More on Bush's administration's impact on environmental resources.
 

For those who insist that Bush really has had no different impact on our
resources than anyone else....

http://oregonlive.com/news/oregonian...6292101830.xml

Enjoy the wild places while they last.
--riverman

"riverman" wrote in message
...
For those who insist that Bush really has had no different impact on our
resources than anyone else....


http://oregonlive.com/news/oregonian...e/110190629210
1830.xml


Add this recent article to the list, too: http://tinyurl.com/5bvzl

Some quotes from the second article:
--------------------------------------------
Environmentalists see some of their worst fears playing out as President
Bush moves to cement a second-term agenda that includes getting more timber,
oil and gas from public lands and relying on the market rather than
regulation to curb pollution. Bush's top energy priority - opening an Alaska
wildlife refuge to oil drilling - is shaping up as an early test of GOP
gains in Congress.
.................................................. ..................
Bush's environmental priority is to rewrite the Clean Air Act to set annual
nationwide limits on three major air pollutants from power plants and to
allow marketplace trading of pollution rights rather than regulation to meet
those goals.

--------------------------------------------



I'm as tired of the political tirades as any of us, but I really do have a
deep-seated fear that the landscape in America, as we know it, will be
fundamentally changed forever from Bush's administration. These aren't
one-off changes..."first development" of virgin land is an irreversable
step. And he intends to rewrite laws which will continue to impact us once
he is gone. If anyone can offer any alternative press that shows that Bush's
intentions are to _preserve_ the wilderness, or even to add anything to it,
and to ensure that at least *some* of our undeveloped, unmanaged land will
remain protected and undeveloped, I'd like to read it.

--riverman

"riverman" wrote in message ...
For those who insist that Bush really has had no different impact on our
resources than anyone else....

http://oregonlive.com/news/oregonian...6292101830.xml


But Bob Lohn, a regional administrator for the National Marine
Fisheries Service, said that as a practical matter, the level of
protection for the fish will not change.

"By incorporating more accurate data about the presence of salmon, we
were able to conclude that the area occupied by salmon was one-fifth
as large as the area proposed in the older designations," Lohn said.


Enjoy the wild places while they last.
--riverman

Sounds to me like a land grab to me by some enthusiastic
Environmentalist in a previous administration counted 5X higher than
what their data should have indicated was really needed. TnT

riverman"

Typed in Environmentalists see some of their worst fears playing out as
President
Bush moves to cement a second-term agenda that includes getting more timber,
oil and gas from public lands and relying on the market rather than
regulation to curb pollution. Bush's top energy priority - opening an Alaska

wildlife refuge to oil drilling - is shaping up as an early test of GOP
gains in Congress.
................................................. ...............

Bush's environmental priority is to rewrite the Clean Air Act to set annual
nationwide limits on three major air pollutants from power plants and to
allow marketplace trading of pollution rights rather than regulation to meet
those goals.

Maybe it's time we start to seperate preservationist from environmentalist.
I don't have a problem of exploiting resources, especially energy resources, on
public land as long as it can be done without long term environmental damage.
I'm old enough to remember the controversy over the Alaskan pipeline and the
doomsday predictions about North Slope drilling. None turned out to be correct.


The marketplace concept of pollution control is new, it's been in effect on
certain items since 1990, the last Clean Air act.

My statement still stands, Bush is no worse than Bill Clinton, maybe better if
your environmental focus happens to be on anything besides wilderness.


SYOTR
Larry C.

riverman wrote:

For those who insist that Bush really has had no different impact on our
resources than anyone else....

http://oregonlive.com/news/oregonian...6292101830.xml

Enjoy the wild places while they last.


Yes, I just heard the same thing on NPR. Also, there was a change in
the definition of "wild salmon" to include hatchery-raised salmon,
which effectively side-stepped protections of the Endangered Species
Act. This happened in Bush's 1st term. Bush is a criminal
environmental plunderer.





--
Burn the land and boil the sea
You can't take the sky from me

- From "Ballad of Serenity" by Joss Whedon

"Tinkerntom" wrote in message
m...
"riverman" wrote in message
...
For those who insist that Bush really has had no different impact on our
resources than anyone else....

http://oregonlive.com/news/oregonian...6292101830.xml


But Bob Lohn, a regional administrator for the National Marine
Fisheries Service, said that as a practical matter, the level of
protection for the fish will not change.

"By incorporating more accurate data about the presence of salmon, we
were able to conclude that the area occupied by salmon was one-fifth
as large as the area proposed in the older designations," Lohn said.


Enjoy the wild places while they last.
--riverman

Sounds to me like a land grab to me by some enthusiastic
Environmentalist in a previous administration counted 5X higher than
what their data should have indicated was really needed. TnT

Possibly, or more likely they included a buffer zone to include watershed
land that is not actually inhabited, but who's ecological health they deem
important to the salmon habitat. The developers challenged that a) the
financial impacts on them were not considered enough, and b) the proposed
buffer land was not essential *enough* to the fish. Its that "enough" that
worries me; its a degradation of our preservationist values in favor of
development. When it comes to preserving our natural resources (the kind
that only exist if you leave them alone), we need the same sense of
'resolve' that the Admin prides itself on in other arenas, but we're not
getting it. What is landmark about this ruling is that is sides the Feds
with the developers; it agrees that we don't have to so protectionist in our
environmental stance, and sets the stage to completely reinterpret the EPA
and associated laws. It puts the burden of defining *enough* on the
conservationists, not the developers.

Here's a related article, but with the same amount of spin from the other
side of the debate:
http://www.propertyrightsresearch.or...ritical_ha.htm

In addition to the precent of compromising of standards of environmental
protection, what concerns me in that article is the last part, about whether
or not a species is delisted. The feds recently ruled that hatchery fish are
the same as 'wild' fish, therefore if hatchery fish are released in a
watershed, then the population is no longer endangered. That will change the
nature of a region entirely, from a natural one to a completely managed one.

A google search on "salmon california washington critical habitat" shows
that this is the tip of an iceberg, with much history of legal battling
between preservationists and developers. Interesting reading so far.

--riverman

NPR, now there's a credible source.
"Frederick Burroughs" wrote in message
...
riverman wrote:

For those who insist that Bush really has had no different impact on our
resources than anyone else....


http://oregonlive.com/news/oregonian...6292101830.xml

Enjoy the wild places while they last.


Yes, I just heard the same thing on NPR. Also, there was a change in
the definition of "wild salmon" to include hatchery-raised salmon,
which effectively side-stepped protections of the Endangered Species
Act. This happened in Bush's 1st term. Bush is a criminal
environmental plunderer.





--
Burn the land and boil the sea
You can't take the sky from me

- From "Ballad of Serenity" by Joss Whedon

"Mike B" wrote in message
...
NPR, now there's a credible source.

Umm, sure. Why not?

If your point is to pooh pooh the messenger, then don't just fire blindly;
come up with some DISproof. But in this case, you won't. Both of his claims
(the land ruling, and the Salmon ruling) are true, and are very widely
reported on news channels everywhere, not just NPR.

--riverman

My statement still stands, Bush is no worse than Bill Clinton, maybe
better if
your environmental focus happens to be on anything besides wilderness.


You gotta be kidding. When Bush farts, I bet all you smell is fine perfume.

riverman wrote:

"Mike B" wrote:

NPR, now there's a credible source.


Umm, sure. Why not?

If your point is to pooh pooh the messenger, then don't just fire blindly;
come up with some DISproof. But in this case, you won't. Both of his claims
(the land ruling, and the Salmon ruling) are true, and are very widely
reported on news channels everywhere, not just NPR.


I find NPR to be a reliable and credible news source. And, among
mainstream news providers, they will air news of environmental
importance. Actually, their story about land use/stream designation
was quite balanced, mentioning government, timber, development and
preservation interests. Give a listen (requires Windows Media or Real
Audio player):
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=4195582





--
Burn the land and boil the sea
You can't take the sky from me

- From "Ballad of Serenity" by Joss Whedon