Viateur in the Orchids Digest, Vol 6, Issue 287 asks: <>" What is the purpose of the following decision (?): <>"America's agriculture secretary, Ann Veneman, ended a directive that protects almost 60m acres of national forest in western states from road building. The states will instead be allowed to submit their own conservation and development proposals for the nature spots to the federal government." <> <> <>source : <> <>Politics this week Jul 15th 2004 From The Economist print edition Are states more favorable to the environment than the federal government? " First to answer a question I am sure running through many OGD readers mind. What does this have to do with orchids, and is it bad or good for orchids? My opinion: For some orchids that do like to grow around the sides of roads this will be good. The building of roads through areas that are now road less will probably lead to the destruction of many other orchid habitats by logging, mining, oil exploration, and off road vehicles. The keywords in the paragraph above as far as destruction of habitat are "development proposals". There is no gain of conservation in developing of roads. I don't know of any development in the sense that the Bush Administration is using the word that is a benefit to the conservation of orchids in situ. To answer the second question first since it is a shorter answer. Are states more favorable to the environment than the federal government? States are not necessarily any more or less favorable to the environment than the federal government. It all depends on who is in control of the government. This directive is an abdication by the Bush administration of the federal government's duty to take care of Federal Lands. These are not state owned lands, but owned by every US citizen no matter what state they are in. It should be the interests of all US citizens that are taken into consideration, not just the citizens or governments of an individual states. What is the purpose of the following decision (?): The Bush Administration will tell you that this directive gives state and local governments control, and that it is part of their health forest initiative. One of the mantras of the Republican Party is that states should make most of the decisions and not the federal government. That states know what is best for their citizens and their local. This quite frankly is just a mantra of convenience depending on the issue. The Republican Party has no problem dictating from the federal government when they believe the states will go against what they want. A recent example of this is their attempt to define the word marriage. In the case of this directive the Bush administration is attempting to get around federal oversight to what they believe, probably correctly, a more lax oversight by the states. They are trying to open these untouched lands to development and extraction of resources. The primary beneficiaries will be companies in logging, oil, and mining. These companies will primarily be smaller companies in their industries, unable to put pressure on federal official but have more influence on state officials. Opening these road less areas to logging is part of the Bush administration's healthy forest initiative. Environmentalists differ with this initiative mainly on two points. They feel that the Bush is to focused on clearing lands in remote areas, and that the main focus should be on forest near houses and communities where fire will have the greatest impact on people. Fires in very remote areas are often left to burn themselves out. The second point of difference is what gets cleared to make a healthy forest. Environmentalists charge the Bush administration with more interest in chopping down large living trees, and less interest in chopping smaller trees, shrubs, and the clearing of all the dead wood accumulated from years of fire suppression. It is this accumulation of kindling that is the reason wild fires burn so hot and out of control. Large trees actually have a better chance of surviving wild fires. The initiative is only in DRAFT form, and is open to public comment until September 14, 2004. For more background information, address, and email address for commenting visit this web address. http://roadless.fs.fed.us/ This link is to an audio discussion dealing with this issue. You need real one player to listen. The Program is just under an hour. http://www.kqed.org/.stream/real/radio/forum/2004/07/2004-07-15a-forum.rm.ram
Forum discusses the Bush administration's proposal to lift a ban on logging in remote areas of national forests, and looks at the potential impact on California. Host: Michael Krasny Guests: Mark Rey, undersecretary for natural resources and the environment for the United States Department of Agriculture Jay Watson, regional director of The Wilderness Society Dave Bischel, president of the California Forestry Association Continuing the current government's use of wording to miss direct the public "USDA Announces Actions to Conserve Roadless Areas" when in actuality the initiative does not conserve road less areas but opens them up to roads. It would be funny if it weren't for the fact that they are serious about the initiative. Such is the current state of politics these days. Lastly, I wasn't going to bring this topic up on the OGD, but since someone else did (from another country no less), I am only responding to his questions. Mark Sullivan Chop down a tree to save it from burning.
_______________________________________________ the OrchidGuide Digest (OGD) [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.orchidguide.com/mailman/listinfo/orchids
