Interesting. This article puts a wrong twist on it, IMO. All he's doing is moving the control from the federal government to the states. The states can still maintain the provisions of the act, but they can also overrule it if local needs exist. I'm for less federal control over this stuff and feel the control SHOULD be with the local areas.

What do you think?

Avalanche of objections to Bush forest-road plan

Mary Jo Pitzl
The Arizona Republic
Nov. 16, 2004 12:00 AM

The nation's forests risk being crisscrossed with new roads if a Bush administration proposal becomes practice, groups ranging from conservationists to hikers to Democratic governors said Monday.

Their opinions were among an avalanche of an estimated 1.7 million comments opposing changes to the "roadless rule," which bans road construction in the forests. Monday was the final day for public comment to the U.S. Forest Service.

Proponents say the Bush plan would give land managers flexibility and would better reflect local needs.

But opponents said more roads would spell disaster for the forests and the multiple purposes they serve, from hunting and hiking to protection of the rivers and creeks that form Western watersheds. They fear the proposal is being made to allow more timber companies, mining and oil- and gas-exploration companies access to the nation's forests.

The roadless rule, enacted in the final days of the Clinton administration, put a blanket ban on road construction on 58 million acres of forest nationwide. That includes 1.2 million acres in Arizona.

In July, the Bush administration proposed dropping the uniform ban and turning instead to local officials, such as the nation's governors, to shape policy.

Gov. Janet Napolitano, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson and Washington Gov. Gary Locke argue that the governors already have a voice in forest decisions. And, they said in a letter to departing Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman, oversight of federal lands belongs to the federal government, not the states.

A state-by-state policy risks being blind to "the real value of disappearing wildlands to the nation as a whole," they wrote.

Lori Faeth, Napolitano's adviser for natural resources, said allowing more roads into federal forests in Arizona increases wildfire risk.

"If you provide greater access for humans into these areas, there's a greater risk of fire," Faeth said.

That's because there are three times as many human-caused wildfires in Arizona as those caused by lightning strikes, and man-caused fires are far more damaging, she said.

"One hundred percent of catastrophic fires that took out property were human-caused," Faeth said, citing the "Rodeo-Chediski" fire of 2002 and the "Aspen" fire on Mount Lemmon in 2003.

Hunters associated with the National Wildlife Federation say roadless areas support the biggest populations of game animals, and new roads would fragment these prime hunting areas.

"Teddy Roosevelt told us that there can be no greater priority than conservation in this country," said Larry Schweiger, president of the wildlife federation.

Federal officials tout the proposal as a more flexible approach to forest management, and one that might avoid the lawsuits that have tied up the Clinton-era rule.

Lewis Tenney, who used to run a lumber mill in northern Arizona, said managers have to be able to get to the public lands they're responsible for.

"Every time you lock up your land, you limit yourself in what you can do to take care of the resource," he said.

For example, new roads might be needed to reach forest stands ravaged by bark beetles, he said.

Richardson, in a teleconference call Monday, said President Bush and the next secretary of Agriculture have a "golden opportunity" to drop their proposed changes, in light of widespread opposition to their plan.

Veneman, who as head of the Department of Agriculture oversees the Forest Service, announced her resignation Monday.

The National Association of State Foresters is urging federal officials to stick to their existing forest-planning process, which has been superseded by both the Clinton plan and the Bush proposal.

Opponents estimate they generated at least 1.7 million comments. Forest Service officials said they didn't have a precise count of how many had arrived as of Monday, nor what position they took.

The Forest Service will read all the comments, analyze them, and may create a revised rule, said Heidi Valetkevitch, spokeswoman for the Forest Service. She could not estimate when that would happen.

BTW, Napolitano ape woman is a democrat who apparently can't handle having control of her own state....

You didn't think the Rag would report it accurately did you?

these and other reasons are why i voted for Kerry.

TJL, explain on this one. What's wrong with giving local control on this?

leave it alone, why change it? it's set up to protect the forrest's and i question any reason to change that, especially from bush with his ties to oil companies and their wanting to do more drilling where they currenly arent allowed. it sounds bad.

It sounds bad. Dang, I was hoping you'd come up with a better argument than that. Educate yourself on the issue and never assume your government knows best. Locals know local needs far better than the feds.

I'm split on this one. Andy is right in that what is good for one area of the country is not always best for another. But at the same time, I don't see how or why state govenments should take the fiscal or manpower responsibility to basicly manage federal lands. I happen to agree with the fact that a control needs to be established on the making of NEW roads. But a blanket ban on the whole country is not the correct answer. There may be need of a new road if significant cause can be proven. But we already have a large amount of trails and roads. There has to be some balance, and comprimise. This is a perfect example of what is wrong with this country, to many extremes. When you take a wire and bend it back and forth far to the right and far to the left what happens? It breaks eventually.

In certain areas of the country, there is a net influx of people. That creates more demand on surrounding lands.
i think he's doing the right thing.

But this certain influx of people shouldn't affect federal lands such as National Forests and Monuments which is all this blanket ban covers. As there is no development going on those lands. I don't mind the ban, just the fact that its a total ban with no room for exception...no flexablity.