Dear HCN,
Finding ways to make the
Forest Service more accountable is an admirable task. Excluding the
public from Forest Service decisions will make things worse. The
Charter Forest idea will exclude the public from decision-making
processes. Charter forest projects will likely cost the taxpayers
more and provide environmentally harmful
results.
The vast majority of the public
landowners don’t want the local managers to make decisions by
themselves. It is a thinly disguised attempt to turn control of
national forests over to local resource-extraction interests. This
tack is nothing new. Reagan tried it in the 1980s. Sen. Larry Craig
tried it again in the 1990s. “Analysis paralysis” and “gridlock”
are words used by the timber industry to change how we view the
laws. Although environmental laws are not perfect, they are working
well, if you want to protect wildlands, wildlife and clean
water.
The so-called “great experiment” of local
control can be predicted accurately enough by looking at locally
owned private lands in Idaho. Roads, clear-cuts and dirty water are
the order of the day. Exempting us from any kind of administrative
appeals process will likely lead to more lawsuits and wasted
resources and the exclusion of the grass
roots.
The National Environmental Policy Act
process doesn’t need another layer for decision making.
Collaborative councils slow down the process and have not proven to
be successful. Randal O’Toole wants to try out some new management
ideas.ÊI suggest he try out local management of his private
land without his being part of the decision-making
process.ÊPerhaps in his next article he will share how well it
worked out.
Larry
McLaud
Moscow,
Idaho
This article appeared in the print edition of the magazine with the headline Charter forests not an answer.
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
