U.S. Judge in Wyoming Rules Against Ban on Forest Roads
The back and forth over Clinton’s Roadless Rule continues.
U.S. Judge in Wyoming Rules Against Ban on Forest Roads – NY Times
Tagged with: roadless rule
4 Responses to U.S. Judge in Wyoming Rules Against Ban on Forest Roads
Subscribe to Blog via Email
Recent Posts
- Another Misleading New York Times Fire Article August 4, 2022
- San Pedro Grazing Challenged August 3, 2022
- M-44 Ban On Public Lands Near Enactment August 1, 2022
- Michael Garrity–Working to Protect the Northern Rockies Ecosystem July 31, 2022
- NYT Promotes Logging in Yosemite NP July 28, 2022
Recent Comments
- Mark L on Another Misleading New York Times Fire Article
- Ida Lupine on M-44 Ban On Public Lands Near Enactment
- Beeline on Another Misleading New York Times Fire Article
- Ida Lupine on Michael Garrity–Working to Protect the Northern Rockies Ecosystem
- Ida Lupine on Michael Garrity–Working to Protect the Northern Rockies Ecosystem
- Susan on Another Misleading New York Times Fire Article
- rastadoggie on San Pedro Grazing Challenged
- rastadoggie on Michael Garrity–Working to Protect the Northern Rockies Ecosystem
- Karl J. Findling on San Pedro Grazing Challenged
- Maggie Frazier on M-44 Ban On Public Lands Near Enactment
- MK Ray on M-44 Ban On Public Lands Near Enactment
- Robert Goldman on A White Mountain National Park? Has its time arrived?
- lou on NYT Promotes Logging in Yosemite NP
- Ida Lupine on NYT Promotes Logging in Yosemite NP
- Maggie Frazier on NYT Promotes Logging in Yosemite NP
Judge Brimmer owns stock in Wyoming resource extraction, and should be recused from the case. But he doesn’t have any dignity.
He should be embarrassed.
This is why there is a Court of Appeals.
It’s interesting that the judge would be willing to chastise a colleague like that.
DOes anybody know what his reasons to overturn were? The NYT mentions NEPA and something else, while our local paper, Idaho Mountain Express, indicated that the Judge cited the creation of de facto wilderness areas, which can only be declared by Congress. This last bit doesn’t sound right, as there’s a lot more to the Wilderness Act than road prohibitions. Any clarification would be helpful.
Brimmer is basically senile (seriously) He is rabidly antienvironmentalist. I wouldn’t expect his decisions to make any sense nor his behaviour to be appropriate. The only sensible thing he did was announce his retirement, but even at age 85 he can’t help taking on new environmental cases just for the sake of being able to rule against environmentalists.