I didn’t know if this had alread been posted. While I tend to lean to the right of center on most political issues, this is a bit troubling…if true.
Check out the article.
http://spatialnews.geocomm.com/dailynews/2004/sep/01/news3.html
Horn Head
AT in Trouble? - Appalachian Trail
system
#1
system
#3
As Chicken Little said to Ducky-Wucky, “the sky is falling, the evil Forest Service is about to Clearcut every inch of the AT that is not already in Wilderness, we must run around in circles and stop this evil.”
Sorry folks, here in the east, not much has changes since when George W decided not to support the “roadless Rule” and the Forest Service drafted new rules. If you take the time to look at and actually read the Forest Plans for the eastern forests that contain portions of the AT, I suspect that you will find that there are more safegaurds than you can count to protec the AT from clearcutting and stripmining. This claim is simply not true. However, it is a chance for some groups to rally and continue their fight to stop all logging on public lands (not that it matters that wood demand in the states continues to rise and that wood products must come from somewhere - we can keep mining the forests of Canada, Russia, and the rest of the third world so that we can stop anything that might ruin our views from our own backyards)
stumps
system
#4
I just read the article and what it made clear to me was not that anyone was PLANNING to clearcut or stripmine a particular area, but that an important protection had been removed from many key areas of the trail. Since you ‘suspect there are more safeguards than you can count’, why not list a few to show why this one doesn’t matter? Until then, I’d feel better KNOWING this one was still in place. For the record, I don’t propose a ban on logging on public lands, I don’t think every tree should be saved, and I’m certainly not naive enough to think that politicians of either party will look out for our best interests as citizens over the interests of their corporate donors. [For that matter I’m also not naive enough to take advice on protecting the outdoors from people named ‘Bush’ or ‘Stumps’ 
]
Joel
system
#5
The ATC has made an analysis of the policy change. Follow the link at the end
of this post from the ATC’s website:
August 31, 2004
Advocacy Group Sees Danger to A.T. in “Roadless Rule” Repeal
The Campaign to Protect America’s Lands is today releasing an analysis of the
Forest Service’s proposed rollback of the “roadless area” rule that
highlights dangers it sees to the forests around the Appalachian Trail in “several
dozen specific points.” Detailed Web-based maps will be released at an afternoon
news conference, an audio recording of which should be available by 5 p.m. EDT
at http://www.protectamericaslands.org. ATC’s analysis of this policy change
and a second one involving regulation of off-highway vehicles—public comment
on both of which is open only for the next two weeks—are available here:
http://www.appalachiantrail.org/protect/issues/fsrules.html
TJ aka Teej
system
#6
The safeguards are in the Forest plans for NC, GA, the other states. Lands near the AT are typically allocated to recreational uses and classified as unsuitable for timber management, This is not to say that trees would not be cut - the southern pine beetle outbreak of 2002-2003 created conditions that some trees had to be cut for safetly reasons (although there are plenty of beetle killed trees near Fontana Dam). These management prescriptions have safeguards built into them - however, while they are administrative, they don’t change easily and public outcry over anything to do with the AT would likely stop any logging near the trail. It does make good headlines to claim that “W” is ready to log the AT (See link below), and I suspect that like Ronald Reagon, the Prez believes that trees do cause air pollution (which might explain some of his other policies)
It makes great headlines to make claims that are not necessarily based in facts. You are right, no one is planning on logging or mining the AT, but the threat that it could happen (however, unlikely) makes great scare tactics.
Personnally, I was around in 1978 when RARE II was in progress, and I hikes though “roadless” areas out west where the jeep trails and roads criss-crossed the landscape. As such, I was sceptical of the Roadless Rule from the Clinton Administration that put all the RARE-II lands in what would essentially be wilderness. However, I am not in favor of much this administration does (with regards to most of its environment direction or anything else).
BTW - I don’t give advice on caring for the outdoors, I practice what I preach. You go your own way and I will go mine. Stumps is just a nickname given to me by someone who noted that I could always find one to stand on, no matter where I went (it makes it easier to see over the brush.
Stumps
system
#7
This is from the ATC analysis of the proposed roadless rule - only regardin the AT, not any other roadless are or the other issues at had. Yes, I have cut it from the entire context. However, this paragraph shows why teh AT is not and should not be the issue for fighting the roadless rule; (TJ - thanks for the links to the ATC comments)
“In the eastern U.S., in the eight National Forests crossed by the Appalachian Trail, the A.T. has been assigned a special management prescription, and most inventoried roadless areas have been assigned relatively benign management prescriptions, such as remote, backcountry, non-motorized recreation, or to certain habitat-enhancement categories, although some of these prescriptions would permit limited timbering or road-reconstruction activities. Of course, such prescriptions are subject to change through forest plan revisions or amendments. In general, however, the immediate environs surrounding the A.T. are well protected by the management prescriptions that have been assigned in the plans developed for the National Forests crossed by the A.T.”
Stumps
system
#8
When the Oak tree killer virus takes hold in 5-15 years from now the logging issues will seem like a minor point.
RockyTrail
system
#9
Shucks, I drove through where the Biscut fire burned in Oregon a couple of days ago, mile upon mile of dead trees with only scattered pockets of scarred live trees - I sure wish that we were doing something to recover some of the cost from the dead trees and use the money to protect the watersheds that are filling up with silt, debris, etc. The ephemeral impacts of salvaging some of the dead trees would not be noticed by any but those who distain logging and would sure help the watersheds recover.
stumps
system
#10
“TJ - thanks for the links to the ATC comments”
you’re welcome - here’s more from the ATC
Roadless Areas
About forty percent of the Appalachian Trail is located in eight national forests. Forest plans, which prescribe the allowable uses of land, involve extensive public input and analyses. Many in the Trail community have participated actively in the formulation of those plans, and all of the eight affected forests include relatively strong protections for the footpath and a buffer around it. Lands surrounding the A.T. have been assigned a special “prescription” that excludes incompatible development and land-management activities. However, ATC and others are concerned about impacts on the now-roadless lands just outside that “management zone” and the effects of noise and other negative impacts from OHV use too close to it. Outside the A.T. zone of concern, public recreational lands in the West enjoyed by many A.T. hikers and ATC members could be severely affected.
On July 12, three years after she had said just the opposite, Secretary of Agriculture Ann Veneman announced that the administration had decided to repeal the roadless-area conservation rule adopted by the USDA Forest Service in the last weeks of the Clinton administration, which would have sharply limited new logging and road construction on an estimated one third of national-forest land, more than 58 million acres. She cited lawsuits against the rule as one reason for repealing it, although no final decisions have been made in the litigation brought by timber and mining interests.
The earlier roadless area conservation rule, which ATC supported, sought to prohibit road construction and reconstruction, timber cutting, and mining activities in all inventoried roadless areas. The rule was adopted following an environmental-impact-statement analysis and with substantial public comment that included hundreds of public hearings and received more than 1.6 million comments. Roadless areas generally are candidates for formal designation as wilderness by Congress.
The Bush-administration proposal would allow governors of states with inventoried roadless areas to petition the secretary to develop new management practices for those areas within their states. Those practices could include activities, such as timber harvesting or road construction, prohibited by the earlier rule and, if adopted by the Forest Service, would take precedence over management prescriptions assigned to the affected areas through the forest planning process. The proposal would allow an eighteen-month window for such petitions, followed by a 180-day review-and-response period by the secretary, a far shorter time than allowed for forest planning. ATC opposes the new roadless-area rule, citing a variety of reasons. Most notably, the rule would assign too much weight to the states in influencing the management of what, in many cases, are nationally significant lands and resources, and ATC also is concerned that it could override the far more deliberative forest planning process.
TJ aka Teej
system
#11
It is arrogance as trail advocates to think that only the government in Washington can control the outcome of the trail for the good of the trail.
I think this policy is a healthy one that GWB, 43, is advocating.
The fire in the Shenandoah Park in 99 was started by the Forest Service not listening to the natives who told the Forest Service that it would happen because of certain winds that were common at that time of the year.
Countless trees were destroyed as a result of the governments lethargic and draconian approach to forest management.
This new approach allows some control to be restored to the state and places new accountabilty in a localy elected official’s hands.
It is much more accountable than a bureaucrat in Washington!
If you do something to screw things up, you get voted out whereas we can never fire the the jerks who set VA or NM on fire in 99 via established control burns methods avocated by the Forest Service.
Nor can we fire the jerks who walked all over the many landowners who joyfully supported the trail going through their farms only to have the goverment forceably acquire their land for the AT.
The bad feeling near Roan Mountain endangered hikers for years as a result of government’s heavy handed tactics.
Turning friends into enemies is simply bad policy.
The countless trail maintaing groups with their volunteers along the trail prove the usefulness of local support and participation.
So, assuming states want to develop an area does not mean the worst for that area.
It can also mean improved access for the handicapped for scenic sites, or thining of trees that threaten fire to a nearby town and which also supplies jobs at the same time it helps the environment, or even allows a particular group, such as a local university, to turn what was just a wilderness area into a living labratory for vistors and thus teaches respect for nature.
I think it is time we trusted the local resident who often times becomes our local trail angel to do what is right for the forest we love to hike in.
Maybe, just maybe, we will find out that they are more passionate about the prestine beauty of their area than we are. Maybe, just maybe, we will find out that their plan stops us from hurting the trail we love so much.
This new policy invites states and localities along the trail to feel renewed ownership and stewardship of the lands that surround them. And that is a good thing!
Mr. Boo '99
system
#12
I grew up in logging country, and we have recently had our property logged in a management style, with part harvested 15 years ago, and more harvested two years ago. No clear cutting, and cut for timber, not pulpwood. mature trees only, no logging roads, only skidder trails. After two years, you can barely tell it was logged, the turkey population has EXPLODED on our farm, wild hogs have returned, bear have returned,a nd deer are browsing on our farm that have not been seen in our area innumbers for several decades. The logging industry and the recreational industry or even the greens do not need to be enemies here. In the words of Rodney King, “can’t we all just get along?” I agree that some areas need to remain untouched, like the national parks and along our trails. But the original intent of the national forest was as a wood and timber reserve in case of national emergency or catastrophy within the private timber markets. Kinda like the interstates. Built to make it easier to move military units around the country, but mostly used for civilian traffic. (don’t believe me, look at all the military post less than 30 miles from a MAJOR interstate.)
The key is properly managed harvesting, not clear cutting. If yo do that, loggers, hunters, hikers and greenies can all be happy if they will all give an inch and not demand a mile.
Big Dee