A theme for this week seems to be the challenge of good management practices (continuous improvement) and, as we try to build what some call “state capacity” how that relates to what we might call “random acts of analysis” or “helicopter analysis”. In these cases, folks are gathered, make suggestions, and then move on (take off) to something else- without any feedback on how their recommendations worked or did not.
Yesterday I pointed out that the 2008 Idaho Roadless Rule is an example of an effort having provisions for ongoing review and improvement (at least of implementation, I don’t think anyone wants to engage in changing the rule itself.)
John Robison pointed to this webpage that talks about the ongoing Commission and its responsibilities. I’ve noticed that both Colorado and Idaho had substantial litigation on their Rules, but following their lack of success in overturning the Rule, the national groups who litigate have left implementation to the States. I don’t think the FS has proposed anything litigation-worthy with regard to the Idaho Rule, but folks can tell me if that’s not the case. Commission members sound like Idahoans from the relevant interests.
Below are screenshots of the Commission’s webpage, please excuse the duplication between the screenshots.
