Environmental Organizations

Liberal, progressive — and racist? The Sierra Club faces its white-supremacist history- from WaPo

by

I think one of the ways it’s easy to talk past each other is that some people have a philosophy of “letting things alone” (philosophical, abstract). Other people tend to be more concrete (would 15 or 30 snags per acre be better for a species of woodpecker?). Perhaps (this is a hypothesis) collaboration that works from with concrete kinds of people can’t fundamentally work out with philosophical differences. Some people have criticized some environmentalists as being “religious” in the sense of holding strong beliefs that are not based on reason. I think there may be something to the difficulty of successfully mediating philosophical disputes. For example, in religion there are unitarians and trinitarians.. no one has proposed duotarianism as a way for them all to get along. But folks can either burn each other at the stake or agree to disagree. In subsequent posts, I’ll be doing more digging into the philosophies underlying folks’ views.
My bolds.

Anyway, this is an interesting article from the WaPo that touches on John Muir’s philosophy. I bolded the religious adjectives.

No one is more important to the history of environmental conservation than John Muir — the “wilderness prophet,” “patron saint of the American wilderness” and “father of the national parks” who founded the nation’s oldest conservation organization, the Sierra Club. But on Wednesday, citing the current racial reckoning, the group announced it will end its blind reverence to a figure who was also racist.

As Confederate statues fall across the country, Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune said in an early morning post on the group’s website, “it’s time to take down some of our own monuments, starting with some truth-telling about the Sierra Club’s early history.” Muir, who fought to preserve Yosemite Valley and Sequoia National Forest, once referred to African Americans as lazy “Sambos,” a racist pejorative that many black people consider to be even more offensive than the n-word.

While recounting a legendary walk from the Midwest to the Gulf of Mexico, Muir described Native Americans he encountered as “dirty.”

Muir’s friendships in the early 1900s were equally troubling, the Sierra Club said. Henry Fairfield Osborn, a close associate, led the New York Zoological Society and the board of trustees of the American Museum of Natural History and, following Muir’s death, helped establish the American Eugenics Society, which labeled nonwhite people, including Jews at the time, as inferior.

The Sierra Club isn’t the only organization that is shaking its foundations. Leaders of predominantly white, liberal and progressive groups throughout the field of conservation say they are taking a hard look within their organizations and don’t like what they see.

African American and other minority employees are pointing out the lack of diversity in green groups and the racial bias that persists in top and mid-level management.

…..

The roots of American environmentalism are grounded in a reverence for nature and racism. Muir’s contemporaries at the turn of the last century included Madison Grant, a co-founder of the Bronx Zoo who wrote “The Passing of the Great Race, or The Racial Basis of European History,” an argument for white supremacy in which he decried the decline of Nordic people.

Former president Theodore Roosevelt, who created the first national parks, praised the 1916 book, which helped shape the views the future leader of Nazi Germany. Adolf Hitler, who would go on to write the anti-Semitic autobiography “Mein Kampf,” called Grant’s book, “my bible.”

Within mainstream environmental groups, diversity is lacking

Given the troubled history of the groups, black and brown activists who have long complained about unfair funding and lack of attentions to their communities weren’t impressed.

“The big white green groups have all issued racial justice statements — a good first baby step,” said Robert Bullard, a Texas Southern University professor and activist who helped restart the National Black Environmental Justice Network this month.

“In my opinion, none of them have taken a strong stand in the way their white privilege sucks up damn near all the green dollars from foundations and donors, away from people of color.”

Environmental and climate justice groups work in communities with the greatest need, said Bullard, a founder of the environmental justice movement that started when African American, Latino, Native American and other environmentalists gathered for the first time in D.C. in 1991 and vowed to fill the gaps big green groups missed.

For more than 30 years, environmental justice groups have deployed paltry budgets to fight big battles over power plants, refineries, landfills and other projects that foul the air and land around black and Latino communities. Ludovic Blain, who attended the second environmental summit a decade after the first, said activists often worked without pay.

“If you’re very used to not getting funded, people are used to doing it free,” Blain said. “The environmental movement has a lot of philanthropic money, there’s enough money to go around.”

According to its tax filing, the Sierra Club had assets of more than $106 million in 2018, and the Union of Concerned Scientists had nearly $40 million. One group, the Nature Conservancy, had assets and grants that totaled more than $1 billion that year. Another, the Natural Resources Defense Council, had more than $350 million.

A view of Yosemite Valley from the Tunnel View lookout point in Yosemite National Park in California. John Muir’s activism helped lead to the creation of the park.
A view of Yosemite Valley from the Tunnel View lookout point in Yosemite National Park in California. John Muir’s activism helped lead to the creation of the park. (Apu Gomes/AFP/Getty Images)
That compares to about $2 million for the Deep South Center for Environmental Justice in New Orleans and $2.5 million for West Harlem Environmental Action in New York. Los Jardines Institute, another environmental justice group, had about $300,000 in revenue in 2018.

“If you had told me two decades ago that millions of dollars would be going to Latino environmental justice work, I would never have guessed it would have been through Natural Resources Defense Council,” Blain said.

The nation’s biggest philanthropies have traditionally given to established environmental groups. The Hewlett Foundation, for example, has given about half a million dollars a year to the Natural Resources Defense Council’s lands program for a quarter-century, but last year it informed the organization that it would be giving that money to more-local groups such as Outdoor Afro, GreenLatinos and the Hispanic Access Foundation.

Still Against Commercial Logging After All These Years: Should the Sierra Club Update its ECL Policy?

by

I was curious about the claim that “forests can’t sell trees from areas that are not in the timber suitable acres in a forest plan”, as we discussed for this project here. Further exploration yielded the information that the Sierra Club is one of the plaintiffs in the current litigation. Which made me wonder whether they had ever changed their policy with regard to selling trees from National Forest. I looked on their website and it appears that they still have this 1996 policy.

The Sierra Club support[s] protecting all federal publicly owned lands in the United States and advocate[s] an end to all commercial logging on these lands.
Adopted in the Sierra Club Annual Election, April 20, 1996

Now 1996 was 24 years ago, and perhaps some things have changed since then. Especially in California, where the Sierra Club headquarters are located, many folks think that if wood from fuel treatment projects (or salvage) could be sold, it should be, and that would be better, say, for climate than burning it in piles.

I also found this clarification from 2012.

Commercial logging is the removal of trees from federal lands as commodities — whether for lumber (or other building materials), pulp/paper, energy, or other commodity production — regardless of the stated rationale for the logging project, or whether some term other than commercial logging is used to describe the project.

There has been a great deal of pushback in various op-eds that environmental groups’ efforts and lawsuits have nothing to do with ability to get fuel treatments (and prescribed burning, where pre-treatment is necessary) done on federal lands. (My view is that it’s one of many factors).

But in an effort to be logical, for that to be true then:

(1) The Sierra Club has been completely unsuccessful with this policy over 24 years, that is, it has no effect because no fuel treatments would potentially incorporate commercial logging (in this case, they might want to reconsider the policy), or

(2) Number of acres treated for fuels is invariant to whether trees are sold or not. (I think there are two piles of funding one for fuel treatment and one for timber, and if you can do both you can fund a project from either or both pots, but I’m sure it’s more complicated and would like to hear from some TWS experts on this.)

But with what we know today, the alternatives to selling trees from fuel treatments (because many trees can’t be sold, and the FS still does fuel treatment) is to pile and burn them, or chip and mulch or …

It’s an advantage of interest groups, unlike federal agencies, that they can say what shouldn’t be done, without being clear about what they think should be done instead. It’s a great position to be in, because you don’t have to consider how technically realistic the alternatives are, nor do you have to produce a document describing them, and the environmental pros and cons of each. Nor put those out for comment, or debate what the best available science says.

Perhaps it boils down to “you can’t trust those people to be honest about the reasons for cutting trees, and we’re going to assume that all tree cutting that might be sold is really for commercial timber production.” It seems to me, again,  that in 24 years, there might be other ways of dealing with these concerns.

When the FS was exploring getting wood certified by FSC, I heard that the FS couldn’t do it because the Sierra Club was against it. I was surprised that one organization could have enough clout to put an end to an idea. I’ve heard this several times, but did not sit in on the meetings myself, so can’t vouch for it. But that idea was for making the case that if people use wood, the NFs can produce it just as sustainably as anyone else. It makes perfect sense that to the Sierra Club  ECL means ECL no matter how gentle the practices used.

What I’m thinking about is an independent certification body that could say “we have looked at this and these folks are cutting trees for other reasons. The choices are leaving stacks and burning versus selling them and having people use them (substituting for Canadian imports or ??).” It seems to me a certification body would be cheaper, and better, and with my design incorporate public comment, so more transparent,  than going to court and having folks digging through federal employees’ emails for signs of hidden commercial intentions.  And at the end of the day the judge may well end up ruling on something completely different, leading to appeals and more court cases and so on.

I think that such a body might also help folks in the Sierra Club who might be puzzled by the complexities of the 2012 memo. If, when I worked for the FS, I had gotten a memo like that, I would have interpreted it “you are free to do what you think is right, unless someone more important than you finds out and disagrees, and then you will have to walk back agreements you made and possibly get in a lot of trouble.” Been there…

Why Don’t Environmentalists Just Buy the Land They Want To Protect? Because It’s Against the Rules

by
WEG worked to retire a permit for 50 cows on the 8,454-acre Alamocita allotment.

This is a thoughtful piece by Shawn Reagan of PERC in Bozeman, Montana about some of the same NGO’s we see litigating on federal lands trying approaches of buying and retiring leases to stop activities they don’t like, say grazing or oil and gas. As he says, in many places environmental groups feel that they can’t just buy land (as the example yesterday) because the land of interest is owned by the feds or state.  He has examples from grazing, oil and gas and timber, so it’s too long for me to excerpt meaningfully. I’d recommend reading the whole thing. He also has a more in-depth journal article with a co-author, Bryan Leonard of Arizona State University in the Natural Resources Journal.

Disputes between environmental activists and developers often have a predictable result: litigation. Environmental activists have perfected a zero-sum game of suing, suing, and then suing some more to halt development projects or other land-use activities they don’t like. An alphabet soup of environmental laws—from the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA) to the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) and the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA)—gives groups ample opportunities to stall projects with legal challenges or to thwart them entirely.

But increasingly, environmentalists are testing the strategy of bidding for the rights to natural resources instead. In recent years, activists have attempted to acquire oil and gas rights in Utah, buy out ranchers’ public grazing permits in New Mexico, purchase hunting tags in Wyoming to stop grizzly bears from being killed, and bid against logging companies in Montana to keep trees standing.

“It’s a market-based approach,” says Judi Brawer of WildEarth Guardians, an environmental group that has negotiated several grazing permit buyouts from ranchers in the Gila National Forest in New Mexico. “And it’s way more effective at the end of the day.”

Environmentalists paying to protect landscapes isn’t itself new. Nonprofit organizations such as the Nature Conservancy do it all the time, raising millions of dollars in donations to buy land or easements to protect important landscapes from development. But the extent of these voluntary market-based exchanges is often limited to private lands. On federal and state property—which makes up most of the land in the American West—such deals are much more complicated, if not outright prohibited.

I’ll share some of my own perspectives on the topic:

1)  The oil and gas industry hires working-class (as well as other) people and pays them good wages, which leads to other purchases and taxes and so on, plus federal money goes to states which they use for education, etc.  So for the people, the county and the state, it’s not just the cost of the lease itself.  Example from this article: “The check, for $486,000,000, represents the portion the state receives from federal oil and gas lease sales. In total, the New Mexico has received revenues exceeding $1 billion in 2018 from BLM’s mandated quarterly lease sales.”  On the other hand, environmental groups might not pick the leases most likely to be developed, because of the cost.

2) This is a bit philosophical, but as Shawn points out, the original laws regarding federal land were to promote use of the land.  Are we that rich a country that we don’t need to use our own natural resources anymore? Would we feel the same way about buying out a ski area lease, or a wind or solar farm lease? It is a good thing to depend on international trade and the good will of other countries to provide energy and shelter? If we use things and don’t produce them ourselves, are we in effect exporting environmental damage to other countries, and is that the right thing to do? Do we trust those other countries or are there national security implications of not producing them here? Perhaps importing wood from Canada yes, perhaps oil from OPEC, no.

3) We could change from however flawed (as we at The Smokey Wire are very aware) planning decisions made by federal employees, with the input of the public, to planning decisions made by boards of some not-for-profit.  Some not-for-profits are sometimes funded by rich people from elsewhere (though again, not always).  Nevertheless, it’s clearly less transparent and less open to public opinion than the flawed federal decision-making process. Of course, they may be the same groups who tend to  “get their way” via litigation, as in Shawn’s piece.

4) I see grazing/ranching as a different situation due to the private and public land linkages (if groups bought the home ranch property and the federal permit, that would work better) , as he points out. There is also a difference in the people employed both in numbers and pay, and the fact that the US many other food sources. Still, ranchers provide financial and social capital bonuses to many struggling rural communities in a way that leaving it alone does not.

5) In the related realm of water rights NFWF (Nif-Wif) did an extensive review here.

Much for discussion here. Other thoughts?

Missoula Forest Collaboration Roundtable

by

Montana Public Radio collected some interesting perspectives.

What collaboration looks like to what some would consider a “far-right politician:”

“We were thrilled to have the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation with us today, that is exclusively focused on habitat restoration for elk and sportsmen. We want to continue to have all voices at the table,” Gianforte said…  I think all voices needed to be at the table in these collaboratives, but you have to participate in good faith,” he said. “There have been instances here in Montana where a collaborative worked literally for years to put a project together, and yet people who were at the table still sued. We have to prevent that sort of bad behavior.”

Is it “collaboration” when your participation means you can’t sue over the outcome?

What this idea of collaboration looks like to what some would consider an “extreme environmental group” (Alliance for the Wild Rockies):

“He wants to have all voices that agree with him at the table,” Michael Garrity says.  Garrity says he had no advance notice about Thursday’s roundtable. The Alliance is frequently at odds with — and in court fighting against — timber interests over forest policy.  Garrity said Friday that not only did he not receive an invitation, no one from what he called the environmental community got one either. And without that perspective, he says this week’s roundtable was simply an echo chamber. “It’s not going to be a good dialog unless they invite groups that oppose some logging by the Forest Service.”

My emphasis, especially on the “some,” not all logging.  (The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation does not oppose logging, though some elk hunters and groups do.)

What collaboration and litigation look like to the Forest Service:

“Different people see it in different ways; including different courts,” (USDA Undersecretary) Hubbard said. “The idea is for us to come together and agree on what kind of treatments make some sense, what satisfies most of the interest out there in one way or another, and then be able to implement that and have the courts support that with some consistent rulings.”

(My emphasis.)  The implication is that courts are just another form of public opinion.  And that it’s ok to exclude some of the interest out there, like “groups that oppose some logging.”  (And my usual gripe – the scope of project collaboration should include not just the “kind of treatments,” but which areas should be treated.)

(And there’s some discussion of categorical exclusions and the Good Neighbor Authority, too.)

Center for Western Priorities: Pushing the Boundaries of Partisan-Hood

by

 

John Persell raised an interesting question here. It was pretty “out there” for me to say that folks like the Center for Western Priorities are “not of our world”. Certainly I can’t speak for everyone who read on The Smokey Wire.

But most of us have been involved in federal lands issues for years.  When new groups come on the scene, claiming to be non-partisan but funded by the New Venture Fund and staffed by people who worked as political staff for D candidates…er… it does raise some questions.

My experience on the Hill as a staff person, and having briefed many Congressional staff people over the years, is that some are political animals,who may not be as interested in resolving an issue as getting opportunities for their party to look good and win. That’s not to be critical, it’s just their world.  I don’t think anyone who reads what the current Congress is up to, or not up to, would disagree with this. You can’t look to Congress for technical knowledge, accuracy in their statements, nor humility about their own views. That’s not what we select them for.

This is from the Hewlett Foundation’s website:

This renewal grant will continue support for the New Venture Fund’s Center for Western Priorities. The Center is a West-wide communications effort designed to educate the media, public, and decision makers about the impacts of fossil energy development on public lands. The Center builds relationships with reporters, draws from the best polling to craft persuasive messages, rapidly responds to arguments advocating for the elimination of public land protections, steadily generates reports and news, and enlists a broad array of westerners as spokespeople. The Center also works closely with conservation organizations across the West to fill gaps in communications capacities.

Here’s what the Center for Western Priorities says about themselves:

The Center for Western Priorities is a nonpartisan conservation and advocacy organization that serves as a source of accurate information, promotes responsible policies and practices, and ensures accountability at all levels to protect land, water, and communities in the American West.

Based in Denver, Colorado, the Center advances responsible conservation and energy practices in the West. We encourage open, public debate and work to advance those discussions online, in the media, and throughout Western communities by promoting responsible solutions and original research.

Have they changed what they do since their 2015 grant from the Hewlett Foundation? That sounded like a propaganda machine with a certain end in mind. Their own description sounds more like The Smokey Wire.

I do think they do a super job of generating information. I wish The Smokey Wire had those kind of bucks to investigate things, do FOIA’s, hire journalists, develop relationships with reporters, and all that. Nevertheless, we need to ask what kind of slant they put on what they do report, and how careful they are about checking facts that support their narrative. So I think it’s fair to say “communication campaigns run by political operatives” are not the usual federal lands policy suspects. I think of them as newsfeed generators. That’s definitely not like our environmental group friends, who often are seen in the trenches participating in the various policy processes, or even our litigatory environmental group friends, whom I all consider to be “part of our world.”

The New Venture Fund organizations (Center for Western Priorities and the Western Values Project) also came upon the federal lands policy scene recently (since campaign finance reform?) and seem to be mostly about oil and gas (and, of course, denouncing all things Trump Administration.)  One wonders whether their interest in public lands policy will go away in 2020 if a certain event occurs..

Forest Plan Participation 101

by


Adam Romanowitz, Photographer

Some tips from a participant in the Manti-LaSal forest plan revision process, which includes developing a “conservation alternative” that “will emphasize the long term health of the forest.”

I’m afraid I’m pretty cynical about the payoff from this approach, but I’d be interested in stories from anyone who feels they had some success.  Part of the problem comes from the fact that the Forest Service creates its own structure for the alternatives it develops (such as the choice of management areas, what the different kinds of plan components should look like, how the plan document will be organized), and an outside alternative that doesn’t line up with this would be difficult for the planning team to document and evaluate.  Then of course there is the, “I am the professional” bias that resists outside ideas, the “don’t take away my power” bias that resists any actual obligations (standards) in the plan, and the “no-change” inertia bias that defines “reasonable alternatives” as those that aren’t much different from the current plan.  At best, it seems like there might be a few surprises that the Forest Service actually likes and tries to use.  Tell me I’m wrong.

It looks like Mary is already encountering some bias:

For instance, the Moab Sun News’ article on the public meeting reported that forest service grazing manager Tina Marian said people won’t see a lot of grazing changes in the new plan that aren’t already being implemented on the ground. She shouldn’t predetermine that outcome. The conservation alternative will recommend changes to how grazing is implemented in the forest (which is a part of Moab’s watershed), like reducing the rate of cattle grazing.

It’s not possible to tell where exactly the Manti-LaSal is in the revision process from their website, but there was a comment period on the “Draft Assessment Report” in June of 2017.  I think the best time to influence alternatives is probably when the Forest must “Review relevant information from the assessment and monitoring to identify a preliminary need to change the existing plan and to inform the development  of plan components and other plan content” (36 CFR §219.7(c)(2)(i)).  Any reasonable alternative would have to be traced back to that information, and if there are disagreements at that point it’s not likely that later suggestions would be well received.

In the example above, what did the assessment say about the effects of cattle grazing? The Forest seems to take the position that “historic” grazing was a problem, but “… (C)urrent grazing practices are not having as large an effect on stream stability, as evidenced by the many greenline transects rated as stable in 2016.”  But then there’s this proof of bias in the Assessment (I’m not familiar with these “directives,” and unfortunately, “Shamo” isn’t in the “Literature Cited”):

Livestock grazing has occurred on the Forest for over 150 years and will continue as part of the Forest’s directives to provide a sustained yield and support local communities (Shamo 2014, USFS 2014).

They’ve got some other interesting issues on the Manti-LaSal:

The alternative will ensure that pinyon and juniper communities are not removed on thousands of acres for the purposes of growing grass for cattle and artificial populations of elk.

It will require the forest to remove the non-native mountain goats that are tearing up the rare alpine area above 11,000 feet in the Manti-La Sal Mountains. It will not allow honeybee apiaries, which would devastate native bees.

And that’s where part of the Bears Ears National Monument is/was.  There was a lawsuit on the goats, and there are several on Bears Ears. 

 

 

Sierra Club Comments

by

I have seen a trend in postings from the Sierra Club, on their Facebook page. Online petitions have been popular with eco-groups but, those petitions really don’t do anything. They seem to be a way of riling up their followers, gathering personal information, and receiving donations. There is also a sizable amount of people commenting who do not side with the Sierra Club.

The particular posting I will be presenting regards the Giant Sequoia National Monument, and how the Trump Administration would affect it. The Sierra Club implies (and their public believes) that Trump would cut down the Giant Sequoia National Monument, without immediate action. With over 500 comments, there are ample examples of what people are thinking.

 

“So much of the redwoods and Giant Sequoias have already been cut down… the lumber trucks involved had signs which read ” Trees… America’s renewable resource”… and just exactly how to you “renew” a 2 thousand year old tree??? When a job becomes even remotely scarce, one must find a new occupation. Having cut down the redwoods,(RIP Pacific Lumber and the “Redwood Highway”) and when they’ve cut down the national forests (public lands), are “they” going to insist on the right to come onto my land and cut down my trees as well… to provide jobs for the lumber industry? The National forests and Monuments are public lands, and no one has the right to turn them over to private interests for money making purposes. When are they going to see that there is a higher calling here? The forests provide for much of the fresh air we enjoy… they take in the carbon monoxide we exhale, and they exhale the oxygen so necessary to us. They each also take up 300 gallons of water, so provide for erosion control, and I could go on forever with the benefits of trees… but there will still be short sighted detractors who are only able to see the dollar signs in this issue. If providing jobs is the object… bring back our manufacturing jobs from overseas, all you big companies… your bottom line profit will be less, but you will have brought back the jobs to the USA, and you claim that is the object…???? Investing in the big companies in order to get rich does not make the investing noble or honorable when it is condoning taking jobs off-shore to enrich the few. … at the cost of the lost jobs for our people. Love your neighbor..”

I think that statement speaks for itself. Well-meaning but, misinformed.

 

“Give them an inch and they’ll take a mile. Keep loggers out of National Giant Sequoia Forests. Forest rangers and the National Parks already do controlled burning when needed to protect forest ecosystem health. The idea that commerical logging companies can be trusted with that task is preposterous.”

I wonder if he had noticed all those dead trees inside the Monument. Another example of not knowing who is taking care of the Monument.

 

“No such thing as controlled logging look at the clear cut coast. Once you let them in they will take it all and say Oops. A long time ago Pacific lumber clear cut thousands of acres illegally and Department of forestry did nothing. Things have not changed.”

Yes, things have changed. Logging IS controlled in Sierra Nevada National Forests… for the last 26 years.

 

“Destroying over 200k acres of sequoias and leaving ONLY 90k acres is NOT “CONTROLLED LOGGING “. OUR planet needs trees to produce oxygen and just how long do you think those jobs will last?”

Someone thinks there is a HUGE chunk of pristine pure Giant Sequoia groves. Thinning forests is not destruction, folks.

 

“I went to sign this and put my address and what not but then I skipped over my phone number and it won’t let me sign it! Unless you give your phone number it’s not going to San. I will not give out my phone number. Is there another way to sign for this?”

There were many comments like this one.

 

“They are both classified under same genisus of Sequoia, It’s their enviroment that makes them different. The Redwood trees (Sequoia sempervirens) along N Cal coastline and then the Sequoias trees (Sequoiadendron giganteum) found in the Sierra Nevadas mountain regions are the same yet very different trees because of the chactoristics. Both trees share their unique and acceptional height and massive girth size, they share the same red wood tones.”

Someone thinks they are an authority in tree Taxonomy.

 

“As someone who works in timber, don’t blame it on us! Many foresters care about sustainable forestry. I hate Donald Trump just as much as anyone who cares about the environment”

Well, that is sure saying something, eh?

 

“The forests are being burned down by all these un-natural wild fires that are created by the powers that be to carry out agenda 21/30. It’s not a secret but most people don’t want to see it & the common mentality is if we don’t see it, or address it, it will go away. Right?”

There’s more and more loonies out there saying this stuff, and blaming “Directed Energy Weapons” for starting all the wildfires.

 

“There will be no more forest in America, it will be a big cacino and golf courses.”

And there’s other conspiracy theories out there, too!

 

“The most deushiest thing ever! Poor Trees “

People do believe that Trump would clearcut the Giant Sequoias.

 

“Oh yes look what tree hungers did to Oregon”

I love a well-mispelled insult!

 

“No More RAPE AND MURDER OF OUR TREES”

I wonder what real violent crime victims think of this comparison. Should we let those trees be horribly burned alive, or eaten by insects, resulting in a long and slow starvation death? *smirk*

 

“Wth…. He truely is satin”

Soooo smoooooth!

 

“Drop big rocks on their heads. Something like Ewoks from Return of the Jedi all those years ago. Ewoks were “original” monkey wrenchers.”

That’s a lovely solution! Violence will fix everything!

 

“I think you could stand to be a bit less adversarial in your comments. Oil has nothing to do with this subject and devalues your argument. There is no reason why the land cannot be managed without giving it away to unregulated for-profit companies. That is the right answer.”

Yep, there just might be oil underneath those giant trees. Yep, gotta cut em all down to make sure! Misguided but, kinda, sorta, on the right path.

 

“The devil could burn it all down there because most of the state is so ungodly. Trump isn’t your problem. Godlessness and son keeps your minds and state in a state of anarchy. Poor people. I will keep praying you will find out that you all need to pray to the living God.”

Yep, because…. ummm, …. God recognizes where California’s boundaries are???!!??

 

“Try direct energy weapons”

Certainly, the Reptilians and Nibiru are to blame, fer sure, fer sure.

 

“Because of Monoculture”

Blame the old clearcuts!

 

“Anyone cutting a tree should be SHOT!!!!”

And another violent solution.

 

“The lumbar goes to China and else where, not used used in USA, great loose loose thing.the logs get shipped out of country destroys old growth forest well some one will make $$$$$ of it but it won’t be you”

Dumb, dumb!

 

“Its not about forest management its about trumps business buddies being allowed to buy the land and develop it”

And even another conspiracy theory. People love to say “I wouldn’t put it past him” when promoting such stuff.

This American mindset, on a world stage, is troubling. People proudly display their ignorance and stupidity to fight a non-existent issue. America doesn’t believe the truth anymore, and the Sierra Club, and others, are spreading misinformation through phony petitions.

 

 

Oregon logging history map

by

Oregon Wild has compiled an  interactive map of logged and thinned areas on public and private lands across the state of Oregon.  If nothing else, it’s hard to look at this and accuse anyone wanting to keep logging out of new parts of their public lands of being an “extremist.”

Oregon Wild intends to use this mapping tool to help advocate for forest conservation and demonstrate that while there have been temporal pulses of increased logging intensity over the years, logging is always very active on both public and private forests in Oregon. In fact, if anything, the analysis on this site underrepresents the true extent of logging taking place.

The tool is also a great visualization of the few Wilderness and roadless wild lands remaining in the state – while it does not highlight these areas, they are clearly visible by their noticeable lack of logging units. These last bastions of wild landscapes are far too rare in Oregon, a reason Oregon Wild is working to protect what is left.

We can also use the tool to push back on misinformation spouted by timber interests.

  • Many say that logging on public land was “shut-down” by the spotted owl and Northwest Forest Plan, first implemented in 1994, but the data shows that logging continued apace throughout the Northwest Forest Plan region after the plan was adopted.
  • Logging advocates also say we need the increase the “pace and scale” of logging to reduce fire hazard in the dry forests of eastern and southwest Oregon, but the data show that thinning has already occurred across vast portions of these forests.

Sue and … keep suing

by

Search this site for previous lively discussions of “sue and settle.”  Here is the latest attempt to stop it.  In September, the Interior Department extended EPA’s recent restrictions on litigation settlement agreements to the rest of the Department.

Here’s someone’s perception of the problem. Basically, there is rampant secret collusion between environmental groups and the government, which leads to substantive regulatory changes that “cost the economy billions of dollars and thousands of jobs, without Congressional approval.” Actually it is the laws passed by Congress that say the regulations must be produced that would have any impact, not the lawsuit forcing compliance with the law.

And here is another fact:

A legal analysis published by lawyer Ben Tyson in the Virginia Law Review, for example, looked at 79 settlements brokered between environmental groups and the Obama administration, and found that all but four of the agreements involved setting deadlines for compliance.

According to this article (which also provides an example of how this policy has worked in one case):

The Trump administration says the new rules are necessary to prevent government agencies from colluding with environmental groups to reach settlements that favor their interests. But critics say these rules only delay the implementation of federal laws designed to protect the environment, leaving ecosystems and wildlife vulnerable while agencies drag their feet.”

Though regulated industries and administration officials denounce lawsuit-happy environmental groups, the rhetoric surrounding sue and settle typically disregards the fact that agencies choose to settle because, as Bernhardt puts it in his order, “the Department is likely to lose.” According to a letter from 60 former federal attorneys criticizing the new EPA policy, “It is EPA’s failure to comply with legal requirements that is the problem, not the people who sue EPA.”

I’ve not seen evidence of “colluding with environmental groups.” Unless that includes DOJ evaluating the case and admitting it’s a loser. (Focusing on environmental groups also ignores the fact that settlements also benefit the Pacific Legal Foundation when it sues over ESA DE-listing requirements, and then there’s those regulations that a new administration would rather settle out of than defend.)

I’m a big fan of transparency, and I’m not sure what would justify not disclosing the terms of a settlement. As for public comments, I doubt if there would be a lot of interest in whether a legal deadline was missed or not.

However, the actual intent may be for this to “prolong the settlement process,” and thereby reduce the number of lawsuits that budget-limited plaintiffs can afford to bring.  But it could just as likely mean that plaintiffs would rather avoid the new process and spend their time in court, and a judge will have to decide more cases, which will almost always be against the government, and the government will have to pay even more money in legal fees (there are also new incentives to litigate the legal fees, which could lead to even more of them).

Hearing on EAJA “abuse”

by

Montana, Rep. Greg Gianforte (mugshot from reporter assault case above) chaired a hearing Thursday in a U.S. House subcommittee seeking suggestions on ways to modify the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA).  At the Subcommittee on the Interior, Energy and Environment hearing, Gianforte called environmental groups “extremists” and accused them of stifling “responsible use of natural resources” and said “wealthy environmental organizations” were taking advantage of the law’s loopholes, amounting to an “abuse” of taxpayer dollars.

This article includes some helpful perspectives on the law.  Here’s a summary of testimony by a law professor:

Sara Colangelo, a visiting professor of law at Georgetown University Law Center, urged the congressman to seek more information from government agencies on EAJA cases. Better data tracking would provide the public a clearer picture of what is actually going on, she said.

“When we see the data in front of us, we’ll come up with better changes,” Colangelo said.

In fact, the 2012 GAO report noted then that data collection by agencies was either hard to find or nonexistent.

“As a result, there was no way to readily determine who made claims, the total amount each department paid or awarded in attorney fees, who received the payments, or the statutes under which the cases were brought,” the report said.

Colangelo also said she sees little evidence that environmental groups would consider EAJA payments when deciding whether to contest a project. In other words, the EAJA payments don’t invite litigation, she said.

Also,

Rep. Stacey Plaskett, D-Virgin Islands, noted in her opening statement as ranking member that the Equal Access to Justice Act is important to U.S. citizens seeking to hold government agencies accountable for actions or inaction. Ninety-eight percent of EAJA fees go to veterans fighting for disability and for Social Security cases, she said.

Based on the 2011 GAO report, Plaskett said most of the lawsuits seeking EAJA funds were filed by trade groups, not environmentalists, a fact Colangelo also made saying that attorney fee awards to environmental groups were a “miniscule” part of Forest Service or Bureau of Land Management budgets.

So any legislation would appear to have little benefit, and would have to target the real “extremists” (and who gets to decide who those are?).  (Searching this site for EAJA will turn up several prior discussions of this topic.)