Posted on 05/06/2005 10:26:00 PM PDT by Coleus
The Bush administration, in one of its biggest environmental decisions, moved yesterday to open nearly one-third of all remote national forest lands to road building, logging and other commercial ventures.
The 58.5 million acres involved, mainly in Alaska and in western states, had been put off limits to development by President Bill Clinton eight days before he left office in January 2001.
In Virginia, 394,000 acres are affected in the Jefferson and George Washington national forests.
Under existing local forest management plans, about 34.3 million acres of these pristine woodlands nationally could be opened to road construction. That would be the first step in allowing logging, mining and other industry and wider recreational uses. New management plans have to be written for the other 24.2 million acres before road building can commence.
Governors have 18 months to submit petitions to the U.S. Forest Service to challenge either the old plans to stop development, or to call for new plans to allow it.
Environmentalists said the new rule would let the administration rewrite the forest management plans to lift restrictions against development on most of the forest land.
"Yesterday, nearly 60 million acres of national forests were protected, and today as a result of deliberate action by the administration they are not," said Robert Vandermark, director of the Heritage Forests Campaign, run by a coalition of environment groups. "The Bush administration plan is a 'leave no tree behind' policy that paves the way for increased logging, drilling and mining in some of our last wild areas."
Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns said in announcing the rule that his agency "is committed to working closely with the nation's governors to meet the needs of our local communities while protecting and restoring the health and natural beauty of our national forests."
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
You should think more closely about what is sloganeering. For my money, the economist's trick of introducing "externalities" is a red herring since it merely opens doors to real and imagined downside costs - but NEVER the real and imagined benefits. In short, it is as useful as an automobile with tires on the front end only. Fact is, all of the evil extraction technologies ranted about by so called 'environmentalists' have benefitted humanity far more than their consequences.
What to do?
Don't curtail the resource use or consumption - improve the processes. American air, water and soil are cleaner today than they were even 30 years ago - in spite of higher yields per acre. The magic isn't in greater producing crop cultivars, it is in closer management and more precise use of technologies. Logging is the same.
From the Spotted Owl. I hope that helps. :) I also read it from Jared Diamond.
lol
Yes, I know. I'm eccentric.
Borlaug is the 'Father' of the Green Revolution and nearly single handedly has saved as many as a billion people from starvation beginning with an improved wheat strain that quadrupled yields in India during the famine in the 1960's. The use of hybrids and inputs are regimented for the locality and climate. The Chinese 'Rice Bowl' project used basic technology stolen from him via his graduate students. Environmentalists hate his guts because he, like any sane person, doesn't fear chemicals or technology and considers saving human lives tantamount. Google yields 49,300 hits so you can start your own research project from there.
Who do you think pays for all the damage from the raging forest fires?
Government regulations are only a small part of things, and then, mostly for big entities. Most pollution of that sort is discrete. Far more injurious is the problems with diffused pollution over large areas such as that generated by scads of small operators like family farms. Rising inputs and dropping commodity prices have forced far more rigor and discipline into farming than an entire division of beltway clods with jackboots.
In California we pay a lot more for cars and gas to reduce pollution. Uncle Sam was needed. Are you saying the small family farmer is a polluter, and then big is better from an environmental standpoint? If so, that is an interesting thought.
Rights, farms, environment ping.
Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from this list.
I don't get offended if you want to be removed.
I'm not saying either is better. My entire outlook can be derived from the Founder's belief in the primacy of property rights and the need for undistorted markets and the inevitable amrket discipline.
California, IMO, is insane and that's another topic for another day.
G'night.
I'll have to take up your worries tomorrow, friend.
"This has nothing to do with Marxism. I believe in free enterprise. Let them buy land, manage their own forests, cut their own timber and sell it for a profit."
Most of the land out west is "publicly owned" land. More than 85% of my state, Arizona, is either Reservation, National Forest, National Park, State Trust, BLM, city municipal, county owned, or other "publicly owned" land. Including nearly all of the many natural resources this state has to offer. There is scarce land to buy with a forest! or big enough to plant one Lol, and contrary to popular belief, we have plenty of forest and tree in Arizona. Or at least did until unmanaged forests were infested by bark beetles and ravaged by fire....
I would be fine with your suggestion, but in a way you didn't have in mind. The Federal and State Governments should just sell off some of that land for the highest valued private uses.
If you want the Govt to charge exhorbitant leases for public land, the only real effect is to increase inflation and the consumer price index, because the price of EVERYTHING produced on public land... timber, milk, meat, minerals, metals, will go up. You will also make it harder for anyone but large corporations to be able to afford to be in the business. Goodbye to independent farmers, ranchers, etc. Lemme guess, you live out east?
"So I guess we can expect the price of housing to come down. And I suppose our tax bill will be reduced. "
The cost of building will go down. The cost of BUYING wood will definitely come down. The price of a finished house is dependent on far more than the price of wood, wood being a small percentage of the material used in most houses. Even in my 75 year old house, the only wood is in the floor, the joists supporting the floor, and some lathe in the wall to hold up the plaster. Today, most houses are made from synthetic materials on top of some 2x4.
"But the primary purpose for the Federal government acquiring national forests is for the benefit of the public as a whole, not to benefit a corporation."
If it didn't benefit a corporation to some degree...
...what incentive would they have to bid on the land?
Why are you so opposed to seeing an "evil corporation" making a buck on it, when everyone else involved is?
The capital investment to just start up and run one of these businesses is high. That high capital investment circulates through the economy - manufacturing (trucks, industrial equipment, etc), transportation, information technology, education... the very kinds of jobs we are lamenting the loss of!!!
WOW!! This goes on and on.
I am from the east originally.
I understand what you are saying and your points are well taken.
I don't think corporations are inherently "evil". They are corporations. Their function is to make a profit for their owners or shareholders. They are neither inherently good nor evil, although corporations and private enterprise are a bedrock of our economic system and society. At the same time, corporate interests are not necessarily in accord with the public interest as a great American like Teddy Roosevelt recognized a century ago.
Having said that, my original point was that the primary function of national forests is to preserve open spaces and land for the use of the general public, not to generate income for private corporations. The national forests are owned by the public and supported by public tax dollars for multi-purpose use.
Having said that, I understand that there are legitimate reasons to permit controlled logging in national forests, but that the primary purpose of said logging from the government's perspective should be to insure the integrity and health of said forests. Accordingly, any logging or grazing permitted should come with strings and oversight attached to assure proper protection of public property.
If, as you assert, an unreasonable amount of open land in the west is monopolized by government ownership, the government might consider sale or long term rental of some of said land to private logging or grazing interests, transferring the liability and cost of ownership and maintenance to the logging and ranching industry. But said sale should come with certain deed restrictions as to the use of said land. For instance, regulations requiring replanting of logged areas to insure the replenishment of the timberlands, protection for any endangered species, etc. Also a deed restriction forbidding the sale of said land to developers who will just create more urban sprawl.
That's propably a fair compromise.
You must be from the west. I suggest you take a trip to places like northern New Jersey, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, etc. Then somehow get copies of pictures of what the areas you visited looked like, say 50 to 25 years ago. You wouldn't recognize them. I have visited parts of North Carolina where NOBODY is a native North Carolinian. For the most part, they are liberal urbanites from the northeast or midwestern cities.
Read what I said about my own personal experiences in northern New Jersey. Despite all the jokes about the Turnpike, New Jersey once was once, at least in its western and southern sectors, a rural forested area with a lot of farms. This has substantially changed over time with the expansion of New York City beyond the five boroughs.
I consider myself basically a "country boy". I support hunting, fishing, hiking, camping, the right of people to own land in remote forested areas. At the same time I am extremely apprehensive about the loss of forest land, farmland and even grazing land to highways, malls, condominiums, multi-plex theaters, restaurants, parking lots, etc. I don't want the west to be raped by greedy land developers and relators and their attorneys like the east has been. I don't want the proliferation of liberal urbanites all over the landacape, turning all the red states blue.
I assume that you and most of the people on this forum are conservative politically and socially as I am. As such you should be concerned about the spread of the kind of urban mentality which accompanies heavy development. MOST, but not all, of these people don't think like us - believe me -I know.
Check out that national election map on a COUNTY basis. You will find that the urban and immediate suburban areas, even in "Red States" went for Kerry, while the rural and further out suburbs, even in "Blue" states went for Bush.
"If, as you assert, an unreasonable amount of open land in the west is monopolized by government ownership, the government might consider sale or long term rental of some of said land to private logging or grazing interests, transferring the liability and cost of ownership and maintenance to the logging and ranching industry...."
That's how they manage it now, through leases. Mines and ranchers have long term leases. THey have to follow rules.
"You must be from the west. I suggest you take a trip to places like northern New Jersey, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, etc. Then somehow get copies of pictures of what the areas you visited looked like, say 50 to 25 years ago."
I grew up in NY (Long Island) and moved to AZ. I've been all up and down the East Coast.
Keep in mind that such dense urban sprawl can never be the fate of the national forests. You can harvest timber in them, mine in them, but you can't build sub divisions in them.
Ironically, many people who do own private land "landlocked" by national forest have to sue the Forest Service to even be "allowed" to ACCESS their land via public lands. Google for some interesting results.
"I consider myself basically a "country boy". I support hunting, fishing, hiking, camping, the right of people to own land in remote forested areas. At the same time I am extremely apprehensive about the loss of forest land, farmland and even grazing land to highways, malls, condominiums, multi-plex theaters, restaurants, parking lots, etc."
Me too, and interestingly enough this plan can't result in that effect.
I hope you're right.
Get the facts, or get lost !!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.