Bush opens ban on roads in the Tongass National Forest

[badshotbob]

I read an article in this month's Rolling Stone about how Bush has opened Clinton's ban on roads for logging in some National Forests - this article was about the Tongass National Forest in Alaska.

In a nut shell, the article pointed out how awful a thing this is because it will be devestating to the animals and environment and on and on. The Tongass National Forest consists of 17 million acres of sitka cedar stands, glaciers, and swamps. The tree huggers think that the rivers will get clogged by run off caused by mud when trees are taken out and pointed out that the sitka deer and bear and other ground critters won't be able to survive. Keep in mind that the roads and logging taking place is minute compared to the vast area of the Tongass National Forest.

We as tax payers are footing the majority of the bill for this logging to take place.

What do you think about all this? What do you think about going into Alaska for oil?

[Jorgy]

I'm glad that the Clinton ban on roadless areas if gone (or partially gone), it would have screwed up my hunting. I didn't think it was a well thought out plan, imagine that. They wanted to make some of our national forests into wilderness areas.

As far as drilling for oil in Alaska, I'm against it for now. Can't we just leave our greedy little fat fingers off of something? It's a wilderness area that they want to drill on. I think that wilderness areas should be left alone as they were intended. Whom ever had the great idea of wilderness area's knew human nature and the fact that we are greedy people. I will change my mind if the world oil supply becomes nill, then I say we drill the living crap out of it.

[badshotbob]

I here ya Jorgy - there was a study done a couple years ago on the forests up in Oregon and the devestating affect the logging ban had on it with regard to fire. They have an owl up there that is protected so the forests aren't taken care of properly, thus producing more fuel for forest fires and no way to get back in there to control them. So, thousands of needles acres gets burned up along with many houses. Yes, fire is a good thing, if done right.

As for the Alaskan deal, well, I agree with you on this to a certain degree - I think as a nation we are stupid for being dependant on foreign oil, especially since there's more than enough oil under this country to supply the world for a very long time, if not indefinitely. Under MI, for example and it's great lakes - studies have show that there is enough oil in this region to supply this country's oil needs for thousands of years. Oh well, what we don't know, or should I say, are not supposed to know.

[Deleted User]

[Deleted by Admins]

[badshotbob]

Ifferd - the article only mentioned the Alaskan forest and a forest in Montana the ban was also lifted from. As far as I know and from what the article pointed out, there were no other bans lifted as of yet. But wow did they criticize Bush for getting the ball rolling on this. The way Bush snuck through the back door on this issue was to have the logging and paper companies sue the government, then it was settled "behind closed doors". Of course, they were all on the same side which I find rather funny. I'm all for it by the way. From what I've read on the issue, clogging up the forests with more fuel for fires and leaving no way to get heavy equipment back in them far outweighs the damage caused by logging. Which is really strange actually now that I think about it - there is clear cut after clear cut in MI's national forests and the animals love em - turkey and deer use them and the grouse and woodcock thrive. Don't see that as a bad thing. Not too sure how I feel about us footing the bill for the logging though. But, we'll never get away from taxes, so whatever.

You can't drive on the roads through the woods. Too funny. That sucks.

[Strut&Rut]

The "national forest thinning" plan/bill was on maybe page 6 of my state's paper, about a month ago now.

At first I thought, "yep, typical republican politician, screwing the environment".

Then I thought about it some more and thought, "yep, typical republican politician, screwing the environment"...just kidding

Thinning is excellent in some forests, unfortunately this opens up all national forests. The only requirement is a review by the state/local forestry to decide if thinning is required. The state influence actually makes this a good measure, as obviously some forests will remain untouched while others---particularly those in the West which pushed this measure with last year's devastating fires---will get thinned.

[Deleted User]

[Deleted by Admins]

[Cougar Mag]

Not only do we pay for the majority of logging, but we pay for those roads for the loggers to use. yes, thinning in some areas are needed and are good for wildlife and the health of the forrests themselves.

Now for those of you who were/are unhappy about roads closed to motor vehicles in wilderness areas...........walking is good exercise!

[Jorgy]

Now for those of you who were/are unhappy about roads closed to motor vehicles in wilderness areas...........walking is good exercise!

using vehicles in wilderness areas have always been banned