« Eat For Your Life | Main | Tax and Farm »

November 03, 2005

Rules of the Roadless

Following Oregon's lead, Washington's governor asked the federal government to reinstate protection for all of Washington's roadless areas (those areas that are untouched by roads but are outside the formal protection of national parks or wilderness areas).

Here's the backstory: Bush administration policies devolved protection of those roadless areas to individual national forests, which resulted in roughly 700,000 acres in Washington losing protection. Rather than submitting a new (time-consuming, expensive, and completely redundant) analysis arguing for protecting those lands, Gregoire wants the feds to simply return to its former policy of protecting them--a policy that was based on exhaustive research and public input.

The US Department of Agriculture, which houses the Forest Service, is almost certain to reject Governor Gregoire's proposal, as it did Kulongoski's last week. That could set the stage for Washington joining Oregon, California, and New Mexico in suing the federal government over the burdensome requirements of getting roadless areas--already inventoried, studied, and approved--the protection they deserve.

It's rather sad turn when states have to sue the federal government to protect the public's resources. And protecting those roadless areas is important--they're havens for endangered species, not to mention important vestiges of our heritage, nature left intact and untrammeled. Washington has a lot at stake with Gregoire's proposal-- the 700,000 acres of roadless areas at risk is roughly 3 times the size of Mount Rainier National Park.

UPDATE 11/4/05: The Salem Statesman Journal reports on the Bush administration's rejection of Kulongoski's proposal.

*****

In a similar vein, a great rant on paying for public lands access by Seattle Times columnist Ron Judd. Here's a sample:

A visit to Mount Rainier National Park is not a ring tone, a movie rental, or any other expendable entertainment commodity. For many people, it's a birthright...

******

UPDATE 11/9/05: A no-holds-barred editorial from the Daily Astorian on the selective use of states' rights to promote resource extraction, but not conservation. Here's a sample:

Once again showing that it supports states’ rights only so long as state leaders adhere to the activist Republican agenda of using national assets to enhance corporate profits, the Bush administration rejected Kulongoski’s petition to keep logging and mining out of undeveloped areas.

Posted by Eric de Place | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834573a7069e200d83494adb769e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Rules of the Roadless:

Comments

Let people use their land.

Posted by: Walter E. Wallis | Nov 7, 2005 11:36:30 AM

Walter, I couldn't agree more. And the people who own the land--Americans, that is--overwhelmingly want to use their roadless land for protecting wilderness-quality natural resources. That's why the Clinton-era roadless policy was supported by something like 95 percent of the public comments.

Posted by: Eric de Place | Nov 7, 2005 12:13:22 PM

can't say that user fees really bother me that much.

for example: what's worse, high user fees, or smog and excessive traffic in the yosemite valley?

Posted by: colorless green ideas | Nov 8, 2005 12:39:27 PM

Shouldn't the Bush Administration be more concerned with getting our Men and Women of the armed forces proper equipment, and less with interefering with states. The problem here is that the federal government has control over these forests. The states should be able to lay down the law on any public land, federal or state, that lay within their state borders. State governments are fundamentally more democratic, there is less power amongst executive branches of state government then the federal government. States would do a much better job at protecting their own land. Relying on the federal government, especially the executive office is quite scary. I mean look at our past presidents. Reagan, who specifically violated the rules congress made. Nixon, a paranoid man who was immoral. George H.W. Bush, a man more concerned with sandy places thousands of miles away then his own countries economy, Bill Clinton, who had good environmental ideas, but failed the country due to excess sexual energy. And our current president who isn't even in touch with mainstream conservatives he's so far right. Clearly with this track record, our public lands are best left to state management.

Posted by: Gary Durning | Nov 10, 2005 11:06:21 AM

Shouldn't the Bush Administration be more concerned with getting our Men and Women of the armed forces proper equipment, and less with interefering with states. The problem here is that the federal government has control over these forests. The states should be able to lay down the law on any public land, federal or state, that lay within their state borders. State governments are fundamentally more democratic, there is less power amongst executive branches of state government then the federal government. States would do a much better job at protecting their own land. Relying on the federal government, especially the executive office is quite scary. I mean look at our past presidents. Reagan, who specifically violated the rules congress made. Nixon, a paranoid man who was immoral. George H.W. Bush, a man more concerned with sandy places thousands of miles away then his own countries economy, Bill Clinton, who had good environmental ideas, but failed the country due to excess sexual energy. And our current president who isn't even in touch with mainstream conservatives he's so far right. Clearly with this track record, our public lands are best left to state management.

Posted by: Gary Durning | Nov 10, 2005 11:06:41 AM