July, 28 2009, 09:24am EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Mollie Matteson, Center for Biological Diversity, (802) 434-2388 (office)
Report: Threats to Roadless Forests Show National Roadless Rule Urgently Needed
WASHINGTON
A report released today by the Center for Biological Diversity
details the uncertain status of national forest roadless areas under
the Obama administration. It highlights development, such as road
construction and clearcutting, that has resulted from inconsistent
policies for roadless areas since the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation
Rule.
The report, titled Saving Our Natural Legacy: The Future of America's Last Roadless Forests,
urges strong, nationally consistent protections for inventoried
roadless areas identified both within and subsequent to the 2001 rule.
"Americans have waited eight long years to see our last pristine
forests protected, but those protections remain far from certain," said
Mollie Matteson, a Vermont-based conservation advocate at the Center
for Biological Diversity. "It's time for a policy that establishes
strong, nationally consistent protections for all national forest
roadless areas."
The report describes how roadless
areas identified in the 2001 Roadless Rule, spanning more than 58
million acres of national forest land, have been subject to legal
disputes resulting from Bush administration attempts to circumvent the
enormously popular rule. In response to calls for a moratorium on
roadless area development, to afford time for creation of a clear,
consistent, nationwide roadless policy, Secretary of Agriculture Tom
Vilsack in May issued a one-year directive that granted him sole
authority to approve logging projects in roadless areas. But his
subsequent approval of road construction and logging in the South
Revilla Inventoried Roadless Area on the Tongass National Forest in
Alaska has cast doubts on the administration's commitment to roadless
area protection.
The report also highlights the
management results of the Forest Service's failure to extend uniform
protections to those roadless areas that have been inventoried
subsequent to the 2001 rule. Owing to these inconsistent policies,
roadless areas identified subsequent to the 2001 rule in Utah,
Minnesota, and New Hampshire continue to be subject to road building,
logging, clearcutting and other development - activities that expressly
contradict protections set forth in the 2001 rule.
In light of ongoing uncertainty regarding the 2001 Roadless Area
Conservation Rule and continuing development of roadless areas
inventoried subsequent to that rule, the new report makes the following
policy recommendations. The administration should move swiftly to:
- expand
its May interim directive to cover all inventoried roadless areas in
the national forest system, including those added through forest
planning since 2001. - develop a rule to provide permanent protection for these same areas.
- stop defending Bush administration roadless policies in court.
Also, Congress should pass legislation to protect all national forest roadless areas in perpetuity.
A
bill to codify the 2001 Roadless Rule was introduced in the last
Congressional session, and is expected to be reintroduced soon.
According to Matteson: "We have the best opportunity in a decade to
secure these incredible lands for future generations. There's no doubt
how the American people feel about these places; it's now time for our
leaders to act."
"Roadless areas provide clean
drinking water for much of America, habitat for thousands of rare and
sensitive species, and islands of calm for millions of overstressed
Americans," she went on. "President Obama said he wants to permanently
protect roadless areas. He needs to do it soon, before we lose any more
precious acres."
The report can be viewed and downloaded at https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/publications/papers/Saving_Our_Natural_Legacy.pdf
At the Center for Biological Diversity, we believe that the welfare of human beings is deeply linked to nature — to the existence in our world of a vast diversity of wild animals and plants. Because diversity has intrinsic value, and because its loss impoverishes society, we work to secure a future for all species, great and small, hovering on the brink of extinction. We do so through science, law and creative media, with a focus on protecting the lands, waters and climate that species need to survive.
(520) 623-5252LATEST NEWS
Million-Dollar Ad Blitz Targets Senate Dems Who Voted for 'Trump Loyalist Judges'
"This isn’t normal," said the president of the group behind the ad campaign. "If Senate Democrats don’t take a stand and strongly oppose these judicial nominees who have disqualified themselves—we will."
Dec 03, 2025
The progressive advocacy group Demand Justice on Wednesday launched a seven-figure advertising campaign targeting three members of the Senate Democratic caucus who have voted to confirm President Donald Trump's lifetime judicial nominees, enabling the ongoing right-wing takeover of the nation's courts.
The first series of ads will target Sens. Maggie Hassan (D-NH), John Fetterman (D-Pa.), and Angus King (D-Maine), three of the 16 members of the Senate Democratic caucus who have voted to confirm at least one Trump judge this year. Other Senate Democrats who have voted with Republicans in support of at least one Trump judicial pick include Sens. Dick Durbin of Illinois, Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, Adam Schiff of California, and Chris Coons of Delaware.
"It is outrageous that Senate Democrats are voting to confirm Trump’s judicial nominees who refuse to tell the truth about January 6th and the 2020 election,” Josh Orton, the president of Demand Justice, said in a statement. “This isn’t normal. If Senate Democrats don’t take a stand and strongly oppose these judicial nominees who have disqualified themselves—we will. And we won’t let up.”
The group's campaign will also include a national cable TV ad buy and "coordinated digital rollout across key battleground states" naming and shaming Democrats who support "Trump loyalist judges" even as the lawmakers condemn the president's authoritarian assault on democracy.
Watch the Demand Justice ad targeting Maggie Hassan, who on Tuesday voted to confirm Lindsey Ann Freeman, Trump's nominee to the US District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina:
Freeman, like other Trump judicial picks, refused during her confirmation process to say directly that the president lost the 2020 election.
"President Biden was certified as the winner of the 2020 presidential election and served as the 46th President of the United States," Freeman wrote in response to questions from Durbin, who ultimately voted in favor of her confirmation.
In a report released last month, Demand Justice analyzed Trump judicial picks' written responses to senators' questions. The analysis shows that "nominees' responses appear nearly identical, with many nominees using verbatim phrasing, repeating key words, and, overall, using unusual and evasive language that’s almost entirely outside the normal, historical, and common lexicon used to describe such events."
"Every nominee provided near-identical phrasing to avoid a direct answer about the 2020 election, instead referencing the results of the congressional 'certification' process, or answering by noting that President Biden 'served' as president," the report notes. "And 21 of 27 nominees provided extremely similar responses in regard to January 6, often describing what transpired as a 'political issue' and refusing to comment further."
Orton of Demand Justice said that "it is unprecedented for lifetime nominees to the federal bench to provide dishonest and misleading answers about historical facts—and it is deeply concerning that Trump’s nominees are parroting such strikingly similar language, the president’s own language, to avoid telling the truth."
That more than a dozen Senate Democrats still voted to confirm at least one of those nominees is "simply unacceptable," said Orton.
Keep ReadingShow Less
‘Yikes’: New Jobs Data Further Undermines Trump Fiction of Thriving Economy
"The booming job market exists only in Donald Trump's demented head," said economist Dean Baker.
Dec 03, 2025
Economists on Wednesday expressed significant concerns after new data from global payroll processing firm ADP estimated that the US economy lost 32,000 jobs last month.
As reported by CNBC, small businesses bore the brunt of the job losses, as firms with fewer than 50 employees shed a total of 120,000 jobs, more than offsetting the 90,000 in job gains reported by firms with 50 or more employees.
The loss of 32,000 jobs in November marked a major miss for economists' consensus estimate of 40,000 jobs added on the month, and CNBC noted that the total number of jobs lost according to ADP data "was the biggest drop since March 2023."
Heather Long, chief economist at Navy Federal Credit Union, noted in a post on X that the job losses recorded by ADP were widespread across the US economy.
"Yikes," she wrote in reaction to the report. "Most industries were doing layoffs. The only ones still are hiring are hospitality and healthcare."
Long also said the disparity between small and large businesses in terms of job growth was more evidence that the US is experiencing a "K-shaped" economy in which those at the top of the economic ladder thrive, even as everyone else struggles.
"Larger companies are still hiring," she explained. "Smaller firms (under 50 workers) are doing the layoffs. It's been a very tough year for small biz due to tariffs and more selective spending from lower and middle-class consumers."
Kevin Gordon, head of macro research and strategy at the Schwab Center for Financial Research, observed that ADP hasn't reported such a big drop in small-business employment since October 2020, when the US economy was suffering through the peak of the Covid-19 pandemic.
Alex Jacquez, chief of policy and advocacy at Groundwork Collaborative, cautioned against reading too much into ADP data, although he added that "in the absence of up to date government payrolls, all other signs point to a further deteriorating labor market."
Charlie Bilello, chief market strategist at financial planner Creative Planning, argued that the ADP jobs numbers were part of a negative three-month trend in which the US economy lost an estimated 4,000 jobs per month, which he said was "the first three-month decline since the 2020 recession."
Bilello added that "a year ago, we were adding over 200,000 jobs per month."
Diane Swonk, chief economist at accounting firm KPMG, argued that the ADP report showed job losses in the US economy were "broad based" and "were accompanied by a cooling of wage gains" for workers who still have jobs or are switching from one job to another.
"Those with a job are clinging on, while those without are left wanting," she explained.
Dean Baker, senior economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research, argued that the ADP report blows up President Donald Trump's spin about the health of the US economy.
"The booming job market exists only in Donald Trump's demented head," he wrote.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Pope Leo Presses Trump to End Military Escalation Against Venezuela
"So often, who suffers in these situations is the people, not the authorities," the first American pope said as another regime change war looms.
Dec 03, 2025
Amid escalating threats from the White House in recent days, Pope Leo XIV pleaded for President Donald Trump to pursue diplomacy with Venezuela rather than another regime change war.
"It is better to search for ways of dialogue, or perhaps pressure, including economic pressure," said the first American pope as he returned to Rome from Lebanon.
Since September, the Trump administration has launched airstrikes against at least 22 boats mostly in the Southern Caribbean that have extrajudicially killed at least 83 people. While the administration has claimed these people are "narcoterrorists" from Venezuela, it has provided no evidence to support this.
Trump said he had ordered the closing of Venezuela’s airspace on Saturday, which has left many observers holding their breath in expectation of military action against the South American nation.
As Reuters reported Monday, Trump also offered safe passage to Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro last month if he left the country, suggesting that regime change is the administration’s ultimate goal.
"On one hand, it seems there was a call between the two presidents," said the pope, referring to that ultimatum from Trump last month. "On the other hand, there is the danger, there is the possibility there will be some activity, some [military] operation."
"The voices that come from the United States, they change with a certain frequency," Leo added.
The pope has been a frequent critic of the Trump administration’s policies since he was elected earlier this year, with harsh rebukes issued towards the White House's attacks on immigrants.
While the pope did not denounce the idea of US-imposed regime change in Venezuela entirely, he said it should search for other means "if that is what they want to do in the United States.”
The US has notably already applied a great deal of "economic pressure" to Venezuela, via a regime of crippling sanctions that are considered one of the major causes of the nation's economic instability in recent years.
On Tuesday, Abigail Hall, a senior fellow at the Independent Institute, warned that "a US invasion, however framed, would impose steep costs on both nations."
"For the United States, an attempt at regime change in Venezuela would likely be another foray into failed foreign policy, with all the costs that go with it," she said. "A destabilized Venezuela could also trigger another wave of migration across the region, straining neighboring countries and potentially reaching US shores."
"For Venezuelans, the costs would be even greater," she added. "Beyond the immediate human toll of conflict, the long-term costs are incalculable. Even if Maduro were removed, a chaotic transition could destroy prospects for rebuilding Venezuela’s institutions, economy, and civil society."
Amid Trump's latest series of threats, Pope Leo echoed this warning aboard the papal plane. He said Venezuela's bishops are "looking for ways to calm the situation" and pursue "the good of the people, because so often who suffers in these situations is the people, not the authorities."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular