Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
History of the Na'tl Forests (was: Logging (again))
"George Gehrke" wrote in message
news:5Uqu9.9696$46.6848@fe01... But I don't want what forests remain "managed". I want you out of them and everyone else like you. Leave what's left, 100% alone. I'm more on your side than not, yet many people have a problem with this thinking. It was soon after I began to wonder about such things, in particular about how realistic it might be to hold such opinions as yours, that I realized I needed to learn a lot more about the history of the forests, and of the use of natural resources in the U.S. in general (which is why I'm now in law school, btw). This has led me to learn about the legislative history of our national forests, as embodied in things like The Right-of-Way Permit Acts of 1891 and 1901, The Forest Right-of-Way Act of 1905, The Organic Administration Act of 1897, The Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960, etc. When the national forests were being created in the 1890s and onward, their purposes were two-fold: To secure the ability to produce timber, and to protect the precious sources of water which were necessary for development of the young West. Concerns about recreation, aesthetics, eco-system preservation, overall environmental health, and fish and wildlife didn't come into it until much later -- the Nat'l Parks dealt with these things in some ways, but their administration was a separate bureaucracy altogether. To this day we are living under this legacy. Each fight over logging, fire management, eco-system destruction, aesthetics, and so on, can be seen in light of this history. (You can get a nice treatment of this in 'U.S. v. New Mexico', 438 U.S. 696, a 1978 U.S. Supreme Court opinion -- where the federal gov't fought with the state of N.M. over the use of water from The Rio Mimbres river, in the southwestern highlands of New Mexico -- in only 14 pages. N.M. won to maintain control over its water.) My opinion is that it's convenient for business interests to interpret this legislative (and regulatory/administrative) history to its advantage. Congress has control. As long as business interests are more powerful in lobbying and more willing to give money to campaigns of politicians who support them, things are not going to change much -- the nat'l forests will still be primarily about managing the environment to promote growth and business via control of water and timber. Changing the picture will require much better organization among those concerned with the environment beyond its use in development. The problem of course is that its essentially a non-profit motivation, which is a distinct disadvantage when fighting against narrowly focused, profit motivated corporations. (Those companies have kick-ass lawyers, along with everything else.) There's a maze of legislative history to consider, plus administrative and regulatory histories that color every issue. I'll get back to you. Rico Sacramento P.S. I'm going through rec.backcountry. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
History of the Na'tl Forests (was: Logging (again))
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Bloody VERMIN Cats again, and again, and again, and again....:-(((( | United Kingdom | |||
Healthy Forests? Scientists See Salvage Logging -- Not Wildfire Protection -- At Center of Healt | alt.forestry | |||
Healthy Forests? Scientists See Salvage Logging -- Not Wildfire Protection -- At Center of Healthy F | alt.forestry | |||
Logging (again) | alt.forestry | |||
History of the Na'tl Forests (was: Logging (again) | alt.forestry |