Lefties always want to ask me if there is something I disagree with Bush on. Well, sure there are. We are 2 different people. While I agree with much of what Bush does, or at least underestand it, I rarely agree with his environmental policies, and this is no different:
Managers of the nation’s 155 national forests will have more discretion to approve logging and other commercial projects without lengthy environmental reviews under a new Bush administration initiative.
The long-awaited rules, announced Wednesday, overhaul application of the landmark 1976 National Forest Management Act, which sets guidelines for managing 191 million acres of national forests and grasslands and protecting wildlife there.
I agree with the environmentalists on this. Streamlining the procedure is fine: opening it up for the potential to over logging and wildlife destruction is something else. Just call me a barking moonbat when it comes to environmentalism.
Those huge fires we had last year in California last year are a result of pervious management polices that push no human interference. As a side result the forests here have become so dense its unhealthy allowing disease (like the bark bettle) to spread and kill the trees, dead material to pile up and as a result we get these massive fires.
While much of the environmental policy has done good, some of it is a pain in the ass and is enforced in such a way that many times it make doing nothing the best option. Or worse the regulation place a huge financial burden ont he company. Plus much of the regulation is foucused on specific groups and often holding them responsible to make up for pollution of others they can as easily regulate of get fines out of.
Throw in my general annoyance of barking moonbat environmentalists who rely on fear tatics to scare people when there really is nothing wrong, because its easier to do than teach the average person about the facts.
Although its typical governement when ‘more responsive’ is defined as taking only 2 to 3 years. Sad thing is the way big government works, that is responsive.
I grew up in the Pacific Northwest, the daughter of a logger. I remember the days when after a job was done, the crews just walked away, leaving quite a mess. I remember my dad coming home cussing about the new laws that would require him to replant logged areas, and how much it was going to cost. He got used to that, and eventually realized that it is a good policy. I learned first hand why clear cutting makes more sense than selective cuts. Quite simply, the mature trees leave very little sun or nutrients for the young trees, and most of them die. I remember the frustration over the spotted owl, that was endangering itself by mating with barn owls. So many wonderful families became destitute because a handful of radicals almost shut town the timber industry. Trees are beautiful. They can provide shade, and food. But they are also crop. I will agree that a clearcut hillside is an ugly thing. But guess what, so is a corn field after the corn has been harvested.
Actually, Pirate, I believe you are mistaken. The policies in California have been to allow limited logging and stop forest fires. That is what lead to infestations of beetles and such. Letting it burn, cleans out the heavy undergrowth, kills alot of the diseases, and leads to the opening up of the forest canopy. It also destroys good trees which the logging industry gets so upset about.
In much of the National Forests of SoCal they weren’t allowed to do even limited cutting to thin the trees, once the forest got too dense the disease spread rapidly killing the trees turning them in to tinder boxes. But they stop fires, even natural when they break out.
Typically a fire would burn off the underbrush and dying plant material, but would burn so quick it would only char the trees, but not kill them. Thanks to the bark bettle the trees act like fireworks where they catch fire quickly and in many cases explode, generating enough heat and length of burn to catch neighboring trees, even the healthy ones on fire.
The key to the problem in the So Cal Forest is that they have been mismanaged so long and the hands off policy encouraged by groups like the Sierra Club has allowed the forest to get so bad, we get these giant raging fires the whipe out the forest. My parents house is in the foothills and we’ve had to cut down every pine tree on the property because they are infected and dying.
Similar stuff has happened for other reasons where the Laguna Fire of years back was in large part because enviro-crazies prevented home owners and the city from clearing brush because it was a habitat for the gnat catcher.
You all have wonderful points, which I would agree with. My concern is that the laws will allow over cutting without replanting. GWB has never been know as much of an environmentalist, and the law may allow cutting too quickly for an areas own good. Granted, the old way may have been to burdensome.
Teach,
There’s a site you might want to visit on this subject. Dr. Patrick Moore was one of the original founding members of Greenpeace. One of the things he noted was that environmentalists today have gone so far with their ideas and manifestos that they are working to destroy people’s lives and not doing anything to help the environment. He now runs http://www.greenspirit.com .
There is a happy medium between man and environment. Loggers are not the problem, overcrowding is. But that’s a different story.
Another book worth a read on this is by Paul Driessen:
“Eco-Imperialism
Green Power
Black Death”
I took me a bout a day to read, rather interesting how the environmental groups essentially blackmail large corporations. Also includes the idea of the accountability, where if Greenpeace does a ad campaign on a lie nothing happens, where as if a corporation did…well you know where that goes. Also fascinating was some negative effects on places like Africa that are a result of Environmental pressure groups.