Bob Zybach

The following book review was written by Laura Wood for her blog, The Thinking Housewife: http://www.thinkinghousewife.com/wp/2012/06/how-feminism-wrecked-the-u-s-forest-service/

I thought this might provide an interesting discussion piece for the retired USFS readers who sometimes Comment on this blog, as well as the (usually anonymous) Commenters who still work there. It’s a controversial topic with which we are all familiar — it’s just unusual to see it laid out on the table for consideration and discussion, as Wood has done here.

How Feminism Wrecked the U.S. Forest Service

Book Review by Laura Wood

TWO YEARS ago, I posted an excerpt from a book-in-progress, The Death of the U.S. Forest Service by Christopher Burchfield. Since renamed The Tinder Box: How Politically Correct Ideology Destroyed the U.S. Forest Service, the book was published by Stairway Press earlier this spring.

Burchfield has more than fulfilled the promise evident in that excerpt. The Tinder Box is an outstanding work of investigative reporting and cultural criticism, a blow-by-blow account of how liberalism transformed the U.S. Forest Service, with its millions of acres of cherished timberlands, from one of the most effective and highly motivated government bureaucracies in American history to a rancorous, dysfunctional and despised workplace, a bureaucratic hellhole more preoccupied with egalitarian quotas and sexual harassment seminars than its mission to preserve and govern this country’s vast woodlands.

Burchfield, who has held jobs in the Forest Service, other government agencies and IBM, spent months poring over government documents and interviewing employees of the Forest, amassing a small mountain of evidence. Anyone who doubts that feminism severely damages the morale and initiative of men, and is inherently opposed to the pursuit of excellence, is encouraged to review this evidence. This story is so disturbing, pointing as it does to an environmental disaster of significant proportions, it is sure to be ignored by the mainstream. And that is a crime.

In 1876, Congress ordered the Department of Agriculture to establish the Division of Forestry for the purpose of protecting the nation’s threatened woodlands, which were susceptible to fire and had been carelessly exploited by timber interests. The bureaucratic arm was established five years after the Peshtigo Fire destroyed 1.5 million acres in Northern Wisconsin and killed as many as 2,500 people. With a growing interest in natural conservation and new scientific forest-control practices, the division was in charge of 17 million acres by 1897.

The agency was riddled with corruption and patronage when Gifford Pinchot became its head in 1898. In 1907, the U.S. Forest Service, “the oldest of America’s four great land-owning agencies — the others being the National Park Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Bureau of Land Management,” was officially born. Burchfield writes:

“A scion of a wealthy Pennsylvania family, Pinchot had studied forestry in Europe and felt that America with its immense unsettled spaces, required new concepts to manage its natural resources. A witness to the almost complete denuding of Pennsylvania’s hardwood forests and the watershed problems and poverty that followed, he felt certain that good management of both timber and prairie country was essential to preserving America’s heritage.”

Pinchot curtailed the era of patronage and adopted the Civil Service System, which required all applicants to pass an exam. He envisioned a force of qualified professionals devoted to forest work and prepared for its rigors. Pinchot said:

“I urge no man to make forestry his profession. But rather to keep away from it if he can. In forestry, a man is either altogether at home, or very much out of place…”

With acquisition of more land by Congress, the Service came to oversee 93 million acres in 44 states. Foresters and district rangers were expected to have studied dendrology, physiography, silvics (the study of individual tree species and their conditions) and forestry economics. In time, the forest ranger of lore was replaced by “hydrologists, silviculturists, range managers, geneticists, engineers and entomologists” who built long careers within the Forest Service. They were also expected to adjust to heavy labor and life in remote camps.

Pinchot, who insisted the foresters cultivate a good relationship with local communities and hire locals for seasonal work, was described as a “magnificent bureaucrat” for his vision and high standards.

The subsequent years continued this pattern of professionalism and dedication.

In 1968, in keeping with the times, administrators in Washington and other urban centers grew uncomfortable with a subculture that was overwhelmingly white and male. That year, the Berkeley office hired a woman named Gene Bernardi — “a dark-haired, ordinary looking woman in her mid-forties, wearing heavily rimmed glasses.” She was quickly promoted and appointed chief of the service’s new Equal Employment Opportunity Advisory Panel.

Three years later, Bernardi, by then known as belligerent and sensitive to criticism, demanded promotion to a higher Civil Service grade. When she was refused, she promptly filed a discrimination complaint in Washington, D.C. This too failed and then, after strong-arming a few other employees to join her, she filed a class action suit.

The story of her suit, which ended up before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, makes for harrowing reading. Bernardi was represented by the feminist law firm, the Equal Rights Advocates. The suit ultimately resulted in a “consent decree,” a formal settlement between both sides. (By the time, the consent decree was signed, all plaintiffs had dropped out of the suit, even Bernardi herself. As Burchfield writes, “It was thus the weakest class complaint ever filed, a class complaint without a complainant.”)

Though the Forest Service was absolved of all wrongdoing, it agreed to make atonement for its past, promising to employ women at levels equal to the civilian labor force. Judge Samuel Conti specifically warned against quotas, which are forbidden under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Zealous Forest Service administrators ignored his warning and adopted a plan to make its force 43 percent women.

The decree pertained only to California’s Region Five, but the affirmative action mission later spread through the other administrative regions. This project was not generally approved of by women who worked for the Forest Service at that time, women who were hired for qualifications that suited their positions. (And many others have performed well since.)

Accustomed by then to employing rugged outdoors men, elite firefighters and experienced administrators — almost all of them men — to manage its wild lands with brawn and advanced scientific knowledge, the Forest Service embarked in the 1980s on a program of recruiting and hiring unqualified employees to meet its quotas of women. (See Burchfield’s earlier excerpt.) Minorities were actively recruited too, but because the effort to hire minorities was so often unsuccessful — blacks especially were not avid for jobs far from urban areas — the liberal assault on the Forest Service primarily focused on the hiring of white women.

The trend endangered those in the field. Burchfield writes:

“On July 15, 1981, two weeks after the Bernardi Decree went into effect, a tragedy occurred after a fire broke out on the Angeles National Forest. Gilbert Lopez, a fire captain, went in search of an inexperienced pump operator who had become separated from the fire team. Though she later managed to find refuge with another crew, Lopez never returned from his search. His charred remains were found after the fire was extinguished.”

This was not the only death involving inexperienced women or women who were physically inferior to their male colleagues. Burchfield tells of other incidents, including the 1994 Storm King Mountain Fire in Colorado, in which sixteen firefighters, including four women, died. In that case,

“It is all but a certainty that a number of firemen on the crew returned to assist the firewomen and paid for their heroism with their lives.”

As the consent decree took hold, men were continually denied jobs or promotions. Burchfield describes the story of Bill Shaw who started to work for the Forest in 1977.

“He was born in Arcadia, California, where as a boy he and his family routinely camped and hiked in the Forests, and came to know many of those employed in them. He would return home after these excursions and as he admitted without embarrassment, fall asleep dreaming of Lassie, Smokey the Bear or some other animal character associated with the woods. After earning an Asssociattes Degree in forestry, he went to work on one of the Angeles fire crews, rising to the position of fire captain. The pay was poor, particularly considering the high cost of living in the area, but he was working in the Forest and that counted more than anything else.

“…. After learning that he would not be able to hire the engine crew he had trained and worked with over the past three years, he was ordered to take on several women.

“Despite the extra physical drilling the agency granted the new hires, Shaw’s bull** detector went off immediately. He instinctively knew that very few of them would develop the strength and stamina necessary to haul a fifty-foot length of fire hose up a slope. For the next several years it became routine for him to order his female crew members back down the hill to stand by, while he and his two firemen held off the blaze until one or more other engine units arrived.”

Most of the women did not stay long in the most grueling jobs, but they were invariably replaced by others overwhelmed by the tasks. Shaw was eventually denied a position as fire management officer. He said a much less qualified woman was chosen instead. He told Burchfield:

“No one had any respect for her; no one had any respect for fire management; no one had any respect for the Forest, and no respect for the agency. It all drained away.”

Ironically, affirmative action made for a level of hostility toward female employees that did not exist before. Sensitivity training became standard.

Before the Bernardi decree, men who retired from heavy labor in the field often went into office work for the Service, where their knowledge of the lands contributed to their work. Afterward, these jobs went to those who had little experience on the ground, leaving a void where institutional knowledge was once preserved.

While quite a few men have won individual discrimination complaints against the Service – and have been denied promotion ever since – two major class action suits by male plaintiffs were never fully aired in court. The Supreme Court refused to review them.

The Forest Service, which once turned a profit, now loses millions. Undergrowth flourishes, causing many more fires. According to Burchfield, “eight of the eleven worst fire seasons since the 1950’s have occurred over the past twelve years:”

“True enough, urban interfacing, changing climate patterns, and the ever-rising numbers of youths brought up without supervision (today’s arsonists, meth dealers, etc.) are contributors to these disasters. But, the primary cause of these losses is the agency’s madcap obsession with gender equity, which by 1987 had resulted in a tremendous drop in prescribed burns, clearing of fire lines and slash cutting. In many instances, the Forests are so badly overgrown, that they possess 10 to 100 times as many saplings per acre as those managed by the Indians of 180 years ago.”

Mexican marijuana cartels commandeer acreage in the West for farming. Crime has increased and service patrols are inadequate to respond to it, with women forest officers particularly disinclined to restrain those violating rules. Recreational trails and mapping have deteriorated so much that the only hope in many places is that these duties will be someday turned over to local conservancies. The tremendous increase in the use of off-highway vehicles has exacerbated this neglect.

Once the friend and servant of the public, the Forest Service has become the cause of antipathy toward the federal government in rural communities throughout the land, where threats against forest rangers and vandalism of government property are alarmingly frequent. Burchfield writes:

“[W]hen year in and year out, locals see an inordinate number of jobs awarded to people flown in from thousands of miles away, a tinderbox builds, waiting only for one match to ignite it.”

America’s forests have presented extreme challenges and temptations — and have been the scene of greed and lawlessness — for hundreds of years. But the reign of affirmative action racketeers has exposed them to an unprecedented threat. It is no exaggeration to say the U.S. Forest Service has been willfully destroyed by the religion of equality.

Here is an editorial in today’s Oregonian. I tend to agree with the editors, mostly because I think timber protests are the least of our worries. Laws already exist regarding trespassing, theft, vandalism, and public indecency, so doesn’t that already cover most of the new actions?

I think Commenters on this blog sometimes fail to differentiate the stark differences between industrial landowners (Weyco, Plum Creek, G-P, etc.) — who often profit directly from the protest actions and litigation taking place on State and federal lands — from the 20,000+ family-owned woodlands in the State, and/or from the “forest industry” folks typified by the predominantly family-owned sawmills and logging companies that are most dependent on public lands for their needs. The industrial forests had regularly attempted to severely limit public land timber sales since the early 1900s — with the help of Congress and the environmental industry they have pretty much succeeded, and to their own significant profit. It is the family-owned woodlands and small business owners who have suffered most through a lack of competitive markets, taxpaying jobs, and raw materials — and almost all seemingly limited by political decisions, rather than actual biological or ecological limitations.

Here’s the editorial link: http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2013/05/logging_protesters_should_face.html

Logging protesters should face financial, more than criminal, liability: Agenda 2013

By The Oregonian Editorial Board

May 13, 2013 at 4:17 PM, updated May 14, 2013 at 12:16 PM

The Elliott State Forest, east of Reedsport, is but a sliver of some 30 million acres of private and public timberland in Oregon. But whether its trees can be cut according to state plan runs beneath a debate in the Legislature over logging on all state lands and those who would protest the practice.

A pair of bills recently introduced by Gold Beach Republican Rep. Wayne Krieger represents a get-tough stance that brings real consequence to forest protests. The ringer of the two, House Bill 2595, defines any action on state lands that slows or blocks a logging operation as criminal, a misdemeanor for first-time offenders and a felony for repeat offenders with jail time attached.

We get the sentiment. Logging in Oregon, to which public education funding is linked, has been down for more than two decades owing to species protection and disputes — both in the woods and in the courts. Meanwhile, mills have closed, jobs have vanished and timber-dependent counties have suffered unduly from the loss of revenue.

But throwing the book at protesters will neither restore the cut nor tamp down on protests. What HB2595 would do, despite amendments that have softened the bill’s penalties, is criminalize one form of civil disobedience. What about the hundreds who challenged businesses surrounding a couple of city blocks in 2011 during the tiring weeks of Occupy Portland?

State laws already allow Oregon district attorneys to prosecute protesters for disorderly conduct, trespassing, property damage and other forms of criminal mischief. Those who are so knuckleheaded as to conduct outright acts of ecoterrorism — purposefully damaging equipment or placing lives in danger — can face federal penalties, as well.

HB2595, passed by the House 43-12 but awaiting Senate Judiciary Committee action, goes too far in abridging personal freedoms while trying to pave the way to hindrance-free harvests. The bill should be sidelined as an earnest but flawed attempt to help step up the pace of logging.

We have little doubt, meanwhile, that loggers with a contract to cut trees on the Elliott in 2009 lost money because of work obstruction. Protesters had placed themselves in harm’s way to prevent logging from going forward, and until the last of them was arrested and removed by state police, they succeeded in halting operations. It was the type of circus for which Krieger’s companion proposal, House Bill 2596, would have made great sense.

This bill makes clear that any private firm allowed by Oregon to log on state land would have the right to file a civil lawsuit against protesters for financial damages incurred by disruptions associated with the protest. Passed by the House 51-4, the measure is smart because it attaches palpable, rather than punitive, consequence to actions that illegally bring financial harm.

Loggers must have reasonable expectation they will be able to log once they contracted to do so. If they are blocked by protesters, they should be able to charge for the downtime and associated losses. And those protesting should expect they might not only be arrested but face a judgment for those losses. The Senate should approve this measure.

This following Press Release just came out of the Committee for Natural Resources. According to the ESA Working Group’s new website (http://naturalresources.house.gov/esaworkinggroup/), which distributed the release:

Through a series of events, forums and hearings, the Working Group will invite open and honest discussion and seek answers to the following questions:

How is ESA success defined?
How do we measure ESA progress?
Is the ESA working to achieve its goals?
Is species recovery effectively prioritized and efficient?
Does the ESA ensure the compatibility of property and water rights and species protection?
Is the ESA transparent, and are decisions open to public engagement and input?
Is litigation driving the ESA? Is litigation helpful in meeting ESA goals?
What is the role of state and local government and landowners in recovering species?
Are changes to the ESA necessary?
############

Can anyone think of anything that should maybe be added or refined on this list? I have already requested that the entire process conducted transparently, in full view of the public. It strikes me that this blog might be an ideal forum for such an approach.

Here is the Press Release (my Congressperson isn’t on it, either):

Members Launch Endangered Species Act Working Group

WASHINGTON, D.C., May 9, 2013 – Members of the House of Representatives, representing a broad geographic range, today announced the creation of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) Working Group. This Working Group, led by House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Doc Hastings and Western Caucus Co-Chair Cynthia Lummis, will examine the ESA from many angles. Throughout this year, the Working Group will hold a series of events, forums, and hearings that will invite discussion and input on ways in which the ESA (last reauthorized in 1988) may be working well, how it could be updated, and how to boost its effectiveness for both people and species.

Last Congress, the Natural Resources Committee held a series of hearings examining the impact of ESA-related litigation and settlement agreements. The Committee found that hundreds of ESA lawsuits have been filed over the past five years and that tens of millions of dollars have been awarded in taxpayer funded attorneys’ fees. This takes time and resources away from real species recovery efforts. In addition, the Administration will be making listing decisions on nearly 800 species by 2016, including 160 this year, as a result of settlement agreements negotiated behind closed doors.

The Working Group will continue to examine the impacts of litigation along with a number of other specific topics and questions including: how to measure ESA progress; how to define success; if the ESA is working to achieve its goals; the role of state and local governments in recovering species; whether the ESA conserves species while ensuring property and water rights protection; the need for public engagement and input; and more.

Members of the ESA Working Group include:
Doc Hastings (WA-04)
Cynthia Lummis (WY – At large)
Mark Amodei (NV-02)
Rob Bishop (UT-01)
Doug Collins (GA-09)
Andy Harris (MD-01)
Bill Huizenga (MI-02)
James Lankford (OK-05)
Blaine Luetkemeyer (MO-03)
Randy Neugebauer (TX-19)
Steve Southerland (FL-02)
Glenn ‘GT’ Thompson (PA-05)
David Valadao (CA-21)

“The Endangered Species Act Working Group is an opportunity to build upon the Committee’s work last year and have a fair, honest conversation and review of the current law. We’ve brought together Members from all parts of the country in order to get a broad range of input and perspectives. We want to hear from states, local community leaders, farmers, ranchers, environmental groups, property owners, and businesses – everyone who cares and has an opinion – about how the law impacts their lives and how it might be improved. I believe we all support the goal of wanting to preserve, protect, and recover key domestic species. 40 years after it was signed into law, and 25 years since it was last renewed by Congress, I hope there can also be recognition that they are ways this law can be improved and made to work better for both people and species.” – Chairman Doc Hastings

“This is an opportunity for Members from across the country to collaborate on creating a more effective conservation tool for our nation’s diverse wildlife. The ESA has long been a topic of great interest to the West, but as Western Caucus Co-Chair, I believe that Westerners must do a better job of reaching out to our Eastern colleagues on this topic in a way that builds trust, not division. The ESA can work, but it is far from perfect. In fact, in some ways the law hinders the kind of conservation of species that we all desire. This Working Group will leave no stone unturned for good ideas on improving the ESA for people and species. I am particularly interested in the ideas coming from our nation’s policy laboratories – the states. In the end, I am hopeful the Working Group will provide a strong base of education and opens a discussion on the ESA that is free of rancor.” – Rep. Cynthia Lummis

“During a time when Nevada at the local, state, and federal levels is so heavily focused on preventing the listing of the sage grouse as endangered, I am grateful House Leadership selected me to participate in the ESA Working Group along with Members from across the country. It is my hope this forum will help enable me to further convey the negative impact the looming sage grouse listing would have on Nevada and the West, as well as to identify tools to prevent it.” – Rep. Mark Amodei

“I look forward to working with all those interested in improving the way we recover and ultimately de-list species from the ‘endangered’ status. Key to these efforts will be the states, advocacy groups, federal wildlife managers, and public land users. Much work is ahead, but the goals of improving wildlife and range health are essential to the future vitality of our open public spaces.” – Rep. Rob Bishop

“There is a very real need to update the ESA so that we can actually help endangered species recover. The ESA should be a straightforward tool to engage public and private entities to work together towards protection and recovery of species. I am proud to join my colleagues on the ESA Working Group to bring common sense solutions that benefits animals as well as humans.” – Rep. Doug Collins

“This Working Group will listen to diverse concerns with the goal of improving the way we govern programs that help recover vulnerable species. The current system is clogged with lawsuits, and as a physician, I understand that courtrooms rarely provide the best diagnosis.” – Rep. Andy Harris

“I look forward to contributing to the Endangered Species Working Group during the 113th Congress. It is extremely important to represent the abundance of natural resources in Michigan; from the shorelines of our Great Lakes, to our many farms and forests, the Endangered Species Act impacts a variety of aspects of our state. This year marks the 40th year since the ESA was enacted. I am excited to be a part of this group of legislators examining the effectiveness of the ESA and to improve the Act for both the public, and endangered species.” – Rep. Bill Huizenga

“I am glad to have an opportunity to address the broken and ineffective Endangered Species Act with my colleagues on the Working Group. Oklahomans who are passionate about protecting endangered species might be interested to know that our current federal structure is ineffective and outdated. We should be good stewards of the planet God gave us and its inhabitants. But federal laws protecting dwindling animal populations should be crafted to actually address the problems they intend to solve. Current law, including the ESA, is outdated and does more to protect paperwork than animals.” – Rep. James Lankford

“This Working Group aims to propose thoughtful reforms to the Endangered Species Act, which over the last few decades has had many unintended consequences that have impacted our citizens and communities. I am honored to be a part of this group and eager to utilize my experience with Mississippi and Missouri River issues to represent the state and the entire Midwest in this capacity.” – Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer

“I’m honored to be a part of this ESA Working Group. Wildlife conservation issues can have a significant impact on West Texans, and smart conservation strategies are critical to our farmers, ranchers, and energy producers. The Working Group will be an excellent platform to coordinate the efforts of all stakeholders involved so that we can protect the livelihoods of individuals while maintaining healthy wildlife populations.” – Rep. Randy Neugebauer

“Protecting endangered species and promoting jobs and economic growth need not be mutually exclusive. Through collaboration, I believe we can produce a more effective Endangered Species Act. That’s why I’m pleased to be part of a working group that is welcoming the input and real life perspectives of a diverse range of stakeholders, including not just animal protection advocates and conservation groups, but also the communities, small businesses, and coastal, agricultural and forestry interests that are impacted by the ESA.” – Rep. Steve Southerland

“The Endangered Species Act was intended as a collaborative partnership between the states and our federal government to protect and sustain our biological resources. This review process is designed so that lawmakers can hear from all stakeholders, which will help to identify the law’s effectiveness in terms of species protection and ecosystem restoration, and to determine its failures and categorize which reforms should guide the policy making process moving forward.” – Rep. Glenn ‘GT’ Thompson

“California has the largest water storage and transportation system in the world, yet the Endangered Species Act is preventing people in my district from getting enough water to meet their agricultural and everyday needs. Both sides of the aisle must come together to find common-sense solutions that meet the needs of the people so deeply affected by these policies. I am excited to join my colleagues as we work together to find common ground and do what’s best for our constituents.” – Rep. David Valadao

For more information on the ESA Working Group, visit http://naturalresources.house.gov/ESAworkinggroup

###

Printable PDF of this document

Contact: Jill Strait 202-226-9019

Here is an editorial about spotted owl economics that has been going the rounds of a number of email networks since it was published four days ago, on May 3^rd:

http://www.conservativeblog.org/amyridenour/2013/5/3/the-shameful-and-painful-spotted-owl-saga-shooting-stripes-t.html

This was posted on Amy Ridenour’s National Center Blog, and was written by Teresa Platt, who is listed as the Director of the Environment and Enterprise Institute at the National Center for Public Policy Research. I’m guessing “right wing think tank,” by the title of the organization and Ridenour’s history, and note that Platt often blogs about topics regarding our nation’s natural resources:

http://www.conservativeblog.org/amyridenour/author/blogplatt

I’d never read this blog before, but apparently some of my wildlife biology, range sciences, and rancher friends do — those are the circles in which this has been making the rounds, including a personal email from Platt requesting a wider distribution.

In general, I am in agreement with Platt’s thoughts – however, I think these animals are more rightly referred to as “hoot owls” (the most common type of owl in North America), rather than “wood owls.” I’m going to stick with Wikipedia on that one, until someone explains to me why they think spotted owls have been here “since the last ice age,” whereas historical evidence indicates they may have arrived just a few decades in advance of the more common striped hoot owl.

The Shameful and Painful Spotted Owl Saga: Shooting Stripes To Save Spots

By Teresa Platt

Posted May 3, 2013 at 1:20 PM

Our federal government prefers spots and is moving forward with a million-dollar-a-year plan to remove 9,000 striped owls from 2.3% of 14 million Western acres of protected spotted owl habitat. Our government is shooting wood owls with stripes to protect those with spots; to stop the stripes from breeding with the spots.

It had to come to this.

The 1990 listing of the Northern spotted owl under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) gave the bird totem status in management decisions.

It didn’t work. Spotted owls declined 40% over 25 years. Timber sales on federal government-managed lands dropped too. Oregon harvests fell from 4.9 billion board feet (1988) to less than 5%, 240 million board feet (2009). Beyond the jobs and business profits from making lumber, the Federal and County governments used to benefit from these harvests too. Harvests down: tax receipts down. Today, with cutbacks in Federal budgets and sequestration, the States are arguing about how much of your tax dollars the Federal government should give them to keep impoverished County governments afloat in timber-rich areas.

Beyond competition from barred owls, and after years of not enough logging, mega-fires fueled by too many trees now threaten spotted owl survival. An exhausted veteran of the spotted owl wars, who lives dangerously close to a federally-“managed” forest that is expected to go up in smoke soon, explained:

“You have to realize that even moving a biomass project forward takes a court battle. No salvage of dead or burned timber — it just rots. Not much thinning or fuel reduction – without a two-year court fight the Forest Service usually loses. Hell, the agency is still fighting lawsuits over the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment started in ‘97 — after four revisions and several court decisions — the Greens just keep suing until they get what they want.”

Taxpayers pay for the conservation plans, recovery plans, and action plans, many stalled in court.

Taxpayers pay for all the lawsuits too, on both sides.

Taxpayers pay the salaries and pensions of government workers fighting fire and those shooting striped owls in order to give, temporarily, an advantage to ones with spots.

All this sacrifice and the spots just keep declining and the stripes just keep on coming.

The Northern spotted owl might very well be the most expensive avian sub-species on the planet.

Invasive or just mobile?

It is theorized that striped and spotted owls were once the same species of wood owl before separating into East and West Coast versions during the last Ice Age. The common striped barred wood owl (Strix varia) has expanded its range westward, establishing itself at the expense of the less aggressive, less adaptable and smaller spotted wood owl (Strix occidentalis).

By 1909, barred owls were found in Montana. They made their way to the coast, taking up residence in British Columbia (1943), Washington (1965) and Oregon (1972).

The owls, striped or spotted, are so closely related they successfully interbreed and their fertile offspring, “sparred owls,” are hybrids that look just like spotted owls. The ESA does not protect the hybrids or their offspring so the birds are breeding their way out of the ESA!

Says Susan Haig, a wildlife ecologist at the U.S. Geological Survey, is exasperated by the interbreeding:

“It’s a nasty situation. This could cause the extinction of the Northern spotted owl.”

The ESA measures and categorizes, then stands steadfast against change. It is attempting, by shotgun, to separate the birds.

Are these kissing cousins from the East invasive and unwanted when they turn up out West? Or just mobile and happy to mix it up with their spotted relatives?

Whatever, and wherever, they are, striped and spotted owls are not the only birds moving around.

111 species, almost 20% of the total bird species in North America have expanded into at least one new state or province with 14 species expanding into more states and provinces than the barred owl. Changing climates and habitats are the cause of 98% of range expansions. The birds go where the food is. 38 states or provinces have gained at least 10 new bird species, some moving into a niche inhabited by an ESA-listed avian cousin.

Beyond birds, the last Ice Age killed off the North American earthworm. It’s since been reintroduced, only to be labeled — by our government scientists — as an invasive species, an undesirable. And — oh no! — earthworms are beating millipedes in the game of survival.

The policy we embrace today for striped and spotted birds can be transferred to other birds and other animals, even earthworms. If this continues, will we be reduced to digging up and killing earthworms to save millipedes?

The ESA is written thus and lawsuits by “green” groups — many paid for by our tax dollars — are herding us in this direction.

Stripes, spots, species, subspecies and stocks

In the Kingdom of Animalia, the Phylum of Chordata, the Class of Aves, the Order of Srigiformes, are two Families of birds of prey: the typical owls (Strigidae) and the barn owls (Tytonidae).

The Strigidae Family is the larger of the two Families with close to 190 species, covering nearly all terrestrial habitats worldwide, except Antarctica. 95% are forest-dwelling; 80% are found in the tropics.

The Strigdae Family includes 11 species of the genus Strix, characterized by a conspicuous facial disk and a lack of ear tufts. They are known as screech owls, wood owls, the great gray, the chaco in South America. The Ural wood owl alone boasts 15 sub-species in Europe and Northern Asia.

Within this Strix genus, in North America, the barred wood owl is broken into three sub-species (the Northern varia, georgica in Florida and helveola in Texas), with a fourth (Strix sartorii) found in Mexico.

The spotted owl species (Strix occidentalis) is broken down into three sub-species ranging across the western parts of North America and Mexico. The “threatened” Strix occidentalis lucida of Arizona and Mexico, the California spotted owl subspecies, Strix occidentalis occidentalis, and the endangered Northern spotted owl, Strix occidentalis caurina, the sub-species of greatest concern. The Northern spotted owl ranges from California, through Oregon and Washington, and up into Canada.

You can break this down even further, if you’d like, into regional sub-stocks of sub-species. If you have the time (our government does) and the money (our taxes), you can follow family units, individuals, and all the new hybrids, the result of striped owls breeding with spotted ones.

The Wise Old Owl Asks, “Who Pays?”

This summer there will be more megafires in our overstocked Western forests, often followed by mudslides from the denuded hillsides next spring.

Another “green” group will file suit to stop another timber sale or attempt to stop government workers from shooting stripes to save spots.

Since the spotted owl wars resulted in the export of so many timber jobs, Northwest timber communities contribute far fewer tax dollars to the communal treasury, so the costs of megafires, mudslides and lawsuits will be borne by Eastern and urban taxpayers. That’s where the people—and the taxes—are.

The striped owl may be relentlessly working its way West, but its costs are steadily moving East.

——————————————————————————
Teresa Platt is the Director of the Environment and Enterprise Institute at the National Center for Public Policy Research.

I was just getting ready to respond to Sharon’s public database idea (I’m all for it) and to the HRV modeling crowd (they are NOT historical ecologists — but that’s what is really needed) after checking my email, but came across the following news release first.

My pet peeves are the insistent references to “principles of ecological forestry” (which all of the agencies have apparently bought into, or been required to adopt, whatever they might be) and to the claim that these efforts are “science-driven” and represent the “latest science,” apparently based on “new scientific information.”

These are social value problems, and the scientists who need to be involved are cultural anthropologists and historical ecologists — both sadly underrepresented in the literature and in funding. Once common values and objectives can be established, then experienced resource managers need to become involved. So far, it looks like the whole thing is continuing to degenerate in closed door meetings at the hands of high-level bureaucrats, lawyers, and ivory tower theorists — not locals, and not skilled managers. And certainly not the public.

Have these “principles of ecological forestry” ever been independently peer reviewed, or is it just more in-house stuff? How did they change, given the recent influx of “new scientific information?” And — most importantly — where can American taxpayers review these documents?

Other thoughts?

NEWS RELEASE

U.S. Department of the Interior Contacts:
BLM, Jody Weil, (503) 808-6287
U.S. Department of Agriculture
USFWS, Jason Holm, (503) 231-2264
USFS, Larry Chambers, (202) 205-1005

For release: April 26, 2013

USFWS, BLM, USFS Leadership Travel to Pacific Northwest to Discuss Northern Spotted Owl Recovery, Forest Health

Washington, D.C.

As part of the Administration’s on-going commitment to improving forest health in the Pacific Northwest, recovering the northern spotted owl, and supporting sustainable economic opportunities for local communities, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director Dan Ashe, Bureau of Land Management Principal Deputy Director Neil Kornze, and U.S. Forest Service Chief Tom Tidwell this week travelled to California, Oregon and Washington to meet with employees from both the U.S. Department of the Interior and U.S. Department of Agriculture in an effort to underscore what they see as an historic opportunity for forest ecosystem progress.

“In the past two years, the Service has used the principles of ecological forestry and the latest scientific information to revise and update the recovery plan and identify habitat essential to the survival and recovery of the spotted owl,” said USFWS Director Dan Ashe. “With all three agencies aligned around these principles, we have an historic opportunity to accelerate the protection and restoration of healthy forest ecosystems that will support owl recovery and sustainable timber supplies.”

The USFWS , BLM and USFS have been working together for two decades on recovery of the northern spotted owl, protected as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. The four employee meetings held in Olympia, Washington; Portland, Oregon; Eugene, Oregon; and Redding, California provided an important opportunity for agency leaders to articulate a common vision and intent, and address questions from the people who will play a key role in achieving that vision. The visit emphasizes the importance that sustainable forest health plays in the social, cultural and economic viability of communities in the Pacific Northwest.

“Balance is the key to our success,” said BLM Principal Deputy Director Kornze. “We are
working collaboratively with our partners to develop a sustainable path forward and a long-term solution to the complex forest management challenges in western Oregon and throughout the Pacific Northwest.”

In December 2012, the USFWS finalized a science-driven proposal identifying lands in the Pacific Northwest that are essential to the survival and recovery of the northern spotted owl. The USFWS identified 9.29 million acres of critical habitat on Federal land and 291,570 acres on state land.

“Our National Forests in the Pacific Northwest are a great national treasure, not least for all of the values they provide to local communities,” USFS Chief Tidwell said. “We are working with partners and communities to apply the latest science in maintaining and restoring habitat for spotted owl and other wildlife.”

The agencies have worked closely in developing the revised critical habitat designation and recovery plan. The plan embraces active forest management by applying principles of ecological forestry to target and achieve forest health. This will allow forests within the range of the northern spotted owl to be managed for conservation of the species, ecosystem health and economic opportunities for local communities.

The BLM is revising its resource management plans for 2.5 million acres of forest lands across six BLM Districts in western Oregon in order to address new scientific information related to forest health, the USFWS’s recovery plan and proposed critical habitat designations for the northern spotted owl. The plans will supersede those completed in 1995.

Here is a recent article by Alan Kovski, who’s work has been discussed here previously: https://ncfp.wordpress.com/2012/11/01/forest-service-tries-to-blend-strategies-of-forest-restoration-fire-risk-reduction/

 This article is reproduced with permission from Daily Environment Report, 73 DEN A-6 (Apr. 16, 2013). Copyright 2013 by The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. (800-372-1033) <http://www.bna.com>

Here is where a PDF of the complete April 16, 2013 BNA Daily Report can be obtained:(whoops — forgot how to link a PDF form to these posts. Will fix ASAP, if I can).

Lawmakers Stress Time Has Come To Revamp Federal Forest Management

By Alan Kovski | April 15, 2013 09:50PM ET

(BNA) — Five Bills on Forest Management

Key Provisions: Congress is preparing for action to force the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management to allow more timber cutting on federal lands.

Potential Impact: The bills could boost rural economies and reduce the risk of wildfires.

What’s Next: House Natural Resources Committee action is expected.

Members of Congress are preparing for action on bills to force the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management to allow more timber cutting on federal lands to benefit people in rural areas and reduce wildfires.

Rep. Doc Hastings (R-Wash.), chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee and author of one of the bills, stressed during an April 11 subcommittee hearing that the time for action has arrived. “We are going to move forward with legislation,” he said.

Above all else, lawmakers cited the poor economic conditions in many rural areas-including poverty and high unemployment-as a motivating factor. Lawmakers also said selective tree cutting would increase the health of forests by reducing the size and severity of wildfires and insect infestations.

“Right now, multiple counties in my district and in Western Oregon are approaching insolvency,” Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) said in explaining legislation he and two colleagues have been circulating in draft form. “Many of these counties have real unemployment at or above 20 percent. Poverty is widespread and crippling.”

Like Hastings, DeFazio wants action soon. “The bottom line is, doing nothing is not an option,” DeFazio said.

Rep. Morgan Griffith (R-Va.) said his rural district with extensive national forests is losing people as they give up on finding work in the area. “We’re depopulating in eight of my counties,” he said.

Limits Proposed on Environmental Analyses

The House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation discussed several bills aimed at revamping forest management practices, changes that would boost timber companies and sawmills and through them the communities.

Hastings, DeFazio, and several other members of Congress expressed particular concern about the scheduled expiration of the Secure Rural Schools program Sept. 30. Many rural school districts depend on a share of timber sale revenue for their survival.

A bill written by Hastings, the Restoring Healthy Forests for Healthy Communities Act (number not yet assigned), would require designation of parts of national forests where revenue would be generated from sales of materials. Annual volume of such materials would be no less than 50 percent of sustained yield.

The bill would limit National Environmental Policy Act requirements by specifying no need for the study of alternatives and by limiting each analysis to 100 pages. The bill also would provide categorical exclusions for proposed actions involving less than 10,000 acres, devised in response to catastrophic events, or developed for community wildfire protection plans.

“This draft legislation is intended as a starting point,” Hastings said.

Bills Would Speed Up Action

Rep. Scott Tipton (R-Colo.) spoke about his bill, the Healthy Forest Management and Wildfire Prevention Act (H.R. 818), which would force the Forest Service and BLM to expedite hazardous fuels reduction, which typically means a mix of tree thinning, deadwood removal, and prescribed burning. His bill would use the Healthy Forest Restoration Act of 2003 as a model.

The Self-Sufficient Community Lands Act (H.R. 1294), proposed by Rep. Raul Labrador (R-Idaho), would establish “community forest demonstration areas” in national forests and create boards of trustees to manage those areas, with a mix of federal, state, and private interests on the board.

A share of revenue would go to local schools and communities, either through the formula of the soon-to-expire Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 (16 U.S.C. 7111), or the older formula of the Forest Service section in a 1908 law (16 U.S.C. 5000).

Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.) vividly described the destructive effects of wildfires in his state as he advocated for his Catastrophic Wildfire Prevention Act of 2013 (H.R. 1345). The bill would expedite Forest Service and BLM work to prevent fires through such means as tree thinning. It also would speed up and limit the scope of NEPA environmental analyses.

Honoring of 1937 Law Sought

The O&C Trust, Conservation and Jobs Act (no number assigned yet) drafted by DeFazio and fellow Oregon Reps. Greg Walden (R) and Kurt Schrader (D) would force BLM to honor a 1937 law known as the O&C Lands Act, which was written to require that BLM lands in southwestern Oregon be managed to produce timber harvests for the economic well-being of local counties. Under that law, 50 percent of timber revenue goes directly to counties.

Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.), ranking member of the subcommittee, agreed on the need for action but expressed frustration that Democrats were excluded from the drafting of the chairman’s bill. He objected to elements in the Republican bills that would involve “skirting public opinion” and would mandate timber harvest levels.

“This is grandstanding and not legislating,” Grijalva said.

But Grijalva, too, indicated there was a need for action. “There’s a crisis in our forests,” he said, noting a growth in the size and severity of forest fires. “I’m ready to sit down with my colleagues and try to work out something that has a realistic chance of becoming law.”

Administration Opposed to Some Bills

At the April 11 hearing, Forest Service Chief Tom Tidwell said the Obama administration opposed the Tipton, Labrador, and Gosar bills, notably because they would shift some degree of authority to states from the federal government.

Tidwell argued that the Forest Service already has goals for expanded timber harvests, within the limits imposed by constrained budgets and the low prices that the service has been seeing for its wood.

Republicans on the subcommittee were uniform in their criticism of the administration for requesting an increase in federal funds for purchasing land when the government is so deeply in debt that it is cutting many programs. They said the administration is not effectively managing the land the government already owns.

Question of Which Public Served

Members of Congress and Tidwell circled around the question of what public was being served by the administration’s public land policies.

Tidwell said the administration was “driven by what we hear from the public.” Lawmakers emphasized the public in communities adjacent to federal lands.

“You keep saying that the public wants this,” Labrador said. “What public are you talking to?”

Rep. Glenn Thompson (R-Pa.) asked Tidwell whether the Forest Service prioritizes or weights its estimates of public input to recognize that local communities have more at stake. There needs to be a weighting, Thompson said.

“There’s no weighting going on,” Tidwell said. “We don’t prioritize.”

National environmental groups in recent years have resisted the idea of showing greater concern for the economics or opinions of local communities near the forests. National land belongs to the whole nation, including environmentalists and others in cities far from the forests, they argue. 

For More Information

The forest management bills discussed during an April 11 House Natural Resources subcommittee hearing are available, along with prepared testimony and an archived hearing webcast, at http://naturalresources.house.gov/calendar/eventsingle.aspx?EventID=326329

“BACKGROUND CHECKS FOR SCIENTISTS”

[NOTE: This editorial was first published by Jim Beers on March 13, 2013 in “The Pen,” a monthly newsletter of CST Talk Radio out of California, Missouri. It is republished with permission. Beers is a retired US Fish & Wildlife Service Wildlife Biologist, Special Agent, Refuge Manager, Wetlands Biologist, and Congressional Fellow. He was stationed in North Dakota, Minnesota, Nebraska, New York City, and Washington DC.  He also served as a US Navy Line Officer in the western Pacific and on Adak, Alaska in the Aleutian Islands.  He testified three times before Congress; twice regarding the “theft” by the US Fish & Wildlife Service of $45 to 60 Million from State fish and wildlife funds and once in opposition to expanding Federal Invasive Species authority.  He currently lives in Eagan, Minnesota with his wife “of many decades.”]

As the debate on requiring background checks for gun sales rages, I submit that background checks should be mandatory for scientists that sell their research to government bureaucracies.

A recent news article in The Washington Post (of all places) describes a former scientist at Johns Hopkins University that became embroiled in the controversy over growing scientific research retractions coinciding with the competition for available government grant dollars.

The tainted and slanted research that was going increasingly unquestioned, concerned cancer drugs and genetic relationships.  The scientist found that questioning results based on incomplete testing and ignoring applicable factual references resulted in his being disciplined, his eventually being fired and the suicide of a colleague asked to verify the unverifiable science purported to be reliable.

The number of research articles retracted in the field of biomedical research has increased “tenfold since 1975”.  Two thousand of these retracted scientific papers were reviewed and it was determined that “67% were attributable to misconduct, mainly fraud or suspected fraud”.  While government grant availability has increased since the 1960’s, when 2 out of 3 requests were funded: today only one out of 5 requests are funded.  Because jobs and funding for the researchers are really what is on the line today, shoddy and cheap “science” to give government grant administrators what they want is the only guarantor of future funding preferences.

If potentially human life-threatening aspects of cancer drugs relative to the genetics of those afflicted with cancer can be misrepresented, what is sacred anymore?  Eventual lawsuits by wealthy families suspecting misuse of drugs or malpractice as the cause of losing a loved one might well punish these “scientists” publishing misleading and self-serving results.  Yet these charlatans are evidently not deterred.  If this is so, what about all the environmental/animal “rights” “science” purchased by government since “the 1960’s”?

When “science” tells us that logging “must” be stopped; or grazing is “bad”; or hunting “unbalances the environment”; or predators “balance” the environment; or “native” species “belong” everywhere; or dams “must” be removed; or roads “disturb” grizzly bears; or fatal attacks by predators are the “fault” of those killed; or lethal control of predators is “ineffective”; or pipelines “disturb” species X; or sage grouse are “in danger”; or bats are “disappearing”; or wildfires are “good”; or Sanctuaries and Wilderness are “beneficial”; or that only more federal jurisdiction over water or more federal land ownership or easement control of private property will do X, Y, and Z: other than pandering for more federal funding, what possible down side is there for unscrupulous ”scientists”?

When federally-protected grizzly bears kill hikers, no scientist or bureaucrat is responsible.  Ditto when wolves decimate big game herds and force ranchers out of business and diminish the quality of rural life.  Ditto when logging communities are decimated and unmanaged forests result in fewer and fewer of the critters supposedly saved by eliminating logging.  Ditto when federal lands are closed to use and roads and access only to burn down and kill neighbors while their homes and belonging are destroyed.  All the faulty environmental/animal “rights” “science” since “the 1960’s” has bred a national nightmare to rival the corruption of human life-saving biomedical research that has become less and less reliable.

Until and unless the federal-influence spigot to Universities and research organizations is turned way down or off, corruption is inevitable.  The spigot won’t be turned off until the US Congress stops funding and writing laws that imagine laws and regulations that are triggered by or act only upon “science”.  Think Endangered Species Act, Marine Mammal Protection  Act, Animal Welfare Act, Wilderness Act, and other such laws that absolve all involved humans of any responsibility while pointing always to “science” as the reason and trigger for un-Constitutional and anti-human actions by a government of men supposedly bounded by a Constitution.  This is an especially important matter for rural Americans today.

The federal laws will not be amended or repealed until we elect federal legislators that respect the Constitution and have our best interests at heart.  Federal Legislators will not do the right thing until State Legislators and Governors stand their ground (think Wyoming and wolves as a role model here).  State Legislators and Governors with our best interests at heart come from Local elected officials like Commissioners, Supervisors and Sheriffs.  The time to get this food chain going is right now.  I won’t repeat that old Chicago canard about “voting early and often” but I will say we have to vote and vote for this aspect of our lives and liberty.  Letting bureaucrats and “scientists” rule us is akin to letting Druid priests read bones or Shamans stare into smoke as a basis for national decisions.  As Dirty Harry once remarked about his boss’s breath mint “it ‘ain’t’ cutting it”

Jim Beers can be reached (and his newsletter can be obtained) by contacting:   [email protected]

Study shows that illicit rodenticide use poisoning elusive carnivore on public and community lands

WCS and partners identify potential conservation threat

BOZEMAN (July 13, 2012) –A new study from the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS), the Integral Ecology Research Center, the University of California Davis and other partners shows that imperiled fisher populations are being poisoned by the use of anticoagulant rodenticides (AR) on public and community forest lands in California–likely those used illegally by marijuana growers.

The researchers looked at two distinct fisher populations: one occurring on tribal, private, and public lands in northwestern California and another within the Sierra National Forest in central California. Results of necropsies showed that of 58 fishers tested, 46 of the animals (79 percent) were exposed to one or more of the toxic ARs, and four had died directly from AR toxicity.

Fishers are likely exposed to AR when eating animals that have ingested it prior. They may also be drawn to it by bacon, cheese and peanut butter “flavorizers” that manufacturers add to attract rodents. Distribution of the poisoned fishers indicated widespread contamination of fisher range in California.

Members of the weasel family, fishers were once widely distributed throughout North America’s west coast but have incurred significant population decline and extirpation from portions of their former range. Populations inhabiting Washington, Oregon, and California have been designated a Distinct Population Segment (DPS) and declared a candidate for listing under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA).

Study co-author and WCS Scientist Sean Matthews said, “Fishers play a vital role in the forests of the Sierra Nevada mountains and the Pacific northwest. With a body the size of a house cat and the disposition of their larger cousin, the wolverine, fishers keep forest rodent populations in check and are one of the only predators with the tenacity to regularly prey on porcupines. As fisher populations declined, they took refuge in the last remaining portions of mature forest in the Sierra Nevada and coastal mountains. Now a new threat has emerged in these remaining refuges.”

According to the authors, it is unlikely the fishers were exposed to AR used legally at or near agricultural or residential areas as these settings are not suitable habitat. Nor did animals tracked by telemetry collars during the study venture into those environments. Instead, the exposure points were likely encountered where AR is used illicitly as part of illegal marijuana cultivation in remote areas that overlap with fisher habitat. The study cites multiple examples of confiscation of marijuana plants and discovery of associated AR use in the region and notes that in 2008 alone, more than 3.6 million marijuana plants were removed from federal and state public lands in California, including state and national parks.

Sub-lethal effects that may also contribute to premature fisher death were discussed and include the compromise of the animal’s blood clotting and recovery abilities, decrease of its resilience to environmental stressors, and abandonment of dependent young due to direct mortality of adults killed by AR. During the study, the first documentation of a neonatal milk transfer of AR in fishers was recorded as a deceased six-week old kit was tested and found to have AR in its system. (Kits are dependent on mother’s milk until ten weeks of age.)

Matthews said, “The findings in this paper could signal a looming conservation threat for other species as well as fishers. As we discuss in the study, depletion of rodent prey populations upon which fishers and other animals feed, along with the anticoagulant poisoning threat might affect the Sierra Nevada red fox, wolverine, California spotted owls and other rare carnivores that inhabit the region.”

In their conclusion, the authors consider heightened awareness in removing AR when marijuana grow sites are dismantled and further regulation restricting the use of AR to only pest management professionals.

Study: http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0040163
Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zws1dXNwRkI&feature=youtu.be

The study, Anticoagulant Rodenticides on our Public and Community Lands: Spatial Distribution of Exposure and Poisoning of a Rare Forest Carnivore, appears in the July 13, 2012 edition of the online journal PLoS ONE.

Co-authors of the study include: Sean M. Matthews of the Wildlife Conservation Society; Mourad W. Gabriel of the Integral Ecology Research Center and the Veterinary Genetics Laboratory at the University of California, Davis (UC-Davis); Greta Wengert of Integral Ecology Research Center; Benjamin N. Sacks of Veterinary Genetics Laboratory at UC-Davis; Leslie W. Woods and Robert Poppenga of the California Animal Health and Food Safety Laboratory System at UC-Davis; Rick A. Sweitzer and Reginald H. Barrett of the Sierra Nevada Adaptive Management Project at the University of California at Berkeley (UC-Berkeley); Craig Thompson and Kathryn Purcell of the Pacific Southwest Research Station—Sierra Nevada Research Center, United States Forest Service; J. Mark Higley of the Wildlife Department, Hoopa Tribal Forestry; Stefan M. Keller of the Department of Pathology, Microbiology and Immunology at UC-Davis; and Deanna L. Clifford of the Wildlife Investigations Laboratory of the California Department of Fish and Game.

Posted on behalf of an Anonymous Contributor:

1. FORESTS:
Hastings releases draft bill to revive timber harvests, sets hearing
Phil Taylor, E&E reporter
Published: Wednesday, April 3, 2013

House Natural Resources Chairman Doc Hastings (R-Wash.) today released a draft bill to significantly increase timber harvests on national forests, part of a Republican push to wean Western counties off federal aid under the Secure Rural Schools program.

Hastings also announced his committee will hold an April 11 hearing to discuss his bill and five others that also seek to boost timber harvests on federal lands and reduce the threat of wildfires. They include a draft measure by Oregon Reps. Peter DeFazio (D), Kurt Schrader (D) and Greg Walden (R) that aims to resolve decades of conflicts over management of 2.4 million acres of timberlands in western Oregon, a measure they have pushed for more than a year.

Hastings’ bill, the “Restoring Healthy Forests for Healthy Communities Act,” comes more than a year after the committee passed an earlier version of his bill, H.R. 4019, requiring the Forest Service to vastly increase the revenue it generates from forest projects (E&E Daily, Feb. 17, 2012). That bill, which never passed the House, also aimed to transition counties off Secure Rural Schools payments.

Secure Rural Schools for more than a decade has allocated billions of dollars to counties dependent on federal timber whose economies suffered as a result of declining timber harvests in the 1990s. It was extended for a year as part of a transportation package last summer, but its future is fraught with political uncertainty.

While counties may receive 25 percent of the revenue generated from federal timber, current harvest levels would provide significantly less than Secure Rural Schools.
Hastings said the federal government for nearly a century had provided rural communities a stable revenue stream through active forest management.

“The federal government’s inability to uphold this promise and tie our forest lands up in bureaucratic red tape has left counties without sufficient funds to pay for teachers, police officers and emergency services; devastated local economies and cost thousands of jobs throughout rural America; and left our forests susceptible to deadly wildfires,” Hastings said in a statement. “This draft proposal would simply cut through red tape to allow responsible timber production to occur in those areas and make the federal government uphold its commitment to rural schools and counties.”

The new Hastings bill contains some substantive changes from his earlier proposal.
Namely, it would require the Forest Service to designate one or more “Forest Reserve Revenue Areas” on each of its units, where, beginning next fiscal year, it would be required to harvest at least half the amount of timber the forest grows annually, which is known as the sustained yield.
Also, while the previous bill would have exempted projects from the National Environmental Policy Act and Endangered Species Act, the new bill keeps those laws intact, with key exceptions.

Under the bill, projects would have to be authorized under an environmental assessment that analyzes only the proposed activity and does not consider the impacts of future foreseeable activities. The reviews also could not exceed 100 pages and must be completed within 180 days.

Certain projects authorized in response to, or to prevent, wildfires, and those that are less than 10,000 acres, would be permitted through a categorical exclusion exempting them from full NEPA review, the bill states.

The bill also specifies how impacts to endangered species are to be considered and how interagency consultation should take place.

If last Congress is any indication, the bill will raise significant concerns among environmentalists who say NEPA and ESA are critical to ensuring impacts to wildlife and their habitats are fully disclosed. The bill would also significantly increase harvests above current levels, which will undoubtedly raise red flags for some.

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), who authored Secure Rural Schools and will be instrumental in its extension or reform, last Congress opposed Hastings’ proposal to set minimum harvest quotas.

New week’s hearing will also discuss H.R. 818, by Rep. Scott Tipton (R-Colo.), and H.R. 1345, by Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.), which both seek to streamline forest management to reduce the threat of severe wildfire. It will also include H.R. 1294, by Rep. Raul Labrador (R-Idaho), which would designate “community forest demonstration areas” on federal lands that would be managed by state-appointed boards.

And it will consider a proposal by Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) aimed at reducing the risk of insect infestations, soil erosion and catastrophic fire.