ROADLESS AND RULE-LESS?
Roadless Rule Takes Another U-Turn
The roadless rule has been on again, off again since it was enacted. After a recent ruling by a Wyoming judge, it's off again.
By David Frey, 8-23-08
 |
|
 | |
| Caption: Photo by Emily Haas | |
|
The rule protecting millions of roadless acres on public lands across the West and around the country has followed a long and winding road since the Clinton administration put it in place.
Now it has taken another U-turn, and it leaves 58.5 million acres, mostly in the West, in limbo.
Earlier this month, U.S. District Judge Clarence Brimmer of Wyoming issued a permanent injunction against the roadless rule, saying it violates the National Environmental Policy Act and the Wilderness Act. It is the second swipe Brimmer has taken against the rule, which has been on again, off again since it went into effect in January 2001.
This time, Brimmer’s ruling came with pointed words both for President Clinton and the San Francisco judge who reinstated the rule after Brimmer struck it down the first time.
“The Forest Service, in an attempt to bolster an outgoing President’s environmental legacy, rammed through an environmental agenda that itself violates the country’s well-established environmental laws,” Brimmer wrote.
Environmentalists are appealing the decision. They’re also arguing that Brimmer’s ruling doesn’t overrule the earlier one that put it back in place, and that Brimmer’s decision should only affect Wyoming forests. They hope his tough language will weaken his decision when a federal appeals court looks at it.
“He’s definitely got an ax to grind,” says Mike Anderson, attorney for The Wilderness Society, one of the groups appealing the decision. “He’s made some political accusations. That does not play well with other judges. He kind of threw some extra red paint on his decision in terms of making it vulnerable to reversal.”
Forest Service officials say they’re looking into how to proceed in the meantime. Environmentalists worry before the issue is decided, roadless lands will be opened up to new roads, logging and gas leases.
“It just throws it up in the air,” says Sloan Shoemaker, executive director of Wilderness Workshop, which advocates for protection on Colorado’s White River National Forest. It contains some 700,000 of the state’s 4.4 million roadless acres but is seeing increasing drilling pressure for natural gas, and some of the richest pockets are believed to lie in roadless areas.
The Clinton rule forbids development on roadless lands in 38 states and Puerto Rico. Brimmer first overturned the rule in 2003, in response to a lawsuit filed by Wyoming challenging it. Three years later, U.S. District Judge Elizabeth Laporte, of San Francisco reinstated it, prompting Wyoming to renew its complaint. On Aug. 12, Brimmer overturned it again.
In the meantime, the Bush administration replaced the rule in May 2005 with a process that required governors to petition the federal government to protect lands in their states. Many states complied, but most dropped their petitions after the Clinton rule was reinstated. Idaho and Colorado went forward with their plans, though. Despite Brimmer’s latest ruling, environmentalists are asking those states to drop their petitions.
“When you have an opportunity to protect these roadless areas that are at risk, you ought to take it,” says Eddie Kochman, a Colorado hunter and angler. Coachman sat on the Colorado task force that helped draft the state’s petition, but he’s among a chorus of environmentalists who think a better federal law will provide more protection that a state rule.
“Many a sportsman in Colorado feels that wild land in Colorado is being sold by the federal government to the highest bidder,” Kochman says.
[End of article]This is pretty slanted. Two "wilderness" lobbyists and a former Colorado (not Wyoming) DOW fisheries guy, who JUST HAPPENS to be heading Sportsmen for Udall these days? And of course was appointed to the Colorado roadless task force, and is in cahoots with the other Colorado "hunter and angler" dudes like Elderkin, Byrne and others?
No forestry people (oh, that's right, there's no mills left in Colorado, or Wyoming either) no snowcatters, no petros, no motorheads? Either go back to your Rolodex, Dave, or add some leaves to it.
Roadless area rules should be different for each area for they each have their own characters. Not a broad brush approach of a bunch of non profits who havent set foot in most roadless but seems to have such knowledge on what to do with them. I'm all for protecting roadless areas and keeeping existing uses in tact.
But the non profit enviros most of whom dont do anything in the woods want a blanket wilderness designation. The staff of New West too I bet, since they seem puppets of the real estate agents and wilderness lobby.
Idaho has the most sensible approach to this mess, a local approach with groups trying to find common ground.
Locals know the areas best. There might even be some more wilderness in it for New West. Come to the table without your broadbrush or should I say paint sprayer and we'll talk.
Werty: I'd rather bring a broad brush to the table than a road grader or a bulldozer.
Roadless areas here in Colorado are some of the last vestiges of true backcountry in the United States. They are special places in our great state where big game and native cutthroat habitats flourish. By essentially handing over the management of this process to Washington D.C. bureaucrats and corporate fat cats (who could essentially care less about the health of our public lands out West), we jeopardize our outdoor heritage and future hunting and angling opportunities for our grandchildren and great grandchildren. We have to get this right, for their sake.
Currently, there is no balance in this process with too many corporate giveaways and extremely vague language. This rule is being rammed down Colorado's throat so it "coincidentally" is adopted before the end of the current Administration. The Forest Service "open houses" are a joke - a one-way conduit of misinformation with little or no opportunity for real public input. Funny how a state like Idaho, with roughly half the land-mass and population of Colorado, conducted twice as many meetings, over a much longer period of time, with many oppotunities for real public input.
This is extremely poor policymaking in my humble opinion. If the State of Colorado and the National Forest Service are interested in striking a balance in this process, what's the rush? Again, we have to get this right, no matter how long it takes.
The Roadless Rule is great for hunters and fishermen who are willing to get to use the quads God gave them and do a little work and use some real woodsmanship. For fat, lazy hunters that want to buzz around on an ATV and make a lot of noise, the roadless rule is not so good.
Comment By steve kelly, 8-25-08Overstating the "protection" in Clinton's Roadless Rule confuses the issue. Wilderness designation, not rulemaking will protect what's left of the West. Logging loopholes in the Rule were a mistake never discussed. Congress also seems confused by the choices before it, but will take the easiest path -- the Rule over Wilderness.
Comment By Becky J, 8-28-08The Forest Service will hold a news conference on Friday concerning the proposed Idaho Roadless Rule in Boise, Idaho. It will be interesting to see if they listened to the people. I found it interesting that most of the acreage included in the IRA's was not recommended for Wilderness designation by the Forest Service following their review but none of it seems to be available for more active management.
This article was printed from www.newwest.net at the following URL: http://www.newwest.net/topic/article/roadless_rule_takes_another_u_turn/C41/L41/