Here is an article from the Idaho State Journal on TU and ICL filing a friend of the court brief in the Idaho Roadless litigation.
My problem with the Sierra Club/Wilderness Society position is that they are so philosophically committed to the concept of roadless area protection requiring a national solution that I don’t really believe they can be objective about the solutions proposed in a state’s rule.
Just compare the Chris Wood quote
“The Idaho rule is a demonstration of what can happen when common sense is applied to a common problem for the common good,” Wood said.
To the Craig Gehrke quote:
“We just don’t think a state approach is going to lead to good, consistent management, any more than having a state-by-state system for running the national parks,” said Craig Gehrke, regional director for the Wilderness Society. “Simply put, we have less protection with the Idaho rule than under the Clinton rule.”
Certainly one view is that everything of importance should be decided nationally.. however, that’s not my view. Nor, more importantly, T.U.’s. Is it about the principle or the protection?
P.S. photos of Idaho Roadless for this blog entry would be appreciated.
Next week July 29th and 30th is the Roundtable in DC. Here is the agenda. Info on webcasting does not yet seem to be available; I will post when I find out.
If you have ideas you might want to respond to these new blog posts on the official blog by next Thursday or Friday (and crosspost them here if you want). Here’s the note we received on the new blog posts.
We’ve posted the approaches to Monitoring and Evaluation, Resilience,
People and the Environment, and Recreation we are considering for the
proposed planning rule to the Planning Rule blog at
http://blogs.usda.gov/usdablogs/planningrule/ and to the Planning Rule
website at http://fs.usda.gov/planningrule.