The State of Idaho lawsuit linked to President
Clinton’s "roadless initiative" reminds me of the ostrich. Bury your head
in the sand, ignore the world.
Idaho Attorney General Al Lance's lawsuit, filed in December in federal
court in Boise, claims the Forest Service has kept the attorney general in the dark about
the roadless area management proposal. In 1988, legislation was crafted by Gov. Cecil
Andrus and U.S. Sen. James McClure, the Idaho Forest Management Act. For more than a
decade governors and senators have been aware Idaho needs to address the unresolved fate
of our public wildlands. For political reasons they have been unwilling to complete this
task.
Did Lance and Gov. Dirk Kempthorne fail to notice the news when President
Clinton announced the proposal on Oct. 13, 1997? They claim they've never heard of the
issue and don't know what comments to offer. The initial comment period is called
"scoping" and identifies factual and legal matters to be examined in a draft
Environmental Impact Statement. It is impossible to believe Lance doesn't know what should
be considered since he published exactly these considerations in the The Idaho
Statesman.
Lance complains the Forest Service web site isn't complete. The Forest
Service web site isn't required to be an encyclopedia. Does anyone really believe Lance
doesn't know where Forest Service lands are located? The state used Idaho taxpayer dollars
for a 1993 report which identified roadless lands in Idaho.
The Forest Service conveniently held hearings at each forest. Our
congressional delegation should have this level of respect for Idahoans. For years U.S.
Sen. Larry Craig and Kempthorne used back door riders, without citizen participation, to
manage our public lands.
Salvage logging riders, road-building dictates and National Forest
budgetary mandates all take place behind closed doors in Washington, D.C. The taxpayers
are left with 383,000 miles of forest roads and an $8.4 billion forest road maintenance
backlog. Why does the state of Idaho rudely challenge citizen involvement in decision
making?
According to the Wall Street Journal, a GOP pollster recently found
that 72 percent of 1,000 registered voters surveyed in the western U.S. support Clinton's
proposal. Support was bipartisan, with 62 percent of self-described Republicans supporting
the proposal. While a majority supports the Forest Service, Lance stoops to political
maneuvering falsely claiming the process is flawed.
What is flawed is Lance wasting taxpayer dollars to bankroll this
frivolous lawsuit. The only beneficiary will be extractive industry that profits from
pillage of our public lands. Because extractive industry contributes campaign dollars to
our current administration it comes as no surprise.
No opportunity has been missed by Lance, except being aware of what is
going on and participating along with thousands of Idahoans. About half a million
Americans submitted comments, but Lance wasn't ready.
Lance complains about the three minutes allotted to speak. All citizens
who spoke played by these fair rules. Lance ignores that there was no limitation on
written comments. Lance ignores extra hours set aside for public officials for briefing,
questions and comments. Did the politicians in Lance's circle have their heads in the
sand?
Scoping comments are always welcome at any time until the draft
Environmental Impact Statement is released. Sierra Club and other conservation groups have
filed as intervenors against Lance's frivolous lawsuit. The courts should dismiss his
claims immediately.
Fed bashing may be popular with Kempthorne and Lance, but denial of public
will is no solution. Most people want to protect our wild forests in Idaho, for our
families and for our future. But not a single ostrich in Idaho's state house has pulled
its head from the sand.
