I'm just back from a conference of outdoor writers. At one seminar I attended, I learned that the Bush admin has. made energy exploration in Rocky Mountain states a high priority. So much so that they are pushing hard to open Idaho's roadless areas for coal, gas and oil development. The BLM has been given marching orders to expedite the process and that any efforts to mitigate loss of fish and wildlife habitat must be justified and shown to not harm the push for new extraction industries. The biggest of many problems this will cause is massive water pollution from new techniques to release gas from coal beds. The BLM estimates that as much as 2 trillion gallons of polluted water will be dumped into pristine rivers in areas where west slope cutthroat and Chinook salmon are endangered. Of course, the current plans to count hatchery fish just like wild fish, will help this destruction of our wilderness. (Who needs wild fish when we have hatcheries)?

Trout Unlimited is fighting this hard, but right now only one district judge stands in the way of even more senseless destruction of some of the West’s most vital fish and game habitat.

The Idaho roadless area also produces the vast majority of the state’s trophy mule deer, elk and antelope. The largest antelope migration still occurring in the U.S. passes right through the area planned for development.

This stuff just makes me sick. The actions of the Bush administration seem to exhibit an overt hatred for our natural environment.
I realize that our clean water act, clean air act and endangered species act were signed by President Nixon, so where (and why) did the party go so wrong?

More Doom and Gloom Dave?

What a negative outlook you have. No wonder you spend so much time campaigning for eco-extremism.

For most of us the world is not at the brink of armeggon and we humans are not an unnatural earthly infectious disease organism. We are the highest life form the earth has ever evolved and with the cooperative application of our collective intelligence we will likely continue to move forward in bettering the most secure and comfortable existance ever experienced by an earthly being.

Since you bring presidential politics to this board I suppose it is only fair to present the more positive side of the presidential campaign issue.




In November, gun owners and sportsmen have a clear choice in the race for President. It will be the most important vote that gun owners have cast in decades. That choice is between a person who has been a true friend to gun owners and a candidate who has never missed a chance to vote against our right to bear arms.

In 2000, President Bush promised not to push for new gun control laws and he has kept that promise. He also said during the 2000 campaign that he opposes registration of firearms and gun owners, opposes mandatory trigger locks, and opposes waiting periods for the purchase of handguns (The Economist, "Issues 2000" special, Sep 30, 2000).

During his campaign for President, Bush defended his support for legislation in Texas that allows a person to carry a concealed weapon. "We live in a dangerous society," Bush said. "People feel like they need to defend themselves." (Washington Post Apr 25, 1999)

As President, he appointed John Ashcroft Attorney General, who in turn stated the official position of the Administraition is that the Second Amendment is an individual right to keep and bear arms - a marked improvement from the Clinton years. Then, in early March 2004 as the Senate was considering S. 1805 (The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act), President Bush urged Senators to pass a "clean bill," and asked the Senate to vote against "poison pill" amendments (including one to end gun shows as we know them and the other reenacting the Clinton Gun Ban) to S.659/S.1805.

The other candidate, Senator John Kerry, says he is a hunter and gun owner and would do nothing to take a way the rights of hunters. His voting record in the US Senate tells a different story. Kerry has a 100% voting record in support of Handgun Control, INC (now known as the Brady Campaign) and the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. He even left the campaign trial on March 2, 2004 just so he could vote to end gun shows as we know them and reenact the Clinton Gun Ban. Later that day he voted for the Kennedy ammunition ban amendment. If the amendment had passed, it would have banned many hunting rounds. Even worse, Senator Kerry received a 100% rating from the Humane Society of the United States - one of the most anti-hunting groups in the nation. (The Humane Scorecard, February, 2004)

click here for more...

Ok, I'll bite (fish on!),

Bush is great on gun rights. His environmental record? From increased logging quotas on public land to more water for agriculture and power at the expense of fish runs to lumping wild fish and hatchery animals as one big school to allowing polluting industries to skip expensive upgrades of their spewing systems...and lastly, oh yeah...let's get those job bases overseas where they'll do the most good for that country's environment.

What's not to like?

NRA drivel.
Give Bush 20 years and there won't be anything to hunt unless you are a large land owner.
One of the countless reforms we need is a good return on the use of "our" land. Right now it is raped for a return of mere pennies to the tax payer and then the Companies file bankruptcy, start up again under a new name and leave the tax payer to clean up the mess.

G.W is ..... wait, I promiced myself I would'nt do it.. so I won't. He is doing a good enough job of trashing himself.

It's sad that anybody could take this view in light of the mountain of scientific data that confirms global warming and the geometric increase in the extinction of species caused by "man". This data has been produced by numerous scientists from around the globe, although it continues to be ignored by so many, including the Bush Administration and those folks with Plunker's mindset.

Never before in the history of the earth has one species caused the extinction of so many other species. There are so many examples of species that were once prolific that are now completely extinct from our planet, and still there are comments made like the one above. Are people really as blind as this comment makes them out to be?

When scientists and biologists produce reports that our oceans health and their fish are in rapid decline, when we witness our air and water quality spiral downward, when we as sport fishers witness declines in our andramous fish populations, when we witness the devastation caused by over harvest and exploitation, can their be any doubt that we're heading in the wrong way?

It is undeniably the greed, the arrogance, and the ignorance of the GOP that will continue this cycle of exploitation. Capitalism is not the same as democracy!

One must surely be ignorant of the world around them, or passified in the belief that this world is better and healthier today than it was before we exploited it. This is the belief that the Bush administration wants to convey to those who do not have the capacity to reason. It is this same limitation that will prevent those same people from voting Bush out of office in 2004.

If GW Bush was a fisherman, and Plunker was a fish, I'd say Plunker swallowed Bush's bait hook line and sinker...will that be one lump or two?


"Only when the last tree is cut; only when the last river is polluted; only when the last fish is caught; only then will they realise that you cannot eat money." Cree Indian Proverb

Plunker ,you put the red in redneck.
I guess you would say "get rid o them dang fishes ,there polluting my drinking water ,having sex and all.
After all the conservation strides made in your country,it's a shame the Bush mafia wants to take things back 30 years.
I wish i could say things were better up here in Canada,but with the fish farming disaster we have happening it's the same sh$t different country.
I loved that saying about you can't eat money ,gonna have to borrow that one.

Now a canadian is going to tell us how it is

**** the queen!

Both are bad so what do ya do.

The president dosent really have that much power anyways and the dem's are jsut as bad as the rep's. So what do ya do?

You lose all your rights and become a socialist country. Or so keep all your rights and lose the envirmont?

Trying to win some customers TM

Plunker, as a comparison, you might try breathing the air in Mexico City. They waited 'til '93 to require new cars to have cataletic converters and now they have serious problems. The point is if you wait too long to take action, its too late....

Mexico City Smog

My Thoughts on gun control are, Well How about 2" at 100 yards would be pretty good gun control. As far as I am concerned they need to to enforce the laws they have now NOT take the rights away from law abiding citizens like you and me.
As far as The Enviroment I don't like what I am hearing about our president. as far as kerry I don't like him at all.
Here is an example of what kerry is against.
This is a letter from Ray Reynolds, a medic in the Iowa Army National Guard, serving in Iraq:

As I head off to Baghdad for the final weeks of my stay in Iraq, I wanted to say thanks to all of you who did not believe the media. They have done a very poor job of covering everything that has happened. I am sorry that I have not been able to visit all of you during my two week leave back home. And just so you can rest at night knowing something is happening in Iraq that is noteworthy, I thought I would pass this on to you. This is the list of things that has happened in Iraq recently: (Please share it with your friends and compare it to the version that your paper is producing.)

* Over 400,000 kids have up-to-date immunizations.
* School attendance is up 80% from levels before the war.
* Over 1,500 schools have been renovated and rid of the weapons stored there so education can occur.
* The port of Uhm Qasar was renovated so grain can be off-loaded from ships faster.
* The country had its first 2 billion barrel export of oil in August.
* Over 4.5 million people have clean drinking water for the first time ever in Iraq.
* The country now receives 2 times the electrical power it did before the war.
* 100% of the hospitals are open and fully staffed, compared to 35% before the war.
* Elections are taking place in every major city, and city councils are in place.
* Sewer and water lines are installed in every major city.
* Over 60,000 police are patrolling the streets.
* Over 100,000 Iraqi civil defense police are securing the country.
* Over 80,000 Iraqi soldiers are patrolling the streets side by side with US soldiers.
* Over 400,000 people have telephones for the first time ever
* Students are taught field sanitation and hand washing techniques to prevent the spread of germs.
* An interim constitution has been signed.
* Girls are allowed to attend school.
* Textbooks that don't mention Saddam are in the schools for the first time in 30 years.

Don't believe for one second that these people do not want us there. I have met many, many people from Iraq that want us there, and in a bad way. They say they will never see the freedoms we talk about but they hope their children will. We are doing a good job in Iraq and I challenge anyone, anywhere to dispute me on these facts. So If you happen to run into John Kerry, be sure to give him my email address and send him to Denison, Iowa. This soldier will set him straight. If you are like me and very disgusted with how this period of rebuilding has been portrayed, email this to a friend and let them know there are good things happening.

Ray Reynolds, SFC
Iowa Army National Guard
234th Signal Battalion

Politics Yes Right or wrong Who knows ?
Ramprat
Thats all I have to say about that (FORREST GUMP)

Timberman ,who's the Queen?

Rich, you summed up my feelings perfectly. I'm not a big fan or either option.

Ramprat, that list the GOP has been pushing around the Internet for weeks left off some numbers: 730 dead Americans.

You people should really understand environmental laws and the process before you cry foul. The checks and balances are there and working. If something does slide by it gets caught and the perp gets harassed and sued to death. Nothing happens that is not nessecary to maintain the lifestyle of fat lazy spoiled Americans. Secondly you should be willing to live just as you expect others to live. You should look at the impacts on the environment your lifestyle causes before you cast the stone. Just because you have economically transferred evironmental destruction and you do not drive past it every day does not mean it's not real. The power you are using to read this post has killed fish. but that is justifed because you want it that way. Then you walk out the door and point to 10 other guys that are ruining your fishing. Do you not see the hypocrisy or have you been that blinded by misinformation and denial?

If the checks and balances are working so well, why are so many salmon and steelhead runs extinct? The issue here is this administration trying to roll back checks and balances developed by concerned politicians from Nixon to Bush Sr.

This is NOT about electric power. It is about unnecessary exploitation of our last wilderness areas in an effort to develop relativly minor amounts of gas and oil.

Yes most of us live a lifestyle that could be better suited to protecting our environment, but that does not mean we should abandon all regard for the environment. Life is NOT an all or nothing concern. We can drive a car and still support better mileage standards. We can use electricity and still switch to more efficient light bulbs, support wind and solar, etc. All humans are hypocrites, but we can still try to make a diffrence..

If you want to try to understand the issue, you can read more here: http://www.ourforests.org/localreports/

Dave,

So the energy companies are doing this because they have no demand? They are logging because there is no demand. You have yours and no one else can have the same? Do you have kids? Are they not going to use resources ? You just bought a new pickup and camper that probably gets under 20 MPG and you have the nerve to say anything about evironmental protection relating to energy production. How about all the ecosystem effected by the production of the materials to build that set up? A true environmentalist would take the train or go greyhound before he would shell out $40k to trach the environement. No lets look at your home and community. How many wetlands and ecosystems where whacked for your life style.
I hate to see roads punched and mines opened as much as the next guy but I look in the mirror to see the cause. Our politicians only do what we direct them to to with our dollar vote. The Dodge Ram and Camper are screaming at president Bush to take action to develop energy. Turn the finger at thyself first!

Ramprat,

I don't know how this thread turned into a Kerry bashing event, but there's some disinformation in that letter you posted. I found some information about SFC Reynolds.

Reynolds is not a medic, but rather a signaleer. His battalion provides long-haul and WAN transmissions in theater.

His source of information for the facts he cited are:
USAID Fact Sheet
Influential Iraqis
The Police Chief of Baghdad

His facts are explained here.

And there's more info here.

I'm having flashbacks of Gaylord Perry!!!

"If the checks and balances are working so well, why are so many salmon and steelhead runs extinct"

Guys like you and I building homes,roads and support systems on the slopes facing the Snoqualmie river for example. All the trees that were cut down to make way and frame this infrastructure since the mid 1800's. Well intentioned environmentalists stopping the dredging of the river channel that was silted by this development. The willow scrub ecosystem that lined the river valley that was removed to make the river more accessable and to clear Farmland to grow food for a growing community. We asked that the checks and balances be set up to make it easier and more affordable to live the way we want. We are still doing it with our comsumer choices.

It would seem that we should learn from our mistakes and strive to do better; not use them as a rationale for doing continued harm.

Regarding Bush's abysmal environmental policies... who took 'conservation' out of the so-called conservatives?

"It would seem that we should learn from our mistakes and strive to do better; not use them as a rationale for doing continued harm."

Very true. But I prefer actions over words to prove one's true heart.

Lets use Aluminum as an example of this statement.

If this were ture in our lives as fisherman we would use less Aluminum because we know that it take massive amounts of electricity to process the material from raw sources to recycled. TYet in our lifetime Aluminum use has gone up some 15,000 times for the avg. person in the US. think about all the beer and soda cans you use in a year, auto parts,home uses,foil for cooking, how many here have aluminum boats? How many here use less aluminum in there lives today or demand with a dollar vote that their products be made from recycled materials? Or is it easier to focus on what the other guy is doing or not doing?

The Columbia River once held the largest Salmon runs in the history of the world. The dams that provided cheap electricity made the use of inexpensive Aluminum possible in our lifetime. So the foil you use to cook that hatchery fish killed the wild fish it replaced.

The same argument could be made about commercial fishing and tribal netting.

Until we/I stop fishing all together than we/I cannot complain about commercial fishing industry.

Until I stop fishing all together than I cannot complain about the tribes netting.

Am I missing the point?

It just seems a bit short sighted.

How are you different than the commercial guys. Because it takes more sport fisherman to do the same amount of damage? So your individual impact is less by degrees making it more palatable? Hard arguement for the guy to swallow that wants all fishing banned.
Commercial fishing is a symptom.


The argument IMHO is pointless for various reasons. One you cannot live in this country and not consider yourself part of the problem. You cannot be part of a consumer economy and recycle your news paper and cans and call your contribution even with your impact. The rest of the developing world is trashing the lragest % of the planet to fuel their econmies by selling us stuff. Secondly at best we are delaying the invetitable. Like all organisims we will suffer the consequences of our existance in a closed ecosystem. It's been too late for a long time. It might seem fatalist but given the population forecast for the next 50 years it's more realistic.

Envrionmentalism does not exist as far as nature is concerned. Nature can and will exist with out the presence of man. We only want to shape to suit our needs not it's needs.

I take it then that you do not believe in conservation?

Are you advocating using all of our resources until they are no more and the human race is left to die off? Awfully fatalistic.

I would think managing our resources would allow us to prolong that "inevitable" and possibly prevent it from truly being an inevitable. That to me seems to be the argument, that some people here disagree with the way Bush has decided on managing the resources.

Absolutly I believe in conservation. But on the same flip of the coin I do not deny my role in the destruction of the environment. I consumed $500 in manufactured goods to go catch a few trout last weekend. Not a conservation minded adventure even though I did not litter or foul the water where I fished.

Bush from my view is providing only for business owners what all of us expect for our selves. Basic constitutional freedoms. If they own land or can procure contracts to extract natural resources that have a market they have the freedom to pursue this. We can stop it if we do not agree by a variety of mechanisms. Laws and regulations, negotiation,ecomimic pressures, legal recourse ,out right boycott of the end product and those associated with it's production. HArd to accomplish when we say no emotionally and then support the devlopment economically. Then say to our elected officals you will provide us a higher standard of living at a lower cost and with no environmental impact . Btw We also want to buy American as long as it is at the lowest price. If Bush came into office and instituted enviromental policies that raised your cost of living cost you more in taxes but protcted the enviroment at un precenented levels I think the howling would be much louder.

I am just saying walk the talk and don't be two faced even if it plays in a partisan crowd.

Your arguments hold NO water. In this case we are talking about public lands - wilderness in fact. They do not own this land we the taxpayers do!

As far as walk the walk, that is too silly an argument. All of us waste resources and all of us are to some extent hypocritical . But one need not live in a cave and consume no resources in order to be concerned about wilderness areas.

I am in fact a partisan. I favor those who will protect our environment. If that is a republican he will get my vote, as have several republicans in the past. But this one is trying hard to dismantle protections signed into law by previous republicans. I can assure you I have and will continue to speak out against anyone of any political persuasion who trip to give away our national resources.

Do you support letting a land owner drain a river killing all the fish in that river just because the river flows through his land and he can make a bigger profit selling his apples to South Korea, if he does so? How about clear cutting the National parks? Can one be against any environment wrecking problems and not be a hypocrite in your book?

P.S. My truck did get better than 20 MPG on the last trip. Is that some magic hurdle that now allows me to be concerned about the environment?

P.P.S. Be sure to save your posts for your grandkids. They may want to know what kind of thinking let our national treasures slip away.

Dave You fish on public owned land using a public resource. With a license that allows it. Just as an oil company would have to have a licsense to drill on public land. You talk like they just drive in the dozers and do what they want. I cannot think of many industries that are more heavily regulated than mining and oil drilling. I cannot think of areas that are more heavily regulated than public lands or more cloesly watched by environmental groups. If a timber ,oil,gas or mining company farts in the woods it's on the nightly news in Seattle and Portland.

Your Dodge has more impact on the decison to drill in wilderness areas than any other decision you can make. So don't blame the govt. for your vote to use more oil.

Another quick question (which will probably be ignored again):

Are we talking about punching in new roads or re-opening existing fire/logging roads?

I don't know about Idaho, but when I look at the state Gazetteer for Washington, I can't find anywhere ouside the National Parks that are not already riddled with roads.

Dave BTW you left this whole section out of the quote in your rebuttal. would that be becaus eit give s a soultion to the question you raise instead of just poiting a finger in a freidly room?

"We can stop it if we do not agree by a variety of mechanisms. Laws and regulations, negotiation,ecomimic pressures, legal recourse ,out right boycott of the end product and those associated with it's production. HArd to accomplish when we say no emotionally and then support the devlopment economically. Then say to our elected officals you will provide us a higher standard of living at a lower cost and with no environmental impact . Btw We also want to buy American as long as it is at the lowest price. If Bush came into office and instituted enviromental policies that raised your cost of living cost you more in taxes but protcted the enviroment at un precenented levels I think the howling would be much louder. "

Slab,

I have not seen any new proposals. The old ones called for the use of existing roads and if any new ones were built they had to be reclaimed and restored at the end of the project.

Slab: Here is a brief blurb on the current roadless areas in Idaho. There are in fact several new proposal to develop this area for energy exploration. Please see my original post. The proposal to allow energy exploration and extraction were the reason for my post. Also please see the link I provided above.

I have photos as well and will psot some ASAP.

"Approximately seven percent of Idaho is protected by the 1964 Wilderness Act. That’s a little more than 4 million acres of wilderness. But nearly 9 million acres of Inventoried Roadless Area exists in Idaho’s National Forests along with another four million acres of roadless lands under the management of the Bureau of Land Management - nearly all 13 million acres has excellent wilderness potential. No other state, outside of Alaska, has that much remaining unroaded and undeveloped land just sitting virtually unprotected in the public trust."

Theking: I did not respond to your entire quote as I thought it was illlogical and off topic. My lack of respoinse should not be taken as agreement.

BTW. Buying my truck did little to encourage the push for natural gas exploration, which is the primary thrust of this plan. Did you read the link I posted or do you not want to understand this issue?

Here are FACTS:

Responsible Energy Development

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and Forest Service are proposing unprecedented levels of gas and oil development on public lands, with potential for severe impacts on crucial fish and wildlife habitats, and hunting and fishing, throughout Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, Utah and New Mexico.

The ecological effects of gas, oil, and coal bed methane (CBM) development on public lands are extensive. Although the actual “footprint” of a well or pad may be relatively small, production requires a pervasive infrastructure of roads, transmission lines, holding facilities, ponds, and so on. This development can contaminate ground and surface water supplies, reduce water quantity, degrade fish habitat, and fragment wildlife corridors, calving grounds, and nesting areas.

The cumulative effects of energy development spread throughout such a large landscape, and proposed on such a large, unprecedented scale, will almost certainly have significant impacts on fish, wildlife, water, and hunting and fishing.

The White House has cast increasing development of public lands energy supplies as a matter of national security. Their argument is that by increasing domestic production of oil, gas, and coalbed methane, we will no longer need to rely on energy resources from the unstable Middle East. The U.S. consumes 25% of the world’s produced energy. Yet, only 3% of the world’s known energy resources underlie domestic soil. In other words, we could develop every National park, wilderness and roadless area, and wildlife refuge and never come close to meeting our energy demands. Clearly, conservation must play a significant role in our national energy plan.

Certainly our nation needs energy supplies, but at what cost to the public lands that sustain some of the cleanest water, healthiest habitats, and finest fishing and hunting in North America? TU believes that we should be careful never to allow short-term energy production to diminish the long-term productive capacity of the lands and waters that sustain us. Our public lands should be managed for all multiple uses. Oil and gas development is but one use, and it should not take priority over clean water, wildlife and fish, and hunting and fishing interests. We believe that potential impacts to fish and wildlife and water resources must be thoroughly examined and disclosed in regards to gas and oil development on public lands. Where development does occur, proper mitigations, stipulations and monitoring plans must be in place, funded, and enforced, to protect wildlife and fish. We also need to insist that some places—such as crucial winter range, spawning habitat, riparian areas, and migratory corridors—remain off limits to development. In other places, our land management agencies need to slow down, and develop a better understanding of potential impacts before proceeding with such ambitious, wide-scale developments across the landscape.

Working with the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, the Izaak Walton League, the Wildlife Management Institute, Montana Wildlife Federation, Wyoming Wildlife Federation and others, Trout Unlimited is leading an energy campaign called Hunters and Anglers for Responsible Energy Development, informing anglers and hunters about the threats of expansive gas and oil development and what they can do about it. For more information, please contact Dave Stalling (dstalling@tu.org), TU’s public lands field coordinator at 406-721-4441.
Stay Tuned

In the fall of 2003, we will release a comprehensive mapping and analysis report that analyzes the intersection of important fish and wildlife habitat and hunting and fishing opportunities with public lands most likely to see accelerated development. Our objective in releasing this report is twofold. First, to arm sportsmen and women with the information they need to meaningfully in BLM and Forest Service energy development plans. Second, to assist the agencies to develop energy resources on public lands in a manner that protects scarce water resources and important fish and wildlife habitat.


More Information
Oil / Gas Slideshow
Western Public Lands Gas and Oil Development Report
Gas and Oil Development on Western Public Lands Fact Sheet
Oil & public lands: Hunters, anglers beware
Talk About Traveling Network
Energy ad that ran in Congress Daily
Ad campaign questioning Energy Bill which ran in MT and ND

The mapping has taken longer than originally anticipated, but should be done soon. I saw a draft of the report which is why I made my original post.

Thats hooey. I have hunted every county in Idaho since 1977 and you cannot go 10 miles in any direction with out hitting a road or a cat track or right of way of some sort. They are talking about FS roads and city ,county ,state designated highways and rail road right of ways. It sells better in Liberal cities. Name any area in Idaho and I can pull up terra server photo that will show a road into the area.

BTW I would like to see as few roads as possible and most of them shut down to access but the truth is the truth.

If the average sportsman had to walk more than a hlf mile it would cut down on 95% of the use IMHO.

"10 miles in any direction" is a roadless area of at least 314 sq. miles or ~196,000 acres.

That sounds like something worth keeping intact.

At the end of it all, what we continually honor in this country, across the generations is what we leave behind - as opposed to what we use up. Be it battlefields, or national parks, or wilderness areas, or salmon runs; those are legacies that define our nation.

The Bush Adminstration's proposals for maximum exploitation are simply Un-American, and it's time to call them exactly for what they are!

GaryK

"At the end of it all, what we continually honor in this country, across the generations is what we leave behind - as opposed to what we use up. Be it battlefields, or national parks, or wilderness areas, or salmon runs; those are legacies that define our nation."

"The Bush Adminstration's proposals for maximum exploitation are simply Un-American, and it's time to call them exactly for what they are!"
---------------------------


Well said Gary! Nice to see that we are not all so selfish and self-centered and do care about what we leave for the future of our children's and our children's, children.

Heritage Forests Campaign's partners include:
Alaska Rainforest Coalition, American Hiking Society, Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund, National Environmental Trust, National Audubon Society, Natural Resources Defense Council, US PIRG, and The Wilderness Society.

Now that is a trustworthy group!

The Roadless Area Conservation Rule witholds 58.5 million acres of wild national forest land from access through roads. The rule was intended to allocate one third of our national forest land as a haven for hikers.

The National forests were zoned as perpetually unaccessible wilderness to all but a few who have the time and ability to hike many miles in order to visit them.

This is part of the Clinton/Gore legacy environmentalist extremism.
The anti-road rule puts preservation before conservation.

It was expected that Bush would overturn this bit of Clinton's extreme anti-conservationism immediatly but, in fact, he and his cabinet took some time in studying the rules and impacts before reversing a few of the more extreme rules.

The peple called foul when this rule was proposed and when it went in to effect and should praise those who would modify it today.

What good our forests without access?

Great joke Plunk. Ha ha ha. I hope no one thinks you were serious.

HEY PLUNKER,

YOU SHOULD RUN FOR SOME LOCAL OFFICE--MAYBE BAGHDAD JIM'S SEAT OR THE OSAMA MAMA PATTY MURRY'S SENATE POSITION. I'D SURE AS HECK VOTE AND CAMPAIGN FOR YOU.

I JUST ABOUT GAVE UP ON THIS SITE A FEW MONTHS AGO--BECAUSE OF ALL THE IRRATIONAL BUSH BASHING, TREE HUGGING ( AND SPIKING)--MOTHER EARTH GAVE US LIFE- NOT GOD CIRCLE JERKING THAT GOES ON.

IT'S NICE TO SEE A CONSERATIVE WEIGH IN A ON THE ISSUES WITH A LEVEL HEADED PERSPECTIVE THAT RESPECTS EARTH-- BUT DOES NOT WORSHIP HER LIKE A FALSE IDOL.

THE SKY ISN'T FALLING!

INTEREST RATES ARE STILL AT ALMOST HISTORIC LOWS--THE STOCK MARKET IS DOING GOOD AND GETTING BETTER-UNEMPLOYMENT IS AROUND THE LOW AVERAGE WE HAD IN THE 90'S AND ALL ECONOMIC INDICATORS SUGGEST THINGS ARE ONLY GOING TO GET BETTER.

ALL THIS AND OUR ENVIROMENT IS IN THE BEST SHAPE ITS BEEN IN IN DECADES.

DESPITE THE FACT THAT BUSH AND HIS CAPITALIST PIG-CORPORATE FAT CAT FRIENDS WANT TO CLEAR CUT, POLLUTE AND PROSTITUTE EVERY SQUARE INCH OF EARTH. JUST TO PAD THEIR POCKETS.

ISN'T IT IRONIC.

BUSH 2004!!!


"IF YOU'RE NOT A LIBERAL AT TWENTY YOU HAVE NO HEART--IF YOU'RE STILL A LIBERAL AT FORTY YOU HAVE NO BRAIN."

Thanks for bringing this topic up Dave...It certainly deserves more thorough investigation. I intend to spend some time reading about this prior to a knee jerk reaction. The partisan nature of the debate is unfortunate as it takes away from focus on the problem.

I think there is a backlash in the country right now against what is perceived as extreme environmental restrictions that go way beyond what is necessary in many cases. For example, the gas price rise we are seeing is in no small part due to a shortage of gasoline refining capacity here in the US. There has not been a refinery built in over 15 years due to environmental protest. In California the restrictions are so severe that they have experienced huge energy price problems and wild fires that destroyed massive residential areas.

I am all for stopping unnecessary exploitation of resources that destroys the fragile environment but I am not for the mentality that says "hands off" just because we say so. I think we should start looking at the population explosion and uncontrolled immigration just as hard as we look at ways to stop all development.

GP: Thanks for the response. I always enjoy debating with you becasue you think before talking.

Here are a few more facts about roadless areas in Idaho:

The Value of Roadless Areas to Idaho’s Fishing and Hunting


Idaho Facts:
Idaho contains 52,961,000 total acres.
Seven percent, or 4,005,653 acres, of Idaho is protected in congressionally mandated wilderness.
9 million acres of inventoried roadless areas remain in the National Forests.
Approximately 4 million acres of roadless BLM lands remain.
32 percent of Idaho’s total land base is roadless.


Trout and Salmon
The single greatest factor in the decline of salmon and steelhead populations in Idaho are the hydro-dams on the lower Snake River. Roadless areas provide crucially important spawning and rearing habitat that can help to “buy time” while the longer term problems associated with dams are resolved.

The table below shows historic habitat and contemporary abundance of selected salmonids, and the extent to which they rely on roadless lands for their survival.


Species Percentage of lost historic habitat Current distribution in roadless areas
Bull Trout 46 percent of historic range 68 percent of current habitat is in roadless areas
Chinook salmon 65 percent of historic range 74 percent of current habitat is in roadless areas
Redband trout 70 percent of historic range 48 percent of current habitat is in roadless areas
Steelhead 61 percent of historic range 74 percent of current habitat is in roadless areas
Westslope cutthroat trout 16 percent of historic range 58 percent of current habitat is in roadless areas

Note: The percentage of current distribution in roadless areas is based on sub-watersheds that are at least 40 percent roadless.


Deer Harvest
51 percent of the land in units yielding more than 70 percent bucks is roadless.
72 percent of the land in units yielding more than 40 percent 4+ pt. bucks is roadless.
94 percent of the land in units yielding both more than 70 percent bucks and more than 40 percent 4+ point bucks is roadless.

Elk Harvest
88 percent of the land in units yielding more than 90 percent branch bulls is roadless.

Note: Units in which less than 50 bull elk were harvested over a two year period were excluded. Also excluded were units where only controlled hunts were allowed.


Deer and Elk Seasons
98 percent of the land in units with November deer seasons is roadless
97 percent of the land in units with September or November elk seasons is roadless.

Bighorn Sheep and Mountain Goat Hunting
67 percent of the land in units allowing sheep and goat hunting is roadless.

303d Sediment-Impaired Streams
94 percent of 303d sediment-impaired streams are located outside roadless areas.

Status of Idaho’s Inventoried Roadless Areas
Forest Service inventoried roadless areas (IRAs) are divided into the following three categories:

1B – IRAs allocated to a forest plan prescription that does not allow road construction and reconstruction.

1B-1 – IRAs allocated to a prescription that does not allow road construction and reconstruction, recommended in the forest plan as wilderness.

1C – IRAs allocated to a prescription that allows road construction and reconstruction. 61 percent of Idaho’s roadless areas fall into this category.

In the absence of lasting roadless protection, Forest Service roadless areas are managed by individual forest plans. Local forest supervisors and district rangers face the difficult task of balancing the exceptional ecological values of roadless areas against local development demands. Without lasting protection, and despite the best efforts of local managers, Idaho’s roadless areas may face the death of a thousand cuts by forest plans that cumulatively erode Idaho’s roadless base. Presently the maintenance and reconstruction backlog on Idaho’s national forest roads exceeds a billion dollars annually.

Dave,


I have been aware of this for over 20 years as I have friends with land in the area. They were approached about mineral rights in the early 80's. The issue about the roadless areas extends to Timber,all minerals and NG not just the NG. It may be on the table now as the first issue but there are others . I am also a taditional bow hunter and a back country horseman and both groups have been involved in this issue in this and other areas for at least 6 years. So don't play off others as ill informed because you went to some extremist conf. last week.

Secondly I never once advocated the use of wilderness areas for anything except recreation. I only pointed out that the checks and balances are there to make sure the best possible decision will be made in this matter. I also pointed out the hypocrisy of your environmentalism as situational at best and your bias to Bush's environmental positions. Like most NW liberals you want your cake as they say. You cannot live the way you do and point the finger to others as being the bad guys.


Have you ever seen how they explore for NG. I have . The Whisky Dick field between Eburg and Vantage in 1982, 83,84 . They drive research truck up and down roads shooting seismic waves into the rocks to create a gas feild map to guage the scope and possible yeild of the feild. They may drill a few test wells. They put Whisky Dick in reserve. I challenge you to drive over and take a few photos of the area and show us what kind of damage was done to that area as a result of this exploration. Show me downstream effect of the exploration on all levels of the ecosystem.

Lastly singing the song about leaving something behind for the kids is two faced and so far from realityit's silly. As long as you live the way you do it is inevitable that these areas will be under increased pressure before they are used for resources. Take it to the bank. To not see that we are all 100% guilty and an equal part of the problem is pure denial.

TheKing:

Damn!!! I worte you a loooong response that would have made you join Earth First, become a vegetarian, and go out and hug a tree. But my G.D. puter ate it all.

I think we have both said what we wanted to and I know I am getting into repeating myself, so I wil stop for now. I will say some of your arguments made sense to me. And I hope we can agree that some areas are worth protecting.

I appreciate that while you vehemantly disagree with me you have done so with no personal insluts or attacks.

I'm going fishing now. But here is a photo that shows one small reason I am against new roads in curently roadless areas. This was taken on the Clearwater River in Idaho.

Dave,

I am more conservationist and green than most here I would guess. I live on a small organic farm. Taking us about 25% of the commercial grid. We raise several types of bees in addition providing habitat for native bees. I have a small stream that feeds into the Snoqualmie river that is 100% native growth on its banks for 200' on each side with no run off from live stock. I have planted 1000 trees from native stock. We use no pesticides and only organic herbicides. Grow my own beef 100% organic . I own two parcels and have set one aside with the county not to be developed. I have restored the habitat enough that we are home to 3 types of native Hawks, Piliated woodpeckers, Flying squirrels and a huge population of black bears and Blacktail deer, Salamanders, 4 types of native tree frogs , porcupine and a whole host of others. I would be willing to also bet that my kids age 5 and 10 could name more native spiecies and how river, creek,lake ,wetland and ocean habitat ecosystems work than most adults here.

Nothing like this one though;-0

Lake Missoula Flood - 18 thousand years ago
Eighteen thousand years ago the Columbia Basin was nearly covered by floodwaters when an ice dam at Lake Missoula in western Montana broke. Large boulders were strewn near the outlet of the Lower Coulee (Lake Lenore). Other boulders were carried in icebergs as far as western Oregon. The floodwaters were 800 feet (250 meters) deep near Pasco and 400 feet (125 meters) deep at Portland.
After the Ice Age, the Columbia River returned to its former channel. The channeled scab lands and large coulees that had been formed were left stranded 500-1600 feet (150-500 meters) above the present river floor and serve as a constant reminder of some of the most unusual episodes in geologic history.


http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/Glossary/Glaciers/IceSheets/description_lake_missoula.html

You mean in a house...........with electricity?

I'm pretty sure he can complain........I've read it myself.

Idaho does not need any more roadless area, it just needs to keep what it has already. I just don't get you Plunker... what do you care about roadless areas in Idaho. You state that its about elitest "hikers".. trying to keep everybody else out.. thats not it at all.. Its about keeping something the way it always has been forever. Being from Idaho, and having been in these wilderness areas myself, the majority of the people who actually get up into these areas are hunters, and would resent that statement.

So, Plunker... what do you think should happen. Do you think roads should be built into all these areas so you can hop into your car and drive up there and look around or ??? Whats up there you want to see ??? I am almost certain you have never been in the Frank Church or Gosple hump or anyplace without a road for that matter.. so what are you missing ??? You have an opinion about a place you have never been, never seen, and probably never even thought about.

While fishing is my passion, hunting is my hobby. Dave V brings up some valid points. The majority of the better hunting in Idaho is in areas that are closed to motorized vehicals. There may be roads there, but they are gated. Idaho has done a good job of protecting its resources. Some would like it to sound like this is a federal level thing.. fact is, its what the sportsmen of Idaho want.

So what, not everybody can access these areas... why ??? because they are not tough enough, or don't want to invest in what it takes to do it. You know something... If you want to drive around and hunt out of your car or your 4 wheeler or whatever.. you can do that in Washington. If you want to do some good hunting, you can come over here, but don't piss and moan about the laws.

Locked out by the goverment... thats to funny... If it was something you really wanted to do nobodys stopping you... go on up there, look around.. have a good time, leave your truck at home.

Dans,

I bet Lacey was an awesome wilderness area before all the subdivisions and roads:-) That does not count though I know it had to happen.

Many of state's most common birds at risk

By Ian Ith
Seattle Times staff reporter


PAINTING BY JOHN JAMES AUDUBON
Red knot

E-mail this article
Print this article
Search archive
Most e-mailed articles

It's long been known that the spotted owl, the marbled murrelet and the snowy plover could become the next dodos.
But even birds as taken for granted as the friendly rufous hummingbird, that tiny, orange backyard visitor, and the yellow warbler, the enemy of garden pests across the state, are vulnerable to rapid decline because of urban sprawl and other human destruction of habitat.

At least, that's the conclusion of a new report to be released today by the Audubon Society of Washington, which says nearly one-third of all bird species common to the state are at risk of sliding toward extinction.

The "State of the Birds" report urges government officials, land managers and individual homeowners alike to take "immediate and focused conservation measures" to protect bird habitat.

The study is also a model for studies the Audubon Society says it wants to do in every state.

The report online


The Audubon Society's "State of the Birds" report will be available online at wa.audubon.org.
About the Audubon Society


The first Audubon chapter began in 1896 in Massachusetts to encourage bird watching and protect birds from the hat industry. It was named for famed wildlife painter John James Audubon (1785-1851). The national organization formed in 1905. Today there are 450,000 members nationally and about 22,000 members among 25 chapters in Washington, with a mission to conserve and restore natural ecosystems and habitats.




"Some of these are birds you would see in your own back yard," said John Flicker, president of the National Audubon Society, who came to Seattle this week to publicize the report.

"We want to raise a red flag that these birds are in trouble, and we can do something together to keep them off the endangered-species list."

The study started with all 447 species of birds that have been documented in Washington, then cut the list to 317 birds that occur commonly enough to warrant review.

Audubon used other published studies, government listings, bird counts and other sources to figure out which birds need the most attention. Then it gathered panels of state and federal government scientists and Audubon experts to prioritize the list.

It identified 93 of the 317 species as having "heightened conservation concern." Of those, 14 species and two subspecies were labeled as being of "immediate concern." Another 14 were called "species of high concern." And the rest were called "early warning species."

Many of the birds on the lists include obvious candidates that are already listed by the state as endangered, threatened or otherwise troubled.

But some species listed by the state as endangered, such as the brown pelican, are only listed as "early warning" species by the Audubon Society.


PAINTING BY JOHN JAMES AUDUBON
Burrowing owl


That's because the state may list a bird as endangered because its population is in trouble nationally. But some species, like the brown pelican, may actually be doing better in Washington, said Tim Cullinan, the director of science and conservation for Audubon Washington.

On the flip side, some birds on the federal endangered-species lists, such as the upland sandpiper, weren't even considered by Audubon because they already have vanished from Washington, Cullinan said.

And some, like the olive-sided flycatcher, are on Audubon's "immediate concern" list but not on any state list. "Maybe we'll see some changes to the state list," Cullinan said.

The report blames a range of factors that influence bird species, but the proliferation of humans is the common theme.

Coastal wetlands have largely disappeared in many places. A third of Washington's inland wetlands are gone, too. Most of the state's riverside habitat is lost or altered. Forests are being replaced by advancing housing developments. The vast majority of the state's sage-dappled steppe and grassy savannas have been replaced by farms or invasive plants that humans introduced.

"We really need to think of our impact as a species on the rest of the world," said Derek Stinson, a state Department of Fish and Wildlife biologist who helped Audubon prioritize its list.

"And if we value these things, we are going to have to start making some sacrifices."

For example, the sharp-tailed grouse used to number in the millions on the prairies of Eastern Washington, Stinson said. Agriculture, herbicides and brush burning have reduced the population to fewer than 1,000 birds in seven isolated pockets of habitat. The grouse is now listed as threatened by the state and of "immediate concern" by Audubon.

Even some common backyard birds face huge population declines as urban sprawl cuts the places for them to nest, feed and thrive, said Cullinan. The rufous hummingbird's population has dropped by half in recent decades, despite the affection people have for it.

The yellow warbler, common and familiar in gardens near streams and rivers, is listed because it has suffered rapid declines recently in other Western states, Cullinan said.

Audubon's report doesn't come with major proposals for changes in environmental law.

But the members said they hope it might be used by governments and large land owners as a guide to change the way the land is used, or abused.

"What ties this all together is these are manmade problems, and if people caused them, people can solve them," said Flicker, Audubon's national president.

Even locally, he said, people can do things as simple as using less pesticide, keeping cats indoors and supporting parks and open spaces.

"All of this adds up to solving the big problem that sometimes seems too big to deal with."

Ian Ith: 206-464-2109 or iith@seattletimes.com