Court reinstates road ban in national forests

[Bean Counter]

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2009604635_apusroadlessforests.html

By MATTHEW DALY
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON —
A federal appeals court Wednesday blocked road construction in more than 50 million acres of pristine national forests.

The decision by a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reinstates a 2001 rule put in place by President Bill Clinton just before he left office that prohibited commercial logging, mining and other development on 58.5 million acres of national forest in 38 states and Puerto Rico. A subsequent Bush administration rule had cleared the way for more commercial activity there.

The latest ruling, issued in San Francisco, sides with several Western states and environmental groups that sued the Forest Service after it reversed the so-called "Roadless Rule" in 2005.

The Obama administration has ordered a one-year moratorium on most road-building in national forests. A May 28 directive by Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack gives him sole decision-making authority over all proposed forest management or road construction projects in designated roadless areas in all states except Idaho.

Idaho was one of two states that developed its own roadless rule under the 2005 Bush policy, which gave states more control over whether and how to block road-building in remote forests.

Environmental advocates hailed the 9th Circuit ruling, which they said was needed even though Bush is no longer in office.

"This is a huge step. It puts the roadless rule back in place," said Kristen Boyles, a lawyer for the environmental group Earthjustice, which represented a coalition of environmental groups in the case.

Boyles, who has fought for nearly eight years to uphold the 2001 roadless rule, said the 9th Circuit ruling "is what we need to be able to have the protection on the ground for the last wild places and for hikers and campers."

Justin DeJong, a spokesman for Vilsack, said "the Obama administration supports conservation of roadless areas in our national forests, and this decision today reaffirms the protection of these resources."

Last month, Vilsack approved a timber sale in a roadless area of Alaska's Tongass National Forest. The sale allows Pacific Log and Lumber to clear-cut about 380 acres in the Tongass, the largest federal forest. About nine miles of roads will be constructed to allow the logging.

[Bigshooter]

I like the fact that no new roads will be built, but don't like the fact that no commercial logging will take place.  I use to hunt a lot of national forest but with the lack of new clear cuts it has hurt the game populations.  Not much grows under standing dead old growth that deer and elk like to eat.

[Kain]

Does this stop them from maintaining existing roads?  I went to the Siouxon this weekend and it was terrible.  Lots of washouts and pot holes you could loose your truck in.  There are almost no new clear cuts and a lot of the main roads are starting to get grown over.  I grew up hunting this unit and now it is almost worthless to even go there.  Just gonna push more of us into the same units.

[johnsc6]

yes, it prevents them from maintaining roads.  They don't have the money.  If the FS cannot build roads and harvest the trees (renewable resource) before it rots, they don't have any income, counting frogs and flowers doesn't bring in money, or increase wildlife populations...sucks........

[logger]

this burns my ass to no end,first thing is they need to reduce thier workforce by 60% and then go back to what the forest service was origanlly supposed to do in the first place. I think that since they don't log anymore they have taken on alota crap to justify their exsitence.Most roads nowdays built for logging are reclaimed afterwords anyway except on most private ground where they realize the road cost themselves.

[Huntbear]

I like the fact that no new roads will be built, but don't like the fact that no commercial logging will take place.  I use to hunt a lot of national forest but with the lack of new clear cuts it has hurt the game populations.  Not much grows under standing dead old growth that deer and elk like to eat.

The FS has no clue how bad things are out in the woods for the wildlife, due to the logging bans...

Deer populations are falling like a rock, and elk will follow soon enough.

  The only place I see deer and elk flourishing is where private timber companies own their own land, log it like it needs to be done, and replant.  But then,  you have to many roads there.  Somewhere, there has to be a happy medium.

[wolfbait]

this burns my ass to no end,first thing is they need to reduce thier workforce by 60% and then go back to what the forest service was origanlly supposed to do in the first place. I think that since they don't log anymore they have taken on alota crap to justify their exsitence.Most roads nowdays built for logging are reclaimed afterwords anyway except on most private ground where they realize the road cost themselves.

 

They invent jobs for themselves, the inventer gets an award, and the process starts allover agin. The USFS has less work to do and more people. Its more of a welfare system now. The USFS and environmantalists are as one. They both have the same agenda. Shut Down the Woods.

[jsteplee]

I'm not sure about the impact on this rule for maintaining roads, but Forest Road 54 back into the Siouxon area is/was scheduled for repair late summer of 2009 (I'm not sure when that is).  Anyway, if you hit the Gifford Pinchot forest page and look for a roads link, it will show you there's a lot of them that are closed or buried.

[logger]

I just went 3 rounds with the forest service this week over a road they are charging me to use to get to a state piece. We are getting charged up the ass for the privelage to use their road, but won't grade it or even let me grade it unless I buy another permit and then to top it all off i would have to put up a bond in case I don't know how to grade a road. I have seen some of their handy work and I think that on payday for some of their operators we as tax payers should have some change coming.

[Elkaholic daWg]

  The liberal greenies are getting thier way. 

[Elkaholic daWg]

Environmental advocates hailed the 9th Circuit ruling, which they said was needed even though Bush is no longer in office.

"This is a huge step. It puts the roadless rule back in place," said Kristen Boyles, a lawyer for the environmental group Earthjustice, which represented a coalition of environmental groups in the case.

Boyles, who has fought for nearly eight years to uphold the 2001 roadless rule, said the 9th Circuit ruling "is what we need to be able to have the protection on the ground for the last wild places and for hikers and campers."

Justin DeJong, a spokesman for Vilsack, said "the Obama administration supports conservation of roadless areas in our national forests, and this decision today reaffirms the protection of these resources."

Last month, Vilsack approved a timber sale in a roadless area of Alaska's Tongass National Forest. The sale allows Pacific Log and Lumber to clear-cut about 380 acres in the Tongass, the largest federal forest. About nine miles of roads will be constructed to allow the logging.

[/quote]




 


----------------------------------------------------------------------

                   Camouflage: The Original Green

The experiences of watching antlers emerge ghost-like through the dawn’s white fog or witnessing cupped mallard wings darting sharply through a glassy cypress slough are in jeopardy. They are at risk of becoming nothing more than scenes in stories that we one day tell our children and grandchildren when harkening back to the “good ol’ days”—the days when we could experience raw intimacy with wildlife through hunting.

Hunting and the unique natural experiences that come with it must be defended from anti-hunting zealots who might call themselves naturalists, environmentalists or whatever other “green” label is in vogue. There are groups that are genuinely “green” and that understand the vital benefits hunters bring to the table, but some of the most vocal groups use deception and have ulterior motives, placing wildlife in great peril. It is the hunter’s obligation to know the difference between the good and bad organizations and educate their fellow sportsmen.

In addition to the more commonly known battle for Second Amendment freedoms, the NRA’s mission is to enhance hunting opportunities and advance conservation efforts of the game animals we hunt, something that benefits all wildlife. This often involves fending off the attacks initiated by so-called “green” groups that claim to promote the environment, while lacking any real connection with the land or any comprehensive understanding of sustainable environmentalism. This radical anti-hunting ideology has unfortunately penetrated every level of local, state, and federal government.

As the newest member of NRA-ILA’s Hunting Policy Division, I am excited to take up the mantle and look forward to working hard every day to protect our hunting heritage from brazen attacks leveled at it by those who unjustly call themselves “green.” Together, we are poised to help preserve our hunting legacy while wearing camouflage. It is, after all, the original “green.” It is a great privilege to work for the country’s oldest civil liberties organization, which takes a back seat to no one in our commitment to America’s hunters.

Hunters are the original environmentalists—the true stewards of the land. Hunters have acted as wildlife’s primary guardians all over this country and across the span of time. This is what some “green” groups just don’t get or dishonestly refuse to acknowledge. They cherish the millions of acres of habitat restored and protected by hunters; they reap the benefits of billions of dollars pumped into conservation by hunters; and they marvel at hunter-driven wildlife recovery and enhanced biodiversity. Yet, some shamelessly try to abridge hunters’ rights and close access to the land and wildlife with an ever-increasing barrage of radical legislation. This agenda flies in the face of the “green” movement’s own heritage.

The father of modern environmentalism, Aldo Leopold, said, “Harmony with the land is like harmony with a friend; you cannot cherish his right hand and chop off his left.” Leopold would counsel modern-day environmentalists to cherish hunters as friends because of all that hunters do for the land and its inhabitants. But some members of the “green” movement don’t understand the interconnection between themselves and hunters. It seems that they forget that Leopold was a lifelong hunter.

To end hunting is to end conservation and the environmental health of the land. The NRA understands the symbiotic relationship as illustrated by the conservation issues it has advanced in the past while protecting the rights of hunters. One example of some “green” groups exhibiting a deceptive anti-hunting campaign is their push to designate millions of additional acres of federal public lands as wilderness. It sounds positive on its face, but the restrictions that these groups deceivingly impose on wilderness areas, such as shutting down access and denying any form of forestry management, actually harms wildlife and the overall health of these public lands.

There are more than 110 million acres of wilderness areas in the U.S. today with many wonderful attributes, but radicals are now using a Trojan horse approach to target huge swaths of traditional hunting and recreational land. They’re using a “wilderness designation” to systematically attach their aggressive, anti-gun agenda, evidenced by their stern unwillingness to compromise or listen to science-based facts. Such facts clearly show the benefits of hunting and providing adequate access.

The public lands targeted for new designation boast an abundance of wildlife, such as Colorado’s White River and Gunnison National Forests. These areas have been cared for and used by generations of hunters and have offered a host of recreational activities to families across the country. While these “green” groups masquerade as guardians of pristine land, they uncompromisingly reject access to hunters—and millions of conservation dollars—by closing entire road and trail systems, where not a single road leading to the backcountry is accessible. Through their lobbying efforts, they ban all mechanical means of transportation (including bicycles and game carts).

What about access for the elderly, disabled (many of whom are our country’s war heroes) or the parents who work six days a week and simply do not have the time or resources to walk or ride horseback into the backcountry with their child? As practical access is denied to more and more public lands with the conversion to wilderness, hunters will stop buying gear and licenses. While this is the goal of organizations like HSUS, it seems that some “green” groups have forgotten that it is hunters who subsidize conservation efforts through fees and excise taxes and practice valuable wildlife management based on science. In addition to prohibiting access, the “preservationist” groups, as opposed to conservation groups, insist on forbidding proper forest management practices in the proposed wilderness areas. Modern forest management science boosts biodiversity, enhances wildlife habitat, and strategically mitigates devastating forest fires that could decimate entire ecosystems. Wilderness designation stops all of this dead in its tracks and leaves “nature to run its course.” The NRA is working hard to bring science and common sense back into the policy-making realm, defending hunters from unapprised attacks and misleading schemes aimed at ending hunting one step at a time.

Many policy makers fail to recognize the consequences of blindly following some proposals that contain a stealth anti-hunting agenda wrapped in an “environmental package.” If adopted by policy makers, these deceptive proposals would actually result in negating legitimate environmental and conservation efforts. The NRA has confronted these misinformation campaigns and has provided science-based facts to policy makers in order to advance conservation and increase viable wildlife habitat.

Examples of some of the enormously successful conservation efforts the NRA has engaged in include: No Net Loss of public hunting lands legislation; Open Fields Programs—whereby private landowners receive incentives to open their lands to the public; the 34 million acre habitat-enhancing Conservation Reserve Program; and legislation protecting traditional hunting areas from publicly funded development. Efforts to pass legislation to recruit and retain hunters may be the NRA’S greatest conservation success story. Hunters are undoubtedly the largest contributors to conservation in both dollars and in essential habitat acquisition and restoration. Supporting hunters and increasing their ranks means advancing conservation.

The vast majority of hunters take their inspiration from leaders and lifelong hunters like Teddy Roosevelt, continuing his passion for conservation and deep respect for all wildlife. There are a few controversial and emotional issues that divide hunters today, softening their voice against a backdrop of biased media, but the common ground is overarching. Ardent hunter and conservationist, Fred Bear, stated, “If you are not working to protect hunting, then you are working to destroy it.” Extending a hand to all in the hunting world has become paramount in order to preserve a way of life that has been the ultimate defender of wildlife. With hunters at the helm, true friends of the environment need to unite and address a growing apathy toward nature and confront those groups who deceptively showcase the green label on their shirts, be it ignorantly or deliberately, while working to destroy the very thing they promise to protect.

What can you do to make a difference? Take kids or adult novices into the woods and introduce them to the joys of hunting. Shake hands with a “green-labeled” individual who is willing to listen and explain the conservation leadership that hunters provide. Educate your friends, families and policy makers about the radical organizations that hide their true intent behind a green flag in contrast to those organizations that truly want to protect and improve Mother Nature and its inhabitants.

Continue to support your NRA so we can work effectively to expose falsehoods and fight those who defy reason and sound environmental science. There is no other group with more respect for nature than hunters. As my father taught me, the essence of hunting is the interaction with the wildlife, a delicate dance with the natural environment, and the camaraderie with those who have been fortunate enough to truly experience the great outdoors.
Related Articles

[sako223]

Mismanagement clearly. Over logging in years past, messy work, selling resources to foreign entities cheap. Hiring too many people to do little in the field. A whole fleet of vehicles so they can do paperwork.
In some areas the Indians do a better job of managing resources.
Private landowners have to do it and pay taxes. The USFS needs lots of tax money to do an incomplete job. Now they have an excuse to do less.

[Houndhunter]

the area i hunt has gone to *censored* because of the no logging in national forest. i dont care for alota roads but if some roads mean that they will start logging again than yes its worth it. the people that want to "preserve" national forest dont care about the wildlife, they care about the trees

[Huntbear]

The fish and wildlife agencies need to weigh in on this to help out the habitat..... oh wait, they don't care either!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[robescc]

I am not sure if you guys are lost or its just me.   
The article is about the national forests which are parks.  They are different than the forest service.  One is Federal and the other is State.  Again, a big difference.
There is a shortfall of money to repair and make new roads in the state.  Look at the Suattle River Road.  It has had major washouts 3 times in my life.  It has been closed more years of my life than it has been open.  After 7 years of environmental impact studies, they will start the repairs the summer of 2010.  That goes to show that the forest service is repairing roads. Even though money is tight.  There have also been many repairs in the skagit valley and Mount Baker area.
I know they state is not perfect and could handle its funds MUCH better, but they are fixing roads.
Again, there is a big difference between the National Forests and the Forest Service.
Just my 

[robescc]

More of my thoughts. I think it is bs to think that the lack of clearcuts affect the population of deer and elk.  The reason people think this is because the are not as easy to spot from the road.  Get out of your truck and walk your fat ass up the hill and you will see more game than you think.

I call BS on that point of view.

[280ackley]

I am not sure if you guys are lost or its just me.   

It's you.  The Forest Service manages the National Forests.  And yes new clearcuts affect deer and elk populations for the better.

[280ackley]

The article is about the national forests which are parks.
Just my 

National Parks are parks, National Forests are forests that are mandated by Congress to be managed for "Multiple Use".  However I can see how one can be confused, National Forests are managed now more like parks.

[whacker1]

I am not sure if you guys are lost or its just me.  

It's you.  The Forest Service manages the National Forests.  And yes new clearcuts affect deer and elk populations for the better.

Agreed - clear cuts and thinning provide way more feed than stands of timber.  

Part of the reason the Mt. St. Helens herd is having issues is that all of the timbers in the blast zone is the same age.  28 years to date after replanting.  The area needs to be thinned and some modest clear cuts would provide more of the feed need to sustain the herd through the entire year.

[robescc]

I was wrong about the forest service and national forest.  I am an idiot.
I don't think I am wrong on the clearcuts to help population.  The Forest service is also fixing roads.  I can name a dozen that was fixed this summer alone.

[luvtohnt]

http://www.clemson.edu/extfor/timber_production/fortp19.htm
http://orforests.com/assets/flow/forests/habitat_cycle.htm
http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/gtr494.pdf

Some info on clear cutting, and how it relates to wildlife habitat. If done properly it is a great tool. The problem in today's modern world is everyone is out to maximize profits. With that said the recent clear cutting I have seen is done so horribly that they actually degrade the habitat. 

Brandon

[Houndhunter]

clear cuts = more feed, if you acutually hunt you would know that. its common sense, i dont need some science and info to tell me that. i wish they would still burn the cuts like they used to after they logged, but thats bad for the enviroment

[Buckhunter24]

I was wrong about the forest service and national forest.  I am an idiot.
I don't think I am wrong on the clearcuts to help population.  The Forest service is also fixing roads.  I can name a dozen that was fixed this summer alone.

Im pretty sure that early succession plant/tree species provide much more browse for deer/elk. Limiting the amount of food limits the population bottom line. Since we suppress fire so heavily we need logging for healthy forests. Forest service land is almost all late succession stands of timber that dont provide browse because of fire suppression/lack of logging. The problem is the USFS is too big and too set in their ways to listen to reason.

Anyone know if there is any plan to fix the FS road off the end of Pleasant Valley? I think its FS 41...

[Buckhunter24]

clear cuts = more feed, if you acutually hunt you would know that. its common sense, i dont need some science and info to tell me that. i wish they would still burn the cuts like they used to after they logged, but thats bad for the enviroment

Haha yah I spent the last 2 springs and falls broadcast burning over in Idaho. The elk love to come in after it cools and roll around and lick the ash... not sure why. But apparently WA decided that its bad for the environment

[whacker1]

my understanding is that the elk lick the ash and soot for salt.

[logger]

The f.s. does't have to go back to what they did in the hey day , but for *censored*s sake do something to justify there job. Somebody can't remember who did a study to find out what happened to all the elk in the gifford pinchot around packwood and ashford 1.7 mill and 3 years later no logging = no animals for the most part anyways. And they won't fix pleasant valley rd. the *censored*s don't have a reason to go up there so they won't fix it unless the want to study why the bull prick jumped the heifer shaft then they will fix it.

[bonkellekter]

Some info on clear cutting, and how it relates to wildlife habitat. If done properly it is a great tool. The problem in today's modern world is everyone is out to maximize profits. With that said the recent clear cutting I have seen is done so horribly that they actually degrade the habitat. 

Brandon

There has got to be a balance - we need roadless habitat - we need timber and roads to harvest the timber. I like the Idea of re-claimed roads, this allows for timber harvesting which helps to poduce necessary types of vegetation to sustain the elk population. Both old growth and new growth offer necessities for good elk/deer habitat. It is one of those things that cannot afford to be over-controlled or under-controlled. As a hunter I need large areas of roadless land to get away from the crowd and really hunt. But a large area of land that cannot sustain a healthy population is basically worthless.

[Houndhunter]

But a large area of land that cannot sustain a healthy population is basically worthless.

and thats what sucks, thats why i wish they would do some heli cuts still; no roads, no people, and lots of animals

[Special T]

But that would make too much sense hound hunter!

[280ackley]

Way too much sense.  They would rather be a black hole for tax dollars insted of not needing any or very little from he tax payers.

[finnman]

It's obvious that many on here do not have family involved in the timber industry or their jobs are not related to timber harvest

Provide local income through timber harvest, pay construction companies to build the roads, pay them to remove the roads or gate them. Habitat inproves, if the habitat does not improve, the animal numbers keep falling, does it matter if there are no roads? You don't have any animals to hunt!!!!!

[280ackley]

Your right Finnman.  Some should take a drive around a few of the county's that relied on work from the our National Forests and see what happens.  Lewis county is now over 14% unemployment.  This isn't only because of the lack of work in the GP but it hasn't helped.  Also, most of the NF in the west could be self sustaining when it comes to there budgets but we all know that will never happen.

[Jamieb]

If I'm remembering this right, from back when Clinton was in office. This only affects "wilderness areas"

[Elkaholic daWg]

If I'm remembering this right, from back when Clinton was in office. This only affects "wilderness areas"

 WRONG!   By law wilderness must be "untrammeled by man"  meaning no roads allowed. When land is designated Wilderness roads are removed in most (or all) cases.
 This was (and IS) an attempt by the green liberal left to impose de facto wilderness in other ares of the National Forests on the rest of us........

[280ackley]

 
I believe Clinton's road ban was one of the last Executive Orders he signed.  That is different from his Northwest Forest Plan which was established in 1994.

[bonkellekter]

does it matter if there are no roads?

I grew up logging and my dad still has a logging business - and times are really tough for them right now - that being said this ruling (and I think this thread) has to do with designated roadless wilderness land which we as sportsmen can't afford to lose any more of. So yes it does matter if there are roads. There are many other ways to imrpove wildlife habitat like controlled burns. I am not sure if you have ever hunted any of these large roadless areas but the experience is second to none and cannot be experienced anywhere that access is as easy as turning in your hubs to drive up and down old logging roads. But I am also all for selective logging in these areas for habitat improvement when the roads are going to be re-claimed.

[280ackley]

Whats its about is bypassing Congress.  If these areas should be Wilderness areas then let congress vote on them and let it be so.  This is about bypassing congress by way of Executive Order and now Court order.