The Power to Influence Decisions and How Elected Officials, Political Appointees, and Groups Wield It

Anonymous brought up what he had heard from wildlife folks, and I think it’s worth talking about more deeply. Most Administrations help their friends by doing what the friends want. Is it who are the beneficiaries, or what exactly is done that’s the issue, and do we apply those tests fairly across Administrations? That would be a great thing for us to figure out, since we might be the only people who care about a consistent set of judgements across Admins.

Bios are people, some can be trusted and others cannot. Bios are not a decision maker and are subject to political pressure.

In my recent work on grazing as a senior agency wildlife bio, I’ve been told by forest leadership that ranchers have been directed to contact HQ if they feel regulations are affecting them in a negative way. There is no ability to push back on anything involving extractive interests in the name of wildlife. I have also personally witnessed a very shady situation with a wealthy connected rancher complaining to DC and getting special treatment that amounted to a massive subsidy of their operation. Please stop painting this with broad brushstrokes as a D vs R thing or an industry vs enviro thing. There is a deep state, it’s working for the producers and is very real. I have also worked on projects for which the white house receives a weekly briefing and those in my chain of command are on notice that their job is on the line. The staff bios are sickened by what they are doing.

When I read this, I had a strange flashback to 1981, when our local ranchers (I worked in Lakeview, Oregon) were invited to the Inaugural festivities for President Reagan. It does seem that there is an R vibe to the ranching community, so as much as I’d like to, I’m not sure we can completely remove the fact that they tend R. Also, mainstream media tends to report D people who are discomfited by agency actions, and not so much R people or even independent people. So unless you are involved directly, it is hard to know who minds silly things D’s dream up, or the way they influence decisions on the ground. Plus more employees are D’s and some are quite strongly so. As my old friend used to say “it’s not good or bad, it just is.”

I’d also add that decision makers in the Forest Service are also subject to political pressure, possibly a great deal more, through meetings they might not tell us underlings about. For example a Chief supposedly told my boss “unless you make NGO x happy, Colorado Roadless is not going out.” Perhaps this came from higher up? States, counties and the feds all have friends they would like to put a thumb (or a sack of feed) on the scale for their druthers. Then there is litigation, where plaintiffs sit with DOJ and come to a settlement- where neither elected officials nor folks who read the public comments get a voice (in my experience).

From what I’ve read, it wouldn’t be unusual for individuals to contact HQ in the interests of getting their way. As far back as the Clinton Admin, I remember folks calling the Undersec with concerns about specific projects on specific districts. And when you think about ranchers contacting HQ, I would also think about many folks and groups know and have the political standing to get meetings with DC FS folk. Let’s take solar folks in the last Admin- I’m suspicioning that they had industry groups that yarded up concerns and delivered them to the folks at Interior. Perhaps the difference is how the Admin reacts- with more general “nice things”

The Biden administration finalized a Bureau of Land Management rule reducing public land acreage rental rates and cutting capacity fees for solar and wind energy projects by up to 80% through 2035

– say via rulemaking or RMP decisions (determined by phone calls from DC) compared to goodies are more directed at individual landowners and therefore must go through more layers to specific allotments, involving more field people? So is it the level involved?

Or is it the exact nature of the goodies? A rulemaking, a reduction in fees, a local decision for or against something, a change in how a permit is administered?

Or there’s simply the idea that there is a “right answer” out there somewhere with no political influence, which could be a Forest Supe’s or Ranger’s druthers, or their idea of the appropriate balance, given what they’ve heard from everyone. In my work, I’ve seldom found there to be one right answer to any land use dispute.

It seems to me Administrations favor certain groups and give them a preferred seat at the decision table. In settlement of litigation certain groups also have a preferred seat at the table. Does it really matter for these purposes whether the benefits granted are financial or ideological?

In the old days, line officers seem to have been left more or less alone. Older folks tell me that the inflection point was the Clinton Admin in terms of what we might call “meddling from above to the forest or district level.” But as my retiree friends tell me, Admins tend to just double down on what the previous Admin got away with for their friends, and never go back to a more hands-off posture.  And now most of those who remember the old way are probably retired.