Answers to recent questions about public lands. If you have some, just ask

Did bad riders materialize...
Vacation tips...
Why do you attack ranchers...
Will "forest health" bill really help...
Are you expecting bad riders...

MORE Q&As =>

Have the bad riders you expected on federal appropriations bills materialized?

Johanna answers: Yes indeed. For example, one of the anti-environmental riders on the House version of the Interior appropriations bill would authorize a road to be built across Alaska's Chugach National Forest, through the heart of the Copper River Delta -- possibly the largest wetlands complex on the Pacific coast -- and would exempt the road from comprehensive environmental review and public input. Another rider would end the Columbia River Ecosystem Management Project, a more than 4-year-old attempt to bring science-based management to millions of acres of public lands managed by the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management, principally in Idaho, eastern Oregon and Washington, and western Wyoming and Montana.

The Senate riders to the Interior bill are even worse. They include one that would halt the BLM's long overdue attempt to strengthen its rules for so-called "hard rock" mining operations on public lands. Another would allow the bureau to renew 10-year grazing permits without completing required environmental analyses for the coming fiscal year and setting a precedent for future years. A third rider would require excessive and unsustainable logging of Alaska's Tongass National Forest while a fourth would authorize construction of yet another road in Alaska -- this one through the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge and Wilderness, threatening a variety of species that live on or migrate through the refuge and setting a precedent as the first ever new and permanent road through a Congressionally designated wilderness area. The number and scope of the riders on the Interior bill far exceed what I feared -- and demonstrate clearly how strong the anti-public land, anti-environmental forces in the 105th Congress are.

I'm planning my summer vacation; any suggestions on where to go?

Johanna answers: Try some of this country's wonderful lesser known parks, rather than the places that are on the top of everyone's list. Don't go, in other words, to places like Yosemite or the Grand Canyon, Lake Mead or Great Smokey Mountains National Parks. Instead of peace and quiet, you're likely to find much of what you're trying to get away from -- traffic jams, long lines and overcrowding. Two of my favorites parks in California, where you truly can find peace and quiet, are Kings Canyon and Lassen National Park, but there are many, many others in other states. For information about less-visited parks, check out our guide to off-the-beaten-path spots, or see the National Park Service's website.

Why are you always attacking ranchers?

Johanna answers: Environmentalists, myself included, are not in the business of attacking ranchers. In fact, the overwhelming majority of organizations -- environmental and conservation, hunting and fishing, national, state and regional -- that are concerned about public land grazing are not against ranchers or grazing. What we are against is first, environmentally harmful grazing practices and second, environmentally harmful grazing legislation -- and there's too much of both already. What do I mean by that? Well, on far too many acres of the public's lands around the West, livestock grazing -- as permitted by either the U.S. Forest Service or the Bureau of Land Management -- is contributing to soil erosion, water pollution, loss of plant and wildlife communities, declining fish populations, lost recreational opportunities and other resource problems.

Unfortunately, legislation that the public land livestock industry is trying to push through Congress right now would hamper agency efforts to address problems like these. That same legislation -- H.R. 2493, which has already passed the House -- would also hamper the ability of hunters, anglers, hikers and others who care about these lands to participate in public land management, while expanding the role and influence of the livestock industry. And, the bill would cost U.S. taxpayers -- you and me -- millions of dollars every year by promoting "corporate welfare" and overgrazing through a new "bargain-basement" grazing fee formula and by expanding the ability of ranchers to sublease federal grazing permits at a far higher rate -- and pocket the difference! A broad coalition of conservation, environmental, taxpayer, hunting, fishing and similar groups opposed this bill in the House and will do so -- hopefully with more success -- in the Senate.

I've heard about a "forest health" bill in Congress -- will it really help our forests?

Johanna answers: The House killed Rep. Smith's "forest health" bill by a vote of 201 to 181 on March 27th. Under the guise of improving forest health, this bill would have accelerated logging on our National Forests and its defeat was a resounding victory for environmentalists. That's the good news. The bad news is that the defeat of this bill may well spur anti-public lands forces in Congress to try even harder to fulfill their agendas. Indeed, logging proponents in the House announced they would use the appropriations process to prevent the Forest Service from implementing its recently-announced policy to protect many of the nation's last remaining wildlands, while on the Senate side there is a proposal to sell federal public lands to raise funds for private landowners who maintain endangered species habitat. Environmentalists have, of course, vowed to oppose these and other measures. So the battle goes on...

Are your expecting any anti-public land riders on this year's budget bills?

Johanna answers: I'm absolutely certain that anti-public land forces in the 105th Congress will do something during the upcoming appropriations process to further their agenda. More specifically, I'm sure they'll use riders and any other means they think they can get away with to prevent federal land management agencies from acting to protect the public's resources. In fact, western Congressmen have already announced that they'll use the budget process to prevent the Forest Service from following through on its recent proposal to halt new roadbuilding in our National Forests to preserve the nation's remaining wildlands. One leading committee chair in the House was quoted as saying, "When we cut back the Forest Service budget until they squeal, when we hear them squeal, then we'll know we've got them where we want them."

MORE Q&As =>

  Published by the Natural Resources Defense Council -- contact us at nrdcinfo@nrdc.org