Mr. Nelson? So explain why/how/what you would have done differently about S. Dakota and the fires? Nothing? Or the California fires? Or Arizona?
------------------
LadyFisher, Publisher of
FAOL
Printable View
Mr. Nelson? So explain why/how/what you would have done differently about S. Dakota and the fires? Nothing? Or the California fires? Or Arizona?
------------------
LadyFisher, Publisher of
FAOL
I am not exactly sure what you mean by "What would I have done about the fires". Do you mean how would I manage the forest systems? Would I have let the fires burn?
It seems the topic has strayed from the original post. The original post stated Bush has overturned the roadless rules on wilderness areas and plans to have the governors submit management plans to the federal agencies charged with management.
I am opposed to states being allowed to manage public lands. I never said I was opposed to management. However, the majority of these lands are, as stated in the original post, wilderness areas. These areas were designated as wilderness by Congress under the Wilderness Act with specific legal mandates for management.
I believe I have stated my issue clearly. I am opposed to states managing federal lands. I have seen first hand how this does not work for a number of reasons. I can elaborate if you all don't mind a long reply.
Somehow this topic strayed onto fires and fuel management. In the majority of wilderness areas fires should be permitted to burn unless they threaten property and then they should be controlled. The mentality for too long has been, as pointed out by Steven, that fires, all fires were bad. The Forest Service and BLM fostered this view (remember Smokey Bear) and for decades fires were supressed at almost any cost.
I am not oppposed to fuels management, prescribed burns or logging if done correctly. I am opposed to the wholesale opening of designated wilderness areas to commercialization under the guise of preventing fires. That is what revocation of the roadless areas seems to be about, not protecting property. Why overturn the roadless rules on 58 million acres? Not all those areas pose a threat.
The roadless rules is what allowed S. Dakota to burn. The attempts to do any management whatsoever was held up in court forever...
The State had no way to manage those areas even though they had concrete plans to do so.
In that one case, State management would have saved the areas, plus the cost of fighting the fires and homes lost. Even after the fires when the State wanted to go in and remove the mess left, that too was blocked, and the next fire burned out of control as well.
We have obviously made mistakes by having the Fed control the regions, we well could do better with State control. Will there be mistakes? Probably. But the status quo wasn't working either.
I refuse to bury my head in the ashes and let the Fed, and those who believe these areas must be 'untouched' to decimate yet more of our forests. I would just once like to see those who tied up the S. Dakota forest management take responsibility for the disaster they caused.
------------------
LadyFisher, Publisher of
FAOL
Whether we trust the feds or the states to do what's right, we're "hoping for the best" either way. You may place your trust in the feds more than the states. I tend to place my trust in lower levels of gov't. Furthermore, these lands will still be managed by USFS (and probably BLM). The state governors are simply submitting management PLANS to USFS, and those plans will be reviewed and must still meet all federal mandates and regulations EXCEPT for the Roadless Rule that Clinton imposed by Executive Order.
------------------
Fishing the Ozarks
Who said anything about untouched! Read my previous post again and if you get past your apparent distaste for the federal government you will find I support appropriate management.
The fact that Bush overturned the roadless rules is pitched as the simple solution to a complex problem. I have seen no data to indicate that possibility exists. It will open up wilderness areas to activities that are not part of designated wilderness, the reason Clinton put them in place.
We let people build in areas we know are going to get hit, be it flood, fire, mudslide, hurricane, etc. Then, when the predictable happens the first thing we do is let them go right back again. The second thing we do is try to somehow "manage" natural resources to make it safer to be there.
So far nobody on this post, including me, has proposed a viable solution or even identifed the problem for that matter. Several of you have stated your preference for local or state control vs. federal control. I disagree.
And I do not agree with the changes to the roadless designations for wilderness areas as has occurred.
Untouched? That is what the 'Clinton' order was. You are supporting that. It would appear that is your 'solution' since that is what you support.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
It will open up wilderness areas to activities that are not part of designated wilderness, the reason Clinton put them in place. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'm glad it's been removed.
------------------
LadyFisher, Publisher of
FAOL
I support wilderness as envisioned by Congress when they passed the Wilderness Act. Wilderness areas that are full of roads, hammered by ORVs, etc. are not wilderness.
And for the most part I supported Clinton's rules because they plugged some loopholes. And they indeed were a very strong reaction to years of problems.
But I don't believe for one minute that Bush has any interest in this other than to open large areas to commercial logging. All under the guise of fire management.
And by the way, states already have the option of providing input to the FS and BLM. Every citizen of the country has the same opportunity.
The problem is multi-dimensional and can't be solved by your simple solution of let the states manage it.
Apparently we are going to strongly disagree on this issue.
Provide input? Right. And since the forests under the Clinton plan were under Fed rule, it just took one person to file suit in Federal Court to stop anything....note, not State court, FEDERAL. Input all you pleased, one environmentalist could shut it off - and did. Disagree? That is an understatment,
we have been so veerrry politically correct in this country no one is willing to stand up and say the precious policy was wrong. I don't know (and even though you can buy anyone's belief on this you want) you don't know if this will be better or not. It sure will be an improvement - the last one didn't work.
------------------
LadyFisher, Publisher of
FAOL
Let me make sure I understand something here. Are you advocating turning over federal lands to states? If so, I am very much opposed to that idea.
Anybody with a lawyer can file suit in federal court. Anybody with a lawyer can file suit in state court as well. Do you really think that those people bent on lawsuits will stop because states manage federal lands. They will stop about the same time the other side stops trying to gut the existing environmental laws for private gain.
Turning over management to states won't prevent lawsuits as lands will still be in federal ownership. All federal regulations will still apply and just because a state may manage a tract of land doesn't mean they can just do whatever they want. Federal agencies are required to provide oversight to ensure compliance with federal regulations. Failure to do so will bring lawsuits from one side or the other.
Unfortunatly, both ends of the spectrum have very adeptly twisted the system to their own agendas. High priced lawyers for both sides know very well how to manipulate the system, especially under the NEPA, to force or prevent actions. I don't like it either.
While there is much room for improvement in managing federal lands I don't agree that states can do it better.
You want better management of federal lands? I could give you my ideas. But as you seem to be so locked into the idea that states should do it I am not sure it would be worthwhile.
We strongly disagree on several aspects of the issue. You have your opinion and I have mine. I think the roadless rules should have been left in place. I also think there would have been room for improvement and/or changes. You think otherwise.
When I read your post I was shocked. What I wrote was not meant to be offensive in any way. But when I read what I had written again I could see where it might be taken that way.
What I was trying to say was this. Although I have ideas for solutions it would probably not be beneficial for either of us for me to spend time writing them down. We have very different opinions on the subject and providing that information is not likely to change your mind just as you aren't going to change mine.
I have enjoyed this web site and have always thought it one of the best. It is obvious that I have offended you. I will leave with deep regrets for anything I said that was offensive as I did not intend to offend anyone. Please accept my sincere apology.