As you know, I am a fan of Blue Mountain Forest Partners and the entire post Timber Wars peace-seeking enterprise.
So this story from Daily KOS struck me as odd.
The court case took a turn when James Johnston, an Oregon State University assistant professor, filed an amicus brief supporting the Forest Service. The amicus brief included a letter that Johnston and 14 other forest ecologists signed that contended the six conservation groups’ arguments “are designed to give the impression of scientific controversy where no meaningful controversy among scientists exists.”
Many non-industry ecologists disagree with the sentiments in Johnston’s letter. More than 100 independent scientists signed an open letter to the Forest Service in 2020 that argued, “removing protections for large trees is highly controversial from a scientific perspective.”
When Jerry Franklin signed the letter, he wasn’t a minion of timber industry but there’s a bit of an implication. “Independent” researchers, regardless of quantity, may also know less about the forests involved.
“There is scientific controversy regarding the removal of large old trees and forests preemptively before fire burns,” says an experienced ecologist that wishes to remain anonymous. “[L]ess than 1% of thinned areas experienced fire annually.
Many acres are thinned and also experience wildfires. I’m not sure where the 1% figure comes from. It sounds relevant but may not be. I’m a little leery of scientists who “wish to remain anonymous.”
The USFS and its supporting consultant are promoting cutting of large old trees in the name of “restoration,” yet in the six eastside national forests, […] the largest 3% of trees on inventory plots account for 42% of the biomass carbon.”
“Only a very small percent – 8% – of all the plots have the large-tree co-occurrence of ponderosa pine and grand fir that is their primary reason for doing away with the protections for big trees. The fact that 92% of the forested landscape does not fit their rationale to open up the entire landscape to large tree logging is a key part of the scientific controversy,” adds the anonymous ecologist.
Johnston was the lead author of a paper that showed diameter limits on logging hindered forest restoration in eastern Oregon. The research was funded by the Forest Service and Blue Mountains Forest Partners, a forest collaborative operated by and for private timber industry interests.
(my bold)
More than half of BFMP’s Board Members, including their President, have direct ties to the timber industry.
I think Susan Jane, for example, has “direct ties” but not the kind of ties that a reader might think- based on the way this is written. Here’s their board.
The collaborative’s Executive Director said BFMP “staked extensive political capital on the validity of an alternative approach” to the 21-inch rule in a letter to the Ochoco National Forest’s Forest Supervisor.
Johnston says that all of his papers “are robust and objective,” given that they went through peer review.
He believes that the large trees likely to be logged as a result of the 21-inch rule’s amendments “have little value to most timber operators” and that “the most highly valued trees [in eastern Oregon] are smaller ponderosa pine.” However, the owner of Rude Logging, an AFRC member, mentioned in an article that sturdy pines over 21 inches are more valuable than smaller pines when discussing the benefits of the Forest Service’s decision to eliminate the 21-inch rule.
The below is also a little weird.
Johnston also consulted for the Forest Service during the 21-inch rule amendment process.
“It’s my job to provide information to land managers, members of the general public,” says Johnston. “[The] Forest Service asked me for information about their revision, and I provided them information upon request just as I do for anyone and everyone that asks me, including conservation groups.”
A Freedom of Information Act request revealed that a Forest Service Special Project Coordinator emailed Johnston about payment for his consultation work. The Special Project Coordinator asked him to send them an invoice and said the Forest Service set aside $2,500.
Johnston says that he cannot find that email and that he has no recollection of reading it. “I never invoiced the Forest Service. I’m unaware that they set any money aside for me. They didn’t pay me any money,” adds Johnston.
*********************
Timber industry representation
Forest Service interveners AFRC noted that Johnston filing an amicus brief was peculiar. “Participation from scientists in cases like these is uncommon, which signals that the 15 forest ecologists felt strongly that the court should be provided with an accurate portrayal of the state of the science,” stated an AFRC newsletter.
Two attorneys from Northwest Resource Law PLLC, an AFRC member with a history of representing timber industry interests, represented Johnston in his amicus brief. Johnston declined to comment on his choice of legal representation, citing the ongoing court case. However, he ignored requests for comment after the case ended.
One of Johnston’s Northwest Resource Law attorneys participated in a legal presentation at AFRC’s 2021 annual meeting. The presentation explained how AFRC develops legal precedent, defends timber volume, and defends its members.
You say peculiar, I say uncommon. Maybe it should become more common in cases in which “the science” is at issue? And was Johnston supposed to find another lawyer for free, and if no one volunteered, simply give up because AFRC is tainted- according to some?
The comments are a bit of a hoot. Most are about Trump. In response to one comment that articulated the case for thinning, the author said:
Oh look — someone decided to show and spread industry propaganda here. You’re greatly exaggerating the need for thinning and the harm of wildfires (for obvious reasons). And if you think logging is such an ecological necessity than surely you must agree that the industry should be nationalized, right?
At first I thought it might be an AI story since the claims about BMFP and Johnston seemed not to be true, but sounded plausible if you don’t have previous knowledge. Now I’m not as sure.. Jon has pointed out that outlets need content, and may not be careful as to the accuracy thereof. Perhaps that’s the case here.
To be clear, Blue Mountains Forest Partners does not and has not received funding from “the timber industry.” Yes, the board does have industry representation on it, as well as conservation, local residents, and others.
I didn’t see “more than half” though.. I wonder where that number came from?
I find the article to be repugnant. The writer Jared Kukura makes a common assumption that anyone who accepts money from the Forest Service or industry is biased in favor of cutting and should not be trusted for scientific information. Ignored is the possibility that a scientist such as James Johnston may see value in timber cutting as a means to solving an environmental problem. I find it an unfair accusation. It has long bothered me that scientists who receive money from foundations or non-profits are give an ethical pass, when in fact they have a financial stake, and maintain their success by telling their donor base what they want to hear.
As an aside note, the ponderosa pine stump in the featured photo is not from a large or old tree. The choice of the photograph underscores the ignorance of the article.
BMFP – and the Forest Service and the contractor – have had numerous conversations about exactly that stump: it was felled for OSHA safety reasons. The logger was almost in tears when he realized he was going to have to cut it, since doing so wasn’t consistent with our ecological prescriptions that favor the retention of older pine.
John, I agree that we need to look at claims on both sides. Because many times a foundation will be started by a rich person or persons who has made money corporately. And has views about what should be done or not done. We don’t know what motivates them.. and we can’t assume that they are impartial when they are clearly not.
Many are openly advocacy group, but we are expected to believe that their work is impartial.
Well meaning citizens can cause harm when they support organizations or persons who are limited in their knowledge or biased in their thinking. The harm is magnified when donors have deep pockets. One needs only to look as far as Patagonia, which funds the John Muir Project, Oregon Wild, Bark and Crag Law Center among others. No doubt Patagonia funds some well deserving organizations as well.
“The court case took a turn when James Johnston, an Oregon State University assistant professor, filed an amicus brief supporting the Forest Service. The amicus brief included a letter that Johnston and 14 other forest ecologists signed…”
This is what I think is “peculiar” – I’m drawing blanks on other examples of scientists filing amicus briefs – independent of their possible membership in advocacy organizations. The whole idea of external scientific authorities weighing in with scientific information on what is supposed to be a case based on the agency record doesn’t feel right. But I don’t know anything about what is required to file an amicus brief so maybe someone else can help out here.
The other question I would ask is one that seems to come up often here – should scientists play an advocacy role? Butting into someone else’s lawsuit seems like that to me. (And there seems to be some other evidence of his connection to advocates.)
One other thing, I do not read this to say that the 14 other forest ecologists agree with advocating for the Forest Service. They just signed a letter taking a particular scientific position, not knowing it would be used in litigation.
Ah.. but courts actually do delve into the science.. especially if they think there is a “controversy”. Is it “butting into someone else’s lawsuit” when the plaintiff calls upon scientific studies that are not correct to make their case? Perhaps it could be argued that the courts have “butted into” a controversy that is essentially scientific in nature. And perhaps be best understood by some kind of scientific conflict resolution process, if science institutions had them.
Courts don’t “butt in;” they are invited. Courts normally delve into science based on what is in the agency record at the time the decision was made. Plaintiffs sometimes can introduce extra-record material if they meet certain criteria, and they could have attempted to do that here. But I don’t believe an amicus brief is “called upon” by a plaintiff. It also doesn’t seem like non-parties to a case should be able to introduce extra-record evidence that a party could not.
I don’t know.. this seems way above my legal knowledge.
The scope of amici briefs is a very interesting subject. There is a good introduction to “Brandeis Briefs” at Wiki. That term is rarely used now, but many of the amicus briefs filed in cases with broad policy implications are “Brandeis briefs” in that they go way beyond the record made by the named parties. It is also quite common for parties in cases involving public interest policy issues, to solicit amici to file briefs in support (or opposition). The rules don’t prohibit this solicitation (that I’m aware of), but they do prohibit parties from any direct involvement in the submission of the brief.
That’s helpful, thanks. I guess the point I should be trying to make is that the time to have a discussion about scientific controversy was during the development of this amendment (as required by NEPA). It should not be coming in litigation from parties who did not participate in the agency process.
Hey Sharon – I’m not a San Diego writer. I live in Central Oregon and I’m directly impacted by policies that affect Deschutes NF. I understand you need content, and may not be careful as to the accuracy thereof. But please try to do your due diligence next time.
It sounds like you happen to know a little bit more about Johnston’s choice of legal representation. You’re suggesting that members of AFRC provided free services to him. Do you know if Johnston sought them out or if they sought him out? I’m very curious about this specific topic as Johnston refused to comment on it (for obvious reasons).
I enjoyed the bit about you thinking it was some sort of AI article. I understand your complaints about BMFP but I disagree with you based on the information I gathered from other folks. What claim(s) about Johnston are untrue?
Hi Jared, I’m glad you are a human being! Sorry I thought you were in San Diego, that’s what Grist said in 2021 https://grist.org/fix/author/jared-kukura/.
I guess I shouldn’t depend on what Grist says.. Welcome to our part of the world!
I don’t actually know about Johnston’s source of legal representation. I don’t actually think it’s all that relevant for the reasons I outlined. Why shouldn’t people be free to file amicus briefs? Would it matter if the legal work was done by pro bono folks at an Oregon law school or by someone else? After all, you mentioned that the Nez Perce filed an amicus brief without being curious as to their legal representation.
Claims about Johnston that are untrue.. the headline.. “Oregon State University researcher carries water for timber industry lobbyists.”
Your piece seems to be casting aspersions on a researcher whom those of us long in this world have great respect for. He’s done the work and put in the hours, and he and Jerry and Norm and the other forest ecologist co-signers get to think what they think, and file amicus briefs if they so choose. And for those of us who have been around for a long time, we’ve also disagreed with Norm and Jerry on things and they’ve disagreed with the timber industry.
If according to you, Johnston was tainted by using Northwest Resource Law to file, then are Norm and Jerry also tainted?
“Abandoning the 21-inch rule was not popular outside the timber industry. “- that’s obviously not true, since many people here at TSW are not with the timber industry but wanted to get rid of the 21 inch rule.
What “other folks” did you gather information from? Because Susan Jane Brown, one of the Board, says that BMFP doesn’t get money from forest industry (in the comments here) and I looked at the Board’s bios and can’t figure out how anyone got that “over half have ties to timber industry. We can look at the Board and check out their bios ourselves.
What did I say that was inaccurate?
When will you make a correction to your title? That’s a very basic fact that’s not subjective and would have been easily verified if you cared enough to try. I understand it helps your story more if you make it seem like I’m far removed don’t know the local issues. That’s very misleading.
It’s a pretty obvious conflict of interest for a scientist to receive legal services from a group with a financial stake in a court case. Norm and Jerry did not get legal services from NW Resource Law, did they? If they did, they would also be subject to the same criticism as Johnston.
I spoke to Johnston and tried to talk to members of BMFP and USFS but they did not respond to my inquiries. I won’t share my other sources for obvious reasons. You know that people in the conservation and scientific communities that disagree with industry narratives are attacked by the industry. You also know that I wrote about that in my article yet you conveniently left that part out in your summary and you had the gall to say that you’re leery of scientists that wish to stay anonymous.
Would you complain if I said that half the board have direct ties to industry? It seems like you’re making a big deal out of whether 4 or 5 out of 8 people have direct ties to the industry. It wouldn’t change the story one bit either way. I’m willing to bet we also have different opinions on what constitutes a direct tie to the industry. But please continue to harp on this one tiny detail and ignore the larger story.
Yes, Jared, I changed the title. Did you change yours?
Having observed the Timber Wars for 40 or so years.. it seems like folks in the conservation and scientific communities are equally adept at attacking folks in the industry. I don’t quite see your point about going on record. Maybe more specifics about the nature of these attacks would be helpful.
So what do you think is the “larger story”? That in the case of the diameter limit, scientists disagree? Or that somehow our OSU friends are tainted by agreeing with timber industry on this one?
Why would I change my title? I made a claim and backed it up with a full article. You published false information. And your new title is pretty embarrassing considering it alludes to you thinking anything that you disagree with must be AI.
We both know that you understand how the industry attacks its critics (and I literally wrote about and linked to a few of them in my article). And you read my article, you know the larger story. This playing dumb thing is dumb.
How soon can we expect to see the title of your post corrected, since Mr. Kukura is not a “San Diego writer” but a Central Oregon writer?
I think you are feigning ignorance of the relevance of Johnston’s legal representation by an AFRC member. And the Nez Perce Tribe was represented by one of the Tribe’s own attorneys along with a private lawyer who specializes in environmental and tribal law. Members of the public can find out a lot with a PACER account, just saying.
Your initial response to Mr. Kukura’s comment is so odd. “Welcome to our part of the world!” Pretty sure you don’t live in Oregon. Or do you mean the forest policy world? How do you know how long Mr. Kukura has been tracking any of these issues? How do you know Mr. Kukura hasn’t been in Oregon a good while? Is there some measure of time people must live somewhere or be involved in an issue before you will consider their perspectives?
The “those of us long in this world” and “those of us who have been around for a long time” lines are also so condescending. Again with some sort of gatekeeping or arbitrary timeframe before someone’s research and perspectives have any validity?
“many people here at TSW are not with the timber industry but wanted to get rid of the 21 inch rule.”
It’s ok for you to be invested in Oregon issues as a non-Oregonian, but suspicious when a not-actually-from-San Diego writer is? And although you are retired USFS and not retired timber industry, you’re still “with” the timber industry on almost all policy issues.
Norm and Jerry’s signatures on the letter that Johnston tried to file with his amicus brief is of course disappointing to grassroots conservation groups, but as you admit, it’s possible to disagree with them on some things and agree with them on others.
Regardless, I don’t think Norm and Jerry were endorsing the use of a cursory EA for such a broad plan amendment, they were focused on whether there is scientific controversy over the historical condition of eastside forests and whether there is uncertainty over the effects of shifting to a guideline rather than a standard prohibiting the removal of trees over 21” dbh. Again, a PACER account might be handy!
Scientific controversy and uncertainty regarding effects are only two factors USFS had to consider when determining whether it needed to prepare an EIS. Norm and Jerry did not weigh in on any other factors, and Judge Hallman agreed with plaintiffs on all factors raised except scientific controversy.
By the way, BMFP does not contain any representation of grassroots conservation groups. Susan Jane Brown is no longer with WELC and Silvix Resources is not a grassroots conservation group. Pam Hardy is no longer with WELC. WELC was not representing any grassroots conservation groups’ interests on BMFP regardless.
At least half of BMFP board members are expressly tied to/employed within the timber industry. Look at their website and bios there again. Those that are not as expressly tied through employment are still aligned with the industry’s policy wishes.
Wow. That title change is one of the most petty and petulant things I’ve seen of a grown adult who expects to be taken seriously.
Hello Anonymous.. Here is another piece that states that Mr. Kukura was living in San Diego as of 2021. https://disinformationchronicle.substack.com/p/a-candid-conversation-with-jared
Records show that he purchased a house in Bend in 2022, so the welcome still holds.
It looks as though, based on easily accessible records, that Mr, Kukura has not, in fact, been involved in forest policy world, although he has a long track record on other issues.
We here consider lots of peoples’ perspectives, but if you or others make specific claims, we are free to question them. If Mr. Kukura’s apparent first foray into this world is to throw shade on a fellow simply for doing his work and helping people learn more about forests, then I’m sorry if that seems condescending to you..
My knowledge of Oregon is from working in Central Oregon (including the Ochoco, Deschutes, Winema and Fremont) for 9 years. In silviculture. That means working, field trips (including with OSU notables), training with academics like Chad Oliver and Bruce Larson. So..I think I do know something about the way that trees grow in the area.
You accuse me of being “with” the timber industry on “almost all” policy issues. How would you know that? Most of the issues we discuss on The Smokey Wire don’t actually have a “timber industry” perspective.
It sounds like you and I agree that it makes sense for scientists to weigh in on the question of scientific controversy.
How do you determine what is a “grassroots conservation group”.. ? Is there some kind of litmus test that you can describe? Who determines what counts as “grassroots”? I’m really curious. Who is WELC and what do they have to do with this?
I did look again and I still didn’t see it, except in the same sense that you claim that I am.. that I happen to agree with them on some things. If I agree with CBD on some things, does that make me “expressly tied” to CBD? It kind of implies that we can’t have a variety of different views and are not independent thinkers. Which seems to me, in its own way, to be condescending.
I think it’s unjustified for you to claim that folks are “expressly tied to/employed by” the timber industry, when your idea of “tied to” is “happen to agree with in this case.” Unless you can be clearer about which board members are “tied to/employed by” in which way, I can’t accept that claim.
Even casual readers of this blog can deduce that you dislike NEPA, the Endangered Species Act, litigation by conservation groups, the Roadless Rule, protections for large/mature/old trees, and addressing the causes of climate change through any sort of regulation. Even casual observers of forest policy know that the timber industry dislikes all those same things.
I don’t think anyone can say with a straight face that Johnston was “simply doing his work and helping people learn more about forests” when he accepted legal representation by an AFRC member to try to convince a judge that changing the 21-inch rule with just an EA passed the legal sniff test. AFRC members stood to benefit financially from the elimination of the rule, and there is no way Johnston did not know that.
I also think it’s disingenuous to claim to not know what “grassroots” means in the context used. It means BMFP does not represent any perspectives of on-the-ground member-based conservation groups. Whatever BMFP recommends is not the product of some hard-won efforts to reach consensus, but a bunch of people who already believe commercial logging at greater pace and scale is the end-all be-all, and that targeting large old trees is part of the deal.
From the BMFP website (https://bluemountainsforestpartners.org/about/staff-and-board/) with some notes added:
Glen Johnston
Board President
President and owner, Backlund Logging Company
Susan Jane Brown
Board Vice President
Principal, Silvix Resources
Mark Cerney
Board Member
Carpenter, millworker, building contractor, surveyor, certified building inspector, road construction, and contracting officer’s representative for the USFS Engineering Department
Dave Hannibal
Board Member
Base Manager, Grayback Forestry, Inc.
Pam Hardy
Board Member
Kirkwood Advocate & Attorney, Western Environmental Law Center
Rick Minster
Board Member
Former Eastern Oregon Business Development Officer
Zach Williams
Board Member
King Inc. (foresting and logging, according to Google)
Roy Walker (no other affiliations listed)
Board Member
Of these, Glen Johnston, Cerney, Hannibal, and Williams work in the timber industry according to their bios. That’s at least 50%. It’s not clear what Minster and Walker currently do aside from the BMFP board. It’s unclear who Susan Jane Brown represents through Silvix Resources.
WELC = Western Environmental Law Center. Pam Hardy is no longer with WELC. It’s unclear if she is even still on the BMFP board and if the BMFP’s website is up-to-date. If she is no longer on the BMFP board, then over half of the board members work for/within the timber industry, and there are questions around the others. Mr. Kukura likely uncovered other connections during his research that support the “direct ties” description.
BMFP is a community place-based organization, so it should not come as a surprise that the board reflects the make-up of a rural, agricultural- and timber-dependent community. That there are two public interest environmental attorneys on the board suggests that BMFP is doing better than average when it comes to environmental law representation in a collaborative setting. BMFP has never purported to be a “grassroots conservation” group.
As Daniel Patrick Moynihan once said, Anonymous, you’re entitled to your opinion, but not your own facts. The membership of BMFP, as well as the board of directors, continues to struggle with the role of active management in forest stewardship. We are NOT “a bunch of people who already believe commercial logging at greater pace and scale is the end-all be-all, and that targeting large old trees is part of the deal.” But we do all believe in listening and learning from all perspectives, including scientific perspectives. BMFP has decided to follow the weight of the scientific evidence, which indicates that thinning generally small diameter trees to shift species composition and forest structure towards more ecologically sustainable conditions and the reintroduction of prescribed fire (and cultural burning) will lead to ecological integrity at landscape scale. This work also has an important socioeconomic benefit as well.
I never said BMFP was or should be a grassroots conservation group. I said that the perspectives of such groups are NOT represented on BMFP. Everyone deserves a voice on public lands, and just take a look at all the groups that challenged the weakening of the 21 inch rule during the lead up to the screens amendment, and the half dozen or so that challenged the amendment in court. They include groups with many members who call the Blue Mountains home. They strongly opposed undermining protections for big trees and the illegal process used to do so.
It’s not surprising that those conservation-minded folks have dropped out of coalitions like BMFP. Individuals who voice opinions contrary to the dominant mindset already subject themselves to attacks, pressure, or ostracism in small conservative communities that favor extraction. Over the years, a few have even publicly shared their experiences. I don’t blame folks for choosing not to expose themselves to that kind of negativity.
Plus, why would they want to join a group whose party line includes elimination of the 21 inch rule anyway? Not just on the Malheur, but across the entire region! Why would they want to join a group whose board members, including you, defended a process that a judge found violated NEPA, NFMA, and the ESA?
I recall that you weighed in on a blog post here about the screens lawsuit and expressed support for the Forest Service regarding science and large tree logging, even though in other cases you represented some of the same groups that challenged the screens amendment in court. So you were publicly taking the side of the Forest Service and the timber industry against the Nez Perce Tribe, conservation groups, and even your own clients’ interests, right? Neither you or Pam Hardy represent public interest conservation groups on eastern Oregon forest issues. For good reason, it seems.
And the idea that there is no scientific controversy here is almost laughable. For example, do you disagree with evidence that shows large ponderosa pine and large grand fir only occurs on 8% of all forest plots in the region? Isn’t that the primary justification for logging large trees?
https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/csp2.12944
If you cannot counter such evidence, why would you support weakening the 21 inch rule across entire national forests? Why not support a rule – developed legally and collaboratively – that carves out appropriate exceptions, rather than a loophole-filled guideline pushed through by a political appointee days before an administration change?
You also said “generally” small diameter trees. Perhaps, but why not “generally” stand up for all the wildlife, resiliency, and climate benefits of larger trees, especially since the supposed problem – large ponderosa and large grand fir found together – is such a relatively rare occurrence?
Susan is more than capable of answering for herself… But if you are worried about too many larger trees being taken, then you have the right to review project EAs and make those claims at that time.
Did the grassroots organizations propose a solution
–” that carves out appropriate exceptions, rather than a loophole-filled guideline pushed through by a political appointee days before an administration change?”
I must note that the Roadless Rule, supported by many of the same “grassroots” groups was also done quickly at the behest of political appointees with many interests left out of the discussion. So I don’t think that’s a good argument against this particular proposal.
I said I’d let you have the last word, but I have to point out that I am not Jared Kukura. I am impressed by his investigative journalism though.
Also, Johnston would not have solicited Norm and Jerry etc. to sign such a letter if the Forest Service had prepared an EIS. The degree of “scientific controversy” is a factor that an agency must consider to determine whether to prepare an EIS, not if an EIS is in fact prepared.
A default protective rule with appropriate exceptions was definitely suggested and advocated for by many.
The rest of what you wrote about funding is in line with your “nuanced” perspective on litigation by conservation groups.
My point is that there wouldn’t have been a letter if plaintiff hadn’t used the scientific controversy argument. So legal people chose to bring the “science” to the controversy.. initiated by the plaintiffs. I see it as scientists became involved.. which they wouldn’t have if plaintiffs hadn’t used that argument. It was plaintiff’s choice to claim there was a controversy.. are you arguing that scientists shouldn’t weigh in on legal claims of a scientific controversy? Or only as witnesses maybe, and not as filers of amicus briefs?
And why is it OK for the Nez Perce to file an amicus, and not for these scientists? And why do you all seem so focused on Johnston and not the other signatories.. don’t they all have agency to sign or not sign?
Please post the text of the reg that those “many” groups were proposing.. I didn’t see it linked in the comment letters I was able to find.
Even casual readers know that my views are nuanced on all the things you talk about.
“when he accepted legal representation by an AFRC member to try to convince a judge that changing the 21-inch rule with just an EA passed the legal sniff test. ” Johnston and his co-signers were not talking about the legality, they were weighing in the science of the “scientific controversy.” I read the entire letter and I think you are mischaracterizing it.
I think you have a very broad view of “direct ties” based on my read of the bios. Does a contractor for fuels mitigation work “within the timber industry”? Do they work for the timber industry now, or in the past? How long? At least one you mentioned seems to have worked for the Forest Service. Why would the timber experience outweigh other employment.
If Mr. Kukura did uncover other connections.. maybe he should have explained on what his claim was based.
You say “I also think it’s disingenuous to claim to not know what “grassroots” means in the context used.” What I’ve found is that many disagreements actually have to do with different interpretations of the same word. That’s why I like to check what people mean with words with different interpretations.
“It means BMFP does not represent any perspectives of on-the-ground member-based conservation groups.”
I wonder why that might be? Which groups like that exist in the Blue Mountains area?
I’ll keep an eye out for your nuanced perspectives on those policy issues going forward then.
Where’s the lie in how I characterized Johnston’s intention? If I got something objectively wrong, what is it? Johnston’s amicus brief literally says:
“Professor James Johnston, Ph.D. submits this brief and his supporting declaration as amicus curiae in support of Federal Defendants and Defendant-Intervenors in response to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment.”
Federal Defendants are the Forest Service and associated officials. Defendant-Intervenors are AFRC and the Eastern Oregon Counties Association, which regularly aligns with AFRC.
Johnston’s whole purpose in filing an amicus brief was to support agency and timber industry efforts to uphold the Forest Service’s use of an EA for the screens amendment. He may have been paid or at least offered payment by the Forest Service according to the FOIA records. Calling that out isn’t “throwing shade,” it’s impressive journalism. If his actions are defensible, defend them, but don’t pretend it’s not true.
You asked, so here is a partial list of locally based groups in the Blue Mountains region with staff and members that have strongly supported the 21 inch rule in various ways:
Blue Mountains Biodiversity Project
Blue Mountain Audubon Society
Central Oregon LandWatch
Great Old Broads Central Oregon Bitterbrush Broadband
Greater Hells Canyon Council
Nimiipuu Protecting the Environment
Oregon Wild
The Nez Perce Tribe – whose homelands and interests are impacted by Forest Service decisions about large tree logging – also weighed in against the screens amendment as an amicus party.
None of this may change your perspective, and that’s fine. Thanks for letting me share mine. The last word is yours.
I didn’t say that you “lied”. I said that you “mischaracterized”.
I also think that you may be missing that the scientists were concerned about clarifying the scientific controversy in and of itself. They would have likely written the same letter had it been an EIS, . It is basically of no concern to them (whether it was an EA or an EIS, I think it was the plaintiffs that put the scientific controversy idea on the table. I’m glad that you’re impressed by your own journalism. 🙂
Everyone gets to comment on proposals.. including those groups. Are you saying that in some way, when people disagree, the views of those groups should be taken more seriously than others’ views? Was there a solution that was equally agreeable to all that perhaps the FS did not put on the table?
Because I looked at the Central Oregon Watch comment letter and (form letter) and it said
” I want the Forest Service to maintain protections for all large trees over 21” on Central and Eastern Oregon National Forests. ”
I also noted the funding of COW https://www.causeiq.com/organizations/central-oregon-landwatch,930935170/
Also Blue Mountains Biodiversity Project https://www.causeiq.com/organizations/blue-mountains-biodiversity-project,371831335/ and Oregon Wild.. they seem to be mostly funded by large foundations outside the Central Oregon area. Which is not to make them more or less legitimate than other local groups, but certainly gives a broader ability to pursue their policy druthers via communications and litigation.
See my comment above. I meant to post it here. I’m not Jared, just impressed by his work.
And I noted your dig at the Roadless Rule. There was a much longer public process and a full EIS for the Roadless Rule. It was first announced in October 1999, with a DEIS in May 2020, a near-final rule in November 2020, and the final rule was published in January 2021.
In contrast, for the screens amendment, the Forest Service held some public workshops in May 2020, scoping and the only comment period began in August 2020, and the amendment was adopted on the basis of an EA on January 1, 2021, without holding a previously promised objection process.
So I don’t think the two processes are that comparable and I still think the rushed, politically driven process for the screens amendment remains a valid argument against it.
Correcting the dates on the Roadless Rule. They are not 2020 and 2021, they are 2000 and 2001.
Sorry I typed those wrong.
Ran out of space to reply under your last comment, Sharon, but I think we’re going in circles at this point anyway.
The Forest Service knew scientific controversy was an issue from the get-go. Well before the Jan. 1 2021 decision adopting the amendment and well before this ever got to court, over 100 scientists submitted a letter to the agency that said “removing protections for large trees is highly controversial from a scientific perspective.”
It would have been pretty ridiculous if those in favor of large tree protections didn’t highlight that controversy in their comments. And it wouldn’t make any sense for the plaintiffs’ lawyers not to raise scientific controversy as a factor that required an EIS for the screens amendment once things got to litigation.
But your point is what, that when Johnston got involved in the lawsuit, plaintiffs or “legal people” asked for it or should have expected it by raising that factor? “Scientific controversy” has been a NEPA significance factor for decades and raised in lots of lawsuits, but what Johnston did is so unusual that no one seems to have another example where an “independent” scientist acted similarly.
The focus is on Johnston because he sought out (or was recruited to accept) legal representation from an AFRC member to try to sway the judge in favor of the Forest Service and AFRC. I don’t know if any of the other signers knew who was representing Johnston legally or that Johnston had been offered payment from the Forest Service during the amendment process. If it turns out they knew either of those things, then their signatures on the letter are all the more disappointing.
As an example of a default rule with exceptions, the Nez Perce Tribe proposed retaining the 21 inch rule and allowing certain exceptions, including where “Late-seral grand fir or white fir are competing (within the canopy drip line) with early-seral species, such as ponderosa pine.”
I think I explained what I think is the Occam’s Razor approach to the motivations of Johnston and his co-signers.. they wanted to describe the best science they’ve developed.. in some cases spent their entire careers on.. in their own words. I don’t think they were “trying to sway the judge in favor of the FS and AFRC”. One view is that plaintiffs decided to introduce scientific controversy (which is fine) but then scientists wanted to weigh in. Should they have waited until they could obtain some pro bono help from one of the Oregon law schools? Would that make a difference in how the letter is written?
Again, I don’t know if you mean to do this, but you seem to be saying “people shouldn’t take positions- even on things they are expert on- if it might disagree with plaintiffs” because.. well.. some people can accuse you of being in league with A Bad Organization. None of the people are afraid of that.. because their history, their work and their character speak for themselves.
If they are concerned about WF and GF acting as ladder fuels I don’t think the drip line idea is all that helpful. But that’s probably in the response to comments somewhere.
“As an example of a default rule with exceptions, the Nez Perce Tribe proposed retaining the 21 inch rule and allowing certain exceptions, including where “Late-seral grand fir or white fir are competing (within the canopy drip line) with early-seral species, such as ponderosa pine.””
I’d love to hear the Forest Service response (in their record) as to why this alternative was rejected.
Beneath the Axios article by Jared Kukura and the comments of Anonymous is a perspective that sees forest conservation as a zero sum game where either the industry wins or the environment wins. It is not so. I have been steeped in the conservation world for more than sixty years and was as upset as anyone back in the day by extensive road building and liquidation of old growth on our National Forests. I have come around to seeing that the timber industry is actually needed for more reasons than to provide wood products. In 1994 I was slapped in the face by fires on the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest that did not behave anything like what I had been taught in graduate school. I came around to the realization that if we are to once again make fire a friend of our forests instead of a foe, we are going to have to remove a whole lot of trees. The only way that can happen is through the timber industry, but with a different target for cutting than in the past. Just because someone has a connection to the forest products industry does not mean that they are an industry shill. I will add that the so-called independent scientists are not necessarily pure. Might they be motivated by playing to their base? They live in a world of grant writing and appeals for donations.
I like Susan Jane’s synopsis: “BMFP has decided to follow the weight of the scientific evidence, which indicates that thinning generally small diameter trees to shift species composition and forest structure towards more ecologically sustainable conditions…”
It seems to me the disagreement is about the “weight” of scientific evidence (and the agency is going to get deference to that from the courts), but also about how much latitude there should be to interpret “generally” small diameter trees. To me this means the Forest Service needs to prove using the best available science that removal of larger diameter trees in a particular location would shift towards the desired conditions, and forest plans should be set up to require this.
One thing that is missing though from this synopsis is the rate and/or trajectory of the “shift.” The desired shift could still occur if no large diameter trees are removed, just at a different rate, and with likely different consequences. This is what should be explored through evaluation of alternatives for proposed projects.
(Note that there doesn’t seem to be as much disagreement about what would constitute “ecologically sustainable conditions,” as opposed to what means and how fast to achieve them.)
I think the point is that in some cases, large diameter true fir neighbors can make large pondos less fire resilient. So burning up the old pondos would lead to a different condition. I think that’s how project EA’s are written, comparing no-action to action.
“In some cases.” Exactly. And the Forest Service would rather write open-ended forest plans that say “trust us to only log large trees in those cases” – where they get to decide what those cases are. Instead of committing themselves in the forest plan to either meet specific science-based criteria that would define those cases, or to prove that the desired condition in the plan can’t be achieved in a particular case without amending the forest plan. (And somewhere, if resilience is related to future disturbances, the probability of those disturbances has to be factored into projecting any effects.)
Sharon and SJ, there are a lot of comments here defending BMFP which is all fine and dandy but the bulk of my article focused on Johnston and the AFRC. How do you two reconcile the AFRC’s attempts to cast doubt on science and its hostility towards scientists with its support of Johnston’s work and its collaboration with him in the courtroom?
Jared, you may have noticed this in your research, and relevant to the connection between Johnston and AFRC:
Johnston submitted his amicus brief and extra-record materials just 11 days before AFRC filed its response brief defending the screens amendment process. In its response brief, AFRC cited and relied on Johnston’s extra-record materials extensively. Just a coincidence or did AFRC have a heads up about (or suggest/shape) what Johnston planned to submit as it prepared its brief? Johnston was represented by an AFRC member, after all.
And as Jon Haber pointed out in a different comment, these types of cases are supposed to be resolved based on the agency record. Judge Hallman ended up did not admitting Johnston’s extra-record materials and struck 3 pages of AFRC’s brief that rely on them:
“this Court concludes that Prof. Johnston’s declaration—and the post-decisional scientific literature cited therein—are inadmissible in this record review case. Accordingly, this Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike Section V.B.3.a of Intervenors Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment”
I think that someone would have to be incredibly naive to think that anything between AFRC and Johnston is coincidental.
Jared, How can you say that AFRC “casts doubt on science” and “is hostile to scientists”. You sound like you’re using talking points from a Covid or climate discussion. That’s not the way it works in forest space. We harbor a variety of scientists in a variety of disciplines who approach understanding the world in a variety of ways. Like Norm and Jerry and the other co-signers, sometimes we agree with each other and sometimes we don’t. I don’t think the diameter limit itself was ever portrayed as scientific- how could it be?
for those of us who have been around a long time in this space, there is no one “science”, so that kind of rhetoric doesn’t really fit. A couple of my old jobs in R&D involved working with industry researchers and researchers that looked at issues important to industry. Industry, at one time, funded a great deal of research (that’s another story). Even today there is a substantial research program at NCASI. So we have lived through over 50 years of scientists disagreeing about things, and making policy when we know they disagree. Politicians are often annoying, but not always stupid. (Another past reference) Even they knew that asking Chad Oliver from UW and Jerry Franklin at UW to give testimony.. both excellent scientists.. would give different approaches to forest ecology/silviculture topics.
Another word thing, Jared. Does AFRC “support Johnston’s work”? Because support could mean financial, or “agrees with.” I don’t read the letter as “agreeing with AFRC on the EA”- if plaintiffs claim there is a scientific controversy, then.. it seems to me that plaintiffs intentionally entered “scientific space”, and other scientists have the right to speak for themselves.. not to be called as witnesses, but to clearly state their views in a form where they can say what they want and cite what they want.
“We are submitting this letter to address concerns raised by Plaintiffs about scientific controversy. As we explain below, although a handful of independent researchers make a number of claims that give the appearance of controversy, there is no meaningful controversy among the scientific community with respect to changes to forests over time or the effects of common restoration actions. ”
I can’t read that letter and see “collaboration with AFRC.”
I very clearly laid out examples of AFRC casting doubt on science and being hostile towards scientists in my article. It’s also very much appropriate to compare the issue to climate denial. Same tactics and even the same people in some instances. For example, the Cato Institute and AFRC teamed up in a different court case. Heck, check out a Property and Environment Research Center (PERC) article on forestry to see how climate deniers use the space.
Why would you cite Johnston’s letter when I’m obviously referencing AFRC representing him in the courtroom as their collaboration?
Feigning ignorance and deflection will get you no where (except in the industry, of course).
Again ran out of space to reply to your comment above, Sharon, and I still think we’re talking in circles.
Johnston was trying to sway the judge in favor of the Forest Service and AFRC. That’s literally what he said in his amicus brief: “Professor James Johnston, Ph.D. submits this brief and his supporting declaration as amicus curiae in support of Federal Defendants and Defendant-Intervenors” (Forest Service and AFRC). What else could “in support of” mean?
I think anyone is free to ask a court for amicus status in a case and to use whatever legal representation they choose. But that doesn’t mean it won’t seem sketchy as heck when an “independent” scientist uses an AFRC member as legal counsel to file an amicus brief in support of AFRC’s position, and when AFRC then cites the extra-record materials submitted with that amicus brief extensively in its own brief.
I agree that Johnston’s character speaks for itself. I also agree with Jon Haber that in general a court’s review of a decision should be based solely on the record before the agency at the time of the decision. It sure looked like Johnston and AFRC tried to get around that basic principle.
You already stated earlier in this comment thread that you have great respect for Johnston. That’s fine. But it shouldn’t be surprising that in light of everything that transpired in this case, not everyone shares that sentiment.