WASHINGTON May 5, 2005 — The Bush administration, in one of its biggest decisions on environmental issues, moved Thursday to open up nearly a third of all remote national forest lands to road building, logging and other commercial ventures.

....

 

Environmentalists say the new rule also would let the administration rewrite the forest management plans to lift restrictions against development on most of that forest land.

 

"Yesterday, nearly 60 million acres of national forests were protected and today as a result of deliberate action by the administration they are not," said Robert Vandermark, director of the Heritage Forests Campaign, run by a coalition of environment groups. "The Bush administration plan is a 'leave no tree behind' policy that paves the way for increased logging, drilling and mining in some of our last wild areas."

 

Depressing, if not unexpected.

 

Nice place we'll be leaving behind for our kids.

 

Link to full story: http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=731759

Edited May 5, 200520 yr by FlaSoxxJim

$*%@%*#(%*#(%*@(#%*@(%@#&!$^!.

God f***ign damnit. Why? What is the f***ing idea behind this? Absurd.

 

The Roadless Yaak by Rick Bass + 34 other authors.

Read it.

I wonder what God thinks?

I wonder what God thinks?

God hates trees.

 

And clean air. And water with too little arsenic in it. And protecting endangered animals....

God hates trees.

 

And clean air.  And water with too little arsenic in it.  And protecting endangered animals....

 

Yup, that's what George Bush told me too.

'leave no tree behind'

 

The man knows how to turn a phrase.

Nice place we'll be leaving behind for our kids.

 

 

There's 200 million acres of National Forest. Our kids will be just fine.

There's 200 million acres of National Forest. Our kids will be just fine.

 

 

NO!!!!!!! THE LOGGERS AND DRILLERS WILL LEAVE THE EARTH A BARREN WASTELAND DEVOID OF ALL LIFE!!!!!!! THE AIR IS TURNING TO POISON!!!!!!! WE NEED TO START LIVING IN BUBBLES BECAUSE THE AIR IS POISON!!!!!! THE WATER IS POISON!!!!!! DONT DRINK IT OR YOU'LL DIE!!!!!!! THE EARTH IS HEATING UP SO FAST THAT WE'RE ALL GOING TO BURN AND FRY TO DEATH!!!!!!!!! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!

NO!!!!!!! THE LOGGERS AND DRILLERS WILL LEAVE THE EARTH A BARREN WASTELAND DEVOID OF ALL LIFE!!!!!!! THE AIR IS TURNING TO POISON!!!!!!!  WE NEED TO START LIVING IN BUBBLES BECAUSE THE AIR IS POISON!!!!!!  THE WATER IS POISON!!!!!! DONT DRINK IT OR YOU'LL DIE!!!!!!!  THE EARTH IS HEATING UP SO FAST THAT WE'RE ALL GOING TO BURN AND FRY TO DEATH!!!!!!!!!  AAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!! 

 

Damn tree huggers

There's 200 million acres of National Forest. Our kids will be just fine.

 

 

You believe what you want, I'll go with the scientific viewpoint.

You know, the educated opinion?

$*%@%*#(%*#(%*@(#%*@(%@#&!$^!.

God f***ign damnit.  Why?  What is the f***ing idea behind this?  Absurd. 

 

Most likely to create jobs in a stagnant economy. Not that that's a good excuse, though.

 

If people would either start using birth control or simply keep their pants on, we would have less need to wipe out forests to accomodate our ever-expanding population.

There's 200 million acres of National Forest. Our kids will be just fine.

 

I think a better question would be why does the government own 200 million acres of forest land?

I think a better question would be why does the government own 200 million acres of forest land?

 

 

I believe the answer to that is so those lands would be protected from development.

 

 

 

 

 

Oops.

I believe the answer to that is so those lands would be protected from development.

Oops.

 

And that is exactly the problem with this country. People think it is OK that the US government is the single biggest landholder and employer in this country.

And that is exactly the problem with this country.  People think it is OK that the US government is the single biggest landholder and employer in this country.

Not a big fan of Teddy Roosevelt and his legacy, huh? What do you think would have happened to a lot of those lands 50 years ago if the United States hadn't shown a rare flash of foresight and given them federal protection.

 

And you'd have balked at the Louisanna Purchase and the Alaska purchase as well because, hell, what does the US government need all that land for anyway, right?

Not a big fan of Teddy Roosevelt and his legacy, huh? What do you think would have happened to a lot of those lands 50 years ago if the United States hadn't shown a rare flash of foresight and given them federal protection.

 

And you'd have balked at the Louisanna Purchase and the Alaska purchase as well because, hell, what does the US government need all that land for anyway, right?

 

The Louisiana Purchase and Alaska are still all owned by the US government? That's news to me.

The Louisiana Purchase and Alaska are still all owned by the US government?  That's news to me.

 

Actually chunks of both still are, with much more in Alaska of course. But you'd never have approved of their purchase since they made the US government "the single biggest landholder in this country." which you consider to be bad. I'm just extending your logic.

Edited May 6, 200520 yr by FlaSoxxJim

Actually chunks of both still are, with much more in Alaska of course.  But you'd never have approved of their purchase since they made the US government "the single biggest landholder in this country." which you consider to be bad.  I'm just extending your logic.

 

Then by your logic, there shouldn't be any cars, products, farms, factories, homes, or even humans to pollute and use the planet. The irrational exaggerations are just that, irrational.

NO!!!!!!! THE LOGGERS AND DRILLERS WILL LEAVE THE EARTH A BARREN WASTELAND DEVOID OF ALL LIFE!!!!!!! THE AIR IS TURNING TO POISON!!!!!!!  WE NEED TO START LIVING IN BUBBLES BECAUSE THE AIR IS POISON!!!!!!  THE WATER IS POISON!!!!!! DONT DRINK IT OR YOU'LL DIE!!!!!!!  THE EARTH IS HEATING UP SO FAST THAT WE'RE ALL GOING TO BURN AND FRY TO DEATH!!!!!!!!!  AAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!! 

 

OMG why would the american voters elect a president that would allow all this?!?!??!!? We must love us some tyrants! :headshake

The problem, IMHO, is that when Teddy R. gobbled up that land back in the early 20th century, it was done in the interest of keeping the lands pristine and untouched by development. This makes it a good idea for the gov't to have all that land.

 

Whereas now, the gov't is using the land to cater to big business and private interests. This makes it a bad idea for the gov't to have all that land.

Then by your logic, there shouldn't be any cars, products, farms, factories, homes, or even humans to pollute and use the planet.  The irrational exaggerations are just that, irrational.

Well, yes, I do think the long-term prognosis for the planet would be somewhat less dire if our branch of the family tree would have been quickly dispatched by sabertooth cats at the outset.

The problem, IMHO, is that when Teddy R. gobbled up that land back in the early 20th century, it was done in the interest of keeping the lands pristine and untouched by development.  This makes it a good idea for the gov't to have all that land.

 

Something tells me that Teddy Roosevelt didn't spend a crapload of taxpayer money for a wildlife refuge that's over twice the size of Texas. I'm not saying that it should be developed like Manhattan, but what the hell is the point of owning Alaska if it isn't used for something?

"Thousands of tired, nerve-shaken, over-civilized people are beginning to find out that going to the mountain is going home; that wildness is necessity; that mountain parks and reservations are useful not only as fountains of timber and irrigating rivers, but as fountains of life."

 

That's the reasoning behind it. That's the reason for the National Forest and Park Systems. That's why Teddy did what he did.

 

Also, 68 out of 200 million acres that's every 7 out of 20 acres of land is being used for s*** like this.

Something tells me that Teddy Roosevelt didn't spend a crapload of taxpayer money for a wildlife refuge that's over twice the size of Texas.  I'm not saying that it should be developed like Manhattan, but what the hell is the point of owning Alaska if it isn't used for something?

 

 

I agree with you. I live in what was the Louisiana Purchase also. But if you buy the land, you might as well try to make an investment. Sure I love to see forests and wetlands and other nature, but the number of people in this country is vastly increasing and we need to have places to let people live. Immigration is a big problem for that. But that's a totally different story.

Something tells me that Teddy Roosevelt didn't spend a crapload of taxpayer money for a wildlife refuge that's over twice the size of Texas.  I'm not saying that it should be developed like Manhattan, but what the hell is the point of owning Alaska if it isn't used for something?

 

You're right, Teddy Roosevelt didn't spend a crap load of money on Alaska, the US bought it back in the 1800s.