Common Dreams was generous enough print another one of my pieces on the Fix Our Forests Act. Here is the piece at the Common Dreams site, and below is a reprint.
Thanks Rob, another useful piece. I have been following this Fix Our Forests Act over at The Wildlife News. Another reminder that Carl Linnaeus should have named us Homo stupidiens rather than Homo sapiens. I don't know how it works in the US, but I imagine your U.S. Forest Service is headed by political appointees? I believe the solution is to treat the Forest Service (and ALL similar bodies like your FDA, EPA etc.) as Common Pool Resources. (We all want regulation, but at minimum cost, and maximum efficacy and appropriateness - classic demands on a Common Pool Resource.) Therefore I believe we should apply the late Elinor Ostrom's 8 principles for governing CPRs to these institutions. We would start by electing a board to represent the different stakeholders - communities, environmentalists, farmers and even loggers. All board members to be financed entirely by their communities (to not only give those stakeholders some skin in the game, but also to ensure that item #1 on the Agenda is NOT financing perks for the board from Fees charged to the various users/protectors of the forest.) These CPR boards can be nested, county ones, within state ones, within Federal ones and the C/S/F governments can provide (and finance) a board secretary. Being public institutions ALL minutes, tenders, reports, financials should be publicly and freely available Only then would you get an authority that is Fit for Purpose. Bruce Danckwerts, CHOMA, Zambia
Kudos! It seems that Nature takes a back seat in the furor of righteous reaction to the dismantling of America's public institutions and numerous legislated safeguards criminally violated by the barbarians who have now broken through the gate.
Issues of climate chaos and ecological destruction are now considered 'subversive' and subject to the terror of the new corporate state.
Thank you Rob Lewis for explaining the Forest Act so well. But my one complaint is why are you putting any hope at all in the Democratic Party? They stopped being effective at serving the needs of the public decades ago. All they have succeeded in doing is enriching themselves (Hey Nancy, how’s your stock portfolio doing?), and getting us into pointless wars, which we lose. Pinning your hopes on them, in my opinion, is a fool’s errand.
One thing I noticed from photos of LA post fire was that there were still numerous green standing Arbor Vitae between burned houses. I agree that the way forward for wildfire protection should be home hardening and community resilience first. Houses are the number 1 fuel source in these fires, and I suspect the myriad of synthetics which burn at varying and unnatural temperatures encourage more rapid fire growth through increased firebrand distribution.
No matter how hopeless prevailing may seem, it's important to see and hear the information in support of ecological knowledge and long term forest and planet health and to be alerted to policies that would short circuit the possibility of scientific and regulatory safeguards in favor of enriching a few in the short term.
I'm not going to defend the Fix Our Forests Act, but I am concerned with how you seem to infer that mechanical treatment of forests does not reduce fire intensity and severity. A reduction in fire intensity allows firefighters to more effectively and safely suppress wildfires. Additionally, following forest thinning with prescribed burning is even more effective. Also, it needs to be understood it isn't just about saving homes, but also reducing fire severity (the amount of fuel consumed) so that the forest ecosystem survives. There are many, many examples of wildfires burning through the tree tops (crown fire) dropping to the ground when they reached areas that have been treated. So, it shouldn't be improve infrastructure resistance to fire OR thin and prescribe burn forests, it should be both. As for the Fix Our Forests Act, I haven't waded through it, but my guess is that it includes provisions that can be taken advantage to increase commercial sales with little or no improvement to forest resilience. I worked 41 years for the US Forest Service and I can say I've seen many forest managers follow the intent of laws and policies and others who saw opportunities to turn the forest into a tree farm.
Thanks, Mike. My main problem with the act is the removal of citizen oversight. I realize there are good people at the US Forest Service, but at the upper levels there appears to be a "get out the cut" culture, heavily influenced by industry. I realize it's a complex matter, but removing citizen oversight of public lands is not the answer. Thus, my opposition.
I just looked at a summary of the proposed act. I too struggle with large acreages to be covered by categorical exclusions. An environmental assessment is more thorough, tends to get more public review and has a more robust objection process. My view was unpopular with foresters, fire managers and district rangers. Although I have a background in forestry and soil science, I was a forest public affairs specialist for the last 14 years of my career. I had many arguments with project leads about providing what I considered adequate media coverage to keep the public informed. Luckily, the forest supervisor backed my philosophy of transparency and when necessary, telling our own bad news. In the process, we developed trust and respect among our local public.
Thanks Rob, another useful piece. I have been following this Fix Our Forests Act over at The Wildlife News. Another reminder that Carl Linnaeus should have named us Homo stupidiens rather than Homo sapiens. I don't know how it works in the US, but I imagine your U.S. Forest Service is headed by political appointees? I believe the solution is to treat the Forest Service (and ALL similar bodies like your FDA, EPA etc.) as Common Pool Resources. (We all want regulation, but at minimum cost, and maximum efficacy and appropriateness - classic demands on a Common Pool Resource.) Therefore I believe we should apply the late Elinor Ostrom's 8 principles for governing CPRs to these institutions. We would start by electing a board to represent the different stakeholders - communities, environmentalists, farmers and even loggers. All board members to be financed entirely by their communities (to not only give those stakeholders some skin in the game, but also to ensure that item #1 on the Agenda is NOT financing perks for the board from Fees charged to the various users/protectors of the forest.) These CPR boards can be nested, county ones, within state ones, within Federal ones and the C/S/F governments can provide (and finance) a board secretary. Being public institutions ALL minutes, tenders, reports, financials should be publicly and freely available Only then would you get an authority that is Fit for Purpose. Bruce Danckwerts, CHOMA, Zambia
Kudos! It seems that Nature takes a back seat in the furor of righteous reaction to the dismantling of America's public institutions and numerous legislated safeguards criminally violated by the barbarians who have now broken through the gate.
Issues of climate chaos and ecological destruction are now considered 'subversive' and subject to the terror of the new corporate state.
Thank you Rob Lewis for explaining the Forest Act so well. But my one complaint is why are you putting any hope at all in the Democratic Party? They stopped being effective at serving the needs of the public decades ago. All they have succeeded in doing is enriching themselves (Hey Nancy, how’s your stock portfolio doing?), and getting us into pointless wars, which we lose. Pinning your hopes on them, in my opinion, is a fool’s errand.
Thank you.
Thanks, Rob, for a very helpful summary of the issues and options. If only we could hope for common sense to outweigh greed.
One thing I noticed from photos of LA post fire was that there were still numerous green standing Arbor Vitae between burned houses. I agree that the way forward for wildfire protection should be home hardening and community resilience first. Houses are the number 1 fuel source in these fires, and I suspect the myriad of synthetics which burn at varying and unnatural temperatures encourage more rapid fire growth through increased firebrand distribution.
No matter how hopeless prevailing may seem, it's important to see and hear the information in support of ecological knowledge and long term forest and planet health and to be alerted to policies that would short circuit the possibility of scientific and regulatory safeguards in favor of enriching a few in the short term.
I'm not going to defend the Fix Our Forests Act, but I am concerned with how you seem to infer that mechanical treatment of forests does not reduce fire intensity and severity. A reduction in fire intensity allows firefighters to more effectively and safely suppress wildfires. Additionally, following forest thinning with prescribed burning is even more effective. Also, it needs to be understood it isn't just about saving homes, but also reducing fire severity (the amount of fuel consumed) so that the forest ecosystem survives. There are many, many examples of wildfires burning through the tree tops (crown fire) dropping to the ground when they reached areas that have been treated. So, it shouldn't be improve infrastructure resistance to fire OR thin and prescribe burn forests, it should be both. As for the Fix Our Forests Act, I haven't waded through it, but my guess is that it includes provisions that can be taken advantage to increase commercial sales with little or no improvement to forest resilience. I worked 41 years for the US Forest Service and I can say I've seen many forest managers follow the intent of laws and policies and others who saw opportunities to turn the forest into a tree farm.
Thanks, Mike. My main problem with the act is the removal of citizen oversight. I realize there are good people at the US Forest Service, but at the upper levels there appears to be a "get out the cut" culture, heavily influenced by industry. I realize it's a complex matter, but removing citizen oversight of public lands is not the answer. Thus, my opposition.
I just looked at a summary of the proposed act. I too struggle with large acreages to be covered by categorical exclusions. An environmental assessment is more thorough, tends to get more public review and has a more robust objection process. My view was unpopular with foresters, fire managers and district rangers. Although I have a background in forestry and soil science, I was a forest public affairs specialist for the last 14 years of my career. I had many arguments with project leads about providing what I considered adequate media coverage to keep the public informed. Luckily, the forest supervisor backed my philosophy of transparency and when necessary, telling our own bad news. In the process, we developed trust and respect among our local public.
Thanks for doing that good work, Mike. My experience has been that these environmental reviews are like the scaffolding by which citizens engage.