Environmental laws are essential: U.S. government needs to follow the guidelines, requirements it has established: op-ed in Missoulian

JZ contributed this link in a previous comment, it seemed worthy of its own post. This is an op-ed by Mike Garrity and Carole King (is she a member of Mike’s group?)

Do these groups agree with the timber industry’s demands? If the “collaborative” groups believe we should eliminate the public appeals process and exempt many Montana timber sales from judicial review, they should say so openly to their members and the general public so everyone knows exactly where they stand. If their goal is to protect land and wildlife in a meaningful way, they should speak up in defense of maintaining full public involvement and judicial review in public lands management.

The mission of the Alliance for the Wild Rockies is “to secure ecological integrity of the Wild Rockies bioregion through citizen empowerment and the application of conservation biology, sustainable economic models and environmental law.” Enforcing the environmental laws of the United States that apply to public lands management is critical to maintaining ecological integrity.

When our government doesn’t follow the requirements of those laws, the Alliance turns to the courts to force federal agencies to follow the law. Our record is clear. Our success in the vast majority of our lawsuits proves beyond a doubt that our claims have merit.

“It’s easy to see how a climate of silence from the “collaborative” groups might encourage the Forest Service to believe it can avoid full compliance with environmental laws. It’s more difficult to understand why, when a citizen group steps forward to see that our nation’s laws are enforced, the “collaborative” conservation groups go on a well-financed public relations campaign and their industry “partners” launch statewide attack ads against that group.”

It’s clear that corporations want subsidized access to public lands unencumbered by environmental laws. When the government follows the law, the Alliance supports its actions. When it doesn’t, we go to court. That’s how democracy works, and that’s where we stand.

Sharon – It’s not clear to me that “corporations” want “subsidized access” “unencumbered by environmental laws”. Overstatements make me lose confidence in people; they seem to make newspaper editors want to publish op-eds, though.

12 thoughts on “Environmental laws are essential: U.S. government needs to follow the guidelines, requirements it has established: op-ed in Missoulian”

  1. Sharon, at the bottom of the oped Carole King’s relationship to the Alliance for the Wild Rockies is clearly listed:

    “Carole King is a singer, songwriter, author, longtime resident of central Idaho and a former board member of the Alliance for the Wild Rockies.”

    Reply
  2. Matt, please pass this chellenge along to Mr. Garrity.

    Mr. Garrity says:
    “When our government doesn’t follow the requirements of those laws, the Alliance turns to the courts to force federal agencies to follow the law. Our record is clear. Our success in the vast majority of our lawsuits proves beyond a doubt that our claims have merit.”

    I think the proper thing to do, if he truly believes this to be true would be to apologize for all of the lost cases, where it was decided that the Fedral agencies did indeed follow the law.

    Reply
      • Thanks Matt, I was having trouble finding contact info for AWR. I’ll pass along my challenge.

        Also Matt, a challenge for you. I would ask, in all sincerity, what is your motivation for participating on this site? Outreach? Education? Information sharing? Given your organization’s track record for appeals and/or litigation I am genuinely curious.

        While I applaud your restraint at not trying to counter every dissenting opinion offered here (that would be a full time {and futile} job!), I wonder why you offer so little substantive input when it is seemingly appropriate?

        You have been tied close to the Colt Summit project since its inception, after which your organization support for the project due to concerns over collaboration. Why be silent now? I would think that this court ruling represents a major opportunity to educate the rest of us here that are trying to learn how to do things better the next time (and play by the “rules”).

        The court ruling isn’t enough, nor is a bunch of links to previous posts/commentary. Let’s have some civil dialogue on what the “issues” really are. Again, you are a leader here, please educate us. Is it the fact that the checkerboard ownership (outside the project area) has fragmented the heck out of lynx habitat??? The moral opposition to producing a “commodity” from NFS lands? What???
        Your silence to this question/challenge will only marginalize your views and affirm your allegiance to the “obstructionists”. I for one promise not to beat you up in response to this. Only trying to learn. Look forward o your response.

        Reply
        • JZ, My motivation for participating in this site is the same as it’s always been, and I think you encapsulated it well when you mentioned outreach, education and information sharing. I’ve also learned a great deal via other posts and comments on this site. As far as your question, “Why be silent now?” I’m not sure I’m actually being silent. Fact is, I just arrived in Elkhart Lake, Wisconsin on Wednesday to spend time with my family and friends here in my hometown. Most of yesterday was occupied baby-sitting my two 4 year old nephews, a somewhat exhausting task I’m not really all that familiar with, although it was quite clear that chasing after two energetic 4 year olds and researching/writing in front of computer are not really compatible. I’m sure once more is known about Colt Summit, beyond the judge’s one paragraph, there will be more to discuss. Thanks.

          Reply
  3. This is very interesting, because i do believe that the USFS needs to follow all of the environmental laws (absolutely). However to what extent has always troubled me. I know they can, and most of the time do. But how deep do we look for errors. If we look to in depth we wont see the big picture. And this reminds me of a quote from President Kennedy “The greater our knowledge increases, the greater our ignorance unfolds.”.

    Reply
    • I agree with this sentiment entirely. The values embedded within our suite of environmental laws are values that I hold dear, and I think anyone on this site may agree as well. Yet, I would suggest that we may be seeking something that will never exist under our current environmental paradigm (i.e. perfect clarity in both interpretation and analysis of impacts from actions affecting public lands). If this is true (and I’m open to other opinions of course), I wonder if we aren’t at a point where ought not to look more closely at the foundational aspirations of our environmental laws and consider what alternative systems we might create that would facilitate the values we cherish while not distracting us with undefinable objectives in pursuit of those values.

      To illustrate some of what I mean, it has been over one hundred years since the USFS was created, with every significant environmental law now affecting the agency having been created over 50 years after the agency’s founding. The entire socio-economic and environmental context for public lands is radically different than it was in the days of Pinchot, and many of these laws were a first foray in addressing these changing circumstances. Since the 1960’s and 70’s, the pace of change in all respects has only increased. Given all of this, how might we create a new system to “care for the land and serve the people” that better reflects current and future conditions in the 21st Century, rather than one that is largely in reaction to 20th Century conditions? How could we create a new sense of ownership and accountability within the public at large concerning in our public lands? Are the days of the bureaucratic state numbered? And if so, what might we replace our “love to hate” federal agencies with? If not, then how might we work with existing agencies like the USFS to address systemic issues as “co-creators” of what is possible? These are our challenges AND our opportunities, I believe.

      Reply
      • Mike: I’m with you 100%. Time for a “start over.” These questions need to be addressed at a societal level, and this blog (among others) provides a good forum for framing them.

        The current system is broken and falling apart and probably can’t last much longer for many of the reasons you state. My personal preference would be for the USFS and BLM to transfer title of their properties to the counties and reservations in which they are contained. Won’t happen in my lifetime, if ever, but one can always hope.

        Reply
  4. I think this says it all, in a nutshell: “The mission of the Alliance for the Wild Rockies is “to secure ecological integrity of the Wild Rockies bioregion through citizen empowerment and the application of conservation biology, sustainable economic models and environmental law.” Enforcing the environmental laws of the United States that apply to public lands management is critical to maintaining ecological integrity.”

    I’m not sure about anyone else, but any organization formed to “empower citizens” (“donate money to hire lawyers”) to apply “economic models” (!) and evolving “environmental law” in order to “secure ecological integrity” seems to be based mostly on Jabberwocky. The “critical” statement — baldly presented as fact — is that such “integrity” (whatever that means) is dependent on that portion of environmental laws specific to public lands.

    Really? So near as I can make sense of this word jumble, it seems wrong and unlikely. And that’s assuming the “Wild Rockies bioregion” are: a) public lands, and b) having problems with ecological integrity that only need adherence to a subset of existing laws and economic models to fix.

    Modelers, economists, empowered citizens, and lawyers can “secure ecological integrity” on public lands if we just follow the law and listen to our computers? Is that it? No matter what this actually means, it seems unlikely.

    (Matt, I’m envious. My grandson turned 21 this year and now hangs out with me these days mostly to be polite. Kids keep you young and their energy is infectious, no matter how tiring.)

    Reply

Leave a Reply to hipnologymt Cancel reply