CRGNSA encompasses Wilderness. They overlap, the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area and Mark O Hatfield Wilderness.
"Mark O. Hatfield Wilderness .... northern boundary within the National Scenic Area ..."
https://www.fs.usda.gov/recarea/crgnsa/ ... 0&actid=50
If you're looking at this in detail, the Wilderness expanded to cover the face of the Gorge in 2009. Not all maps are up to date, nor did the wilderness boundary signs on the trails get relocated.
Eagle Creek Trail (Gorge) Closed by Fire (July 5)
-
- Posts: 3
- Joined: September 21st, 2017, 12:35 pm
Re: Eagle Creek Trail (Gorge) Closed by Fire (July 5)
No law should be above judicial review. Isn't that what Marbury v. Madison established?Lurch wrote:I may be reading it wrong, but this seems troubling to me...(f) Prohibition On Restraining Orders, Preliminary Injunctions, And Injunctions Pending Appeal.—No restraining order, preliminary injunction, or injunction pending appeal shall be issued by any court of the United States with respect to any decision to prepare or conduct a response activity. Section 705 of title 5, United States Code, shall not apply to any challenge to the response activity.
Believe it or not, I barely ever ride a mountain bike.
- retired jerry
- Posts: 14425
- Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm
Re: Eagle Creek Trail (Gorge) Closed by Fire (July 5)
Then maybe that they put the prohibition in there is reviewable by a law suit.
Re: Eagle Creek Trail (Gorge) Closed by Fire (July 5)
The way that's worded it seems like it wouldn't stop a judicial review, or a halt to a bad course of action... But it would be allowed to continue until the courts made a final decision on whether or not it should be stopped, in which case because this whole thing is about haste, most of the damage would be done, and they'd probably go 'whoops, sorry!' and nothing would come of it.Charley wrote:No law should be above judicial review. Isn't that what Marbury v. Madison established?Lurch wrote:I may be reading it wrong, but this seems troubling to me...(f) Prohibition On Restraining Orders, Preliminary Injunctions, And Injunctions Pending Appeal.—No restraining order, preliminary injunction, or injunction pending appeal shall be issued by any court of the United States with respect to any decision to prepare or conduct a response activity. Section 705 of title 5, United States Code, shall not apply to any challenge to the response activity.
Re: Eagle Creek Trail (Gorge) Closed by Fire (July 5)
That was my question too. I looked for some relevant case law but didn't find anything, so thanks for referencing Marbury v. Madison.Charley wrote:No law should be above judicial review. Isn't that what Marbury v. Madison established?Lurch wrote:I may be reading it wrong, but this seems troubling to me...(f) Prohibition On Restraining Orders, Preliminary Injunctions, And Injunctions Pending Appeal.—No restraining order, preliminary injunction, or injunction pending appeal shall be issued by any court of the United States with respect to any decision to prepare or conduct a response activity. Section 705 of title 5, United States Code, shall not apply to any challenge to the response activity.
I suspect this is the intent but seems constitutionally flimsy as well. What use is judicial review if the court can't order an injunction or otherwise halt a potential violation while proceedings are ongoing?Lurch wrote: The way that's worded it seems like it wouldn't stop a judicial review, or a halt to a bad course of action... But it would be allowed to continue until the courts made a final decision on whether or not it should be stopped, in which case because this whole thing is about haste, most of the damage would be done, and they'd probably go 'whoops, sorry!' and nothing would come of it.
The rush to action is itself a warning. Generally speaking, people proposing good ideas don't need obfuscation nor desire a lack of deliberation before enacting said ideas (see also Graham-Cassidy).
- retired jerry
- Posts: 14425
- Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm
Re: Eagle Creek Trail (Gorge) Closed by Fire (July 5)
It may not have any legal effect to prevent lawsuits, but supporters of Walden will like it and be more likely to support him in the future
Re: Eagle Creek Trail (Gorge) Closed by Fire (July 5)
Jurisdiction strippingCharley wrote:No law should be above judicial review. Isn't that what Marbury v. Madison established?
"In the United States, jurisdiction-stripping (also called court-stripping or curtailment-of-jurisdiction), refers to Congress' constitutionally-granted authority to determine the jurisdiction of federal and state courts."
"I arise in the morning torn between a desire to improve the world and a desire to enjoy the world. This makes it hard to plan the day.”
― E.B. White
― E.B. White
Re: Eagle Creek Trail (Gorge) Closed by Fire (July 5)
drm wrote:Keeping in mind the speed with which this legislation was drafted and put out, there can't have been that much deep thought or knowledge about the specifics of the fire. It might be that it is more of a political stunt for a certain constituency, but a risky one if it nonetheless slides through, or gets attached to other disaster bills that are going to be introduced into Congress given the huge hurricane disasters. They did attach a rider to the initial Harvey / Houston relief bill that in some form provided independent funding for Forest Service fire fighting.
I just wanted to point out that there is nothing new about this legislation and it was not necessarily speedily crafted but rather a general salvage logging bill that was adapted to fit the current circumstances of the Eagle Creek Fire. When researching the current legislation I realized that Walden introduced a similar bill in 2006 and other Oregon legislators like Gordon Smith introduced similar bills after the Biscuit Fire in 2005. It has long been a Republican response/reaction to wildfires to pitch salvage logging as a perfect solution for the environment that just happens to be beneficial for the timber industry, when there is little to no scientific evidence to support the position that salvage logging provides environmental benefits. As Mattisnotfrench noted earlier what is happening with this bill is a perfect example of the shock doctrine or rather politicians using crisis to advance their policy positions.
I'm most disturbed beyond the fact that it basically allows logging in an area that was previously protected, and does not let the forest recover naturally, that it is not specific to the Gorge and the Eagle Creek fire but would allow salvage logging without any environmental reviews in any National Scenic Area that experiences a fire or other catastrophic event. Very dangerous legislation indeed.
Re: Eagle Creek Trail (Gorge) Closed by Fire (July 5)
H.R. 2936: Resilient Federal Forests Act of 2017 is the current bill that would create a Logging Free-for-Allwendyr wrote:drm wrote:Keeping in mind the speed with which this legislation was drafted and put out, there can't have been that much deep thought or knowledge about the specifics of the fire. It might be that it is more of a political stunt for a certain constituency, but a risky one if it nonetheless slides through, or gets attached to other disaster bills that are going to be introduced into Congress given the huge hurricane disasters. They did attach a rider to the initial Harvey / Houston relief bill that in some form provided independent funding for Forest Service fire fighting.
I just wanted to point out that there is nothing new about this legislation and it was not necessarily speedily crafted but rather a general salvage logging bill that was adapted to fit the current circumstances of the Eagle Creek Fire. When researching the current legislation I realized that Walden introduced a similar bill in 2006 and other Oregon legislators like Gordon Smith introduced similar bills after the Biscuit Fire in 2005. It has long been a Republican response/reaction to wildfires to pitch salvage logging as a perfect solution for the environment that just happens to be beneficial for the timber industry, when there is little to no scientific evidence to support the position that salvage logging provides environmental benefits. As Mattisnotfrench noted earlier what is happening with this bill is a perfect example of the shock doctrine or rather politicians using crisis to advance their policy positions.
I'm most disturbed beyond the fact that it basically allows logging in an area that was previously protected, and does not let the forest recover naturally, that it is not specific to the Gorge and the Eagle Creek fire but would allow salvage logging without any environmental reviews in any National Scenic Area that experiences a fire or other catastrophic event. Very dangerous legislation indeed.
The bill was authored Rep. Bruce Westerman (R-AR) and guess which industry is his top donor? http://www.opensecrets.org
"I arise in the morning torn between a desire to improve the world and a desire to enjoy the world. This makes it hard to plan the day.”
― E.B. White
― E.B. White
Re: Eagle Creek Trail (Gorge) Closed by Fire (July 5)
Peabody wrote:
H.R. 2936: Resilient Federal Forests Act of 2017 is the current bill that would create a Logging Free-for-All
The bill was authored Rep. Bruce Westerman (R-AR) and guess which industry is his top donor? http://www.opensecrets.org
Thank for the link to the current bill and article explaining it. Very interesting and frightening. Certainly looks like a timber industry wish list. It bears pointing out that despite how terrifying such legislation is, 1000's of bills are introduced in the House and Senate every year and very few manage to pass the House and Senate and actually be made into law. This is where current crisis become so scary. The increased attention of a current fire like the Eagle Creek fire increases the probability that this type of legislation will pass on it's own or be attached to other disaster legislation that has a higher probablity to pass.