Representative Zinke is sponsoring a bill that requires a person challenging a collaboratively based forest activity to post a bond covering costs of the Forest Service to defend against a lawsuit.
I represented an environmental group on the Bitterroot Restoration Committee for several years. It’s comprised of people with diverse views and is guided by written Principles used to make decisions when collaborating.
All the projects began as true “restoration” projects. Examples included aspen/larch regeneration or decommissioning roads that posed threats to fisheries. However, the Forest Service always expanded the projects to full timber sales that would not meet the Principles our group used to evaluate and endorse projects. This was brought up many times and the response always turned to money, even though one of the Principles clearly states “… priorities should be based on ecological considerations and not be influenced by funding projections”.
I left meetings feeling I was not collaborating on projects beneficial to the landscape, but was being asked to concede as much as possible towards a timber sale so it could be called collaboration. Clear cutting old growth lodge pole never seemed like collaborative restoration to me. The committee would support a small component of the project that met our Principles, but not support the project as a whole, as it did not meet our established Principles. It could be construed that because we supported a very small aspect of true restoration, we had collaborated and supported the entire project. It was very gray and raises a lot of questions about how collaboration is being done/used.
Collaboration can be beneficial, but before passing any bills we should ask basic questions such as: what are the consistent guidelines; how are participants chosen; is there a minimum/maximum number of participants; is it fair for people hundreds of miles away to meet regularly to collaborate; are any participants paid; is collaboration always appropriate; are recreation and extraction promoted over wildlife; how are projects initiated; what role do agencies play throughout the process; what about people who on their own, educate themselves, submit comments, and stay involved but have concerns; and are projects being advanced that aren’t in the public’s interest financially and ecologically? These are just some of many questions. We need an open discussion before passing any bills restricting citizen’s rights.
Regardless of the answers to the above questions, limiting a citizen’s right to challenge their government seems counter to democracy. It certainly should not be proposed by a government employee. Hello big government.
Limiting a citizen’s ability to oppose government projects unless they can financially do so, or are part of a certain group, is counter to the core principles our country was founded on.
People of all political persuasions should be concerned about the precedents this bill could set. Representative Zinke should withdraw his bill until basic information about collaboration is made transparent. That would be the true spirit of collaboration.
Gary Milner
Corvallis