests," said Pete Frost, an attorney for the Western Environmental Law Center in Eugene, which represented plaintiffs in one of two cases challenging the rule.

At stake was a provision of the National Forest Management Act that required maintaining viable populations of species that indicate the health of an ecosystem, such as the spotted owl. The Bush administration changed the rule last year so it required a framework of protection, rather than maintaining viable populations of wildlife.

The ruling marked the third time federal courts have turned back attempts to change the 1984 version of what is known as the viability rule within the National Forest Management Act.

The judge wrote that an environmental impact statement done by the Forest Service "does not evaluate the environmental impacts of the 2008 rule," and the agency failed to comply with Endangered Species Act requirements to consult with other federal agencies on whether the rule changes would jeopardize the survival of endangered species.

Instead, the Forest Service argued that the rule changes themselves had no direct environmental impact until they were applied to specific projects.

The judge admonished the Forest Service for simply copying legal arguments already rejected in two court rulings into their latest justification for the rule change.

Forest Service spokesman Joe Walsh said in an e-mail that he could not immediately comment on the ruling.

Andy Stahl, director of Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics in Eugene, said until the National Forest Management Act was enacted in 1976, the Forest Service had wide latitude to do as it pleased with little oversight - a situation the Bush administration hoped to recreate.

After President Bush was elected in 2000, his administration systematically worked to increase national forest logging by changing the rules for enforcing environmental laws, but was consistently turned back by federal court rulings.

"This court decision sends the Forest Service back to square zero and upholds the promise ... that forest plans be meaningful and they actually protect forests," he said.

[Jim B.]

You can still take your gun in there.

[link]

It’s almost always been the case that guns are permitted in national forests, albeit with a lot of rules restricting gun use, and virtually no one to enforce them.

The overturning of former President Stupid’s axe job serves to stop the wholesale destruction of old growth forest land and endangered species under the ruse of his meaningless “framework of protection” it also obligates the Forest Service to serve at least in part the preservation of these lands, rather than being a slut broker for Weyerhaeuser and other large logging interests.

[aklim]

Originally Posted by link

It’s almost always been the case that guns are permitted in national forests, albeit with a lot of rules restricting gun use, and virtually no one to enforce them.

The overturning of former President Stupid’s axe job serves to stop the wholesale destruction of old growth forest land and endangered species under the ruse of his meaningless “framework of protection” it also obligates the Forest Service to serve at least in part the preservation of these lands, rather than being a slut broker for Weyerhaeuser and other large logging interests.

Yeah, I guess you are right. It's not like we would know what to do with this income that the logging interests bring. I mean, we are so full of cash and we have so much to sell that any export or domestic use of our own product or employment cannot improve our situation, can it?

[Txjake]

wow, now the Forest Service can let these old growth trees burn up in forest fires since they dont believe in forest management....what a sucess!

I agree that forest management is very important. However, controlled burns and some removal of dead or living trees is forest management. Letting a logging company take the oldest and best trees and running over the younger trees does not so much. That is letting a logging company have the run of the forest with no regard for the forest's health.

[Chas H]

Originally Posted by aklim

Yeah, I guess you are right. It's not like we would know what to do with this income that the logging interests bring. I mean, we are so full of cash and we have so much to sell that any export or domestic use of our own product or employment cannot improve our situation, can it?

Feel free to sell anything you own.

[aklim]

Originally Posted by Chas H

Feel free to sell anything you own.

So you dispute that logging generates revenue or are you disputing that we don't need revenue or exactly what is your pithy remark trying to say?

[Chas H]

Originally Posted by aklim

So you dispute that logging generates revenue or are you disputing that we don't need revenue or exactly what is your pithy remark trying to say?

I think you don't own the forests, and I, for one, am quite gratefull you don't.
The ruling doesn't stop logging, it changes the way the Forest service maintaines the populations of wildlife. And many of the forests subject to Forest service control are not subject to forest fires.
The salmon fishing industry stands to gain from this ruling, so if a logging is halted in some areas, the salmon population could increase.

[LUVMBDiesels]

Originally Posted by link

Judge overturns Bush administration logging rule



After President Bush was elected in 2000, his administration systematically worked to increase national forest logging by changing the rules for enforcing environmental laws, but was consistently turned back by federal court rulings.

"This court decision sends the Forest Service back to square zero and upholds the promise ... that forest plans be meaningful and they actually protect forests," he said.

Wow, since the rules were never allowed to be changed by our judges, I guess we will never know if 'President Stupid's' rules WOULD have made any difference.

I love the title of this thread and the name calling... Very mature

[aklim]

Originally Posted by Chas H

I think you don't own the forests, and I, for one, am quite gratefull you don't.

The ruling doesn't stop logging, it changes the way the Forest service maintaines the populations of wildlife.

And many of the forests subject to Forest service control are not subject to forest fires.

The salmon fishing industry stands to gain from this ruling, so if a logging is halted in some areas, the salmon population could increase.

OK. I was confused. I didn't know that I made a claim that I owned the forest.

But does it affect logging in a negative way?

Not arguing that point, am I?

I'm not sure if that salmon population is fished or not or whether it affects the salmon fishing industry. Are you?

[MS Fowler]

Originally Posted by LUVMBDiesels

Wow, since the rules were never allowed to be changed by our judges, I guess we will never know if 'President Stupid's' rules WOULD have made any difference.

I love the title of this thread and the name calling... Very mature

That is the "liberal" way.

[Chas H]

Originally Posted by aklim

OK. I was confused. I didn't know that I made a claim that I owned the forest.

But does it affect logging in a negative way?

Not arguing that point, am I?

I'm not sure if that salmon population is fished or not or whether it affects the salmon fishing industry. Are you?

You sure talk like you own the forests.
I don't know the new ruling affects logging, and I'm sure you don't either. But that hasn't kept you from making a knee-jerk comment.
The salmon industry has been at odds with the logging industry for decades. Major corporations own the logging industry. Salmon fishing is a mom and pop business. Who do think has influence in DC?

[POS]

Piece by piece, the legacy of arrogant incompetence is reversed

Oh, man. I thought this was going to be a how-in-the-hell-do-we-reverse-the-Obama-crap post.

[aklim]

Originally Posted by Chas H

You sure talk like you own the forests.

I don't know the new ruling affects logging, and I'm sure you don't either. But that hasn't kept you from making a knee-jerk comment.

The salmon industry has been at odds with the logging industry for decades. Major corporations own the logging industry. Salmon fishing is a mom and pop business. Who do think has influence in DC?

As do you. You don't, do you?

Hello Kettle. This is the pot speaking. You are black.

I see. So what you are telling me is that it is a big industry vs a small industry. IOW. Big dollars on one side, smaller pile of money on the other. That makes the decision easier then.