Most Recent Comments

1) Rep. Law's "no vote explanation" [by Anonymous Citizen on May 13, 2004]
Rep. Law, having reserved the right to explain her nay vote, made the following statement:

"Mr. Speaker and members of the House:

In February, the governor announced that she has instructed the DNR to certify the state's forests to both SFI and FSC standards. There simply is no reason for this legislation.

Some of the provisions in this bill are not flexible enough and actually may hinder the state in the certification process.

The industry is arguing that the state should only use one certification system, preferably SFI which is the industry standard. There is precedent for seeking dual certification. Maine and Maryland currently have dual certified land. Wisconsin is in the process of dually certifying 490,000 acres of public forest. The director of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources is also seeking to dually certify that state's approximately 4 million acres of state forest land.

The Forest Products Council keeps saying that there is a timber surplus in the state and that we only harvest 40 percent of annual growth. However, they have been using old data that only tells part of the story."

Reply

2) 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 5554 because:

Last month the governor announced that she has instructed the DNR to certify the state's forests to both SFI and FSC standards. There simply is no reason for this legislation. Furthermore the provisions in this bill are not flexible enough and actually will hinder the state in the certification process.

The definition of state forests in the bill includes state parks, natural areas, and game and wildlife areas. There are legal reasons why certain parcels should not be included in this definition; as a matter of fact it is possible that it could lead to the loss of federal funds."
Reply

3) 2004 House Bill 5554 (Require sustainable forestry by DNR) [by admin on January 1, 2001]
Introduced in the House on February 17, 2004, to require the Department of Natural Resources to establish a forestry development, conservation, and recreation management plan for state lands based on sustainable forestry principles, and taking into consideration the needs and desires of various interested parties. The bill also requires the state to seek forest certification from an independent third party organization that develops specific standards to measure whether forest management practices are consistent with principles of sustainable forestry. Note: There are two non-profit organizations that do forest certification; one is associated with environmental groups and the other with forest products industry groups. The bill is part of a legislative package comprised of House Bills 5552 to 5554

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

(House Roll Call 105 at House Journal 20)

Click here to view bill details.
Reply

View Full Conversation