Comments, relating to the topic, are welcome, add a great deal to a blog, but must be in English, with no profanity, hate-filled insults, or links (unless pre-approved).




Saturday, June 30, 2007

National Forest Threat!

No, the threat I am referring to is not forest fire, though one might think so given the terrible fire recently in Tahoe (poor planning in our forests has added to the impact of those fires). It is instead those currently holding political power in the United States, who don’t see why there should be ‘national’ forests. The damage being done to public ownership of our (and they are ours) forests is not happening by accident nor lack of tax funds. It’s by design. Likewise the reason we ever had them at all was the same-- not by accident but by design. Ironically, rich men were and are at the heart of both philosophies.

I hope everyone followed the Washington Post series on Vice-president Cheney and his usurpation of power beyond the position to which he was elected (unless we have begun electing co-presidents and I didn't hear). The article for June 27, 2007 was about the environment and the Bush administration (or should that more accurately have been named the Cheney administration since it sounds like Bush is mostly there to sign where he's told, raise money, do photo ops, get his ego stroked, and parade past his fans as a wanta-be-cowboy.

Leave No Tracks pretty well says it all. Cheney operates as a self-appointed dictator and even when he loses, he wins something which usually means we all lose. Please read 'Leave No Tracks' if you read no others. Something important to this nation is being threatened.

In 2000, I feared what the bushies would do to the environment, but these guys have been worse than I imagined. (Yes, environmentalists have done some wacko things too, but when you over-protect, it is still there to use. When you under-protect, it can be gone forever.)

When in Montana , I was able to spend time at one of my favorite places, Rock Creek (all photos from there). It’s not the easiest thing to do these days given the forest service is doing minimal maintenance on the gravel road up the canyon. Signs below warn no RVs or low slung vehicles, and they are not kidding as your spine is jostled to premature disc problems by miles of deeply pot-holed, gravel roads. Now why would they do this to this popular fishing, hiking and camping site within 20 miles of a large city?

Whatever their reason, they are doing the same thing to other hiking places we visited. They don’t want people there is my first thought. If people quit using these lands, they are free to rape and pillage them with no one to see or complain. They can sell off the valuable pieces to their developer, mining and logging friends, leaving enough acres of less valuable land still in government ownership to reassure the naive populace that they still own forest lands.

A New York Times Select column by Timothy Egan on June 23, was called, “This Land was My Land.” I wish everyone could read it. He was talking about the same neglect I saw in Montana; but more importantly reminding his readers of from where and why came this concept of national forests. Unfortunately, I can’t put his whole article here but the following are a couple of key paragraphs:

In establishing the people’s estate, they [Theodore Roosevelt and Gifford Pinchot] fought Gilded Age titans — railroads, timber barons, mine owners — and their enablers in the Senate. And make no mistake: these acts may have been cast as the founding deeds of the environmental movement, but they were as much about class as conservation.

Pinchot had studied forestry in France, where a peasant couldn’t make a campfire without being subject to penalties. In England, he had seen how the lords of privilege had their way over the outdoors. In the United States, he and T.R. envisioned the ultimate expression of Progressive-era values: a place where a tired factory hand could be renewed — lord for a day.

“In the national forests, big money was not king,” wrote Pinchot. The Forest Se
rvice was beloved, he said, because “it stood up for the honest small man and fought the predatory big man as no government bureau had done before.”
...
"They
[Bush administration] don’t take care of these lands because they see them as one thing: a cash-out. Thus, in Bush’s budget proposal this year, he guts the Forest Service budget yet again, while floating the idea of selling thousands of acres to the highest bidder. The administration says it wants more money for national parks. But the parks are $10 billion behind on needed repairs; the proposal is a pittance. Roosevelt had his place on Oyster Bay. Pinchot had a family estate in Pennsylvania. Bush has the ranch in Crawford. Only one of them has never been able to see beyond the front porch.”

Bush and Cheney don’t need these forests for themselves. They hunt on the personal preserves of rich men where the birds are released for their shooting ease. They can afford second or third homes in natural regions. More and more, we see national forest trails, roads and even creeks or rivers having access blocked by private lands. Roads that at one time were open to the public are now gated, property decorated with 'No Trespassing' signs, fences across rivers to block even rafters.

It’s the ordinary person, some with very little money, who used to be free to spend weeks in national forests, communing with nature, fishing, just being. I grew up experiencing that, my children did likewise, and now it is my grandchildren. If those, with the mentality of Bush and Cheney, have their way, they will put a stop to that except for the richest among us.

Today, approximately 28% of the United States is considered to be in public ownership but that includes military bases. In Alaska, that is over 60%. A lot of government land occupies places nobody would ever want, but it also encompasses some of the most beautiful forests, rivers and lakes in the world as well as natural wonders that people come from around the world to see. There are those who would like to see the federal government own no public land. They would sell it off to pay the current debts-- sell it to their big-moneyed friends. The public land is a trust and it's a very significant issue how well it will be managed. It's not a nothing for who is next president of the country and for which party wins power.

I hope our next president sees this differently because Bush (provided a list by Cheney) has appointed men to the Supreme Court who seem to see no value in the little guy getting a chance to be in the wilderness, who don't see the value of the environment unless someone can make money from it. Manifest Destiny my foot!

Going up Rock Creek was full of delightful surprises as always—despite the bumpy road. All these photos are from June 22. Most were taken at one of my favorite spots for camping, sitting on the bank, wading, or finding round rocks (only found two this time as the water was still a bit high. I had taken an unpleasant fall on another trail earlier that day and didn't need a repeat).

The bear, cougar, elk, moose, Big Horn Sheep, coyotes, fish, deer, birds, and now wolves think they own this beautiful area. Better them all than the Cheneys of the world.

(All photos can be enlarged by clicking. Check out the spots on the fawn. As we drove back down and were on blacktop again, the most recently born of the Big Horn Sheep stepped unsteadily into the center of the road bringing all traffic to a temporary halt.)

11 comments:

robin andrea said...

I read the Washington Post piece and found all four days of it so alarming. The last day, the one that recounted Cheney's interference in environmental issues, and always on the side of business over the land, really surprised me. I didn't know he had such a deep love of snowmobiles, and can only see the earth as a thing to be used for making money. This venality knows no bounds. We must work very had to protect what it is left.

BTW-- The RSS feed didn't have this post up yesterday. I am surprised to see this dated Thursday.

Rain Trueax said...

thanks for telling me about that, Robin and i fixed it. I don't know why it had the date wrong but should have been the 30th.

joared said...

Nothing surprises me with that bunch in D.C. They've made it clear in actions, if not words, how little respect they have for most environmental concerns.

Enjoy your photos. Looks like beautiful country, if only it can stay that way.

Anonymous said...

You've done a terrific job of relating this travesty, Rain. Like 'joared', nothing much surprises me about what is being done - just sickens me.

Anonymous said...

Where is Teddy Roosevelt when we need him? Vigilance is required with this crew in DC !

OldLady Of The Hills said...

It is so depressing, what is hapopening in our BEAUTIFUL country...And here's what I don't understand. WHY isn't the rest of the Government up in arms about the DICTATORSHIP of Cheney and Pawn Bush? WHY aren't these menm impeached..NOW?
How can the the Senate & House trun a seemingly blind eye on this horrific problem, which can only get worse in the continuation of this asministrations REIGN....?
It is beyond me....and I find THAT more depressing than anything...!
NEVER could I have imafined that I would see these kinds of abuses of power in the TOP two offices of our great country...NEVER!
What can actually be done? Something better happen soon or we are truly lost, along with our Democracy.

Joy Des Jardins said...

Not only is it not surprising....it's numbing. I'm mentally worn out from worrying and watching what the next disaster will be. Have you ever seen our country more depressed Rain? They've messed up royally, and they're taking us down with them. Though there are no guarantees...2008 can't come fast enough.

Mary Lou said...

oh Dear Lord I hope voters are smart enough to know who will rape and plunder and who will preserve our natural resources. My Father spent his life teaching all of us about the beauty of the mountians, and how to take care of our earth!

Ingineer66 said...

Ok here goes. I agree that we need to protect and properly manage our national forests. The recent fire in Tahoe demonstrates what happens when environmental bureaucrats try to over manage a forest. We get devastating fires due to not allowing home owners to clear pine needles around their houses and not cutting down dead and bug infested trees. But all that aside, I think it is funny how everyone in here is so quick to attack the current administration for all of the worlds problems. The US Forest Service received its largest budget increase in 50 years under George W. Bush. And under Clinton with all his talk about protecting the forests all that happened to the budgets were a transfer of hundreds of millions of dollars to planning from actual items that benefited the taxpayers such as recreation and wildlife and range management. Typical Democrat pandering. Talk about the issues and problems but don't actually do anything about them.

Rain Trueax said...

Did you read the Washington Post pieces, Ingineer? You have such a knee jerk reaction to blame everything on environmentalists that it amazes me sometimes even though I expect it given you are a republican-- no matter what you say about it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and it's a duck!

That's total... for wont of a more approriate if nastier word... poppycock that environmentalists are against property owners thinning trees and removing stuff that could burn easily. I have just been to Montana and all the homes that are responsible have done exactly that around their property. What do you listen to for your info?

Try this link about the actual dollars that Bush has put out for the forest service-- http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/connelly/318399_joel04.html. Down 35% from before. And as for logging in national forests, that wasn't stopped solely by environmentalists but because the government was paying more to get it logged than receiving in payments from lumber companies by the time you calculated in the total forest service costs. Welfare for farmers and loggers seems to be all right with republicans!

The roads are not being maintained, neither are the campgrounds. Where is the money going that you say is being pumped into it? Maybe it's like Iraq-- into a black hole and we know who waits at the bottom of black holes

Ingineer66 said...

We have debated the logging issue before and I don't want to go down that path. I addressed my feelings about the Klamath Basin water in another post. I am all for doing what we can to protect the environment but what happened at Klamath is far more complex than can be explained in one political hit piece against Cheney.

I know that the budget at USFS is down due to the Iraq war, but it is also down because they are only selling about 10% of the timber that they used to sell.

As for me blaming environmentalists , I do that based on visiting Tahoe and talking to USFS and TRPA personnel and others who live and work there.

Montana is a much different place than Tahoe. I am sure there are far fewer members of the Sierra Club, Earth Liberation Front and Environmental Defense League in Montana than there are in California. And I know there are fewer lawyers in Montana than California.

The rules in Tahoe are crazy and people were prevented from clearing in accordance with State Forestry regulations about brush removal around houses by the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) which trumps other government agencies in the Lake Tahoe Basin.

Bug infested trees are left to die and become fuel because they cannot be removed due to the environmental "damage" it would cause to log them.

As for campgrounds and roads not being maintained. That started in the mid to late 90's when Clinton was in office. That is a pet peeve of mine. We have a few USFS campgrounds nearby that have been closed off so that you cannot even drive into them. And with the population of California growing exponentially it is not like there is less demand for recreation.

I think the forest should be promoted for recreation, especially in areas where that has been the historic use for the last 100 years. Not blocked off to be allowed entry only by special permit for environmental study.

But the far left has determined that every park and forest is to be some kind of nature preserve not to be touched by humans unless you are among the select few that have a key to the gate.