Subject: Re: Republicans vs. NWRs
Date: Apr 18 15:40:23 1996
From: Don Baccus - donb at Rational.COM


>The one I loved was Hatfield's latest. He very graciously put forth a bill
>to make an area where logging was prohibited a protected area. Awfully nice
>of him, don't you think?

Ummm...point of clarification, if you don't mind...

Opal Creek is NOT a protected area. It is not currently in the
timber sales matrix, and is protected under the Clinton Forest
Plan, but the Forest Plan is not immune to Congressional
whimsy, as we've seen with the Salvage Rider.

If the ESA, NEPA and NFMA were to be modified as the timber industry
wishes, for instance, the Clinton Forest Plan could be history and
the area opened up for "forest improvement" (I'm in an excessively
cynical mood today, sorry) without any action by Congress. By
a new administration, for instance, or perhaps a new Forest
Ranger for the Willamette NF.

While in practice Congress can undo any level of protection with
a later bill, they've never un-designated a wilderness, or
unparked a National Park - though the Republicans are working
on the latter, of course.

Anyway, Hatfield's effort appears to be genuine and provides more
protection than conservationists expected from a Hatfield-sponsored
bill. This explains the relatively warm reception his offer has
been given by the conservation community. Past history and a certain,
well-deserved (IMO) lack of trust of Hatfield explains the fact that
the reception is only warm, rather than enthusiastic, and why
the conservation community has made it clear in media statements
that one act of repentenance does not balance the scales for a
lifetime of service to timber interests.

Give him credit where credit is due, though. A more cynical
reading is that he knows it won't pass...

- Don Baccus, Portland OR <donb at rational.com>
Nature photos, on-line guides, at http:://www.xxxpdx.com/~dhogaza