Hey, Myron,

I would really appreciate it if someone could tell me specifically any
action
taken by President Bush or his administration that has threatened our
wildernesses.

Robin

Socemdog


http://www.peopleandplanet.net/doc.php?id=1857


Op ed pieces about reports from "green" organizations are hardly hard evidence
of Bush's "Assault" on the environment. The simple fact is that many of the
actions taken during the current Administration
have either been overblown or misinterpeted, often on purpose to raise funds
for organization like Sierra Club that has not be real successful with
membership in the past years. I'm not claiming that Bush is the best
environmental steward, but he is no worse that the Clinton Administration.

Many "green" issues come down to use and access. Notice the first one mentioned
here was motors, which is more of an issue of personal preference than one of
the environment. Although one can argue that this is higher impact than non
motorized use, on lakes and rivers I not really sure that the issue is that
much in your favor.

I've argued for years that many of the "Green" organizations have focused on
their support, often blindly, to one party and at the national level. Well, now
they
have lost again, can even complain about the election being stolen this time,
and wonder why they aren't being included in the decision making.

I would take a deep breath, relax, and start looking at the individual issues.
SYOTR
Larry C.

"Larry Cable" wrote in message
...
Hey, Myron,

I would really appreciate it if someone could tell me specifically any
action
taken by President Bush or his administration that has threatened our
wildernesses.

Robin

Socemdog


http://www.peopleandplanet.net/doc.php?id=1857


Op ed pieces about reports from "green" organizations are hardly hard
evidence
of Bush's "Assault" on the environment. The simple fact is that many of
the
actions taken during the current Administration
have either been overblown or misinterpeted, often on purpose to raise
funds
for organization like Sierra Club that has not be real successful with
membership in the past years. I'm not claiming that Bush is the best
environmental steward, but he is no worse that the Clinton Administration.


Well, who do you EXPECT to write critical reviews about Bush's environmental
poilicies? The White House? You can reject any messenger you want, but first
check their claims. Although the op-ed pieces are not the evidence
themselves, the legislation and rulings they refer to are public record.
I'm a bit overwhelmed at trying to find a few indicitive 'specific issues',
as every link I follow is loaded with them. Follow any of the news stories
here;
http://www.cspo.org/home/news/ The one about the clean air degredation in
the Grand Canyon is from the Salt Lake Tribune....hardly the Sierra Club.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...0/MN161026.DTL links
to an article in the SanFran Chronicle about Bush's relaxation of the laws
creating roadless areas in National Forests. This opened up millions of
acres of forestland to timber industries, that had previously been off
limits, including hundreds of thousands of acres of old growth in the
Tongass in Alaska.

In Feb of this year, there was a consortium of scientists and Nobel
laureates, 63 in all, who condemned Bush's environmental policies as being
partisian, and of "systematically and deliberately distorting" the
scientific research to further political gain. I'm sure not all of those
guys were in the pay of the National Wildlife Resources Council.
http://www.washingtonfax.com/samples/2004/20040219.html

Last year, Bush instructed the Dept of Interior to stop barring drilling for
petroresources or mining on land proposed for wilderness protection. In
fact, he has put the least amount of land into wilderness status of any
presiden since the Wilderness Act was first proposed.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5898203/

This is just the tip of the iceberg, and I've tried avoiding the more
'Green' organizations and their rapsheets. However, I challenge others to
do their own research into this, and come up with any way that they can
show that Bush has been a friend to wilderness!

While you're at it, look up "Wise Use" and look at the connections between
Bush environmental (and wilderness policy) and this organization.

--riverman

"riverman"

typed in Message-ID:
References:

http://www.cspo.org/home/news/ The one about the clean air degredation in
the Grand Canyon is from the Salt Lake Tribune....hardly the Sierra Club.

Are you claiming that this has just happened? Or that he isn't fixing it?
Why didn't Clinton fix it, he had 8 years?
SYOTR
Larry C.

"Larry Cable" wrote in message
...
"riverman"

typed in Message-ID:
References:

http://www.cspo.org/home/news/ The one about the clean air degredation in
the Grand Canyon is from the Salt Lake Tribune....hardly the Sierra Club.

Are you claiming that this has just happened? Or that he isn't fixing it?
Why didn't Clinton fix it, he had 8 years?


Oh, air quality over the canyon has been degrading for years...we talked
about it in the 80s. Clinton did pass legislation to start to fix it, but
Bush suspended it, and even put in stopgaps that let emissions producers
'buy' emission credits from others who don't use theirs. So now its getting
worse than ever, but with a legal hall pass.

A quote from a friend of mine:

"About the natural environment... what the Bush administration has
*already* done is a matter of record. Those who don't think the
administration's aim is to roll back the entire range of environmental
protections it's taken a century to put in place just haven't been paying
close attention. So let's take stock after 4 years and see what Bush and
big business have done that they were constrained from doing during the
first four years in order to get elected again. No such restraints now, a
firm grip on both houses of Congress, and (given the spin one hears on FOX)
the pretense of a "sweeping mandate"....

He's got the bit in his teeth now. At least last election, he was promising
to be a 'uniter' and a 'compassionate conservative'. No such pretense
anymore.

--riverman

Sorry about that, got interrupted.

To continue.

"riverman"

typed in Message-ID:
References:

http://www.cspo.org/home/news/ The one about the clean air degredation in
the Grand Canyon is from the Salt Lake Tribune....hardly the Sierra Club.

Are you claiming that this has just happened? Or that he isn't fixing it?
Why didn't Clinton fix it, he had 8 years?

links
to an article in the SanFran Chronicle about Bush's relaxation of the laws
creating roadless areas in National Forests. This opened up millions of
acres of forestland to timber industries, that had previously been off

limits, including hundreds of thousands of acres of old growth in the
Tongass in Alaska.

Actually had only been off limits since Jan.2001, when as a lame duck
President,
Clinton instituted the "Roadless Rules".
It was in court numerous times, the Tongass NF settled out of court, then there
was a Permanent Injuction against enforcing this rule change. While the Bush
Administration would probably support this ruling, they didn't have much to do
with it.
Presidents don't like to see administrative actions overturned by court
decision, set a bad precedent.

n Feb of this year, there was a consortium of scientists and Nobel
laureates, 63 in all, who condemned Bush's environmental policies as being
partisian, and of "systematically and deliberately distorting" the
scientific research to further political gain. I'm sure not all of

those
guys were in the pay of the National Wildlife Resources Council.
http://www.washingtonfax.com/samples/2004/20040219.html



I just followed all the links provided and found a lot of stuff like "well
found" and
"documented", but they did'nt seem to produce much of it. I'm afraid I have to
put this one down as editorial. I try to follow up with a little web search
later on that one.

Last year, Bush instructed the Dept of Interior to stop barring drilling for
petroresources or mining on land proposed for wilderness protection. In
fact, he has put the least amount of land into wilderness status of any
presiden since the Wilderness Act was first proposed.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5898

I'm sure this one is true. Last time I looked, the US economy still run on Oil,

so I have to say that I support this one.

OTOH, Increased funding from the Conservation Fund

Increased funding for wetland protection
(Must be a duck hunter).

Made the first major increase in the Clean Air Standards for a long time,
including the first time levels of Mercury were included
(outside of medical waste).

Not wonderful, but then again he didn't run on a "green" platform. But he isn't
clearcutting Yellowstone or stripmining The Smokies either. Despite the uproar,
he has been pretty middle of the road on all of this stuff and support the
things that the people that voted for him support. So he won't do
anything to the Clean Water or Air act, but will not restrict access to Public
Land.






SYOTR
Larry C.