Re: [pct-l] editorial on logging

[kevin.oleary@tempe.vlsi.com]

     I'm new to the pct-l mailing list but I'll jump right in with a
couple of comments regarding Brick's letter in the PCT Communicator.
     The comparison that he makes between the administration of the AT
(by the NPS) and the PCT (by the USFS) seems a key reason for the logging
that is occuring along the PCT.  
     I'm ignorant as to the political discussions that took place when 
Congress created the PCT and the AT National Scenic Trails.  Does anyone
know if the western congressional delegations (who are generally 
pro-extraction) were the motivation for defining administration this way in 
the legislation?
     On the surface Brick's proposal (establishing a Visual Resource
Management classification along the PCT) sounds reasonable.  However, there 
are vested interests that would probably mount a strong defense against 
this "simple administrative action" as an encroachment on their rights.
     The PCTA should adopt Brick's proposal as a minimum response to the
logging along the PCT.  I personally favor a stronger approach (similar to
the one that the Sierra Club recently adopted) that would prohibit all
logging on public lands.
      Anyway, that's my feedback on Brick's excellent letter on a very
timely subject.

Kevin
===========================================================================
From owner-pct-l@saffron.hack.net Thu Dec 19 14:40 MST 1996
X-Authentication-Warning: saffron.hack.net: majordom set sender to owner-pct-l@saffron.hack.net using -f
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1996 01:22:07 +0100
From: John Koch <bearclaw@earthlink.net>
Reply-To: bearclaw@earthlink.net
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC)
MIME-Version: 1.0

---

• Prev by Date: [pct-l] Re: [at-l] To Ryan and Milt
• Next by Date: [pct-l] i need a little advise.... again
• Prev by thread: [pct-l] Re: [at-l] To Ryan and Milt
• Next by thread: [pct-l] editorial on logging
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread