Logging halted in Texas National Forests

Don Staples dstaples at livingston.net
Sun Sep 14 11:32:36 EST 1997

Joseph Zorzin wrote:
> Jorg Freiberg wrote:
> >
> > On August 14, U. S. District Judge Richard Schell ordered a halt to most
> > logging in the national forests of east Texas. The order was accompanied
> > by a ruling that the U.S. Forest Service had routinely violated several
> > key sections of the National Forest Management Act. The injunction came as
> > a result of a trial in the U.S. District Court in Beaumont in April of
> > 1996. The Sierra Club and co-plaintiffs the Wilderness Society and the
> > Texas Committee on Natural Resources presented extensive testimony and
> > evidence collected over a number of years to prove that the Forest Service
> > was mismanaging the national forests in east Texas.
> >
> > In particular, plaintiffs proved that the Forest Service had jailed to
> > protect soil and water resources, native forest biodiversity, wildlife
> > habitat, and had failed to monitor the effects of their logging program.
> > This impressive legal victory is a vindication for what forest reformers
> > in Texas have been saying for decades and will mark a milepost in the
> > Sierra Club's long struggle to protect our national forests nationally as
> > well as in east Texas. Indeed, if the judgement and order survive an
> > expected appeal this could be a precedent for protecting public forests
> > nationwide.
> Is that a Freudian slip (jailed) in the first sentance of the above
> paragraph? <G>
> >
> > Predictably, the ruling was assailed by the timber industry. No doubt some
> > logging interests will bring pressure on Congress to change the law, now
> > that a judge has told the Forest Service they have to obey the law.
> >
> > Jorg
> >
> > My views are my own and not necessarily those of my employer.
> I added bionet.agroforestry in this reply to see what "the good old boy"
> foresters might have to say. <G>
The judge allowed continued logging on the areas where contracts had
already been let, and money paid.  This is a case where the state
eco-nauts (silent a) want to bell jar the entire national forest, there
by creating a "wilderness".  The USFS already uses 80+ rotation, giving
bigger individual stems than most of east Texas.  

The interesting thing about "the Forest Service ....have to obey the
law" is that they have been, but not as interpreted by the eco-nauts. 
They have managed to get a judge to rule on law alone, with out any
biological imput.  But since the federal rullings on the USFS in Texas
have been running 50/50 the chances are  the appeals court will have a
closer look at it.

EVERYTHING in Texas is second, third or fourth growth, on company lands 
possibly fifth, sixth, etc.  It is a moot point that we have any
"wilderness" on 5000 acre tracts of federal land.  They were the first
to plant, thereby creating the larger stands of larger  stems.  As a
byline, the feds were the first to try and reclaim forests in East
Texas, and are now being taken to task for their success.

It is not about biology, it is about control.

Ego Stroke:  http://www.livingston.net/dstaples/

More information about the Ag-forst mailing list