Trump to strip protections from Tongass National Forest, one of the biggest intact rainforests

originally posted by: lostbook
Hello ATS,

The Trump administration is rolling back laws that protect the Tongass National forest in Alaska from foresting by logging companies. Now these logging companies are free to cut down trees, build roads and infrastructure, and totally ruin this pristine area which is home to plentiful Salmon and other wildlife. It's also a major carbon sink to the North just like the Amazon is a major carbon sink to the south. How anyone can support this is beyond me. SMH!

Dude I need toilet paper! Have you ever wiped your ass with non-pristine toilet paper... not good.

a reply to: Xtrozero

In a bind I use taco bell napkins

originally posted by: olaru12
Trash and harvest all the national parks and forest. The only kind of people that like that kind of stuff are millennial neck bearded man bun types. Ant their ugly girl friends. God gave us dominion over the land and the beasts of the field.
It's in the bible...read it!!

And begin the mining like Nevada is for the rare earth minerals that your renewables require but seem to deny

a reply to: fernalley

The bibles people have can also work to wipe your butt with, but the pages are a little too greasy.

originally posted by: Lumenari
Do you understand what a "National Park" means?

Doesn't it mean that DC decides what happens with local resources?

I may be wrong, but I kinda had the idea that you were against stuff like that, guess not so much.

originally posted by: daskakik

Doesn't it mean that DC decides what happens with local resources?

I may be wrong, but I kinda had the idea that you were against stuff like that, guess not so much.

So argue for it not to be a national park anymore and take your chances that the locals will continue to sacrifice jobs, development etc. in perpetuity.
Something tells me you wont.

a reply to: TEOTWAWKIAIFF

TextIn January 2018, then-Commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources for
the State of Alaska, Andrew Mack submitted a petition on behalf of the State of Alaska to
Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act
(APA). The petition requested USDA consider creation of a state-specific rule to exempt
the Tongass National Forest from the 2001 Roadless Rule

Alaska asked the federal Govt for this

originally posted by: Ringsofsaturn777
So argue for it not to be a national park anymore and take your chances that the locals will continue to sacrifice jobs, development etc. in perpetuity.
Something tells me you wont.

Of course I won't, I don't even live there.

I'm not sure how you got to "the locals will continue to sacrifice jobs, development etc. in perpetuity" if it isn't a "national park anymore". Maybe you can enlighten us on why that would be?

ETA: The national park in question makes up less than 5% of the land area of Alaska. According to this - PDF file:

Alaska now contains more than 54 million acres in national parks, or 13 percent of the state’s 375 million acres.

Are we to believe that the locals can't find a way to make a living from the 87% of unprotected resources?

originally posted by: daskakik

Of course I won't, I don't even live there.

I'm not sure how you got to "the locals will continue to sacrifice jobs, development etc. in perpetuity" if it isn't a "national park anymore". Maybe you can enlighten us on why that would be?

That isnt even remotely what I said. Please read my comment again (slower) and try responding to what I actually wrote.

Thanks.

A national park designation largely transfers control from locals to the federal government.. if youre against that why would you want it to be a national park???

a reply to: Ringsofsaturn777
Right back at you. My post was directed at someone else, pointing out that they seemed to be advocating for bigger government when I always took them for someone who would advocate for smaller government.

Since we are here, you asked me to argue for something that has nothing to do with me, so I pointed that out.

I then asked you to explain why a national park that makes up less than 5% of the state would keep the locals from creating jobs and progress. There is still a whole lot of land and other resources to do so.

Guess you just couldn't.

ETA:

A national park designation largely transfers control from locals to the federal government..

That is what I was pointing out and questioning Lumenari about.

Just realised this is a WaPo story.
Calm down everyone - it's bound to be complete bollocks.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Ringsofsaturn777
Right back at you. My post was directed at someone else, pointing out that they seemed to be advocating for bigger government when I always took them for someone who would advocate for smaller government.

Since we are here, you asked me to argue for something that has nothing to do with me, so I pointed that out.

I then asked you to explain why a national park that makes up less than 5% of the state would keep the locals creating jobs and progress. There is still a whole lot of land and other resources to do so.

Guess you just couldn't.

Obviously development etc. can occur where it is allowed...

Its a matter of local control verse control by the federal government and I'm trying to figure out which you prefer.. a national park designation largely transfers control from locals to the federal government.. if you dont like that why do you support it being a national park (if you do)?

a reply to: UKTruth
Can't blame you for doubting a source but here is the new regulation that the WaPo and others seem to be talking about.

Maybe you can wade through it and find why their interpretation is wrong.

originally posted by: Ringsofsaturn777
Its a matter of local control verse control by the federal government and I'm trying to figure out which you prefer..

That is where you swung and missed, I don't care either way because it has nothing to do with me.

I was asking the same of the member I replied to because she comes off as pro-local but she seemed pro-federal in her post.

originally posted by: watchitburn
a reply to: TEOTWAWKIAIFF

TextIn January 2018, then-Commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources for
the State of Alaska, Andrew Mack submitted a petition on behalf of the State of Alaska to
Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act
(APA). The petition requested USDA consider creation of a state-specific rule to exempt
the Tongass National Forest from the 2001 Roadless Rule

Alaska asked the federal Govt for this

Yes they did in fact in 2001 went to court to have it removed. n 2001, The State of Alaska filed a complaint challenging the USDA's promulgation of the 2001 Roadless Rule and its application in Alaska. State of Start Printed Page 55523Alaska v. USDA, A01-039 CV (JKS) (D. Alaska). The USDA and the State of Alaska reached a settlement in 2003, and the USDA subsequently issued a rule temporarily exempting the Tongass National Forest from the 2001 Roadless Rule. In 2011, a federal court set aside the Tongass Exemption and reinstated, with clarifying instructions, the 2001 Roadless Rule on the Tongass National Forest. The district court's ruling was initially reversed by a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit, but was ultimately upheld in a 6-5 en banc ruling in 2015. Consequently, the 2001 Roadless Rule (as provided for in the district court's Judgment) remains in effect in Alaska and the Forest Service continues to apply the 2001 Roadless Rule to both the Tongass and Chugach National Forests.

So they have only reinstated it as of 2015. in January 2018, Governor Bill Walker submitted a petition on behalf of the State of Alaska to Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act. The petition requested the USDA consider the creation of a state-specific rule to exempt the Tongass National Forest from the 2001 Roadless Rule. In June 2018, the Secretary of Agriculture agreed to address the State's concerns on roadless area management and economic development opportunities in Southeast Alaska through a rulemaking process. The Secretary directed the Forest Service to begin working with representatives from the State of Alaska concerning a state-specific roadless rule. On August 2, 2018, the State of Alaska and the USDA Forest Service signed a memorandum of understanding concerning the development of the state-specific rule.

In other words, the state wants its rules to apply to its forest. This was all working long before Trump was involved as you can see. And it would be the rangers that managed forest resources, not politicians. And they have a vested interest in maintaining their park. The reason they want this is simple they make less than 5 percent of the park available for timber but get to have road infrastructure built by companies. They can use these roads to fight fires also helps to get to local tribes and to monitor water resources. One ranger was talking about roads to cut down on poaching and fishing as it is now it's difficult for rangers to catch people. having companies pay for roads would help them protect wildlife.

originally posted by: daskakik

That is where you swung and missed, I don't care either way because it has nothing to do with me.

I was asking the same of the member I replied to because she comes off as pro-local but she seemed pro-federal in her post.

So you dont care if the federal government decides to allow logging, roads etc. in the park? You dont care if locals make these decisions or if DC does?

originally posted by: Ringsofsaturn777
So you dont care if the federal government decides to allow logging, roads etc. in the park?

No, I was asking Lumenari why she "seemed" ok with that, since she posted that it was a "national park", implying what you have repeated here a few times, "that they control that", when she has always seemed anti-big gov. Didn't I say that already?

originally posted by: daskakik

No, I was asking Lumenari why she "seemed" ok with that, since she posted that it was a "national park", implying what you have repeated here a few times, "that they control that", when she has always seemed anti-big gov. Didn't I say that already?

No, you dont care?

Pointing out that a national park designation transfers control from locals to DC isnt at all the same as saying DC SHOULD have control.. she was pointing out the silliness of ppl who support the national park designation and then complain about DC not letting locals decide what or what not will be allowed..

Do you support transferring power from locals to DC by way of the national park designation or not (?). Locals are asking DC to allow roads etc.

Whatever the media reports the opposite is true. Has been for the last almost 4 years. Sorry don't believe it.