Most Recent Comments

1) Rep. Law's "no vote explanation" [by Anonymous Citizen on March 11, 2004]
Rep. Law, having reserved the right to explain her protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement:

"Mr. Speaker and members of the House:

I voted no on HB 5553 because:

This is just the first step in privatizing the state's public forests, recreation areas and parks by loggers lumberjacks, sawmills and other profit motivated interests. There is an obvious inherent conflict of interest in allowing a private contractor to be in charge of both the marking and cutting of trees. They have no investment to protect and may be driven by profit motive rather than the protection of a public resource.

There is no reason to put loggers and sawmills in charge of this vast public resource. There are a large number of other uses for the state forest that need to be taken into account, not just timber production and harvest."
Reply

2) 2004 House Bill 5553 (Require sustainable forestry pilot projects) [by admin on January 1, 2001]
Introduced in the House on February 17, 2004, to require the Department of Natural Resources to establish four forest pilot project areas to be managed on scientific silvicultural specifications based on sustainable forestry principles. The department would contract out the management of the project area for three years, including the marking of timber, the harvesting of timber, and the reforestation of timber cutover areas. The bill is part of a legislative package comprised of House Bills 5552 to 5554, which would require state forest management to be based on sustainable forestry principles, and requires the state to seek forest certification from an independent third party organization

The vote was 63 in favor, 37 opposed and 9 not voting

(House Roll Call 104 at House Journal 20)

Click here to view bill details.
Reply

View Full Conversation