But some environmental watchdogs, wilderness specialists, and academics worry that the [collaborative] approach is also setting dangerous precedents. In their pursuit of land preservation and wilderness, critics charge, environmental groups frequently horse-trade inappropriately with the public’s lands—shutting out dissent, undercutting their conservation mission, and even eroding bedrock environmental laws….

And why not? “Collaboration” sounds great. It suggests consensus and compromise—the idea that everyone will be heard and their ideas made part of the finished product. But as George Nickas, executive director of Wilderness Watch, has said, compromise sometimes means “three wolves and a sheep talking about what’s for dinner.”

In short, whether collaboration is a good thing or not depends a lot on where you stand—and what you stand to gain. A 2013 study found that the groups most likely to collaborate are large, professional environmental organizations that often represent diverse agendas. According to Caitlin Burke, a forestry expert in North Carolina who has studied collaborations, if such trends continue, “we will see a marginalization of smaller, ideologically pure environmental groups [whose] values will not be included in decision making because they are unable or unwilling to collaborate.” ….

Despite appearances, collaborations are undemocratic, argue critics like Gary Macfarlane of Friends of the Clearwater, an environmental group in northern Idaho. The public already has a process for how changes can be made to our public lands, Macfarlane says: the 1969 National Environmental Policy Act. Macfarlane describes it as “a law that tells federal agencies to look before you leap” and says you have to allow all interested parties to participate. The act also mandates that the best available science be considered. Collaborations don’t have to do that, says Randi Spivak, director of the public-lands program for the Center for Biological Diversity.

Then there are the concerns about wilderness. Designation of new wilderness areas has often been a centerpiece of collaborations over the past 15 years. But in order to push wilderness through, the big environmental groups have been willing to make sometimes disturbing compromises, critics say—even to the Wilderness Act itself.

Compromise has long been a central part of wilderness politics, of course. The 1964 Wilderness Act took eight years and 65 bills to become law, and the final act grandfathered in some grazing and mining. But the old compromises were largely about boundaries—what’s in and what’s out. The new deals embrace a more insidious type of compromise, not just about where wilderness will be, but also about how it will be managed.

“Our fear is that some conservation groups look at the 1964 act as the place to begin a new round of compromises,” says Martin Nie. That shift, he adds, “could threaten the integrity of the system.”

In collaborative efforts, large conservation groups that badly want to protect wilderness must deal with groups that sometimes loathe the idea, so conservationists increasingly feel pressure to make wilderness more palatable to opponents—and that means watering it down, says critic Chris Barns, a longtime wilderness expert who recently retired from the BLM.

The number of special provisions—exceptions added to a wilderness bill, almost always leading to more human impact—has increased in the past several years, according to a 2010 study in the International Journal of Wilderness. The Lincoln County deal was saddled with a raft of such provisions. The Owyhee deal, given a thumbs-up by such groups as Pew and the Wilderness Society, lets ranchers corral cattle using motorized vehicles, which is supposed to be forbidden in wilderness. The result of such compromises, Barns and others say, are areas known as WINOs—”wilderness in name only.”

Another problem with these exceptions is that they become boilerplate for future bills, Barns says. A provision that first appeared in 1980 has since turned up in more than two dozen wilderness laws. Such changes might seem small, says Barns, but they erode, bit by bit, America’s last wild places….

The Lolo’s Marshall Woods project.

A common thread through many of these stories seems to be unmet expectations.  That begs the question of what expectations the Forest Service sets up before collaboration occurs.  It would be interesting to hear from those who have “collaborated” what the Forest Service says it will do with their collaborative products.  Does anyone ever document these expectations?

I suspect there is a “catch 22” here.  The Forest Service must remain accountable for it decisions and its decision-making process under existing laws, and therefore it must be free to disregard collaborative input.  But if this is made clear to potential collaborators, won’t they be less likely to invest the efforts needed to produce something useful?  Is the Forest Service clear about this?

Now we have discussions about changing laws to make the Forest Service less accountable.  Assuming we could get the necessary national consensus to give greater weight to local collaboration, does anyone think the Forest Service would be willing to contract away its authority to manage national forests by making substantive commitments to collaborators?

By George Wuerthner

The recent commentary on community collaboratives that was signed by a number of timber company representatives and forester along with the Montana Wilderness Association (MWA) promotes myths instead of truth with regards to forestry issues in western Montana.  As a former MWA board member, it particularly disturbing to see the organization championing frivolous timber sales that cost taxpayers money and destroy forest ecosystems. It appears the MWA is suffering from the Stockholm Syndrome.

Among other things, the commentary says that people are frustrated  when lawyers and judges trump local professional land managers. What the MWA doesn’t acknowledge is that no one wins a lawsuit unless there is a clear violation of rules and laws. Apparently the MWA is supporting illegal actions on our national forests.

Indeed, one can be thankful that at least some conservation organizations see their role as protecting the taxpayer purse strings and the land from money-losing timber sales and destructive forest practices instead of lining the pockets of private timber companies.

Their commentary champions collaboratives as “democracy” but fails to note that the vast majority of people and interests do not get to participate. While paid foresters and lobbyist for timber companies can attend the numerous meetings that are held during work week days, most people are not represented, particularly the majority of Americans who own these lands – a fact that the MWA apparently does not acknowledge.

Furthermore, the MWA supports the timber industry propaganda about thinning.

The bulk of the plant communities burned in Montana are high elevation forests dominated by lodgepole pine, fir and spruce. These forests naturally burn infrequently in high severity fires often hundred of years apart. These forests are neither out of their historic condition and are perfectly healthy. Fire in these ecosystems are driven by climate/weather, not fuels. Therefore, logging cannot preclude blazes in these forests.

Large fires only occur when there are severe fire weather conditions of high temperatures, low humidity, drought and most importantly high winds. Put those combinations together with an ignition source and you have unstoppable fires. The overwhelming conclusion of numerous scientific reviews is that under severe fire weather, thinning has no effect on fire spread. But you won’t get that information from the Montana Wilderness Association.

Even more importantly large severe fires are ecologically important. Indeed, there are numerous wildlife species that live in mortal fear of green forests because they are highly dependent on the periodic input of snags and down wood that is created by large wildfires. But don’t hold your breath waiting for the MWA to mention this.

Finally, logging is not benign. Logging roads spread sediment into streams affecting fish. They help to spread weeds. Logging removes biomass and down wood important for habitat. Logging removes the carbon that is stored in forests and even burnt forests store more carbon than logged forest sites. Logging disturbs sensitive wildlife like grizzly and elk. And finally logging can scar scenic values. But you will never see the MWA mention any of these associated and cumulative impacts.

It seems the MWA measurement of success is whether it can have a beer with timber and other former foes. There’s nothing wrong with sitting down to discuss common interests. But the real measure for a conservation group should be the wildlife habitat and wildlands it has saved. By this measure, the MWA is failing miserably. It’s time for the MWA to relinguish its mantle as a wildlands advocate and admit it has been captured by the timber industry. Patty Hearst would understand.

George Wuerthner is a former MWA board member, an ecologist and an author of 38 books including Wildfire: A Century of Failed Forest Policy. 

Lane County, Oregon commissioners are planning to sue the BLM when it releases its revised plan for western Oregon lands.  One of them couldn’t help bringing up the Malheur occupation, but I’m not sure what exactly his point was in doing that:

Leiken mentioned the ongoing occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Eastern Oregon by armed protesters, saying federal land policies are hurting rural workers and could drive them to extreme measures such as the refuge takeover.

“The last thing we need happening is another incident like they had in Harney County,” Leiken said.

I have a little trouble with fear being a reason for logging.  Maybe it’s a good reason for the justice system to fully prosecute this kind of crime.

Folks, I recently came across “WHITE PAPER: Understanding and Addressing Emerging Frustration Among Citizens’ Collaborative Groups Interacting with the USDA Forest Service.” The authors write that “the window of opportunity to accomplish meaningful restoration of large landscapes of our nation’s national forests through citizen collaboration may be closing, as evidenced by a recently published collective statement of 19 organizations indicting FS collaborative processes and pledging not to participate in such efforts.”

Can anyone point me to that collective statement?

Article from The Montana Standard:

U.S. Forest Service strategy offers candid look at system in disarray

A new strategy for managing public lands for recreation, heritage and wilderness paints a bleak picture of the U.S. Forest Service’s own ability to tackle the job.

“You could say this looks like a D-minus report card,” said George Bain, Forest Service Region 1 director of recreation, lands, minerals, heritage and wilderness. “To us, this is how it is. We wanted to take a good, hard look and develop a strategy for how to work in that world. We don’t have all the money we’d want. We don’t have all the workforce we’d want. We don’t have the ability to take care of everything the way we’d like. This is the landscape we’re working in. Let’s see how to address this.”

….

Here’s an essay by Jim Caswell from the Idaho Statesman. Caswell served as director of the Bureau of Land Management under Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne. He also headed Idaho’s Office of Species Conservation under Govs. Kempthorne, Risch and Otter.

Here’s a link to an interesting NY Times story…

From Greenwire today. Mentions that “the Forest Service banned the cutting of old-growth ponderosa pine” in 1995. The ban was a prohibition on cutting trees larger than 21 inches DBH (the “Eastside Screens” — background here), so of course that didn’t ban all old-growth, just the ones bigger than 21 inches.

The article has a photo of the old Hines Lumber Co. mill, with part of the roof missing.

http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/01/26/stories/1060031154

OREGON STANDOFF:

Timber collapse fuels resentment of federal policy