If you've never seen the old growth forests of the Pacific Northwest, I hope you get to someday, before it's too late:
A Light in the Forests, editorial, NY Times: The Bush administration has largely succeeded in its systematic effort to roll back environmental protections for America's national forests. It has weakened agreements to protect old-growth trees in the Pacific Northwest, persuaded Congress to adopt an industry-friendly plan for fire suppression and overhauled rules governing forest management in ways that erode safeguards not only for the forests but also for the endangered species that live there.
Now, however, a rebellion is brewing ... Western governors are challenging ... the decision to repeal a popular rule ... to protect nearly 60 million acres of remote national forest from commercial development. The attorneys general of California and New Mexico and the governor of Oregon have filed a suit charging that the administration failed to conduct necessary environmental reviews before imposing the new rule. They argued further that the rule would endanger "the last, most pristine portions of America's national forests," leading to excessive logging and destroying essential watersheds. The lawsuit followed complaints from other governors, including Republicans, that the new rule would saddle them with impossible administrative burdens... Now that the governors have spoken, there seems to be no reason to further indulge the commercial interests of a few timber companies.
You won't convince me that commercial interests are worth losing our national forests, not after living here and seeing what would be lost. There are enough bald mountains around here as it is.