Forum Index
Jeep Horizons HomeLinksJeep Horizons Tech Write-upsJeep newsLand useContact

 Watched TopicsWatched Topics   FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Wyoming Court Strikes Roadless Rule, Blasts Forest Service


 
Post new topic   Reply to topic     Forum Index -> Land Use Issues
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Code3TJ
Hacker
Hacker


Joined: 01 Jan 2004
Location: Uzbekistan

PostPosted: Sat Aug 16, 2008 9:55 am    Post subject: Wyoming Court Strikes Roadless Rule, Blasts Forest Service Reply with quote

CHEYENNE, WY (August 13, 2008) - The Clinton-Gore 2001 Roadless Rule suffered another death in its phoenix-like existence as U.S. District of Wyoming Judge Clarence Brimmer yesterday issued a 102 page decision declaring the Rule illegal and enjoining its implementation throughout the U.S. Forest Service System. The decision came in a case brought by the State of Wyoming in 2007, which paralleled an earlier complaint filed by Wyoming in 2001. Judge Brimmer found the Rule illegal in the first case, but the 2001 case was found to be moot and his ruling vacated on appeal, and the 2001 Rule was reinstated in 2006 by a judge in the Northern District of California. Brimmer's decision minces few words, concluding the 2001 Rule "was driven by political haste and evidenced pro forma compliance with" environmental laws, using descriptors such as "flagrant" and "cavalier" in characterizing the "unequivocal" violations.

"We are obviously pleased by this decision and feel that it vindicates our position laid out over a decade ago opposing a top-down 'one size fits all' roadless policy," said Greg Mumm, Executive Director of the BlueRibbon Coalition, a national advocacy organization for trails-based recreation that has participated in the various Roadless cases. Other recreational groups joining BlueRibbon in the Wyoming, California and other cases were the California Association of 4 Wheel Drive Clubs, United Four Wheel Drive Associations, and the American Council of Snowmobile Associations.

"It is particularly timely that we now place the 2001 Roadless Rule as an example of a bad idea that we should lay to rest," observed Paul Turcke, an attorney for the Recreational Groups. "All Forest visitors respect and value these areas, but they are properly managed by local officials with local input, not through a legacy-building campaign launched and maneuvered inside the DC beltway," Turcke concluded.

The "roadless" areas will now be protected and managed under existing Forest Plans, or through the state-generated petitions in some states, including Idaho and Colorado, that are being considered, submitted for public input, and will ultimately be adopted by the Forest Service. It is unclear how the recent ruling will affect the numerous Forest Service actions taken since 2006 which applied the 2001 Roadless Rule.

Full Story
_________________
Nothing to see here.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kaos
Member


Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Location: Iceland

PostPosted: Sat Aug 16, 2008 12:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

For the education of us furriners, what is/was the 2001 Roadless Rule?

--
Best regards,
Kári.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Code3TJ
Hacker
Hacker


Joined: 01 Jan 2004
Location: Uzbekistan

PostPosted: Sat Aug 16, 2008 12:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

In a nutshell, the plan would gradually close thousands of miles of legal off-highway vehicle trails because it prevents routine maintenance unless those routes have gone through a formal designation process which is rather long and complicated.
_________________
Nothing to see here.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
IBTJn
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 31 Dec 2004
Location: Just Outside of Portland, OR

PostPosted: Sun Aug 17, 2008 7:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Code3TJ wrote:
In a nutshell, the plan would gradually close thousands of miles of legal off-highway vehicle trails because it prevents routine maintenance unless those routes have gone through a formal designation process which is rather long and complicated.


That's right. And as the result of this, many thousands of acres of forest can't be accessed to stop forest fires and the like (IIRC). It was a sham and this new ruling is a great thing. I'm not expert on any of these things but even these last fires (from lightning) burned many more acres than it should of because nobody could access them with machinery and the like...only from the air. Rolling Eyes
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kaos
Member


Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Location: Iceland

PostPosted: Sun Aug 17, 2008 1:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ah, obstructive bureucracy in them name of dubious conservation efforts, eh? Congratulations on the ruling.

--
Best regards,
Kári
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic     Forum Index -> Land Use Issues All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Visit links4jeeps.com for write-ups, forums and clubs




Jeep®, Wrangler, Cherokee, Liberty and Grand Cherokee are copyrighted and trademarked to Chrysler LLC.
jeephorizons.com is not in any way associated with or endorsed by the Chrysler LLC.
All other content is copyright Jeep Horizons 2004-2008.
Tech write-ups Links Discussion board Land use News Site Map Terms of Use

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group