“It’s for the greater common good”, is what Bush’s administration appeared to be saying when they announced last week their decision to radically amend the ‘roadless rule’. It has provoked hot debate between environmental groups, ‘local economy’ advocates and the timber industry.
Barring the environmentalists, the others favoring the decision have welcomed it, especially timber companies, a large number of whom receive federal subsidies but who do create substantial employment.
The rule, a legacy of the Clinton-led government protected roadless areas from logging and further straining the ecological balance.
Changing the rule would immediately mean that the subsidy outlay increases, taking more from the tax payer’s pocket. If the administration goes ahead with its plans to change the rule, it will open 58.5 million acres of pristine forest land to possible timbering. That explained why it was applauded by the timber industry and unions in a number of western states. Meanwhile some environmental groups like Earthjustice are prepared to challenge the decision in court.
Sitting on the fence, for the time being at least, is the Forest Service which has to take the final decision and is expected to eventually favor the opening of more forest land to development. The Forest Service insists that the states will continue to protect the wilderness areas just as they did when the ‘roadless rule’ prevailed.
The timber industry argues that opening more wilderness areas would improve local state economies and also create more jobs. Logging, mining and natural gas exploration have in the past created more job opportunities and generated revenues for the local industries. It would also give governors more say, as the Bush administration says, which makes political sense.
On the other side, the environmentalists insist that there is more harm in reversing the 2001 rule. A spokesman for one environmental group said “People must see things in the proper perspective. The 58.5 million acres of forest land is a national treasure which deserves federal protection. The administration should not forget that the ‘roadless rule’ received record-breaking support during Bush’s tenure when it was opened to public commentary. The rule was developed after great study and 600 public meetings. It had received millions of signed petitions and comments from 4.2 million people, a 90% majority of whom had favored the rule.”
“Besides public support, it is also supported by scientific evidence. For some 60 million Americans, it means clean drinking water which comes from such pristine areas. We have hard evidence that road construction on forest areas adds to the risk of forest fires. Then let’s not forget, that forests are the lungs of the world and they maintain the ecological balance by supporting many different species of flora and fauna. In short, you simply cannot argue against the “long term” conservation benefits of the roadless rule.”
Currently 51% of all forest land is open to drilling, logging and mining; 18% has been designated as wilderness and kept strictly ‘off limits’. The remaining 31% of land was protected by the ‘roadless rule’ which prevented any road building through that area. The Bush administration always wanted to amend the rule to allow for more timber operations, even though they are not profitable in the least.
Many timber companies are there just because they receive federal subsidies. The government has given huge tracts of federally owned forest land on silver platters to such timber companies.
It remains to be seen whether the Bush administration does an about-turn on their decision or goes ahead and allows the axe of development to chop down our national treasure.
