Here’s an interesting piece by our friend John Freemuth, making some provocative connections between forest planning regulations, collaboration, and Senator Tester’s proposed Forest Jobs and Recreation Act.
I don’t see it John’s way on this matter. But the interconnections are worth considering.
I’m certain, for example, that widespread frustration with the forest planning process helps explain the growing interest in place-based (national forest-specific) legislation. If you’re looking for greater certainty and stability in forest management (from roadless areas to timber supply), you’re not going to find it in plans that are nothing but “strategic and aspirational.” Instead, you seek it through legislation, or some other formal agreement with the agency. Of course, this is not the whole story. But problems in planning most definitely help explain the growing interest in place-based forest law.