Oppose Anti-Environment Provisions in Budget Bill!

sndcrtr

Miki Dora status
Apr 22, 2002
5,212
0
0
Istanbul,Turkey
SaveOurEnvironment.org Action Center Update: February 11, 2003
Oppose Anti-Environment Provisions in Budget Bill!
Registered Users: You can immediately fax the letter below to your members of Congress by replying to this email. For non-registered users or to edit the message, click here.

While the sweeping 2003 federal "Omnibus" budget bill is currently being negotiated, attempts are being made to add horrendous anti- environmental provisions. Some threaten our national forests, especially Alaska's Tongass and Chugach National Forests, as well as endangered species that inhabit the Missouri River. It would also allow early steps toward oil and gas exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. And that's not all.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Urgent Action Needed!

As final negotiations on the bill will happen this week, we urgently need your help to remove the most egregious provisions, called riders, from this bill. Please reply to this message to send a free fax to your members of Congress urging them to support any efforts to keep anti-environmental riders out of the spending bill.
Specifically, please ask your Representative to support Congressman Obey's (D-WI) amendment that would strike these anti-environmental riders from the Omnibus bill.

Because time is of the essence, phone calls are also highly encouraged. Please call your Representative or Senator at the U.S. Capitol Switchboard at 202-224-3121. Once you are connected to the office, ask to speak with the staff member that handles budget issues. (Please see below for some suggested talking points.)

Registered Users: You can immediately fax the letter below to your members of Congress by replying to this email. For non-registered users or to edit the letter, click here.

Dear Representative/Senator,

I am writing to urge you to support any efforts to remove anti-environmental riders from the FY 2003 Omnibus spending bill, including sending it back to conference or rejecting the bill entirely. Specifically, I urge you to support Congressmen Obey's and Dicks' efforts to strike these riders from the conference report. These riders are designed to help corporate special interests by weakening environmental protection laws - laws that have been widely supported by the American public for generations.

Among the environmentally destructive riders under consideration are:

One provision seeks to exclude the pristine areas of both the Tongass and Chugach National Forests from the protections of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, reversing this landmark forest conservation measure for our two largest national forests. Another provision seeks to increase logging in the Tongass rainforest at the expense of existing protections for pristine areas, fish and wildlife by shielding the Forest Service from all applicable laws related to a flawed 1997 management plan for that forest.

Another sweeping proposal that would apply to all National Forests and Bureau of Land Management lands is the so- called "stewardship" contracting rider. This rider would allow the agencies to enter into an unlimited number of 10-year contracts with logging companies between now and 2013 to accomplish whatever forest management objectives these agencies choose to pursue. There are no practical limits proposed on the size and scope of these projects that would be designed by the "contractor" (a.k.a. logging company). The fact that trees are to be used as the payment mechanism for this work means this provision is little more than a license to steal.

Another proposal would permit the use of FY 2003 funds to conduct work in preparation for oil leasing in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, without Congress specifically appropriating such funds. Oil leasing in the Arctic has been consistently rejected by Congress and the American public. This new rider is an attempt to allow the BLM to conduct preliminary activities related to an action that is currently illegal - oil drilling in the Arctic Refuge.

A Missouri River rider would block enforcement of the Endangered Species Act and require the Fish and Wildlife Service to violate its own Biological Opinion and give the Army Corps of Engineers permission to flood out or move the nests of endangered stet terns and threatened piping plovers in order to allow flows over 30,000 cubic feet per second from Missouri River dams during the summer.
Again, as a supporter of the environment and your constituent, I urge you to work to remove any anti-environmental language from the final 2003 budget bill.

Thank you for considering my views.

Sincerely,




Talking Points


As a supporter of the environment and your constituent, I urge you to work to remove any and all anti-environmental language from the final 2003 budget bill.

Specifically, I urge my representative/senator to remove the provisions that would exempt Alaska's Tongass and Chugach National Forests from protection under the Roadless Conservation Rule. I also urge the removal of language that would mandate damaging cuts of logging in the Tongass National Forest. It is inconceivable that our legislators would allow our nation's largest intact temperate rainforests to be damaged by road building and logging. Not only that, but species such as the grizzly bear, wolves, eagles and wild salmon that rely on the Tongass and Chugach for habitat also need to be protected.

Secondly, I urge you to oppose language that would give the Forest Service broad new authority to trade trees for activities on Forest Service lands.

Lastly, I also ask you to vigorously oppose the provision that would prohibit the Army Corps of Engineers from changing water level management practices on the Missouri River. The natural rise of the river in the spring is needed for the protection of vital nesting habitat for the piping plover and least tern, two federally protected bird species. The natural rise also helps floodplain farmers to drain their fields and encourage healthy crop production.



Thank You!
Thanks for using the SaveOurEnvironment.org Action Center and working together with the nation's most influential environmental groups in the crucial battles to protect our air and water; our lands, forests, and oceans; our wildlife; our children's future; and our planet's climate.
Remember, you can greatly increase the impact of your support by encouraging your family and friends to visit the Action Center as well. Please use the "Tell a Friend" feature which allows you to send an e- postcard right from the site.
 

tom@daumtooling

Michael Peterson status
Jan 10, 2002
3,047
81
48
San Clemente
Visit site
Sandy,
Didn't we loose a number of fire fighters last year and 100,000's of acres of forest due to the past policies of forest management? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Roll Eyes]" src="images/icons/rolleyes.gif" />
 

Spray92109

Tom Curren status
Jan 10, 2002
12,253
3
0
San Diego, CA, USA
Some of the best writing I've read about real-world environmental mangagement was in P J O'Rourke's "All the Trouble in the World".

Neither major party has it right, because each is just pandering to some interest group or another.

We create all sorts of bizarre incentives to do the wrong thing, and much environmental destruction profits a few while costing taxpayers a lot of money and destroying our precious remaining resources.

Someone read it, please.

For the moment, I'll go over to the site, sandy. Thanks!
 

sndcrtr

Miki Dora status
Apr 22, 2002
5,212
0
0
Istanbul,Turkey
Yeah Tom, but it was a very dry season, hence the large amount of fires. Mother nature has her own way of thinning out the forests. We don't need man to destruct and destroy. In my opinion.

I used to work in the lumber industry, and it ain't pretty what they are doing to the remaining forests up north...

I know of what I speak.
Preservation not devastation.

<img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" />
 

tom@daumtooling

Michael Peterson status
Jan 10, 2002
3,047
81
48
San Clemente
Visit site
I'm not a forestry expert. But, as I recall the underbrush had not been allowed to burn for decades. The amount of fuel had built up to the choking point and a bunch of evergreen deseases have been adding to the problem. It seems to me that as long as the loggers are selectively thinning under a managed program would be in the best interest of the environment and those they habitate those areas.

I do not believe the legislature has been written such that logging companies can just go hog wild.