I understand why the Republicans want to eliminate Clinton's ban on logging in US Forest Service roadless lands, but why is the White House lifting the ban now? Clearly a few businesses benefit by access to timber in roadless areas, and the issue is important for select rural areas in which logging is economically important. Of the battleground states, I would think this issue might help Bush in only Oregon. Is that the motivation? Or is the White House seeing that they are in the final year of their authority, and they want to start overthrowing what is left of Clinton's accomplishments?
As a forest biologist that teaches courses on forest health issues, I am not against logging forests, and I don't want logging banned as a management tool. And I generally support the forest industry (though I think plantation forestry is a better, more environmentally sound supplier of timber). But there is little scientific nor economic justification for opening roadless areas to logging. It costs the government much more to put in the roads than they get from timber sales.
So what is the motivation here?