Over 7,000 people have signed an Earthjustice petition at change.org. The Forest Service has always insisted that commenting on NEPA documents is not a numbers game. Should it be? The agency insists that substantive comments carry more weight that mass mailings. Should they? What do these 7,000 signatures really mean?
SIGNATURES
7,130
PETITIONING
U.S. Forest Service
OVERVIEW
For nearly 30 years, some of the most prized and important waters and wildlife habitats have been protected by a federal rule that directs the management of our National Forests. But all of that could change with a proposed rule change that would leave wildlife and waters in peril.
Tell the Obama Administration and the Forest Service to strengthen – not weaken — this rule so that it guarantees protections for our National Forests.
In the United States, there are 155 National Forests, covering more than 190 million acres. National forest lands are the single largest source of drinking water in the nation, providing fresh water to some 124 million people. In addition to giving many of us the water we drink, our forests also are cherished grounds of our nation’s outdoor legacy.
Millions of Americans visit our National Forests each year to enjoy world-class hunting, fishing, camping, hiking, and recreation activities, and many millions more rely on them for safe drinking water. Don’t let the Administration give up these precious resources by weakening the federal regulations.
Let the Administration and Forest Service know that we won’t stand by as federal rules damage our National Forests.
When I used to sit on a city council we were always quick to point out that neither gathering signatures nor showing up “en masse” ought to sway the council’s votes on matters. Same here.
PS.. Jim, I fixed the hyperlink to the “petition letter” that was broken in your post. Just so you know.
Thanks for fixing the link. So what should sway the vote?
What should “sway the vote”? Deliberation as part of Deliberative Democracy (Wikipedia link)! Interest groups play the “signatures” game because they can “sway” votes or decisions, but that is not to say it is the best way. Problem is, IMO, there is too little deliberation in our system, and too much hype, hyperbole, “herding” of groupies, and so on. A good little primer on the problem is Neil Postman’s Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business (Wikipedia link). Postman’s account builds on earlier work in Aldous Huxley’s nonfiction Brave New World Revisited (Wikipedia link).
Dave- I really liked your Deliberative Democracy link, so I linked to an example..America Speaks and was intrigued by their idea of:
I wonder if these concepts, plus some kind of virtual table discussions, could be incorporated into a planning rule or plans?
These kind of mass public sign-ons should count for something but should not count for everything.
Yes, I think substantive comments should carry more weight. For one thing, many of these public sign-ons are either too vague to be helpful (your rule is bad for wildlife) or make assertions that are untrue, or sometimes both. The one above example is fairly good in this regard, it is clear what EJ wants to change.
Nevertheless, it seems like the choice is “clickin’ with a group I generally trust'” versus “thinkin’ at least a little for myself”. Any good public policy should take into account the comments that reflect “thinkin.” Of course, many letters are simply reworded a bit from a general statement, but comment has never intended to be a vote.
Note: this is just my personal opinion and not an official statement ….
I also noticed this:
Scientists (’cause after all, “science” wouldn’t determine policy, scientists would- an important point) as decisionmakers
Scorecard- Scientists as drivers..
NY Times 1
Wilderness Society 1
Earthjustice 1