New Forest Plan Would Lessen Restraints

[G_j]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-4688232,00.html

New Forest Plan Would Lessen Restraints

Wednesday December 22, 2004 4:31 PM


By MATTHEW DALY

Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - Managers of the nation's 155 national forests will have more leeway to approve logging and other commercial projects with less formal environmental review under a new Bush administration plan, The Associated Press has learned.

The long-awaited plan will overhaul application of the landmark 1976 National Forest Management Act, which sets the basic rules for management of nation's 191 million acres of forests and grasslands and protects forest wildlife.

Forest Service officials scheduled a Wednesday conference call to announce the changes, which will be published in the Federal Register next week. The Associated Press obtained highlights of the plan, which goes into effect following publication.

The rules would leave intact some of the most contentious proposals from an earlier version released last year. Like that version, the final plan gives regional forest managers more discretion to approve logging, drilling and mining operations without having to conduct formal scientific investigations known as environmental impact statements.
..more..





--

[liberal N proud]

1. The payoffs will be distributed more and less noticible

They can payoff the regional managers and the money will not filter through Washington.

[America is great]

2. We build houses out of trees and trees grow back.

I am for keeping the price of homes down by keeping timber harvesting available.

[hatrack]

3. If so, why do they need to cut subsidized trees in Nat. Forests?

Weyerhauser's been telling us for years that trees are a renewable resource - so, what's the problem?

Aren't THEIR tree farms providing a renewable resource? What makes National Forests so very irresistable? Hmm . . .

[America is great]

5. check the price of lumber lately?

There is a real shortage for homes. This makes a new home costs thousands more. The lumber companies only have so much land and the land they have cannot produce enough timber quick enough. Got any spare acres to grow a tree cash crop?

[G_j]

6. public lands

should not be open for private corporations to make profits.

The national forests are our children's birthright.

[sandnsea]

10. wood going to Iraq

That's what's causing lumber prices to be high lately. Seen what passes for a forest lately? Don't think we'll be getting any quality housing wood out of it. Most of our trees go to pulp and pallets. We need to learn to build green houses and only buy products from sustainable certified forests.

[America is great]

13. Aspen is used for pulp and pallets

Aspen grows quick but is not durable enough for home construction.

[JimmyJazz]

26. Welcome to DU! Enjoy your stay!

And don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out! :hi:

[chenGOD]

61. Bullshit.

The majority of trees grown in the south for pulp production are loblolly pine.

But I see you've been tombstoned. Not only did you disrupt poorly, you disrupted ignorantly as well.

[Goathead]

11. Why don't you build a straw bale house?

They are cheaper and more energy efficient.

[hatrack]

12. Allow me to repeat my question - if trees are renewable . . .

. . . as Weyerhauser has been saying for decades, and if companies like Weyerhauser and G/P own millions and millions of acres of private forest land (as they do), why do they still want to cut taxpayer-subsidized timber in National Forests?

If they are exemplars of rugged-individualistic capitalism, shouldn't they be able to turn a profit and meet market challenges without relying on wasteful government subisidies? And if they can't, shouldn't they be allowed to fail?

[America is great]

14. I will repeat my answer!

Demand outstrips supply. Homes are being built all over America. The timber companies do not have enough land to grow the trees that we need.

[hatrack]

16. Maybe those trees aren't as renewable as we thought!

Hmm . . . so, it's the law of supply and demand that forces USDA to charge timber companies $3.00 for a 300-year old sitka spruce or a 150-foot Douglas fir? I thought high demand would make timber prices go higher, as you've stated yourself. Not if you're a timber company, apparently. Hmm . . .

[America is great]

19. They still have to cut it, haul it, process it, distribute it

I do not understand your post. So your argument is they should be paying much more for the tree? That would just end up making a home cost even more. Right or wrong, the government has decided that it is better to keep tree costs down so home prices are cheaper. I suppose they could raise the price to say $30 per tree and watch home prices go up accordingly, then use the $27 extra to spend on some other program.

[hatrack]

21. You don't know very much about USDA policy or timber prices

You don't know much about old-growth policy, or subsidy structure. You sure as hell don't know much about forest health.

No, you're just going to stand on your little FoxNews soapbox and amaze us with your profound knowledge of the housing & timber market. Toodles.

[VegasWolf]

31. Hatrack, you know if they cut down all of the old growth trees in the

forest they could probably make thousands of cheap litte
homes!

[hatrack]

35. But would they make a sound?!?

That's the existential question that puzzles me! :hi:

[Robbien]

23. I see by your prior posts you also agree that Bush's economy is

booming and is great. In this thread you favor business to the detriment of the environment.

Is there any cause you support which is not global corporatist based?

[0007]

58. ....another will be here shortly to take his place.

[Karenca]

20. LET'S REPEAT THE TRUE REASON!!!! WOOD IS GOING TO IRAQ.

nt

[America is great]

22. say what?

So what kind of wood? pallets? because most are made of aspen, a wood not used in home building.

[Goathead]

24. That is BS

I know somebody that owns a small pallett factory and they use pine. It is in a mill town and that is all they grow around there.

[sandnsea]

44. The high cost of wood

That's what you were talking about above. We needed to mow down more trees because lumber is so high. Now you change your story when your bullshit is called.

[MasonJar]

39. I personally do not believe that America's rage to keep moving

into larger and ever more garish houses takes precedence over maintaining the wilderness that still exists in such diminished quntity and quality.

[sandnsea]

43. 96% US old growth - GONE

Most of it in the last 50 years. This is just not going to work. We are growing little stick trees because we refuse to look at alternative and green construction. We turn the little stick trees into pulp. If you want real wood you have to grow real forests and you have to change the way you manage them to do that. You also have to manage the forests for clean water to drink and for the little fishies to live in, that we also EAT. I am so sick of dumbasses who don't know what the fuck they're talking about.

[VegasWolf]

29. Gotta keep building those houses! n/t

[AndyTiedye]

34. High Housing Prices are Due to High Land Prices

The cost of building a home hasn't gone up much.
The cost of the land to put it on has.

Cutting down old-growth forests won't make it any cheaper to buy a home.

[tsuki]

57. Taxes, licensing, developmental orders and especially insurance cost have

risen. My friend and I tried to figure out the cost (percent) of government and insurance a few years back. At about 35% of the cost. Much of it hidden in subcontractor contracts, like the roofers who pay 75% workers' comp.

[Goathead]

4. That statement is completely irresponsible

and has no foundation economically. There are several other factors that go into the price of building a home other than the price of lumber.

[TahitiNut]

8. Except they're going after 'old growth' hardwoods for export to Japan.

The predation of our National Forests has virtually nothing to do with the US housing market. Nothing. What's being 'served' is high-end decorative use for corporate offices and executive suites as well as the almost insatiable Japanese appetite for exotic woods. It's the luxury market, not shelter. What's being destroyed is an irreplaceable public trust.


:eyes: Did somebody order a pizza?

[America is great]

15. What was there before the "old growth"? Answer: other old growth

Old growth is a description of the current crop of older trees on a chunk of land.

Every forest has had a series of "old growths" that either died, were burned out by natural fires, rotted from infestations, or whatever over the last number of thousands of years.

We can either use the trees or watch them die out on their own. The choice is our.s

[TahitiNut]

17. What's the "we" shit?

:eyes: Speaking for yourself and your pet rat?

[Goathead]

18. So let me get this straight, you are for logging old growth?

That is what you are saying

[bobbyboucher]

42. He don't know what he is saying. He wouldn't know "Old Growth"

if it crawled up his leg and bit him on his puny johnson.

[mark414]

25. what do you want on your tombstone?

pepperoni? or sausage...or both?

[sandnsea]

45. Oh *(@#%@!@#%%^^##@$^^

Old growth are tree stands that have never been logged, less than 5% in the US, most in Montana and Idaho. Second growth is what you're talking about and we're trying to protect some of that and manage it better too. Then there's tree farms and tree plantations, which are generally stupid because they produce shit wood or pulp and are ripe for the fires that spread to forest service lands. Dumbasses, this country is just full of dumbasses.

[potone]

56. old growth forests

I believe that most old growth forests are in Washington and Oregon, although I may be wrong about the percentage. What I do know is that a great deal of clear-cutting of old growth forests in Oregon took place in the 80's under Reagan and Bush, until a federal judge finally put a stop to it on the grounds that it violated the Endangered Species Act. These forests are irreplaceable. Trees do not grow back. Other countries outlaw the export of raw timber, we do not. If we would change that law, we would not need to plunder what is left of our pristine forests.

[G_j]

46. well after that

completely unscientific, non-factual line of flat earth RW bunk, I'm not surprised you're gone....R.I.P.
:hi:

[AZCat]

28. And we lose out on the processing jobs

The processing of the raw lumber is done either in transit or overseas, so we don't get lumber mill jobs in the U.S. out of the deforestation either. This doesn't make economic or environmental sense, but that seems to be out of vogue in the Bush II administration.

[TahitiNut]

32. Exactly. It makes us a 'third world' plantation.

Not only is it a representation of the excesses of wealth and greed, it's yet another example of the BIG LIE of 'trickle down.'

[AZCat]

33. I remember, years ago...

One of my econ professors was talking about how happy he was that all the "trickle-down" bull had passed. That was in 1996. Now, eight years later, how have they somehow resurrected the corpse of the horrible policies of the 1980's? Has the media just forgotten the effects of Reaganomics? Or am I naive to believe that once a policy is proven wrong, it goes away and never returns again, banished by the light of logic and truth?

[TahitiNut]

36. Slavish ignorance will always be a problem.

The most fundamental flaw in 'trickle down' is ignoring how diligently the wealthy go about plugging such leaks.

[0007]

60. How good are the cats this year? I've only seen em on tv

and they look as bad as things can get, and then they surprise me. Is Salim Stoudamire for real? It appears that when they face real talent, guys like Channing Frye, Fox & Salim are left in the dust. I hope I'm wrong, cuz I love my Cats, even when they were playing in Beardown Gym.

[underpants]

9. Yes but brain cells don't

Welcome to DU :hi:

[bobbyboucher]

41. A simple answer from a simple poster.

You're an obvious Bush supporter, your simpleton world view is a dead give-away. You have no clue.

[chenGOD]

59. At the cost of natural biodiversity?

At the cost of polluted waters (downstream siltation is one of the biggest problems from logging)?

At the cost of cutting down old-growth forest that's been around for longer than America was a country?


You want to keep housing prices down, take a look at Weyerhauser's upper management salaries and bonus structure. Do the same for the majority of the big timber operations.

Tree farms are where it's at, as long as they stop trying to ship off the growth for turning it into pulp. Fir is too slow to compete against SE Asian varieties when it comes to pulp.

[underpants]

7. Wow I am shocked. Who could have imagined this would happen?

:eyes:

[SariesNightly]

27. Over the years

Vested interests all have lobby groups pushing their agenda, and making legislation a tool to serve them and not the public good. If you have dealt with lawyers or salesmen you'll know how persuasive they are.

They can make up all sorts of pseudo arguments to buy the hearts and minds of those not vigilant enough to pursue the truth for themselves.

Who stands up for the environment? "What constituency does that belong to?" asks congress.

Economies will go through booms and busts, after the horrors of war an entire country will eventually get back on its feet once more, but the delicate tapestry that forms fragile ecosystems, systems without whose countless species will face extinction in our lifetime, will never recover. This is the one thing that's irreversible besides our eventual deaths.

What price do we put on this? A few upward blips on some luxe interior deco company's stock ticker.

[amazona]

54. hey sariesnightly

That photo of the redwing? Is it yours? It's remarkable!

[Robbien]

30. Yes, Since the EPA agreed to allow arsenic to be released in our waters

how could we have known they would start selling off our forests?

/end irony

[Mokito]

37. I'm shocked, shocked I tells ya!

ALL bush Environmental Plans in a nutshell: Sell to highest bidder.


:shrug:

[yorkiemommie1]

38. should i feel silly for recycling

the little holes from our holepuncher at work? that's what we've been doing and i feel like bushco is standing behind me giggling. :shrug:

[ecoalex]

40. Timber is sold like oil overeas

I'm all for keeping our timber , oil here, yet bushco wants to continue to sell our oil, timber overseas. The country's need has grown to the point, that we need to keep our resources here, for our use. Call it isolationism, I call it prudent.The oil from Alaska, and further north, partly is sold to japan etc. We already import lumber from Canada,

[mchill]

55. raw logs off of federal land

cannot be sent offshore. There was one exception in the past, and that was over 10 years ago, port-orford cedar, though now it is pretty much protected on federal lands, so not an issue.

This prohibition does not include processed lumber.

Most federal land managers do adhere to "caring for the land and serving the people", but they can be pressured via targets and budgets. In the past, there were little consequences for not meeting a cut target...they could always blame it on some environmentalist for appealing NEPA decisions. Under the new rules, from what I've read, they've removed the appeal process and give managers the leeway to make up their own timber cutting target, with some perfunctory monitoring on the side. I imagine the pressure to cut will come with real accountablity from the Bush administration, cut trees or we will cut your budget. The manager then chooses the enviornment or his/her personnel, and his/her own career.

[G_j]

47. NYT: Administration Overhauls Rules for U.S. Forests

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/23/politics/23forest.html?th=&oref=login&pagewanted=print&position=

December 23, 2004
Administration Overhauls Rules for U.S. Forests
By FELICITY BARRINGER

ASHINGTON, Dec. 22 - The Bush administration issued broad new rules Wednesday overhauling the guidelines for managing the nation's 155 national forests and making it easier for regional forest managers to decide whether to allow logging, drilling or off-road vehicles.

The long-awaited rules relax longstanding provisions on environmental reviews and the protection of wildlife on 191 million acres of national forest and grasslands. They also cut back on requirements for public participation in forest planning decisions.

Forest Service officials said the rules were intended to give local foresters more flexibility to respond to scientific advances and threats like intensifying wildfires and invasive species. They say the regulations will also speed up decisions, ending what some public and private foresters see as a legal and regulatory gridlock that has delayed forest plans for years because of litigation and requirements for time-consuming studies.

"You're trying to manage towards how we want the forest to look and be in the future," said Rick D. Cables, the Forest Service's regional forester for the Rocky Mountain region.

The rules give the nation's regional forest managers and the Forest Service increased autonomy to decide whether to allow logging roads or cellphone towers, mining activity or new ski areas.

..more..

[mchill]

48. blame it on Mark Rey

He was undersecretary for Ag in charge of forest service. His last job was as head lobbyist for National Forest Products Association. He's now moved over to OMB...some of us at the forest service think he is there to acclerate the privatization of the agency. (So far, OMB has had the least success in taking jobs from NPS and USFS and putting in private sector).

Believe me, there all kinds of imaginative things repubs can do the forest. I remember when the former congressmen from Eureka, CA wanted to lease out the whole Six Rivers National Forest and give Louisiana Pacific Lumber Co the reigns.

[byronm]

49. Timber doesn't affect home prices

Its land, construction workers and taxes that will cost the most.

Infact wood has been stagnent for as long as i can remember. I was able to build & frame an entire floor for a few thousand bucks on my own dime. No way the cost of wood was reflective of quantifying an exhorbant cost of the project (inspections, electrical, plumbing and taxes were my bulk cost)

[Oreegone]

50. Ignore America is Great

Obviously does not have a clue. Thinks trees are just a commodity that will grow back, well maybe but not in his lifetime. Has no clue that the large trees are almost all gone. These are the ones necessary to build houses. But most of them get shipped off to Japanese companies where they process them at sea and some small part comes back. If we need to build as many houses as he thinks we better look for another resource. They are starting to make studs for walls out of recycled cars. They last longer and we have plenty of them.

Forests provide air, oxygen production.

Keep the water level at a useable level because the roots draw it up and shade the ground. This in turn provides a way to keep moisture near the ground which helps create growth. It also helps form clouds and insure we don't turn into a desert planet.

Keeps our water clean, when you clearcut like they always do you get muddy water which kills the fish affects all the animals who drink it, fill the streams with mud so they are incapable of aerating themselves. Fisherman and hunters should be outraged at this idiotic move reversing none other than Reagans rules.

Many mushrooms and medicinal plants and animals can't live in a new forest. And a new corporate produced forest is not like an old growth forest. It has one kind of tree so there are none of the short lived trees that produce the mulch which protects the small trees when they die and fall down and turn to compost.
They don't have the plants, vines and berries that feed the animals.

Hey, I could go on but it doesn't matter, because these types of people are ignorant of the facts and want to be. They just see money and power. They don't give a shit about our planet even when their ill founded beliefs are obviously to their own detriment and the families who will follow them. Ignorance is not bliss, it is simply ignorance.

As Frank Zappa said "Dumb all over near and far, dumb all over yes we are."

[miss_kitty]

51. My dad used to lobby for timber concerns

what a bunch of fucked-up shitheads they are.

They SEETHE that people think that 'Old Growth' should be saved. "But we need the jobs!" they wail. Great! We can see the end of Old Growth forests here. What are these Einsteins going to do when 'Old Growth' is gone? We'll have not only no 'Old Growth' (erm-sorry asshats, 'Old Growth' is NOT a renewable resource-unless you got a couple thousand years) but no jobs as well.

STFU Lumbermen. You are totally full old shit, driven by ignorance, avarice, and an unwillingness to learn. We wouldn't be this close to the brink if we'd been using truly renewable resource since the 20s and 30s for paper (think Hemp, and thank the lying sack of shit, Harry Anslinger). Kee-rist! :eyes:

[G_j]

52. you said it!

the timber companies are full of it. And yes hemp would could solve a wealth of problems.

& hey Mr. Anslinger is it hot down there in hell?

[miss_kitty]

53. Thanks!

I had practice-on my dad-for years. :hi: