A TECTONIC FIX LONG OVERDUE
Merge, Remake the Forest Service
By Bill Schneider, 4-24-08
 |
|
 | |
|
Last month, the General Accountability Office (GA0) announced it was studying a plan to take the Forest Service out of the Department of Agriculture and merge it into the Department of the Interior. Predictably, this news was met with a chorus of yawns because we’ve heard many grandiose plans for reorganizing federal land-managing agencies. In every case, after significant wasted staff time and much stress for employees, nothing happens.
But this one wasn’t a yawner for me because something like this really needs to happen. This time, let’s get serious and seize this opportunity to remake the Forest Service (FS), an agency lost in the today’s political landscape.
Interestingly, the GOA study sounds similar to what I recommended three years ago when the FS celebrated its centennial. In that column, I suggested the FS and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), an Interior Department agency with a virtually identical mission, be eliminated and then remade as two completely different agencies, one devoted to outdoor recreation and the other focused on resource extraction and other commercial uses of public lands. This same outcome could--and should--emerge as a recommendation in the GAO study.
(I’ll try to be gentle, but be forewarned. With all these acronyms, I can’t go on without serving up some alphabet soup.)
Not counting the Department of Defense with its extensive land holdings, we have four major land-managing federal agencies. Only one, the FS, is in the Department of Agriculture. The other three are in the Department of the Interior--the BLM, National Park Service (NPS), and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), which manages our National Wildlife Refuge System. Of the four, the BLM manages the most federal land (258 million acres) with the FS a close second (193 million), followed by the NPS (96 million) and the FWS (86 million).
There’s only so much reality we can face at one time, so I say leave the NPS and FWS alone, with the exception of pulling out fire fighting functions. These two agencies may have problems, but they also have fairly focused responsibility for the preservation and management of national parks and wildlife refuges, land usually excluded from extractive uses like mining, fossil fuel drilling and timbering.
The FS and BLM, however, need remaking, badly. Both agencies have no focus and both are mired in irresolvable internal conflicts because they’re charged with developing and protecting public land, with the development consistently winning out under the Bush administration.
For most of the 20th Century, timber interests dominated the FS with outdoor recreation pushed way back to the hind nipple. During the last three decades, in western states at least, the agency and its industry partners failed to practice legally mandated sustainable forestry, which has, in part, resulted in today’s suppressed timber industry.
As timbering declined, pressure to better manage the national forests for outdoor recreation increased. While overcutting our public timberlands, the FS had a budget fattened by timber receipts and devoted small portions of it to maintain trails and campgrounds. Ironically, that situation might have been better than what we have today. When the timber money dried up, the FS either cut back and eliminated recreation programs and facilities or tried to fund them with ever-increasing fees, a trend distained by the majority of people trying to enjoy our national forests and expecting to have free access to their land.
Then, throw in the 900-pound gorilla, runaway forest fire fighting costs and you have a massive mess. Right now, FS might as well stand for Fire Service because that’s where most of the budget and emphasis goes.
Although not as visible or controversial, you can say the same about the BLM--same budget shortfalls for the same reasons and fraught with the same conflicts and also dominated by industry partners with little attention paid to outdoor recreation. And with both agencies, we have little chance of resolution in the normal budget process because we persist in squandering a half-billion every day to fuel the Three Trillion Dollar War.
Let’s face reality and stop the downward spiral. Merge the FS into the Interior Department and then immediately and completely reorganize both the FS and BLM into three focused agencies, named something like:
Outdoor Recreation Service to manage outdoor recreation on all national forests and BLM lands (we’ve never come up with a name for them) including the process of protecting roadless lands and wild rivers and assisting state agencies with wildlife management.
Resource Management Service to manage and promote mining, logging, livestock grazing, oil and gas leasing, and other extractive uses of renewable and nonrenewable resources on public lands.
Fire Service to take charge and consolidate the colossal task of preventing and controlling wild fire on all federal lands, even plucking these functions our of the NPS and FWS, a “budget cut” I’m sure both agencies would welcome. Congress should fund this agency directly and remove these budgets from other federal agencies so they can concentrate on managing public lands instead fighting fires, real and political.
One weakness in my plan is the ongoing conflict between motorized and nonmotorized recreation. Having both managed by the same agency (i.e. the new Outdoor Recreation Service) perpetuates instead of eases the current conflict within both the FS and BLM. Both agencies have tried the “multi-user” philosophy and failed. You just can’t put ATVs and snowmobiles on the same trails with backpackers and cross-country skiers, but this fact hasn’t stopped agencies from continuing to do it. They get away with it in many places in western states because low use minimizes conflict, but on popular trails, it quickly becomes a serious war of wills usually won by motorheads as hikers and skiers retreat to a quiet trail if they can find one.
So, GAO, while you have all the balls in the air, address the motorized/nonmotorized conflict, too.
Having friends in the FS, I know the morale in the beleaguered agency is as low as it can go. I suspect that’s also true in the other three agencies, but it seems to me that finally addressing the protection vs. development and motorized vs. nonmotorized political hot buttons would improve morale. Any criticism of the FS and other federal agencies shouldn’t be directed at the employees, mostly great people who must feel like the ping pong balls for politicians. I hope the GAO can recommend upfront that existing employees get the same or better jobs in the new and reorganized agencies.
I admit it’s remarkably easy for me to say all this because I don’t have to face the music, and I know it’s hardly a matter of drawing lines and boxes on the organization chart. It affects a lot of families and careers, but hopefully, we can take care of the employees and still make this tectonic leap forward because we need to do this.
[End of article]Bill, Thanks for writing on this issue. Moving the Forest Service over to the Dept of Interior or combining the Forest Service and BLM is something that we've tossed around over the years too.
One of our conclusions has always been that until the FS and BLM budgets aren't tied directly to resource extraction activities such as logging, mining, grazing and oil and gas development you're not going to get too far in terms of reforming these agencies to better meet the issues of the 21st century. And given that these agencies get their budgets directly from Congress and given that the logging, mining, grazing and oil and gas corporations and their lobbyists give tens of millions of dollars in campaign contributions to members of Congress, changes to the Forest Service and BLM's budgets are slow to come about.
You acknowledge one weakness in your plan, that being the conflict between motorized and non-motorized recreation. In the spirit of this exercise, I'd like to point out two other weaknesses, in my opinion.
In your plan to reorganize the Forest Service and BLM into three focused agencies named Outdoor Recreation Service, Resource Management Service and Fire Service where does nature for nature's sake or intact native, biodiversity fit in? All the three services you have recommended seem pretty human-centered to me.
Another weakness from my perspective is where does bona-fide, scientifically based restoration of our public lands fit in? As we all know too well, these agencies have a history of causing significant ecological harm through logging, mining, building of 400,000 miles of roads, grazing, oil and gas development, uncontrolled recreation, spreading weeds, etc.
For example, right now in the Northern Rockies the Forest Service estimates that 85% of the fish-passage culverts are currently impassible to fish, with an estimated cost of over $220 million to just fix the top priority culverts. Right now the Forest Service's road maintenance backlog in just Montana and Idaho is $1.3 billion, and nationally the road maintenance backlog is nearly $10 billion.
Restoration of our public lands is not only an ecological issue, but it's also an economic issue in terms of the jobs in the woods and rangelands that could be created by properly addressing and solving critical restoration needs. Yet, while restoration may be a big buzz word right now, when push comes to shove, restoration always gets placed on the back burner. That's not only unfortunate, but the fact remains that if we are seriously going to move the management of our public lands towards sustainability, addressing and restoring the ecological damage that is just sitting out there right now due to past - and even on-going - management abuses has to be a top priority. Unfortunately, I don't see a place in your plan for bona-fide, scientifically-based restoration to become a top priority. So I would recommend adding something called the Restoration Service.
Matthew--Thanks for the great comment. And yes, I agree that the nonmotorized/motorized conflict is only one of the weaknesses in my plan. I ran out of words before I ran out of weaknesses. This is obviously a broad brush approach, but it seems like nature and restoration go fairly well with outdoor recreation, so I hope the re-creators might consider making that a key function of that new agency..Bill
Comment By Robert Hoskins, 4-24-08Bill
Actually, to build on what Matt said, it would be wiser to simply abolish the USFS and BLM and transfer their lands into the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS), which would be the loci for restoration activities.
Along with that, abandon "multiple use,", which has proven to be a first class disaster for land and wildlife (e.g., Wyoming's Pinedale Anticline--natural gas drilling--or the Green Mountain Common Allotment--cattle grazing), and apply the "conservation first, compatible uses" second" strategy that now already applies to wildlife refuges.
I would point out that hunting and fishing are already designated "compatible uses" by law on the National Wildlife Refuge System.
Merely changing the offices in which the bureaucrats sit in won't make a lick of difference.
One area where this could be tested is with the Charles M. Russell NWR in northern Montana. Many of us are interested in restoring bison to the CMR, but the "shape" of the Refuge is all wrong for bison migration, hugging as it does the Missouri River. We'd like to see a transfer of surrounding BLM lands to the CMR for inclusion in the NWRS and for expansion of the CMR itself to make it more suitable for bison.
RH
One thing.
If we have four more years of Republican leadership, we can pretty much count on federal lands being transferred into state control...
Natural resource historians are very aware of why the Forest Service ended up in Agriculture and not Interior. Historically, Interior was the agency of exploitation -- think "Teapot Dome" -- and, Theodore Roosevelt and Gifford Pinchot, wisely I think, saw the long-term value of insulating the Forest Service by placing it in an agency where the Secretary was appointed on the basis of the very strong agriculture industry which wasn't much interested in the forest system -- which gave the forest system a measure of independence it could have never found in Interior.
There was a specific political reason for the apparent mismatch, and that was to protect the national forest system.
Indeed, had the Forest Service service been under the jurisdiction of the Interior Department, the national forest system might not have survived.
Michael Sol
All good thoughts. As long as Congress and the President are growth-first and corporate-controlled, restructuring nets a smaller budget, but no substantive mission/policy change. The Multiple-Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960 might have the clearest mandate for such a change, but Congress has refused to make its provisions enforceable (no teeth). If the "sustained yield" of ALL resources and values were the #1 goal, with enforceable standards, the shape of reorganization would be less critical. American taxpayers would/should be wary of a huge, super-sized agency if a clear public trust mandate cannot be established first.
Comment By Thomas in Alaska, 4-24-08I was wondering when the Waco Environmental Activist Terrorists would show their true colors. Take all the National Forest and BLM land, etc., and fold it into the NWRS? That would be a great way to lock out every user except Serra Club members!
I agree that the FS is indeed in trouble. If we could take all the money that has been spent on lawsuits and fixed camp grounds, toilets and other facilities then they may not be in this kind of trouble. The problem with the FS is every time they sneeze, there is a lawsuit coming at them.
If the agencies are to be combined, then I also think the law should be updated to restrict lawsuits and the amount of time for those lawsuits.
Its time to take back this country from the grips of the Waco Environmental Activist Terrorists!
Bill,
I enjoyed your article. I agree that the current convoluted system is ripe for budget abuse and needs to be changed. The current administration has never believed in any form of balanced use of our resources and is in favor of selling it off to the highest bidder temporarily lower the federal deficit. I have to disagree with Mr. Hoskins on the Multiple Use–Sustained Yield Act. It was and is one of the most brilliantly created laws that Congress ever put out. The authors of that law understood what this country needed to do with our natural resources (forests primarily) to keep them. To do what you suggest requires a rewrite or wholesale change to that law which scares me. I still think it needs to be done and I only hope if it happens, scientific advisors and legislatures can come through again. Along with your plan, I would like to see another agency added or at least one attached to Resource Management and separately operated. That one would be an oversight and advisory agency to private land owners. The intermingling of private and federal lands, particularly in the west, creates a whole set of problems if they are not managed in unison. That does not mean an infringement on private land ownership or use but an agency that can provide a wealth of knowledge and information to allow private owners to better manage and increase the value of their land along with insuring compatibility with laws and federal land use and management. They would not be a policing or enforcement agency at all but a watchdog and advisory agency. We have to have consistency in the correct use of all vast tracks of land.
One would be hard pressed to find in the Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960 anything other than extensive and deliberate linguistic confusion that, as the courts have noted, allow the various agencies to "breathe discretion at every pore" in management actions. I challenge anyone to find anything supportive of conservation in MUSYA, or in actions taken by the agencies under MUSYA to protect land and wildlife values. Multiple use has in fact been used as a cover for a single use: commercial exploitation. Balance? Where is it?
RH
Bill, Your article knocks on the door of many problems that could and should be corrected. The first thought that I had about your suggestion to make 3 agencies was how in the world could you put together a fire service agency that could be financed and effective with out the backup support of the hundreds of militia (technicians, ologists, engineers, forests, specialist, etc.) that hold fire fighting qualifications but whose cost to the existing fire organization is minimal? With current shrinking budgets, managers are hard pressed to allow these militia fire fighters to get training and then allow them to go on a fire or other all-risk assignment. And that is with in their own agency's need. This practice would be done away with (or the incentive would be gone completely) if there was a Fire Service. All responders would be Fire Service members or contract fire fighters.. which cost much more than the militia. If such a thing as a National Fire Service was created and all fire quals dropped from the remianing agencies, I predict it would only exist for a short period of time - just long enough for the folly to be exposed.
Thanks for letting me spend my 2 cents!
Mike Baines
The MUSY has been misused, misinterpreted and also overruled (or someone’s interpretation of it) by courts, but that doesn’t mean its purpose and language is flawed. The US Constitution has seen similar misinterpretations or outright contradictions but its foundation always provides solid footing for us to eventually get it right. The biggest problem with the multiple use concept is there has been no consensus on size of a unit it should be applied to. An acre; a section, an entire forset boundary or BLM district? Which are not effective units to multiple manage? Does a high altitude sage brush mountain bench need to be managed like a sub alpine spruce-fir forest? Science, common sense and, somehow, the elimination or significant reduction of greed and special interest are what are needed to be applied. There is never a simple and easy process for that to occur in.
Comment By Matt, 4-24-08This new agency scheme has many flaws. Natural resource management is not a cut and dry field as this scheme suggests. Every action (to avoid irreparable damage) requires a careful look from many sides. Timber harvesting impacts fuel loading, recreation opportunities, and wildlife habitat to name a few. Recreation impacts wildlife habitat, soil stability, fire control and management to also name a few. Essentially what this scheme would create would be three agencies working against one another and not in the best interest of nature or the overall management goals of the areas in question.
The real problem (both in morale and organizationally) stems from shrinking budgets. These agencies have been targeted by the efficiency through restructuring crowd. This has led to many local services (hiring, computer support, etc.) being taken to centralized service centers that are large and cumbersome nightmares. What once took two days now takes two months if you are lucky. It has also led to combined forest structures that have elminated critical specialist positions and doubled the workloads of the remaining specialists.
Additionally, I hate to say it but when fire absorbs as much money as it does other programs take the cut. That trail slated for maintenance will have to be funded another year. It becomes a pick and choose what program is important and what can wait affair.
The Interior vs Agriculture issue has been a debate ever since the Forest Service was created. While we should always evaluate the current structure to make sure it is efficient, there is a point that change for the sake of change creeps in (especially in Washington, DC where there is power to be gainedby doing so). And that is where we are right now. We have taken a decent agency (the Forest Service) and are strangling it to death through restructuring. Granted, the Forest Service does need some help. However, the agency scheme presented in this article does not head in that direction.
Mike,
I didn't expect to answer all the questions with my commentary, and you and others are already proving that. I think you race a good--and difficult--point i.e. the distribution and training of personnel. If by some chance a National Fire Service was created, I hope a lot of expertise could be transferred from the FS and BLM, but I'm sure there would still be a shortage, but at least fire fighting would stop sinking the Fs and the personnel in the new Outdoor Recreaton agency could at least concentrate on outdoor recreation instead of spending all summer on the fire payroll.
Bill
Idaho BLM made a recommendation in the 80s to exchange lands with USFS to consolidate and simplify land management; the Best State Director I've known was fired. Special Interest Groups with a good hold right now will fight this. Good Luck.
Comment By Marion, 4-24-08Perhaps the fire crews could be used for working to eliminate fire hazards during the off fire season.
Having a single department responsible for recreation of all kinds and the money for it and having it separated from general funding would clarify how much is being spent on recreation and how much it brings in. That would make it much easier to determine if fees have to be raised to make recreation self supporting, and which types need increased fees. And example would be if back country usage was not paying it's way, one wouldn't want to raise the fees on boaters.
Thomas is right, lawsuits are breaking the forest service. I think it is past time to have the full description, list, and cost of every single lawsuit brought against the US posted every month, and the info released to the news media also monthly.
Where have the "motorheads" as you call them, and who tend to be individuals, won out over the hikers and backpackers, who tend to be organized by the lawsuit filing fraternity?
"The problem with the FS is every time they sneeze, there is a lawsuit coming at them."
First, kill all of the lawyers...
Let the states buy the ground with federal bonds. Give the wildernesses to the Park Service. Problem solved.
Comment By Tom, 4-24-08Well put Thomas in Alaska.
I think we should impeach "THE CURRENT ADMINISTRATION" for being republican, stop "squandering" the half billion a day to fuel the war and use it to build beautiful forrests so when the muslim terroists get here they'll have something to burn down.
Gosh, Schneider, you bring out the NRA lunatic fringe even with articles that don't even mention guns. You are gooooood at this game!
Comment By Thomas in Alaska, 4-25-08I don't see where this involves the "current administration" or everything is Bush's fault type attitude.
It could be about the right to hunt. Currently there are 16 national parks in Alaska. More than any other state.
If all FS land and BLM land were rolled over to the NWR then my right to hunt and subsistence would be greatly affected.
As far as lawsuits, look at the Tongas NF. Many of my friends and neighbors are unemployed because of those lawsuits and the inability of the FS to manage the forest because of the over zealous environmental groups.
No this isn't about the lunatic fringe, rather about the right to make a living and support our families.
Dave, So how much would the state of Montana/Montana taxpayers have to spend to buy all the national forest land in the state? And after we spend all that money remember that we would assume all the liabilities too. So, where in the world is the $220 million to just fix the top priority culverts going to come from? How about the $660 million for the Montana portion of the road maintenance backlog? And what about all the funds needed to during fire season? And the money needed to deal with weeds? And the money to keep campgrounds and trails open?
Oh, that's right, you seriously expect that more logging will pay for everything right? Never mind that lumber mills can't even sell the the lumber in their yards right now...never mind that logging companies aren't even bidding on timber sales right now...never mind that lumber prices are at historic lows...never mind that new home sales have plunged to their lowest level in 16 years...never mind the $4.20 (and rising) cost of diesel....
Wow Matt, I didn't realize the industry was so bad.
The Wacos and inability of the FS to make good decisions has basically shut down the lumber industry in the Tongas.
I worked in the redwood mills in the 70's and it was the Environmental Waco Terrorist that put me and 48,000 other hard working Americans out of a job.
I still believe: "Serra Club kiss my ax!"
Oh I forgot the most important:
"Trees America's renewable resource!"
Ol' Tom is still living in the seventies; and crowing about how great it was with Nixon, by crackee..!
Comment By Thomas in Alaska, 4-25-08It has nothing to do with Nixon or the current administration. All I will say is because of President Carter's actions; it put me and 40,000 hard working Americans out of a good job. There are no more mills in northern California.
That's not to say other things also contributed, like shipping whole logs to Japan, some bad logging practices etc.
But bottom line is I lost my job in 1981 because of the actions of the Serra Club and others in the Environmental movement.
The USFS was conceived as a land management agency to provide a timber buffer for the US as leading thinkers of the time thought private forest products industry was squandering their resource.
The BLM was formed out of the old General Land Office whose primary purpose was to dispose of Federal lands through various homesteading, railroad, and rights of way acts.
My life experience is that combining two public bodies in the name of efficiency is a joke. All you do is create a super bureaucracy that is less able to do the job rather than more.
Rural America has gone through consolidation of schools, where many small school districts combine to make one large district with the thought a larger school could provide more for kids. Only when you discover that the whole of the pay schedule got ratcheted up by double, and nobody loses their job, all you did was create an administrative dynasty and when the money gets scarce, all the benefits and electives promised disappear. There is still only 11 players on the field for football, 9 for baseball, 5 for basketball, and way more kids are precluded from varsity sports. Large urban school districts are spending upwards of $250 to $400 per kid on administration while small rural districts spend less than $100.
Where I live, the rural and urban fire departments were consolidated. Instead of two fire chiefs, you now have a fire chief, and two asst. fire chiefs. And all three at a higher salary level than the prior two chiefs. Fire stations were closed, and now there is only one urban station, equally far away from all the hazards. The costs are now twice the percentage of tax base from the past. No money was saved. The departments grew, the volunteers have been asked to put in more and more time, so they now have to train equally in time with full time, salary earning firemen, and many have left or are leaving. The bureaucracy of fire and firemen pensions has prevailed at the lobby level of government, and the public is NOT better off for it.
I have no expectations that growing one agency and disbanding the other would have ANY positive results for the land. An empire would grow, become more politicized, and there would probably be a turf war in the combined agency that would last for generations.
Both the Air Force and the Army use aircraft. Why not put the Air Force back under the Army for ease of management? Maybe combine the Army and the Navy. Want to referee that fight? The administrative gains on paper would be huge. The reality would be no ability to defend the nation. That is the reality of the proposal to merge the USFS and BLM. Their Organic Acts, and all the law that has followed, court interpretations, are the reasons today for inaction, or poor management. Put the blame where it ought to go: Congress. Poor congressional oversight from an urban dominated Congress intent on managing people, handing out pork, provide little leadership for natural resource agencies. Each law added promises more hurdles to successful management and resource protection.
If the new educational models are correct, that kids and the system can work better with smaller schools with particular educational goals, then why would that not work best for the USFS? Instead of throwing it into the gyre of Interior, why not go back to the Regional Forester model, and strengthen the powers, the independence, of the Regional Forester? Make the Regions more responsible to local issues, and remove the Chief's Office from much of the day to day operations. Micro managing from DC, with a huge DC staff there to feather their nests has not served the agency well.
The gorilla in the room is fire. But fire is no more than an expression of lack of attention to fuel build ups that might have been prevented by local action long ago. Indians were able to live with the land and used fire to make that happen. I find it amusing that they were able to accomplish fuel management and all the forestry and land protectors of today can't get to first base on the issue.
To reduce fire, you have to reduce fuels. Move wood to somewhere else for use or disposal. Remove grass and brush. If that does not meet with your sensibilities, then it burns and you have nothing. It took 500 years for that big stand of trees to grow, all the while someone was managing fuels. It only takes an hour for all those trees to die in a fire today with the fuel loads. And 500 years or more to replace those trees. It is not a difficult physical problem we need to solve. It is a difficult social problem. And combining the USFS and BLM will not solve the social problems. All the Hoskins complaints are social problems, not management structure problems.
Congress has passed the laws that block effective management and fire protection. Only Congress can change that. The US 9th Circuit (or circus as it is sometimes called) Court of Appeals has an upcoming review of its prior actions scheduled because one of their members has petitioned for the review. That judge has the opinion that the Court has put itself in the position of being the land manager of pubic and private lands, and is not capable, competent, or mandated to be in that role. The judge is looking for relief for the Court. Certainly the separation of powers is working, and the miscues and foibles of prior Administrations and Congressional law making that have added to or created the problems will be a part of the discussion. There is a small chance that meaningful change will come to the endless litigation on all things environmental. There is hope that Marine Mammal Act protected sea lions won't eat the last Endangered Species Act protected Columbia River chinook, coho, and sockeye salmon, but the law is not protecting the salmon which have declined in number, but instead protecting the sea lions whose numbers are at historic highs. Add to that the proposal to shoot barred owls to keep them from displacing spotted owls who continue to lose vast habitat area to conflagration, and you have law, litigants, and society that has gone mad, and no amount of agency reconfiguration will solve that problem.
Mr. Bear Bait (or John Thomas of Oregon, which is apparently your real name):
Towards the end of your post you wrote something that I'd like to shine some light on. You wrote: "The US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has an upcoming review of its prior actions scheduled because one of their members has petitioned for the review. That judge has the opinion that the Court has put itself in the position of being the land manager of pubic and private lands, and is not capable, competent, or mandated to be in that role. The judge is looking for relief for the Court."
What Mr. Bear Bait has failed to tell NewWest readers is that the judge who has called for the review of the Lands Council/WildWest versus McNair case is non other than Judge Milan D. Smith Jr., who happens to be the brother of Senator Gordon Smith (R-OR).
Sen Smith has received over $643,000 in campaign contributions from the logging industry during his US Senate career and was one of the major supporters of the so-called “Healthy Forest Restoration Act.”
Yes, Mr. Bear Bait, "Certainly the separation of powers is working," as you put it. One brother gets $643,000 from the logging industry to pass the laws and the other brother is a powerful judge at the 9th who goes to great and unusual lengths to make sure that the Forest Service doesn't need to follow laws and regulation that it doesn't like. God bless America.
Mr. Bear Bait (or John Thomas of Oregon, which is apparently your real name):
Towards the end of your post you wrote something that I'd like to shine some light on. You wrote: "The US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has an upcoming review of its prior actions scheduled because one of their members has petitioned for the review. That judge has the opinion that the Court has put itself in the position of being the land manager of pubic and private lands, and is not capable, competent, or mandated to be in that role. The judge is looking for relief for the Court."
What Mr. Bear Bait has failed to tell NewWest readers is that the judge who has called for the review of the Lands Council/WildWest versus McNair case is non other than Judge Milan D. Smith Jr., who happens to be the brother of Senator Gordon Smith (R-OR).
Sen Smith has received over $643,000 in campaign contributions from the logging industry during his US Senate career and was one of the major supporters of the so-called "Healthy Forest Restoration Act."
Yes, Mr. Bear Bait, "Certainly the separation of powers is working," as you put it. One brother gets $643,000 from the logging industry to pass the laws and the other brother is a powerful judge at the 9th who goes to great and unusual lengths to make sure that the Forest Service doesn't need to follow laws and regulation that it doesn't like. God bless America.
Matt,
Does not the Environmental Wacos do the same? Do they not also make contributions to Congressional members to push their agenda?
"But bottom line is I lost my job in 1981 because of the actions of the Serra Club and others in the Environmental movement."
Why sure you did, Tom.
Just as all of the mill closings across the west since then are because of us nasty old environmentalists...
I think by now most people who read this forum have come to realize that barebate is just one more simplistic libertarian whose thought process went to ground about 1892 and who has not had an original idea since then...
Comment By alice, 4-25-08I just moves from the FS to DOI 7 months ago, after work for FS 8 yrs. FS has had budgets/ waste cuts but the agency is still managing the lands. Lots of work is happening.
I will say that DOI spends billions more in waste and it has been a real eye opener. DOI need sto be cut back and made to get more efficent like the fs. I shutter to think merging FS after all the with BLM, nothing will get done than until congress demands it like did the 8 years with the FS.
BLM is currently working here in Alaska to GIVE Ahtna Native Corporation land in the Chintina area, thus cutting off traditional 7b access to many areas. Native Corporations can legally cutoff access based on race.
Why? Because of Carter and Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANSCA). ANSCA isn't worth the paper it was written on.
Here's another gentle reminder that we should address the issue not the person and avoid personal attacks. Everybody's opinion is welcome and valuable. Thank you....Bill
Comment By hotshot75, 4-25-08I wonder if it is not time to give the Federal lands back to the states all together. Before you go crazy think about it for a moment.
I know the people of Oregon would do as good or better job of managing the resources as congress and the WO.
When the National Parks and Forests were created the country was in a development boom and individual monopolists were raping and plundering the forests. Now people are much more involved and informed.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE HISTORY
http://walden.house.gov/index.cfm?Fu...ew&Issue_id=21
When the national forests were created a century ago, the federal government recognized that it needed to make a commitment to the people who lived near those lands. In 1908, the federal government began sharing 25 percent of U.S. Forest Service (USFS) receipts and 50 percent of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) receipts with counties in any state that hosted federal land from which timber is cut. These payments were used to help finance rural schools and roads.
Toward the mid-to-late-nineties, however, the principal source of those revenues, federal timber sales, declined by over 70 percent nationwide. Consequently, the corresponding revenues shared with rural counties throughout the country declined precipitously, hurting school and transportation funding. Oregon's county budgets were hit particularly hard.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are still waiting for the money that used to come from timber reciepts to deal with roads and schools.
"The failure of Congress to reauthorize the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act amounts to a breach of faith to more than 600 forested counties across America." - Congressman Greg Walden
I wonder if it is not time to give the Federal lands back to the states all together. Before you go crazy think about it for a moment.
I know the people of Oregon would do as good or better job of managing the resources as congress and the WO.
When the National Parks and Forests were created the country was in a development boom and individual monopolists were raping and plundering the forests. Now people are much more involved and informed and we know how to use our resources in a sustainable and profitable way.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE HISTORY
http://walden.house.gov/index.cfm?Fu...ew&Issue_id=21
When the national forests were created a century ago, the federal government recognized that it needed to make a commitment to the people who lived near those lands. In 1908, the federal government began sharing 25 percent of U.S. Forest Service (USFS) receipts and 50 percent of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) receipts with counties in any state that hosted federal land from which timber is cut. These payments were used to help finance rural schools and roads.
Toward the mid-to-late-nineties, however, the principal source of those revenues, federal timber sales, declined by over 70 percent nationwide. Consequently, the corresponding revenues shared with rural counties throughout the country declined precipitously, hurting school and transportation funding. Oregon's county budgets were hit particularly hard.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are still waiting for the money that used to come from timber reciepts to deal with roads and schools.
"The failure of Congress to reauthorize the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act amounts to a breach of faith to more than 600 forested counties across America." - Congressman Greg Walden
It should be clear to alll who arent super biased that Bearbaits post is the most thoughtful and provocative in this thread.
Comment By Marion, 4-25-08I agree Alex.
Comment By Dave Skinner, 4-25-08I second Alex.
And I'm sorry that Senator Smith's brother has a sense of indignation over the imprudence of many of his esteemed colleagues in the Ninth Circus.
As for the dirty money, the 501c3's play another game. Rather than throw money directly at the candidate's campaign, they spend zillions of undisclosed funds from undisclosed donors ATTACKING politicians that don't hew the line. Richard Pombo comes to mind. Can't remember the amount, but it was in low seven figures and no, Matt, I'm not going to wonk it for you. YOU dig it up.
As for the framework Bill outlines here, heck no. You cannot mix the missions on the same ground without dealing with the multiple-use problem -- which I DON'T think is a problem. For example, Bill's other proposal recently, for yet ANOTHER exclusive set-aside for steelhead, and ONLY steelhead, fly-fishers, shows that Bill doesn't get the idea of sharing a resource. I do. If the fishery can take bait fishing, then it should be allowed. Seems the agencies think it can.
I would say, the non-productives in the USFS and BLM can be transferred to a Wilderness Service. They can hump their axes and shovels into the wilderness areas and watch fires burn, or do their "studies" that nobody reads...and they'll never have to besmirch their purity by, say, working on an EIS that actually manages or alters the landscape.
The few remaining, who still believe they need to do something productive for the taxpayers who fund them, might be interested in transferring to a U.S. Land and Resource Management Service under which those lands and resources will in fact be MANAGED under multiple use for multiple benefits.
Or, as the esteemed Mister Koehler correctly surmised, all non-wilderness public lands could be offered to the states under favorable terms, and the mortgage paid off in thirty years or less by actually producing resources (including reasonable recreation use fees) from the lands purchased. That, or give the historic Indian tribes the same offer, with the caveat that these lands not be subject to any race-based use policies.
Hey Dave ,
GREAT idea! I am all for it. The USFWS has completly screwd up Alaska. Alaskans would love to have control of their state again.
Opps, I see the response was from hotshot 75, not dave.
Sorry. Great idea hotshot!
Hotshot75, I KNOW Wyoming would absolutley love to have control of our state back. The feds own most of the land and pay whatever they wish,if they wish, in PILK, they get a lions share of the mineral income, and they think the residents are here to serve them and the enviros. If they want lots and lots and lots of predators on raanches what right have we to object?
Comment By Hal Herring, 4-25-08hotshot 75 and Thomas in Alaska,
It would be nice to think that the states could manage all the currently federal lands, and be more responsive to public needs and resource development. Unfortunately, (and Dave Skinner knows this as well as anybody in the US, I wonder why he doesn't talk about it?) the states don't have the budgets even to replace the culverts, as Koehler points above. One big fire would empty the budgets ten times over. what you would see -and so many people from Conrad Burns on up and down have claimed to want this "devolution to the states" to happen- would be a firesale of lands to private interests. This would really open things up. You can see a medium scale version of it with the changeover in ownership of paper company lands. Huge expanses planned for development, as with Plum Creek, St. Joe, Weyerheuser, etc. Other huge expanses bought by TIMO's for long term timber production, hunting leases and eventual sale for development. It adds up to a fascinating economic free for all. Money changes hands, big time. The losses are for the people who no longer have any place to go to hunt or fish that they don't have to pay for. The lawsuit issue might be solved- private landowners will harvest as many trees as the market will bear, realitively free of concerns for wildlife or fisheries or watersheds....taxpayers will have to pay top dollar to preserve say, clean water supplies, as NYCity had to do in the last century. Economists call it externalities- same thing as when you pour your effluents from your manufacturing plant in the river instead of paying to put them somewhere safe- you still sell your product, but whoever depends on the river pays the cost of your effluents. Externalities will be the big issue in the free for all that will be brought about by transferring the lands to the states and then to the private sector. Maybe you will like this. At least it won't be just environmentalists worried about things like clean air or water, or whatever the public lands help to provide now. Everybody will have to worry about it, or try to do without it.
Maybe that will be good for us.
Wildlife groups might decide to buy critical habitats and preserve them for species they want to see preserved. This has all been outlined in the PERC report "How and Why to Privatize all Public Lands Now," and you can still get it on the web. It is a wild freemarket extravangaza that is described, and the possibilities seem endless. But you can get yourself used to not having any free places to go and hunt or shoot, or fish, or walk around. In fact, I think you will see a huge transformation in the very idea of the US, at least in the West, from freedom loving people to a people who accepts that money, however you can get it, is the only way to obtain freedom. It'll all be like Texas- except that Texans spend huge amounts of their money to come to the real West, where there's lots of public land!
All of that is open to argument. What would happen to the federal lands if their ownership is transferred to the states, is not. They will be sold. If you like that idea, by all means work to see the lands sold or otherwise transferred. Before you do that, take a look around and see what is at stake.
By the way. People who depend on the public lands for their livelihood cannot complain when the timber supply or whatever resource, is cut off. Public lands were not put there to give you a job taking away the public's timber. Nobody I know would whine about that, they would all say, get a damn job, bow your back and quit begging the federal government to give you things. Buy your own timberland and slick it off, whatever. Communism, where you get to be "logger" or "factory worker" or "pig feeder" for your whole life has been discredited.
As a retired Federal employee who spent 38 years spending support services to all of the Federal agencies, I have always felt that like many States, the Federal Government would probably be better off establishing a Department of Natural Resources (DNR) which at a minimum consolidates the Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service resulting in a better use of budgeted funds, a reduction in upper management bureaucracy and a better use of manpower resources. This could of course encompass other Federal agencies which are involved in the management/regulation of natural resources such as the Bureau of Reclamation, Minerals Management Service, US Geological Survey and Fish and wildlife Service to name a few.
Comment By jedediah Redman, 4-25-08The quicker the public lands can be translated to cash, the better for the rightwingchristiancrazies; and there is no question the chamber of commerce will rejoice when the loonie gooney gomers in state legislatures get to do just that.
One more term by BUSHISTAs would just about get that done, I expect...
State control of federal public land is just a whistle-stop on the way to privatization. If that is the intent, don't Native Americans have a legitimate prior claim to the (stolen at gunpoint) lands we hold in trust for common public benefit?
Comment By jedediah Redman, 4-26-08Once you move beyond the sentiment in your question, steve, it becomes just a joke.
How about The Celts, the Picts, and so on. Do they have a legitimate claim to the British Isles..?
Hal,
The fact remains that state and private ownerships, as well as a fair portion of tribal, do NOT have a problem maintaining road infrastructure off timber and other receipts. Evil integrated timber companies could not become filthy rich if growing forests wasn't profitable.
The road "backlog" is a number out of thin air. I ran the numbers once after I'd talked to a couple FS engineers. If you graded every mile of road to standard (not necessarily passenger-car) and stabilized the grade, checked the culverts, et cetera, it might cost about 2 and a half billion, not $10 billion.
As for culvert replacement, I suppose if you wanted Taj Mahal culverts, it would cost. But if culverts are stable, and if you aren't a complete hydrology freak, then it is perfect rational to wait until the culverts need replacement and THEN do the Taj Mahal...and you can budget for that over time.
I wouldn't mind if Indians were given a management concession 40 miles around their reservations, there would be plenty of white jobs. More than now.
I believe what Hal so well described above is called Feudalism, which resulted from wholesale conquest by well-armed warlords, with the head warlord as the sovereign who handed out forests and vales to reward his sub warlords for slaughering the natives.
If you liked the Medieval version, where killing the king's deer got you hung, drawn, and quartered, you'll love the 21st century version of neo-feudalism so enamored of the PERCettes.
The issue that I addressed above has still not been answered. What will improve the National Forests and the remaining Public Domain under the BLM will not be who is in charge of their management but what they are managed for. Right now they are managed for "multiple use," which is just another euphemistic phrase for commercial use, or the economic free-for-all of privatization that we're seeing right now here in Wyoming with natural gas and coal bed methane, and with old style western feudalism with continued severe overgrazing by domestic livestock.
If these lands continue to be managed for multiple single, commercial use, then leave them where they are. the USFS and BLM are doing a good job of ruining them and so we might as well let them finish the job. But if we're going to manage them at all for conservation, then we need to change the priority to conservation and restoration and get rid of damaging uses, and shift to restoration. I can't think of a better way to do that than transfer these lands to the national wildlife refuge system, which has the most progressive laws of any the federal land management agencies, and that includes the National Park Service. If you're a subsistence hunter, nothing about the NWRS will keep you out. That's the law of the NWRS.
I shudder to think what would happen should the western states and Alaska get control of federal lands.
RH
You know Robert, when the lands in other countries were managed only for the enjoyment of the elite, it was exactly as you describe. In our country we have allowed rich and poor to enjoy the land, and like it or lump it, we wouldn't live in houses if it were not for commercial logging. We wouldn't drive our vehicles to see the forests at all if it were not for the oil wells. We would not have our computers buzzing if it were not for the coal to produce electric.
Give some thought to only allowing the elite to access the forests, and make no mistake if it weren't for those working for a profit or working for the profiteers, the enviros wouldn't have donations coming in to allow them to spend so much time in the forests.
I suppose thsi will get caught in the spam collector, but I can always hope.
The reasons to proactively manage public lands are not about money. Timber is losing value every year, as reforestation from the ravages of WWII matures into commercial timber. Certainly there is no shortage of lumber in the US where demand has dropped by 18 Billion board feet per year in just the last 18 months. Reforestation in Europe and Asia has progressed as well. The world is awash in trees, but not the kind with clear lumber. That will come, however, as mature stands without markets mature. The reason to log on public lands, today, is to reduce fuels in as safe a way as possible. Greatly reducing the number of trees in order to save the forest is a responsible action. Allowing it to burn in the heat of summer is not a responsible action. Allowing fires to destroy protected habitat makes all the ESA activity moot. A dead, burned stand of 500 year old trees won't be back on the landscape as a stand of live trees for at least 500 years. I really, really don't think that is the direction the majority prefers a this time. And if the litigators for defense of the environment act to ensure the incineration our forests, then you really do know that power, not common sense, is their agenda. This really is Viet Nam all over again: destroy the village to save it. Destroy the forest to save it from the loggers.
The issue with combining all the US Govt owned land into one entity is to guarantee the destruction of that vegetation now existing, and hamper any replacement in meaningful time. The Super Bureaucracy created to manage would not be able to move in any timely way toward any solutions to problems as they arose. Hell, they can't get the job done most of the time, now, with existing agility. Too many people need to have their noses in the decision. Analysis paralysis has been with us for 20 years, and is not going away. It would grow four fold or more if the BLM and USFS were combined.
The US has grave education problems, especially from 5th grade on, and more so with boys than girls. The issue is girls mature faster than boys, and overshadow them at 5th grade, are more on point, and the boys can't compete so they give up. The US answer has been to build larger schools, hire more people. Now the impetus is to have more, smaller schools, and schools within schools. The effort is make education fit the kid and not the kid fit the educational model. The combination of two, one hundred year old agencies, is going in the wrong direction, creating the wrong model. The power and direction should be invested in more local control, using empirical conditions, characteristics, and data to provide the best answers, direction, uses, a direction that would serve the most people.
And to Matt: so the Smith brothers are hard charger Mormons from a family of over achievers. Jealous? And what proof, or even inclination in that direction, do you have that they are co-conspirators in some cabal to do the bidding of the Timber Barons? Every politician gets money to run. Is your money not influence? Are you not buying influence when you contribute to political funds? Or environmental funds that spend your money to forward political goals? Money to political cause is still free speech in these United States, and we are all guaranteed that right of free speech.
I personally think Judge Smith's point: Where did it ever say Federal judges had the expertise and time to micro manage the whole of the public domain? What is our job, and what are the agencies' jobs? is right on. Where is that separation of powers? To what degree are we to let the judicial branch run the country and is that good for the country? We do, you know, elect a new Administration every 4 years. We have that choice. Judges are appointed for life. And to be judges, not administrators of Congressional intent and existing law.
Matt, how this deal works is this. Congress passes the law. The Administrative Branch passes administrative rules based in the law Congress passed. If the Administrative branch or the Congress or the People cannot agree on the rules made to administer that law, then it is the Courts, the Judicial branch, that referees the arguments and renders a decision, telling the administrative branch how they shall carry out the law. At some point in all this, the administrative branch has to have the ability to operate and administer, and not be a daily defendant in an ongoing attack on the administrators as they put law into action. They have to have some leeway in how they operate. And right now, in many cases, they have none. No matter what they do they end up in court not getting any job done. Too many lawyers, and not enough time.
Hear hear,
All Hail the Great Bear Bait.
Mark Rey alluded to the last clause about Congress making laws for lawyahs when he was called on the carpet couple weeks ago by esteemed Senatahs waxing indignant over the huge fire budget. His points clearly bounced off some granitic skulls.
I would have to agree with Marion. Alaska, like Wyoming and Idaho are mostly owned by the federal government. Less than 1% of Alaska is privately owned (if you don't count the Native Corporations).
I would have to disagree with RH. I would rather the State control the State, than allow a bunch of out-of-touch idiots in DC telling the state what to do.
Access is another issue. More and more public access is being cutoff in the name of wilderness or in our case the native Corporations selecting land. If I have property in the middle of native lands, I will have to pay an access fee. Or if I want to access a national park that is on the other side of native land, I will have to pay an access fee.
Ahtna Native Corporation is a good example. Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANSCA) was a bad idea then and is now. Trails that were traditionally 17b access are being cutoff in great numbers.
It would appear to me that the FS, BLM, NPS may need to be consolidated, but not into a "super Serra Club," rather an agency that will work with all groups and not discriminate based on race.
I would like to clear up some misunderstandings apparent from some of the comments by Thomas in Alaska. First, based on laws passed by Congress, the 12 Native Corporations were granted a certain # of acres of land and the State of Alaska was granted a centain # of acres. In the interim, the land is managed by BLM. These lands needed to be surveyed and hence, the total # of acres has yet to be transferred to the final "owner". Second, as lands are being transferred to the Native Corporations, access across those lands is being reserved for public use -- the 17(b) easements mentioned. These easements provide for access across Corporation (in essence: private) lands to all of the public. This prevents anyone from gaining control of public lands by controlling (or cutting off) access as occurs sometimes in other parts of the country. The 17(b) easements are identified as part of the legal documents which transfer land from the Federal Government to the Native Corporation. They are not, nor were meant to be, to provide access to private lands. They are to provide access to public lands for use by the public.
Comment By Thomas in Alaska, 4-29-08Although I would normally agree with my fellow Alaskan, the native corporations were set up as a "for profit" corporation.
With this in mind, some corporations are not selecting land based on "traditional" needs; rather they are selecting lands that will make them the most money for their shareholders such as oil, gas and mining areas and lucrative trophy hunting areas. Remember also native corporations do not have to go through the same legal requirements for bidding on very lucrative government contracts. These contracts are being awarded in the millions of $ with no competition, thus barring non-natives from bidding.
Furthermore, selecting narrow strips of land adjacent to roadways and along rivers and streams can only draw one conclusion: Close access and 17b routes.
And you thought you folks in the L48 west had some tough issues.
"I shudder to think what would happen should the western states and Alaska get control of federal lands."
I agree just take a look at Oregon's State Forests:
They are a garbage dump filled with invasive species and roads every 100 yards. ORV use is out of control. They log whole creek drainages in a whim. If Oregon took control of fed lands they would sell it like wild fire to pay for schools and other things. They do not have the funding to manage the federal lands we have in Oregon. I could show you places in the Tilly, Santiam and Saddle Mt areas that are absolutely pathetic; a total embarassment to the state.
I agree NWRS would be a start.
AJ,
Is locking out access for some users to favor other "wilderness" users fair and equitable?
If Oregon is treating their State Forest this way, which surprises me in the first place as most Oregonians are green environmentalist, then why don't the people of Oregon make a change?
The feds own far less land in Oregon than they do in Alaska, Wyoming and Idaho.
I always find it interesting that when someone discusses the damage being done to land, wildlife, and water resources on public land and ways to repair the damage, the first response from those responsible for the damage is that "you're locking us out." That is incorrect. You yourself are locking yourself out as a consequence of your destructive behavior. End of discussion.
I also find interesting white Alaskans' critique of Alaska Native Corporations. Having done my graduate work on wolf control in the Yukon and Alaska, I do know something about Native issues in the North. Bottom line for Native rights: whites benefited for years from their own special rights to exploit Alaskan and Canadian resources to the hilt and leave natives in poverty. Yet now that Alaskan and Canadian natives have acquired some degree of control over their lives and limited lands through ANSCA and Land Claims, whites all of sudden start talking about equal rights and decrying special rights for natives, as if somehow the history of discrimination and native poverty in the North is no history at all.
What a crock of hypocrisy.
To get back to this thread, the issue is moving the USFS to Interior. That's really not much of an issue. The issue is protection of public lands against unsustainable and incompatible uses, that would become worse should public land be transferred to the several states, which, as AJ points out for Oregon, have done a piss-poor job of taking care of their own lands (e.g., state school lands).
There are perhaps many alternatives to that conservation goal, but I do think that given current politics, what is most likely to work better than any other alternative is to begin the transfer of USFS and BLM land to the NWRS. Neither the USFS nor the BLM have any history of conservation of resources, only misuse under the guise of scientific management, examples of which are legion throughout the American West and North, and both agencies have resisted vigorously any attempt to hold them to their legally mandated conservation responsibilities. Their guiding light is multiple use, that is, commercial use, and that cultural disability will never be rooted out.
RH
RH,
Who said anything about whites? I am talking "non-native."
You are by no means have a clue as to Alaska's natives. Multi-Billion dollar corporations, all Alaskan natives get FREE health care (to include airfare) for which I and every other taxpayer pays.
Most Alaskans cherish the land, to include native Alaskans. But BLM has in some instances cutoff access by doing land swaps etc, so get a clue.
Putting the BLM and FS property under NWRS would just give the Greenies like you more control over denying 7b access to lands that my family and I have use for subsistence for some 60 years.
Until you have the courage to live in the greatland, you have NO RIGHT to tell Alaskans how to live.
"Until you have the courage to live in the greatland, you have NO RIGHT to tell Alaskans how to live."
Well then Thomas in Alaska why don't you shut your freakin ignorant pie hole and go whine on some Alaska only forum!!
Hey AJ,
Struck a nerve did I?
Robert has hit the nail on the head. We should certainly transfer all BLM (Bureau of Livestock and Mining) to the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service if we hope to see these lands managed in a sustainable manner.
This article was printed from www.newwest.net at the following URL: http://www.newwest.net/main/article/merge_remake_the_forest_service/