Are you really so sure about that?
Remember, environmental law is authorized by treaties which supercede Federal Statutes. All this is, is a way for Dasshole to look good to his constituents for the election while accomplishing exactly NOTHING that would PO his real clientele.
"Daschle’s legislation was tucked inside the defense supplemental spending bill, which passed the House July 23rd. It exempts South Dakota from the National Forest Management Act and the National Environmental Policy Act, and makes his action not subject to judicial review by any US court, thus handcuffing the same environmental activists whom his party normally assists to insure that active forest management is thwarted. “More than 20 lawsuits, appeals or reviews are blocking timber projects to remove fuel from the Black Hills,” writes Audrey Hudson in the Times. Daschle’s move not only thwarts the environmentalists’ utopian “pristine” forest policies, but provides relief for both the woodlands and the state’s beleaguered forest products industry, whose workers have suffered layoffs and depression."
So....yes, I would say that Daschle got FOR HIS STATE exactly what is needed for the other nat'l forests.
Carry.......you earlier posted that:
When the USFS settles they pay the RICOnuts for their costs. Now lest you think that the Forest Service bureaucracy wants it any other way, remember that 40% of the USFS budget is for legal expenses. More is spent satisfying consent decrees or documenting cases.
Do you think the USFS SEEKS out lawsuits on which to spend that 40% of their budget? I think not. Isn't that a bit like saying that if I bring a frivilous lawsuit against you, it is YOUR fault? I think the USFS is as sick of these lawsuits as you and I are. And it is the courts that require the USFS to pay the legal fees of these enviro nuts.
I don't think I am understanding your point on this budget issue.