Law foundation joins fight against roadless rule

Associated Press ^ | December 30, 2009

[george76]

A Denver-based conservative legal foundation says a federal policy that barred development of about 58 million acres of forests nationwide illegally created de facto wilderness areas.

The Mountain States Legal Foundation makes that argument in a brief filed Tuesday in support of the state of Wyoming's fight to overturn the so-called "roadless rule" approved by President Bill Clinton in 2001.

Conflicting federal court rulings have upheld and overturned the road-building ban on the national forest land. The California-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in August threw out a Bush administration policy that opened some of the roadless areas to potential development.

But U.S. District Judge Clarence Brimmer of Wyoming earlier this year denied a request that he reconsider his ruling against the 2001 roadless rule. Environmental groups supporting the Clinton-era policy have appealed Brimmer's decision to the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver.

The Obama administration has said it will defend the 2001 rule. In May, the administration reinstated most of the policy, ordering a one-year moratorium on development in roadless areas until a long-term plan can be approved.

The Mountain States Legal Foundation argues in its brief backing Wyoming that the 2001 roadless policy in practice created wilderness areas even though only Congress can legally designate federal wilderness.

[george76]

“The Clinton Administration, its officials, and attorneys knew well the history of the Wilderness Act and what that law provides. They chose to ignore that history and law on their way out the door,” said William Perry Pendley, MSLF president. “The lower court’s ruling should be upheld.”

http://www.mountainstateslegal.org/press_releases.cfm?value=889

[La Lydia]

On top of everything else wrong with this, the roadless rule effectively bars the handicapped and the chronically ill from being able to enjoy these public lands.

[george76]

The ADA is only enforced when it hurts us.

[tubebender]

I forwarded this on to the Blue Ribbon Coalition a group that battles to keep ORV trails open for public use for everyone...

[marsh2]

It has prohibited management of burned areas in my county. The fires in these areas create dead and downed trees. As brush grows up among this, it establishes a heavy fuel base for the next fire to come through and nuke everything down to the soil. They are finding that as fire frequency and intensity is increasing, the forests are converting to brush fields that can’t re-establish themselves because the seedlings are burned before they can reach fire-resistant size.

This policy will convert a large mass of forest in northern California, with its attendant forest species.

[tubebender]

Here is what the BRC is doing on the west coast...

[george76]

Thank you.

[GladesGuru]

Why not one single American with a disability has not sued is beyond my comprehension. The ADA has very strict ideas about equal access.

[Seadog Bytes]

Thank you.   Let's hope sanity prevails.

[familyop]

Thanks, George. If we’re going to keep so much land in the hands of the government, any and all people should have access to it. Access shouldn’t be limited to the kings and queens of the hill (exclusive arbiters of nature that they believe themselves to be). I live up here, but I do disagree with most of my neighbors on such matters. Curiously, the great majority of those environmentalists and animal worshipers in my County are Republicans. ...haven’t figured out all of the reasons for that, yet.

[george76]

Happy New Year.

This stuff makes from some strange temporary political partners. Sometimes personal issues overtake longterm logic : like Rush apparently giving money to HSUS.

[george76]

Happy New Year

[familyop]

Happy New Year to you, too, George. I committed an error in my comment. ...didn’t mean to say that more Republicans than Democrats are in favor of radical environmentalism or animal worship. The intended meaning was that this County has a Republican majority by far while supporting those efforts against private property rights and other rights.

Agreed on your reply about “strange temporary political partners” and “personal issues.” Many homeowners and businesses now want to control all of the lands that they see and to “keep the riff-raff off of the Range.” Some call it the “First Settler Syndrome.”

Environmentalism and animal worship advocacy are ways of keeping men from coming up the hill to work in mining and to keep most others from using their own properties in order to increase their own wealth and probably to divert potential buyer traffic to particular developments of real estate—wrongful and illegitimate means of business competition.

Some of the foreclosures in progress and foreclosures in the near future seem to be getting some of the worst of them out of here. Unfortunately, some of the good folks will be going out with the bad, though. We probably won’t see relief from the business-government regulation ties, unless governments default. Sadly, most of the constituents in favor of limiting any new development to limousine liberals from big liberal cities are government and business retirees.

[Seadog Bytes]