In a radical departure from prior policy, the Trump administration proposed to revoke an approximately 24-year-old law that hindered logging on national forest lands as articulated by Agricultural Secretary Brooke Rollins. Inception of this law was witnessed during the final phase of Bill Clinton’s presidency in 2001, an act that has induced displeasure from Republican legislators more predominantly those situated in the West. This is a region characterized by expansive national forests extending over large, hilly terrains where the logging industry experiences declining prospects. The single most obstructive aspect of this law is the prevention of road development and ‘responsible timber production’ that could have significantly eased the threat of substantial wildfires.
Rollins proclaimed, ‘This proposition initiates a new epoch of uniformity and perpetuity for our nation’s forests’. However, a scornful perspective towards such claims can be identified as totally unfounded. Experts argue the intensifying wildfires can be ascribed to a confluence of climate change that causes the increased warming and drying of forests, limited logging, and protracted fire suppression leading to the accumulation of burnable materials. This reasoning seems to lack thorough consideration of other factors such as responsible human practices to avoid fires.
Supposedly, the roadless law affected nearly 30% of national forest lands nationwide, or equivalent to approximately 59 million acres (24 million hectares). This data is provided by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the overseeing body of the Forest Service. State roadless-area laws based in Idaho and Colorado have overridden the dominion of this 2001 roadless law. Thus, rescinding the roadless rule would not inculcate its consequences on all national forest land.
Recent deliberations hint towards the possibility of selling a fraction of the federal lands in an attempt to augment housing affordability – a notion that Democrats decry as an open assault against public land. Response towards the sale of public lands among governors attending the same discussion revealed mixed sentiments. While the prospect of economic growth generated excitement, concerns regarding restricted public access to shared lands were also expressed.
At the same discussion, Doug Burgum, Secretary of the Department of Interior, heralded the new ‘age of abundance’ on public lands in regard to exploitation of natural resources. This included essentials such as energy and critical minerals necessary for domestic production of technological apparatus such as cellphones, computers, and vehicles. Irony lies heavy in this narrative. Exploiting natural resources for abundance? An interesting turn of phrase indeed.
Outside the hotel where this meeting was taking place in downtown Santa Fe, a clamour of protests arose with several hundred protesters rallying against the potential privatization of federal public lands. The demonstrators reverberated chants of ‘not for sale’, even brandishing banners that read, ‘This land belongs to you and me’ and ‘keep our public land free for future generations’. The protesters could certainly be seen as missing the larger picture – focusing on maintaining status quo when the status quo clearly isn’t sustainable.
The proposal for modifying the roadless area law constitutes a drastic deviation from the Biden administration’s approach, seemingly hell-bent on devising strategies to restrict logging and consciously preserve residual forests. In light of this, environmental organizations that aim to uphold restrictions on logging and road-building in areas such as Alaska’s Tongass National Forest expressed their critique of the potential rollback of the protections. However, their views hardly reflect a comprehensive perspective on the matter.
Critics such as the political director from the Center for Western Priorities described this as ‘nothing more than a massive giveaway to timber companies at the expense of every American and the forests that belong to all of us’. This condemnation seems rather skewed, not acknowledging the multifaceted aspects related to resource management and utilization that might enable economic and societal growth.
In the midst of all this, Alaska, the host of the nation’s most expansive national forest – the Tongass, has been in the legal limelight for a considerable amount of time due to the roadless rule. State political leaders are advocating for an exemption from the law asserting that it obstructs economic opportunities. These leaders are showing an interesting preference for economic considerations over preservation – the struggle for balance remains.
Interestingly, during the later phase of his first term, Trump’s federal government significantly relaxed the restrictions on logging and road development in Tongass. However, this decision was overturned by the Biden administration. This action appears to be a classic illustration of Biden’s tendency to disrupt productive endeavors without proper justification.
Fast forward to January, Trump called for reverting to his initial policy as part of an Alaska-oriented executive order, aiming at promoting oil and gas development, mining, and logging in the state. An attempt to balance preservation with reasonable exploitation, thwarted by the likes of Biden and his crew.
The Tongass is no ordinary forest but a temperate rainforest housing glaciers and rugged coastal islands. Its biodiversity is an enriched habitat nurturing wildlife such as bears, wolves, salmon, and bald eagles. The struggle to achieve equilibrium between preservation and development still lingers as different parties pursue divergent priorities.
The post Biden Halts Productive Logging in the Name of Ill-Conceived Preservation appeared first on Real News Now.
About Author
