|
|
This rule, the momentum behind the Wild Forest Campaign that would have spared 58.5 million acres of public forests from the dozer, was the largest public rule-making process in federal history. More than 1.6 million comments on the proposed rule were received nationwide, with more than 95 percent of respondents favoring full and permanent protection of these roadless areas.
The timber industry was so threatened by this assault on what it considers its own private stock that Bush took time off between the swearing-in and the inaugural balls to head to the Oval Office. There, flanked by Vice President Dick Cheney and House Speaker Dennis Hastert, he placed a hold on the implementation of the rule already signed into the federal register on Jan. 5 and scheduled to be in effect in March--this to give time for his cronies to figure out their offense. And that they did.
After freezing the plan until May 12 to "review" it, the first thing to do was to get Attorney General nominee John Ashcroft to cross his fingers during his confirmation hearings when he swore under oath that he would defend the rule.
Idaho (the only state with under 50 percent expressed public support for the rule) headed into federal court along with timber giant Boise-Cascade to sue the federal government to block the rule's implementation. The Justice Department rolled over: At one point, the defense took five of its allotted 45 minutes to present its case.
On May 9, Bush announced that although he would "allow" the rule to go into effect May 12, the administration would announce "revisions" in June permitting more "local control." Translation: Toss roadless-area protection back to the individual national forests, where it was as more than 51 percent of federal public forests were destroyed.
Without a doubt, these "revisions" will be designed to overturn the final rule and replace it with hollow language that will provide little if any protection for these national treasures.
Two days later, on May 11, U.S. District Judge Edward J. Lodge in Boise, Idaho, issued an injunction against implementation of the plan for an undefined period. Astonishingly, Lodge said that protecting the last undisturbed areas of our national forests would cause "irreparable harm" to federal forest lands and those that neighbor it.
Without doubt, we are looking at a long court battle to take back what rightfully belongs to the American people. At the least, we'll be fighting the "revisions" due in June.
The Bush administration has managed to block protection of almost 60 million acres of public land, including Alaska's Tongass National Forest, in opposition to public opinion, yet has hardly gotten its hands dirty. The decision he circum-vented grew from the largest and longest rule-making process in history. Overwhelmingly, as reflected in the 1 million comments received during the process, the American people support-ed this protection.
One of Bush's most misleading assertions, parrot-ed ad nauseam by his Cabinet, is that the federal rule to protect Americans' national forests for future generations was an "11th hour" move by the Clinton administration. In addition, the Bush administration and its timber-industry allies continue to mislead the public with the straw men of road closures, restricted access, fire danger, and so on.
These are the facts:
The roadless area conservation rule would by itself protect only 15 percent of the 4.7 million acres of national forests in the Southern Appalachians that remain "roadless"--a U.S. Forest Service term describing relatively unspoiled, remote areas having few if any roads, where the landscape retains its natural character.
Nationally, the wild-forest policy would protect 58.5 million acres of public forests from subsid-ized commercial logging and road construction only, keeping them open for recreation, wildlife, and drinking-water supplies. The only people "locked out" of these areas under this rule would be those wielding the chainsaws, graders, and dozers for a profit. Even so, the rule affects less than one-quarter of 1 percent of the U.S. timber supply.
This rule in its final year of discussion involved more than 600 public hearings covering all 50 states. It was developed by soliciting input, developing a draft position, again soliciting input, developing a final position, and soliciting input yet again.
In Virginia, 45,513 comments supported the policy; 504 did not.
In July 2000, more than 2,000 leaders and others from the U.S. religious community asked the Forest Service to fully protect all National Forest roadless areas. "It is often in wild places, such as pristine forests, that we encounter Creation's sheer magnif-icence," the signatories stated. "There, in awe
and serenity, our hearts turn to God."
Last October, 393 scientists from across the nation wrote, "In light of the irreplaceable functions these [roadless] areas serve, it is wise to provide them as much protection from develop-ment as possible."
Some 83 percent and 86 percent of hunters and anglers, respectively, favor keeping our wild areas roadless.
In anticipation of another cruel attempt to
whip up public hysteria that will certainly be resurrected by the plan's opponents, it should be noted that on March 21 the U.S. Forest Service testified before Congress that the wild-forest protection policy would not affect fire manage-ment or increase fire threats to communities. Indeed, roadless areas are more resistant to fire than cutover areas.
One thing is clear. Whether it's the Bush administration bowing to Big Timber to scuttle this rule, or caving in to the coal industry to rescind limits on carbon-dioxide emissions from power plants, or kowtowing to the mining industry to eliminate protections for communities from hard-rock mining-waste cleanup, or attempting to justify drilling in one of the nation's most pristine wild areas for a short-term gain benefiting oil companies, the "compassionate conservative's" honeymoon with the American people is on hard times.
According to ABC/Washington Post polling (March 2001), the public increasingly feels that Bush cares mainly about the interests of large corporations (61 percent) versus the interests
of ordinary people (31 percent).
Americans are recognizing that the Bush administration is increasingly out of touch with the mainstream. As corporate campaign contrib-utors are calling in their chits, the public understands that the back seat is theirs while the logging, mining, oil, gas, and coal industries are riding shotgun.
The values of clean water, backcountry recreation opportunities, and diverse wildlife habitat are more important than adding to the bottom line of Boise-Cascade and other firms that would hold hostage the public forests. Only if the public speaks out strongly, and soon, will these wild areas have a chance to remain intact.