Forest “Christmas tree” bill out of House committee

No, not that Christmas tree (they are searching the Kootenai National Forest for that one).

 

This one.  This is the Westerman bill that the House hung all the hopes of active forest management on:  “the Resilient Federal Forests Act of 2017.”  Similar legislation in 2015 passed the House, but died in the Senate.

“To expedite under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and improve forest management activities on National Forest System Lands, on public lands under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management, and on tribal lands to return resilience to overgrown, fire-prone forest lands and other purposes.”

Just about everything that has been suggested before (and stopped by Obamacrats) is in there to make it easier and attractive to do things.  Categorical exclusions, expedited salvage, expedited project ESA consultation and reduced/eliminated forest plan consultation, litigation restrictions, county payments, less road decommissioning, elimination of eastern OR/WA old growth harvest restrictions, elimination of Northwest Forest Plan survey and manage requirements, O & C land management changes, wildfire disaster funding.

 

 

 

 

 

 

19 thoughts on “Forest “Christmas tree” bill out of House committee”

  1. The “eastside screens” are more than just eastern OR/WA old growth harvest restrictions. In many cases they prohibit the harvest of trees >21″ dbh, even if they are not in an “old growth” stand. The screens also include habitat connectivity requirements, and requirements for species such as the great gray owl. These screens were intended to be “temporary” in 1993 and were to be replaced when Forest Plans were revised (which was supposed to occur in the late 1990s), which still hasn’t happened. If the screens are eliminated by this bill, there will be nothing to replace them in the existing forest plans, and we’ll be back to square one – environmental concerns and the threat of lawsuits are what prompted the screens to be developed in the first place.

    Reply
    • That’s a good point, but maybe (???) in 24 years of working with the screens, people learned more through science and monitoring? And weren’t people litigating anyway?

      My prediction is that “this dog won’t hunt” in terms of passing the Senate.

      Reply
  2. Nor should it. Those who lick their chops at the prospects of free reign on public land, with great profits in their dreams, will motivate people like me to oppose them at every turn.

    Reply
    • And if they are opposed at every turn how does anything get done?
      It’s not just about profits, it’s about using the available resources and trying to maintain our forests and communities.

      Reply
  3. Yes, but we are also at a point in time where opponents of active management are more than happy to let the public think that the Forest Service will be doing all sorts of very bad things, including “harvesting the Giant Sequoias”. The Sierra Club (and other groups) is using the National Monuments review as a fund-raising tool, willing to lie to their potential donors. Clearly, we cannot trust these groups to tell the truth, these days. Their desire for money has grown too great.

    Personally, I trust in the Forest Service “Ologists”.

    Reply
    • Actual text from the Sierra Club’s Facebook page:

      “Logging companies are lying in wait, chainsaws ready, for Trump to chop the protections of Giant Sequoia National Monument.

      Don’t let Trump give loggers free reign to fell majestic trees. Become a monthly donor to save this precious ecosystem:”

      And people are buying it…… actually lining up around the block to buy their snake oil. These quotes should be revisited in every court case involving the Sierra Club.

      Reply
  4. As a participant/observer of national forest management for the past 75 years I have marked the evolution of my agency. IMO the Westerman bill will correct many of the grievous faults that have resulted in the virtual non-management of our national forest timber resource that have resulted in a current harvest of about 7% of the annual growth and a mortality rate of 68%. of the growth. Opponents offer no solutions but oppose any change.

    Reply
    • IMO you and your ilk are responsible for the destruction of forested ecosystems on America’s public lands and you offer no solutions other than going back to the good ole days when you got the cut out however, whenever and where ever you pleased. Perhaps ironically, but perhaps not, those were also the days when black people couldn’t sit where ever they wanted on the bus. Enjoy your retirement Mac, you totally earned it.

      Reply
        • Steve, Your post inferring that a conservation group threatened Lone Pine Resources was offensive. Keep the discussion focused on the issues, and keep it civil.

          P.S. I do, in fact, believe that Mac and his ilk were responsible for the destruction of forested ecosystems on America’s public lands. I believe Mac and his ilk were responsible for cutting down tens of thousands of acres of ancient, old growth forests on America’s public lands. I believe Mac and his ilk were responsible for building hundreds of thousands of miles of roads through streams, across mountainsides and through the heart of wild roadless country and critical habitat for many threatened and endangered species. I find that offensive. Pity you don’t.

          Reply
            • Howdy Steve.

              How do you propose that I share my opinion that Mac and some of the other old timers that worked for the timber industry and/or USFS are responsible for the destruction of forested ecosystems on America’s public lands, including cutting down tens of thousands of acres of ancient, old growth forests on America’s public lands and building hundreds of thousands of miles of roads through streams, across mountainsides and through the heart of wild roadless country and critical habitat for many threatened and endangered species?

              That’s my opinion and I believe that people who worked for the timber industry and/or USFS during the period of 1950 to 2000 were responsible for this. Seems pretty clear, right? If Mac and his fellow timber industry and/or USFS employees were not responsible for what happened on our National Forests during that time period, who was?

              Reply
              • Matthew, if you hadn’t included this sentence, I probably wouldn’t have objected: “Perhaps ironically, but perhaps not, those were also the days when black people couldn’t sit where ever they wanted on the bus.” That doesn’t help you to make your point, but distracts from it, and worse, IMHO, it is needlessly inflammatory.

                Reply
                • Thanks for sharing your opinion Steve. I was just reminiscing about the good ole days by sharing a historical fact.

                  Reply
                  • And womenfolk couldn’t get jobs as foresters or doctors or whatever. Your point?

                    Who is responsible? People who wanted houses after WWII. Their elected officials.

                    Federal agency employees don’t make policy, they carry it out.

                    Reply
                    • Sharon: “Your point?”
                      ===

                      Well you already know that answer to that question, since you’ve asked this same question countless times. What we do know, it has zero to do with caring about Nature, worry about some endangered species (tree, bush, animal, repitile, bird, etc), some plant ecosystem or any deep concern about climate change. He had opportunity to let it alone and chose not to and that is what characterizes the failure for getting anything beneficial accomplished within present system of what’s happening around the globe today.

  5. A final remark. I was surprised to learn that I and my ilk (early national forest managers) were responsible for clear cutting thousands of ancient old-growth forests. I spent my entire career in R-8 and my first job in 1943 was marking and scaling timber from relict old growth shortleaf stands on the Ouachita NF. We did not clear-cut these ancient forests but made an improvement cut, removing only poor-risk trees that would not live till the next cutting cycle (20 years in those days). We left many trees that were more than 100 years of age. Over the years, I was involved in planting tens of thousands acres of stumps, clearcut by previous owners. These lands in Arkansas, Texas, Tennessee, and Florida are now bearing the fruits of the labor of myself and my ilk. Lord knows I made my share of mistakes, but, overall, I am proud of what I was able to do and thankful for and proud of the opportunity to work for the best outfit in the U.S. Government. Sadly, I am now more concerned than you can ever imagine with the failure of my agency to allow its signature resource, forests, to yield their full potential to the public.

    Reply

Leave a Reply to Sharon Cancel reply