Skip to comments.Obama admin says new forest rules stress science
Posted on 01/26/2012 12:12:44 PM PST by Hunton Peck
WASHINGTON (AP) The Obama administration says new rules to manage nearly 200 million acres of national forests will protect watersheds and wildlife while promoting uses ranging from recreation to logging.
The new rules, to replace guidelines thrown out by a federal court in 2009, are set to take effect in early March. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack announced the rule change on Thursday.
Vilsack said in an interview that the rules reflect more than 300,000 comments received since a draft plan was released last year. The new rules strengthen a requirement that decisions be based on the best available science and recognize that forests are used for a variety of purposes, Vilsack said.
"I think it's a solid rule and done in a collaborative, open and transparent way," he said.
Tom Partin, president of the American Forest Resource Council, a timber industry group, said his members will review the final rule to see if it follows a federal rule to manage forests for a diversity of plants and animals not in a manner that places a single use or species above all else.
Jane Danowitz, U.S. public lands director for the Pew Environment Group, said national forests are the source of drinking water for one in three Americans, are home to fish and other wildlife and are an economic engine for local communities across the West.
"Faced with unprecedented threats from industrial development, these national forests need strong national protections," she said, adding that the new framework for forest management appears to reflect comments from scientists, the business community and conservation advocates.
"The plan now has stronger safeguards than what was originally proposed. That said, the true test of this plan will be how it's implemented on the ground," Danowitz said.
(Excerpt) Read more at centurylink.net ...
Most likely translation: Costs of timber, and hence building, furniture, and paper, are about to go higher.
The ... uhhh ... massive waves of industrial development which are ... ahhhh ... sweeping the country are ... ummmm ... threatening to kill all of our trees.
Our forests in Arizona were a hell of a lot healthier when the timber companies were caring for them. Of course, their livelihood depended on healthy forests.
Translation: More communist agenda driven academic junk science will close the forest resources completely.
Pray for America
new rules to manage nearly 200 million acres of national forests
Aside from military bases and office buildings, the federal government has no business owning real estate.
Is the unprecedented industrial development hiring? Where can I send my resume? THX
Dude ... wait ... what?
"Dude ... wait ... what?"
Hmm...wonder who gave them a crash course in the meaning of “science”?
Cuz, up until yesterday they thought it meant “Finding academics willing to classify statements as fact, such that they support your policy agenda.”
Well, sad, but still, lol.
For the record, Dept of Interior is not involved..
The Forest Service is part of the Dept of Agriculture
“Science”... it’s their “god” and their excuse for their communist agenda. Marx himself was big on the concept of “scientific”. If someone disagreed with his ideology, they were dismissed as “unscientific” and not worthy of discussing the issue with.
1 Tim 6:20
Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to your care. Turn away from godless chatter and the opposing ideas of what is falsely called knowledge,
Yea, but don’t you know that devastating wildfires caused by lighting strikes are all part of natures cycle of renewal.
It is natural for millions of acres of pine trees to burn every few years. What is not natural is for YOUR house to be built in that forest.
What industrial development...?
When I hear this verbal claptrap from liberals, I get visions of closed roads, uncleared trails, four cycle chain saws, and no hunting on public lands. We need change in Washington from the top down. Get rid of all these leftist kooks.
Thanks. I still say, feds should not own large swaths of land. It should be deeded over to the states to manage.
(Reminder to self: check wikipedia before posting...) :)
“Jane Danowitz, U.S. public lands director for the Pew Environment Group, said national forests are the source of drinking water for one in three Americans”
In the interest of, ahem, science...I would love to see this statement proven.
Now you went and got me started...
It was March 1, 1999 when federal and state governments reached an agreement with Maxxam Logging Corporation restricting the logging of redwoods and creating the northern California reserve.
The Headwaters issue flipped the switch for environmental activists, students and nature lovers, allowing for the formation of an alliance against the destruction of public lands. The fight to save Headwaters brought together people from all walks of life. In 1996, three years before the reserve was created, actor Woody Harrelson and a handful of other activists scaled the Golden Gate Bridge to raise awareness about the threatened redwoods.
Here's the Paul Harvey. I lived in Redwood City, CA at the time. In 1996, after years of pressure, The Fed gave $400Mil and the State kick in $500Mil for the purchase of this family's property. They had been successfully logging the same land for 3 (maybe 4) generations. To say they had taken good care of it and properly cultivated it is an understatement. They didn't want to sell. It was their livelyhood. But CA was going to increase pressure on them and threatened to in act laws that would hurt their business. They finally succumbed.
Guess what ballot initiative was on the ballot that same year? Increase taxes to raise $1B for CA education.
We escaped to Texas in 2000.
You’ll find the promotion of UN Agenda 21 woven into this. More of the 0bamunist Rural Pacification plan.