We've heard the presidential candidates talk a lot about energy and a little bit about climate change on the campaign trail this year, but there hasn't been much discussion about a whole host of other environmental concerns. Here we look at the statements and platforms of Barack Obama and John McCain on public-lands issues.
Barack Obama:
Perhaps the most contentious public-lands issue in recent years has been the so-called "Roadless Rule" that the Clinton administration put in place during its final days in 2001. It prohibited new roads -- and, by extension, essentially all logging, mining, and other commercial activity -- on 58.5 million of the 190 million acres of national forest land in the U.S. On President Bush's first day in office, his administration temporarily froze work on implementing the rule. The admin has since attempted repeatedly to throw it out, and the rule is now caught up in legal wrangling.
"Obama supports the Roadless Area Conservation Rule to keep over 58 million acres of national forests pristine," according to the candidate's environment plan [PDF]. "As president, he will repair the damage done to our national parks by inadequate funding and emphasize the protection and restoration of our national forests."
When it comes to logging on public lands in general, Obama told the Flathead Beacon of Montana that he thinks we can balance economic growth and sustainability. "If we're going to have timber industries operating on public land, then we should make sure that old-growth forests aren't destroyed but it's that second growth are what are harvested."
On national parks, Obama has said he is "committed to addressing the funding shortfall that the National Park Service has experienced" and will push for the park service to have enough money to meet its backlog of maintenance needs by the service's 100th anniversary in 2016.
On mining, Obama last year opposed a House bill that would have reformed the 1872 Mining Law, saying the bill would have "placed a significant burden on the mining industry and could have a significant impact on jobs." That disappointed enviros who have long called for an overhaul of the 1872 law, which lets companies mine public lands without paying royalties and doesn't hold them responsible for mine cleanup. Obama says he does want to update the 1872 law to improve environmental protections and provide compensation for the use of federal land, but on the campaign trail he has stressed that he wants to support the mining industry and make sure reform doesn't hurt it.
Asked earlier this year what he would do as president to address land issues in the West, Obama pledged to clean up abandoned mines and employ a more sound approach to energy development than the Bush administration, which he said "has chosen to lease and drill our public lands, regardless of what that does to our communities and natural resources."
John McCain:
McCain has long opposed the Clinton administration's roadless rule, arguing that decisions about public lands should be made by locals. During his 2000 run for the presidency, before President Clinton had even finalized the rule, McCain was campaigning to repeal it: "The idea that Washington knows best and that local residents cannot be trusted to do what's right in their own backyard is the epitome of federal arrogance."
In 2007, when asked about the roadless rule by the League of Conservation Voters, McCain again made clear his opposition, but sounded a more moderate note: "Where a road may be needed it should not be automatically barred by a one-size-fits-all approach. Rather, such a decision should be subject to the rigors of the forest management planning process, that is equipped to take all appropriate factors into account, including the protection of habitat and preservation of pristine areas. ... As a general rule, road construction should be limited to the minimum necessary to meet the goals and objectives of the forest plan, and maintain the natural integrity and sustainability of the forest."
McCain opposed Clinton's 1996 decision to create the 1.7 million-acre Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument in Utah, and decried the creation of two national monuments in Arizona in 2000, saying he didn't think Clinton had the right to make such a move "unilaterally" (though the Antiquities Act of 1906 does give the president executive authority to create new national monuments).
McCain has sponsored or cosponsored several pieces of legislation related to public lands over the years, including one earlier this year that would allow loaded firearms in national parks. In 1987, McCain successfully pushed through legislation to limit flights over the Grand Canyon, and to require studies of the proper minimum altitude that aircraft should maintain over other national parks. Ed Norton, former director of the Grand Canyon Executive Trust, once called McCain "the Grand Canyon's best friend." But the senator's commitment to the Grand Canyon has recently been called into question because he has not spoken out against Bush administration plans to allow uranium mining within five miles of the national park.
On the issue of national parks more broadly, McCain says he supports the establishment of a National Park Centennial Fund, which would provide more resources for the operation and maintenance of the park system, with the aim of eliminating what McCain calls "the shameful backlog of vital maintenance and park protection projects" by the park system's 100th anniversary in 2016. In his campaign statement on conservation, McCain also calls for strengthening federal programs like the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
On hard-rock mining, McCain says the current law needs to be reformed to require mining to be more environmentally responsible. "Any law that was passed in 1872 is going to have to be updated," he said. "Hello, times have changed. Duh." He doesn't necessarily favor an increase in fees paid by mining companies for leasing mineral-rich public land (currently as little as $2.50 an acre), but says he wants to be sure that fees are fair to both miners and taxpayers. Reform of mining law "should not be used as a means of chasing responsible miners from the land or retarding the environmentally responsible development of mineral resources that are critical to our economy," he said.
Chuck Norris on Copenhagen
The U.S.-India climate ‘partnership’
Comments
View as Threaded
Russ Posted 4:12 am
21 Oct 2008
McCain has long opposed the Clinton administration's roadless rule, arguing that decisions about public lands should be made by locals. During his 2000 run for the presidency, before President Clinton had even finalized the rule, McCain was campaigning to repeal it: "The idea that Washington knows best and that local residents cannot be trusted to do what's right in their own backyard is the epitome of federal arrogance."
It seems he's too stupid to understand the concept of public property, and that the "local" yahoos have no more prerogative regarding it than anyone else anywhere in America.
Fine - let's apply the Mccain standard to all those houses he claims to "own". Let his beloved locals decide what's best for that property. Surely they shouldn't be hamstrung "in their own backyard" by his absentee "arrogance".
Permalink
Backcut Posted 4:39 am
21 Oct 2008
Roadless Areas do indeed have roads in some of them. Roadless Areas exist in many areas because there just wasn't anything in them worth extracting. Don' get me wrong, though, I'm not in favor of more roads. Just more scientifically-sound forest management instead of the protect and burn scheme being implemented by the Bush Administration, with the silent approval of ALL eco-groups.
Obama is from the urban corn belt and knows nothing about ecology, just like many of his supporters, who embrace catastrophic wildire as "natural". McCain has offered no alternative to the rapid losses of our precious forests. Count on him to "stay the course" of forest destruction.
I vote for "TreeBeard" LOL
I'm on his side!
Scenic pics at http://Lhfotoware.blogspot.com
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 6:28 am
21 Oct 2008
You have your definitions mixed up.
An old growth forest is old growth because the plants and tress are naturally adapted to long life cycles with little regenration, and what regeneration there is will often be a slow process.
When a naturally regenerative system (like a forest that historically had fire every few years) is allowed to overgrow, that is not an old-growth forest.
Most of the trees and plants are adapted to fire and regeneration and when regenration does not occur, most of the trees die by a certain age and are left to rot, rather to be burned and regenerated.
They won't live much longer than they would even if there had been burnin'. Trees in regenerative systems have evolved with shorter life spans than old-growth forests. Takin' away the fire doesn't usually lengthen the trees' life spans in general, it just allows a far greater buildup of dead materials.
To reinterate: Old groth forests DO NOT NEED regeneration. The trees, plants, and animals in old groth forests have evolved in a system where regeneration is rare. To introduce unnatural levels of regeneration into old growth system screws up the natural ecology of the forest.
Only areas that have historically had regenerative systems (i.e.fire) should be considered for regenerative management principles.
Permalink
Backcut Posted 6:58 am
21 Oct 2008
Now, well-meaning environmentalists want to eliminate all of man's restorative actions in favor of catastrophic fire unleashed upon an unbalanced forest ecosystem.
So, Tase? Are you in favor of converting most of our forests from old growth into "regenerative" and pertpetual brushfields? Save the forests by burning them?!?
Today's eco-activists will gladly sacrifice today's forests in exchange for obliterating each and every stump. Idealistic dogma drama, hold the science.
Hug those snags but, when those fall over, will you hug the manzanita, whitethorn and sage?
Scenic pics at http://Lhfotoware.blogspot.com
Permalink
Backcut Posted 1:07 am
22 Oct 2008
People haven't agreed upon a definition of "old growth" for decades now. On one hand, eco's always say that "there's only 4% of the old growth left in our forests". On the other hand, they appeal and litigate every timber sale because of "old growth harvesting".
Which is it, folks? Do we have old growth everywhere and the harvesting of it all must be stopped? Or is it that we have so little left that we can't afford to cut a single one?
The answer just couldn't be somewhere in the middle of those 2 extremes, now could it?!?
Either way, both parties have mega-fires already planned out, WITHOUT formal required NEPA studies and public input. Will "Late Successional Reserves" keep that status once they are incinerated? Will cooked Roadless Areas avoid salvage logging? What do we do with vaporized owl habitats?? Can we afford to lose topsoil vaporized in catastrophic wildfires? Can we keep spewing centuries of ancient carbon into our upper atmosphere with no effect??
All of these are questions quietly swept under the rug by all parties.
Scenic pics at http://Lhfotoware.blogspot.com
Permalink
wendigo Posted 2:31 am
22 Oct 2008
order to guide policy. Nobody wants catastrophic fires any more than than they want clearcuts.
Now, back to the topic...
The Roadless Rule was the most-commented proposed action that USFS ever put forth. It generated over a million public comments, 95 percent of them in favor of the rule. The reasons for the
rule were and still are scientifically sound. Completely aside from logging, roads bring invasive species, increased fire danger, and habitat fragmentation to a forest. It would be wise policy, for either presidential candidate, to leave the Roadless Rule intact.
Permalink
Backcut Posted 3:02 am
22 Oct 2008
I'm voting for TreeBeard!
Scenic pics at http://Lhfotoware.blogspot.com
Permalink
Backcut Posted 3:22 am
22 Oct 2008
These are issues that will have to be dealt with by either candidate. Will they have progressive enough thinkers in his cabinet to deal with these all-important issues? Does anyone else care to offers solutions to these actually-occurring impacts?
The topic was NOT the Roadless Rule (which is mostly a non-issue in National Forests outside of Alaska). The topic is what is each candidate going to do for our environment. The hope that "nature" will somehow balance out a hopelessly unbalanced system is the utmost of religious lunacy and dogma.
Once again, uncontrolled wildfires are bad! So, why do we encourage them?
Scenic pics at http://Lhfotoware.blogspot.com
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 6:11 am
22 Oct 2008
Not so. Nature will certainly balance out the system in due course, however unbalanced it may currently be. That's what nature does: the only meaningful definition of the term in this context is that which reaches its own balance over time absent deliberate input from intelligent actors such as ourselves. That balance is probably not the one that Backcut seeks, subscribing as he does to the noble savage view on forest management, but balance it will certainly be.
Of course nature takes its own good time to achieve such an end state, often many human generations. Are we prepared to wait that long for the healing of our forests, and would we be satisfied with the result? These are sensible questions, and many of us would prefer a transition within our lifetimes to some particular, reasonably sustainable state for which interventions of the sort Backcut promotes might well be required. However I believe there are many here who would listen more sympathetically to his case if he would not attack his supposed opponents with accusations of "religious lunacy and dogma".
The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.
Permalink
Backcut Posted 6:22 am
22 Oct 2008
I choose to preach to their choir from my evil pulpit...LOL
Scenic pics at http://Lhfotoware.blogspot.com
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 7:03 am
22 Oct 2008
The fact that you think topsoil can be "vaporized" by wildfire shows just how much you understand about the subject.
"Soil" isn't burn't in wilfires. Growth on top of the soil is burnt, yes, but not the soil itself.
Soil generally isn't even flammable.
Go out and find some really dry soil and try to burn it...it won't.
Roots in the topsoil aren't burnt by wildfires either. In fact, it's the health and liveness of the roots that allows plants with burned top-growth to come back after a fire.
If a wildfire "vaporized" the topsoil, then the plants would come back, as the roots wouldn't even exist.
Do you know even how hot a fire has to be to "vaporize" soil? Even if it was hot enough, the soil (especially sandy and clay soils) would turn into a slag-like material long before it reached a temperature where it could be vaporized.
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 7:07 am
22 Oct 2008
...we need edit buttons already!
Permalink
Backcut Posted 8:15 am
22 Oct 2008
http://westinstenv.org/ffsci/2008/10/19/intense-forest-wi ...
Scenic pics at http://Lhfotoware.blogspot.com
Permalink
Backcut Posted 8:54 am
22 Oct 2008
Yes, some plants ARE adapted for frequent fires. Too bad the preservationists want to preserve the ones not at all adapted to ANY kind of fire. Trying to burn up little pieces of a giant haystack is dangerous business.
Once again, neither candidate offers any viable plan to restore forests at the tipping point.
Scenic pics at http://Lhfotoware.blogspot.com
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 3:09 pm
23 Oct 2008
READ THE ARTICLE CAREFULLY PLEASE.
It has nothing to do with "vaporization" of soil.
The words "vaporization" or "vaporize" or "vapor" don't even appear once in the article.
Permalink
Backcut Posted 4:32 pm
23 Oct 2008
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The soil went up there! ^^^^^^^
.
.
.
.
.
Along with plant productivity
.
.
.
.
.
.
Along with yadda, yadda, yadda.
Please read the study. It IS scientific truth, with a healthy dose of right-wing environmentalism embedded within. I trust the science but question the "Us vs. Them" syndrome. From both sides, of course.
Scenic pics at http://Lhfotoware.blogspot.com
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 2:59 pm
24 Oct 2008
Yes, it does.
Because they mean different things.
Vaporization of an element or compound is a phase transition from the liquid (or sometimes solid) phase to gas phase. There are two types of vaporization: evaporation and boiling.
Permalink
Backcut Posted 12:30 am
25 Oct 2008
Scenic pics at http://Lhfotoware.blogspot.com
Permalink
Backcut Posted 1:02 am
25 Oct 2008
http://westinstenv.org/sosf/post-fire-photos
These are pictures from the big Let-Burn "project" of 400,000 acres in Idaho in 2007.
Tell me please, which "resource objectives" were accomplished here by letting this fire burn catastrophically?
Would you go camping or hiking here in the next 20 years?
Is this the legacy you want to leave you offspring?
Scenic pics at http://Lhfotoware.blogspot.com
Permalink
AK Posted 7:30 am
28 Oct 2008
Fire is a regular part of a forest's cycle, as much as you hate to admit it, and controlled burns rarely turn into wildfire. Northern Colorado has been regularly doing them in the Roosevelt, Arapahoe NF with great success.
I suspect though, that you do not live in the west and do not have experience watching areas affected by fire and how they regenerate.
The fact of the matter is, out here growth is slow, whether hit by wildfire or ground fire.
As for wildfire itself, there is debate as to whether or not sterilization of the soil actually occurs, and there is evidence of plants that benefit from huge, intense fires. I witnessed a fire out here with 300 foot flames, easily within your definition of wildfire, and the very next spring the area was covered with fireweed as far as the eye could see. Certainly no "vaporized" ground and the soil could still support life.
What would you do with the huge amounts of deadfall and understory brush that have resulted from years of instant fire suppression? Going in there and physically removing it is impossible, and trusting logging companies to handle is ridiculous, even if they could get to all the terrain. Natural fire is the only answer.
And, by the way, areas hit by wildfire do not look apocalyptic 20 or even 10 years after the event. If you watched Yellowstone at all you knew that 5 years after the fire pines were taking root again.
Permalink
Backcut Posted 8:41 am
28 Oct 2008
Or, go to http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/1/15/162848/100
I posted plenty of issues there, and please read them with an open mind. The science is there
I've seen wildfire, up close and personal. I've worked on big fires, flown in helicopters, salvaged dead and dying timber for wildfires. I was a fire lookout for 2 summers. I was a Fire Camp Manager during the Siege of '87. I know what I am talking about because I have been there and done that.
Once again, let-burn fires that turn into catastrophic firestorms (Biscuit Fire, OR, Yellow Fire, ID) are NEVER a good thing, except for fattening a firefighters wallet.
In the end, it will take someone with ecological knowledge and logging knowhow to survey the ground and decide, scientifically, what is best for that piece of land in that watershed on that aspect in those soils. Add in all the other variables, as well. Who is best suited to being skilled in ALL of those areas? Who can do all that with an eye for aesthetics?
Scenic pics at http://Lhfotoware.blogspot.com
Permalink
AK Posted 11:54 am
28 Oct 2008
But what, then, are you actually suggesting be done?
Fire has to be a part of the ecosystem. No way around that. In the Poudre Canyon here in northern Colorado I would say the forest service does an excellent job with controlled burns, but these are in areas that are not covered in deadfall and choked with understory.
Surely wildfires need to be contained to some extent...but they are simply going to HAVE to happen in many cases. There is too much deadfall. Having hiked in Colorado, Wyoming and Montana for many years I can say that physically removing deadfall in MOST areas will be impossible. And think about how vast this area is. Terrain is steep and remote; there would be no feasible way to get machinery in to handle the job, no roads, no manpower to do it in any reasonable time, no funds, etc.
Yes wildfires are not aesthetically pleasing to us and scar the landscape for many years....but these scars do not last generations. We have to deal with this but if we handle it right future generations won't see these huge fires happening.
Better management of the urban-wildland interface and allowing burns to occur is simply going to have to happen.
Permalink
AK Posted 12:16 pm
28 Oct 2008
Again though, I ask what alternatives there are, for the majority of our forested land, to having fire clean them up.
It seems we either have a fire or go into these forests, trim the brush and thick stands, and physically remove that as well as the deadfall.
What I don't see, and maybe I need to research this more, is anyone projecting the costs for doing this to the entirety of the western forests.
The fact is there is too much terrain. It is impossible.
Look at our Colorado pine beetle epidemic. It is possible to protect trees from the ground with pesticides and prevent the beetles from killing them. This requires a yearly spray, from the ground. Less work than trimming, removing small trees, removing deadfall and brush, etc., and yet it was determined that such a project was far too labor and material intensive to be feasible.
If we can't do that how can we possibly go into ALL of our forests and physically manage them?
Wildfire is inevitable, and as we are seeing, continuing to suppress any and all fires simply leads to bigger fires that we cannot control.
I agree that the best scenario is do physically manage all the forest we can, and then let natural ground fires keep things clean the way they are supposed to. What I don't see is anyone addressing the amount of resources it would take to do this to all of our forest land.
Permalink
Backcut Posted 1:25 pm
28 Oct 2008
This idea of "free range fire" in our unnatural forests will only worsen our situation. Removing brush and deadfall by releasing its carbon is a very poor way of dealing with 10's of millions of acres. Yes, fire has to be a part of our forests but, we just can't unleash it in our forests without controls, without legally-required NEPA analysis and without firelines already in place.
Scenic pics at http://Lhfotoware.blogspot.com
Permalink
RDMiller Posted 8:55 pm
28 Oct 2008
Richard
Permalink
Backcut Posted 12:56 am
29 Oct 2008
Scenic pics at http://Lhfotoware.blogspot.com
Permalink
Backcut Posted 3:23 pm
29 Oct 2008
If we can give 700 billion dollars to bailout bankers, can't we spare a mere 10 billion over five years to save important parts of our precious forests?
Money really isn't an issue in the whole scheme of things. The issue is the recognition of this ongoing disaster and the realization that there ARE things we can do in emergency response, instead of solely blaming global warming for the decline of our forests.
Restoring tree densities to what the current rainfall totals will support is the cure but, society doesn't like the cure, preferring the disease. It's really sad to see it going during my watch but, the legal system has all but doomed the forests to a longgggggg, slowwwww, painfullll death. It's too late to overcome the societal inertia against scientifically-sound forest management.
The Forester's Toolbox seems permanently monkeywrenched.
Scenic pics at http://Lhfotoware.blogspot.com
Permalink