Bush proposes law change: Enviro can't sue

[Gus Orviston]

I heard last night on the radio that there is a proposed change in the law, and or constitution that would stop the envrionmentals from sueing the government every step of the way in the management of federal lands and forests. Anybody have more details on this topic, I could not find it in the press anywhere yet.

gus

[tailchaser]

I see these kind of topics and it just makes me laugh. The success of the enviro's in court is to make it so costly for the government to log it outweighs thier profit to even do the logging. They have been very successful at doing this since their funding has increased. I've worked for the government in the past and have seen how useless a lot of the regulations are and where our taxes have been wasted. People are hired every year to go out and listen for birds, look for snails, and slugs in the area that is potentially going to be logged. Maybe once in a summer they find the rare animal on thier list and it starts a paper trail a mile long for something as simple as a slug. Most of the people doing the findings also were very liberal in stance and there was a huge issue when several were falsifying reports about what they found. Only to find they were going out and having picnics and goofing off using our tax money to pay for thier efforts.

What I love the most is when an enviro pleads and demonstrates to stop the logging but goes home to thier stick built home. Might I ask what kind of homes you live in??? Chances are it killed 4-5 trees in the process.

I'm not against regulation of the forests but there has to be a way to streamline it also without tapping our tax dollars to death. I cringe when I see my paycheck and remember those punks wasting that money. Makes a person kinda bitter.

tc

Clinton Era political appointees promoted most of the department heads to their current positions.

Read TC's post for some facts.

"If the feds would take care of business in a more professional manner a lot of these lawsuits would simply go away"

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">#2

[ 11-04-2003, 03:32 PM: Message edited by: Keta ]

[lost_sailor]

I really appreciate that no one has attempted to answer Gus's query with any facts, and just launched into their respective standard tirades.

Gus, I think I remember hearing something (on the anti-American liberal mouthpiece NPR) about the restriction on lawsuits in connection with the latest federal logging bill ... about the "thinning" to "prevent catastrophic wildfires."

If I recall correctly, the language restricting lawsuits had to be taken out in order for the bill to pass.

It was also noted that many timber sales occur without lawsuits from the "envrionmentals" - far more than you might be led to believe.

I'll try to dig up some more information later on.

Hummm, Bush is a Congressman or Senator? I think not.

If I recall correctly, the language restricting lawsuits had to be taken out in order for the bill to pass.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">#3

[ 11-04-2003, 03:33 PM: Message edited by: Keta ]

[lost_sailor]

Bush can still "propose a law" as can you or I. I'll bet he gets a better response than us! The proposal may be as simple as "don't let the enviros sue" but it gets fleshed out, compromised and legalised in the process.

Here's something from Wyden's web site

I guess it's still in the works? House version / Senate version have to be "reconciled"

"The compromise will require the Forest Service to rewrite their appeals process using the pre-decisional appeals and comment process that has been used by the Bureau of Land Management since 1984. It works by encouraging the public to engage in a collaborative process with the agency to improve projects before final decisions have been rendered upon them by the agency. This model places a premium on constructive public input and collaboration, and less emphasis on the litigation and confrontation of the post-decisional appeals process currently used by the Forest Service.

· The compromise is designed to move from the current model of confrontation, litigation and delay to one which places a premium on constructive, good faith public input. Whereas in the past, parties could ?sandbag? the appeals process by not raising salient points in hopes of later derailing the entire proposed action in the courts, parties would not be allowed to litigate on issues they had failed to raise in the comment or appeal period unless those issues arose after the close of the appeals process (as a result of the revised agency decision)"

[Thumper]

Sure sounds like another issue that is President Bush's fault. [img]graemlins/stupid.gif[/img]

[Gus Orviston]

ha ha,, I knew this would spiral out of control. Thanks Lost Sailor I do want to learn more about the bill. Before I step to one side or the other on the issue, I want to see the legislation that is being proposed. The pendulum does need to swing back to the right a bit IMO; whenever I have work with the OSF they do all the studies just to have a weekend permit to use public area, and the slightest opposition to a permit costs the Gov (oh I mean you and I a bunch of money). There is a lot of our money wasted (or spent depending on your position) in court to fight the simplest things. Sometimes a good thing, sometimes a bad thing and I personally don't know the $$ it costs us in legal fees, but I am sure it will come out soon.

Please provide links if anybody can find the information on this, as I am sure it will be fodder for some good debate, or maybe we will all just agree :shocked:

gus

Often the House/Senate reconcilation replaces the nasty BS that was cut from bills to get them past a floor vote.


#4

[ 11-04-2003, 03:33 PM: Message edited by: Keta ]

[crabbait]

"Managment" is a very kind word for what Bush and his cronies would do to the environment. What about doing the right thing for the planet? What about the people who come after us? What will their heritage be if all we think about is lining our pockets?

Short term gains for long term destruction. We have got to lose this president.

There needs to be some ballance here though so some of us can work and feed our families.


#1

[ 11-04-2003, 03:32 PM: Message edited by: Keta ]

[pdxkevin]

The pendulem is merely swinging back from the left... too far either direction is not good. There does need to be balance.

[El-Kabong]

There already is a balance, it is called the Courts.

Restricting individual rights to advance a particular interest is not the answer.

[freespool]

A great many of the lawsuits the enviornmentalists bring forth are issues of the feds not following there own rules. As crazy as this may seem,it's true. They are not doing what they say they are going to do. There are instances of the Forest Service not doing impact studies before putting timber sails up for bid. They just can't seem to make the adjustment from a timber driven system to a more conservation minded way of doing things. If the feds would take care of business in a more professional manner a lot of these lawsuits would simply go away.


Free