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
- Key Impacts of Livestock Production (not just grazing) Upon the Land. June 21, 2022
- Climate Not Fuels Drive Large Blazes June 21, 2022
- Wolves in the West are collateral damage of human selfishness June 16, 2022
- Targeted Grazing–The Latest Magical Solution To Improve Rangeland Health June 16, 2022
- A White Mountain National Park? Has its time arrived? June 9, 2022
Recent Comments
- Mark L on Wolves in the West are collateral damage of human selfishness
- Mark L on Wolves in the West are collateral damage of human selfishness
- John Glowa on A White Mountain National Park? Has its time arrived?
- Ida Lupine on A White Mountain National Park? Has its time arrived?
- Ida Lupine on A White Mountain National Park? Has its time arrived?
- John Glowa on A White Mountain National Park? Has its time arrived?
- Ida Lupine on A White Mountain National Park? Has its time arrived?
- Ida Lupine on A White Mountain National Park? Has its time arrived?
- Maximilian S Werner on Wolves in the West are collateral damage of human selfishness
- Rich on Wolves in the West are collateral damage of human selfishness
- Mark L on A White Mountain National Park? Has its time arrived?
- Mark L on A White Mountain National Park? Has its time arrived?
- Mark L on A White Mountain National Park? Has its time arrived?
- John Glowa on A White Mountain National Park? Has its time arrived?
- Ida Lupine on Wolves in the West are collateral damage of human selfishness
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.