by Jeff Lonn, Hamilton
Margaret Gorski’s letter (2-1-2023) stated “Collaboratives are democracy in action,” but there are many people who would argue the opposite–that collaboratives are democracy subverted. The 1969 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the 1976 National Forest Management Act (NFMA) already mandate a democratic process, requiring the Forest Service land management decision-making process be open to broad public participation and comment. But collaboratives are given unfair influence in the process, and they rarely represent a cross section of the American public. Many collaboratives are stacked with members who have political or financial conflicts of interest. Some collaboratives even receive agency funding, raising the question of whether they are really independent. Picking and choosing who to talk to is not democratic.
Not all collaboratives are created equal, either. As Margaret points out, in our area, we have two, the RCC and the BFC. The RCC is a politically appointed collaborative; the BFC is comprised of volunteers, many of them scientists, advocating for science-based forest management. Recently, the RCC issued a statement of support for the Bitterroot Front project, even though the Forest Service has disclosed little information on the project and asks that the public just trust them. The BFC has taken a more cautious approach, asking for more information first. It should be no surprise which collaborative the Forest Service favors.
Margaret also stated that some letters to the editor personally attacked and “dragged a public servant through the mud in the newspaper.” These letters did no such thing. They did dispute misinformation publicly stated by a Forest Service official, and questioned decisions leading to the recent Mill Creek logging project. Isn’t public discourse on public policy also part of the democratic process? Margaret also believes that the letter writers would “rather hurl accusations than be part of the solution,” but one of those accusers is also a hard-working member of the Bitterroot Forest Collaborative
Shouldn’t public dialogue and service on a collaborative both be considered part of the solution?