The Federal government recently upheld a rule that makes logging and road construction illegal in national forests, according to ABC News and other sources.
For the origin of the rule, one must go back to the Clinton administration. In 2001, a ban was declared on timber harvests, road construction and road development in millions of acres of national forest to protect fragile wilderness habitat and to keep the forests remote and pristine for recreational use. The state of Wyoming and other groups protested the ban, saying it violated the 1964 Wilderness Act and hindered the mining and development of coal and other natural resources.
The Federal court didn't buy Wyoming's protests.
“Wyoming failed to demonstrate that the Forest Service’s promulgation of the Roadless Rule violated the Wilderness Act, NEPA, MUSYA, or NFMA,” the panel of judges wrote in their decision.
The original Clinton iteration was protested by the Bush administration following Clinton's final presidential term. This paved the way for individual states like Wyoming and other groups to follow suit. The debate eventually found its way to the high courts.
Had the ruling been overturned, 50 million acres of wilderness across the country would have been opened to various logging and road development projects, undoubtedly impacting animal species of all types.
“Today’s decision is among the most significant conservation victories in several decades. It reinforces the roadless rule as the cornerstone of protection for our national forests and preserves these landscapes for generations to come,” said Jane Danowitz, director of the Pew Environment Group’s public lands program.
Comments (7)
If you put in logging roads, that brings more trucks, cars and off road vehicles and beer cans. Now isn't that just what nature needs to look "beautiful"?
Historically, national forests were logged but not clear cut. The timber was managed for lumber production and logging rights were sold by the Feds to lumber companies. I agree with the above post that if the logging is done responsibly it improves habitat. Mature woodlands really don't benefit many species.
Sorry I mistaked national forest with national park, but both natural parks and natural forests are large areas of land owned by the federal government in order to conserve the land. Both are intended to inform people of natural wildlife in the united states. If you read the court case you will understand it is not as bad as you think it is.
This concerns national forests not national parks. wvforester is right. This is bad news for modern wildlife management.
Sorry WV but I totally disagree. National Parks do not need any logging....The point of National Parks is to protect natural habitats as they have always been. These animals have been living for hundreds of years before any logging took place. Thinning out trees does not "promote" wildlife, before human expantion almost the entire country was woods at one point and that is when wild animals thrived the most.
When logging operations are conducted responsibly they promote excellent wildlife habitat. Stands of timber that are different ages are hard to beat in regards to wildlife habitat. The banning of timber harvest on our National Forest is a victory for extreme environmental groups who are also known to be anti-hunting. I hope the hunting community realizes how beneficial and necessary timber harvesting is to promote a healthy eco-system with sustainable populations of big game animals.
Good! I've always wondered why they allowed it in National Parks.
Post a Comment (200 characters or less)
When logging operations are conducted responsibly they promote excellent wildlife habitat. Stands of timber that are different ages are hard to beat in regards to wildlife habitat. The banning of timber harvest on our National Forest is a victory for extreme environmental groups who are also known to be anti-hunting. I hope the hunting community realizes how beneficial and necessary timber harvesting is to promote a healthy eco-system with sustainable populations of big game animals.
Historically, national forests were logged but not clear cut. The timber was managed for lumber production and logging rights were sold by the Feds to lumber companies. I agree with the above post that if the logging is done responsibly it improves habitat. Mature woodlands really don't benefit many species.
This concerns national forests not national parks. wvforester is right. This is bad news for modern wildlife management.
Sorry WV but I totally disagree. National Parks do not need any logging....The point of National Parks is to protect natural habitats as they have always been. These animals have been living for hundreds of years before any logging took place. Thinning out trees does not "promote" wildlife, before human expantion almost the entire country was woods at one point and that is when wild animals thrived the most.
Sorry I mistaked national forest with national park, but both natural parks and natural forests are large areas of land owned by the federal government in order to conserve the land. Both are intended to inform people of natural wildlife in the united states. If you read the court case you will understand it is not as bad as you think it is.
Good! I've always wondered why they allowed it in National Parks.
If you put in logging roads, that brings more trucks, cars and off road vehicles and beer cans. Now isn't that just what nature needs to look "beautiful"?
Post a Comment (200 characters or less)