Forum Index > Public Lands Stewardship > Lawsuit Backlash
 Reply to topic
Previous :: Next Topic
Author Message
drm
Member
Member


Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 1376 | TRs | Pics
Location: The Dalles, OR
drm
Member
PostFri Sep 22, 2017 11:37 am 
Ski wrote:
I know... all you know-it-alls here are going to tell me this isn't happening.
I know it's happening but for me the question is whether the scale of the impact is as large as is claimed. I also know that such lawsuits bother more "moderate" environmental groups that negotiate with well-intentioned opponents. They can negotiate a compromise and it will still get sued. It also seems that the advantage of this "management" is over-sold. Thinning isn't going to stop all these fires. It might lessen some in some areas, but the amount of overgrowth dwarfs any ability to reasonably thin the vast acreage affected. Thinning has it's place in the toolbox but it is no total fix for wildfires. I'm not saying that it is oversold here necessarily, but I see that in press releases a lot. They make it sound like if only we would do thinning then we wouldn't have wildfires. I would also add that we have a long history of claims that our management will fix everything and a long history of it not being so. Note that one of the main things we hope to solve with modern management are the mistakes of past management - i.e. suppression. And a $100 bond on filing an appeal strikes me as reasonable.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Ski
><((((°>



Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 12798 | TRs | Pics
Location: tacoma
Ski
><((((°>
PostFri Sep 22, 2017 11:49 am 
treeswarper wrote:
And part of what was left, along with that of the Silver Fire, reburned this year as part of the Chetco Bar fire.
^ exactly.

"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach. I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Ski
><((((°>



Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 12798 | TRs | Pics
Location: tacoma
Ski
><((((°>
PostFri Sep 22, 2017 12:02 pm 
drm wrote:
"...the question is whether the scale of the impact is as large as is claimed..."
I would submit that it is. When a Federal lands management agency institutes a policy of not putting forth management proposals that have the potential of causing litigation, there is clearly a great impact. There is no panacea for preventing wildfires. Wildfires will happen with or without management. Commercial and pre-commercial thinning operations can and do reduce the potential for wildfires to do the kind of catastrophic long-term damage that has occurred in the recent past.

"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach. I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Token Civilian
Member
Member


Joined: 02 Sep 2010
Posts: 590 | TRs | Pics
Token Civilian
Member
PostFri Sep 22, 2017 12:08 pm 
Two words....."loser pays". Right now, I can sue just about anyone for just about anything and it's extremely difficult for them to get me to pay their attorney fees and expenses in defending. This problem (IMO it's a problem, many see this as a feature of the current legal system) is far, far bigger than just the environmental policy area. Lawfare is common across the entire legal system. If Earthjustice, or whoever, has a case they think they can win, there is no risk to filing - they'll get their fees regardless. But a turd of a case that is simply as a delaying action, say for salvage logging? Hmmm....would they be able to pony up for the Government attorney fees and lost value of the now rotted and useless timber? They'd need to think long and hard on that one. For interesting reading on law for the layman, I'd suggest Overlawyered and Popehat, to name two.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Ski
><((((°>



Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 12798 | TRs | Pics
Location: tacoma
Ski
><((((°>
PostFri Sep 22, 2017 12:17 pm 
drm wrote:
I would also add that we have a long history of claims that our management will fix everything and a long history of it not being so. Note that one of the main things we hope to solve with modern management are the mistakes of past management - i.e. suppression.
We really need to get past this one. They used to believe that they'd never run out of trees, too - a century ago the perception was that there was a limitless supply of big timber out there to cut. Somebody somewhere finally realized that the supply was finite. The policy of total suppression was instituted after "The Big Burn" and seemed like a great idea at the time, and was (in part) brought about by public outcry because the story was played up in East-coast newspapers that year - it was the big story that year - nothing else of great import was happening, and people screamed that "We have to do something." That was then. Later it was realized that the total suppression policy had some serious drawbacks, and it's taken decades for people to understand that putting every fire out immediately isn't always the best course of action. It is unfortunately not yet realized by many that the best policy is not "letting nature take its course", particularly on land that was previously "managed". There are countless acres of forest land that were clearcut decades (or a century) ago, then replanted (or naturally re-seeded), that are now overcrowded stands that need to be thinned to return to some semblance of "balance". The Gifford Pinchot National Forest is an excellent example of this, and one where one "environmental" activist group has thwarted the efforts of planners and lands management people to put the forest back into some semblance of "natural order."

"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach. I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
drm
Member
Member


Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 1376 | TRs | Pics
Location: The Dalles, OR
drm
Member
PostFri Sep 22, 2017 1:27 pm 
Ski wrote:
treeswarper wrote:
And part of what was left, along with that of the Silver Fire, reburned this year as part of the Chetco Bar fire.
^ exactly.
Parts of some of the fires on Mt Adams that were salvage logged by the Yakama have reburned multiple times in recent years. Some say the reburns had a lower intensity than otherwise, but the first burn was high intensity anyway so I'm not sure how important the intensity of the second fire is three years after the first.
Ski wrote:
The Gifford Pinchot National Forest is an excellent example of this, and one where one "environmental" activist group has thwarted the efforts of planners and lands management people to put the forest back into some semblance of "natural order."
Which district? Do you have any links on this? Very curious about what you consider the natural order to be. The Mt Adams District of GPNF is my primary area and non-clearcut logging has occurred in recent years in a number of areas I visit.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
treeswarper
Alleged Sockpuppet!



Joined: 25 Dec 2006
Posts: 11272 | TRs | Pics
Location: Don't move here
treeswarper
Alleged Sockpuppet!
PostFri Sep 22, 2017 1:34 pm 
drm, thinning for wildfires is not a way to stop the fire. It is a way to give the fire less fuel to burn and lessen the conditions for a crown fire by keeping trees apart. There are numerous studies, and on the ground anecdotal evidence that proves that a thinned stand with slash treated will cause a fire to "lay down". You will see shorter flame lengths and a cooler burn which will allow more trees to survive and just maybe a chance for a good crew in the right conditions to get the fire under control. Note that there are now studies cited by some enviro groups that thinning increases the chance of fire. Yeah, that is true UNTIL the slash on the ground from the harvest is treated or removed. I am very familiar with burning, but it can also be "lopped" where a person with a chainsaw cuts it up into short pieces that will lay flat on the ground and decompose, chipped, removed, or masticated, which is kind of like lopping but done with an evil looking piece of equipment which chops up the slash and kind of mixes it into the soil. I am thinking that even on youtube, you can find videos showing the differences in the intensity of a wildfire in thinned and unthinned stands.

What's especially fun about sock puppets is that you can make each one unique and individual, so that they each have special characters. And they don't have to be human––animals and aliens are great possibilities
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
treeswarper
Alleged Sockpuppet!



Joined: 25 Dec 2006
Posts: 11272 | TRs | Pics
Location: Don't move here
treeswarper
Alleged Sockpuppet!
PostFri Sep 22, 2017 1:49 pm 
drm wrote:
Which district? Do you have any links on this? Very curious about what you consider the natural order to be. The Mt Adams District of GPNF is my primary area and non-clearcut logging has occurred in recent years in a number of areas I visit.
We'd have to go back a ways since the GP has now been totally afraid to do anything the might cause a hint of a lawsuit. The group running and that still runs the forest is the Gifford Pinchot Task Force. The Mt. Adams district ranger was/is a former leader of that group. Clearcuts have not taken place because of the threat. Is this good or bad? That depends on what you want. Unfortunately, because a clearcut "looks" bad, it is considered to be bad. It isn't bad for elk, bear, berrypickers, etc. It's all about point of view. By the way, the "old" Randle District was doing commercial thins in the early 1980s. It was done in the plantations to increase growth of the trees. Thinning is by no means anything new. I'm thinking that trees were planted either in the old Cispus Burn or in the clearcuts, precommercially thinned, commercial thinned, maybe one more thin, and then, when the desired size was reached, the plan was to clearcut it and start over. Also, in the 1980s the district started leaving wildlife trees and even clumps of trees for wildlife in the clearcut units. That isn't as easy as it sounds because the trees had to be safe to work around for the logging operation and then safe to broadcast burn around. KV money was used to create wildlife trees and snags after those operations, if needed. Also, a certain number and size of logs were intentionally left on the ground to meet the needs of the ground critters and to decompose for soil health. It wasn't just a "swarp it all" operation.

What's especially fun about sock puppets is that you can make each one unique and individual, so that they each have special characters. And they don't have to be human––animals and aliens are great possibilities
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
DIYSteve
seeking hygge



Joined: 06 Mar 2007
Posts: 12655 | TRs | Pics
Location: here now
DIYSteve
seeking hygge
PostFri Sep 22, 2017 3:59 pm 
As Mal said, there are already civil rules and statutes on the books that provide a basis of awarding fees and costs against those who bring frivolous lawsuits. The USFS and other federal agencies open themselves up to citizen suits because the agencies take actions without first compiling a competent record and making findings supported by the record. It aint that hard to do that and the law requires it, as it should (unless you take the position that government agencies should not be accountable). If the agency fails to follow the law and a citizen suit is filed alleging such failure, that is necessarily NOT a frivolous lawsuit. If the agency does its job by compiling a competent record and and making findings to support an action, then the law requires the court to give strong deference to the agency. When that happens, citizen suits are almost always unsuccessful. Indeed, environmental groups seldom bother to bring citizen suits when the fed agencies do their jobs re records and findings. Why? Because they know they will lose. If USFS wants to perform thinning (or put out a contract to perform thinning) the law requires them to compile a competent record and make findings justifying that action. Again, it's just not that difficult. When they do so, they don't get sued or, in the rare case they get sued, the case is summarily dismissed. If you want government agencies to be accountable, you must have laws to hold them accountable. If you favor relaxation of government agency accountability standards, the solution is for Congress to amend existing statues. Baseball arbitration is a stupid, unworkable and (as Mal says) would evoke constitutional attack. It's kinda fun watching the usual Big Guhment haters make the case against government accountability.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Malachai Constant
Member
Member


Joined: 13 Jan 2002
Posts: 16088 | TRs | Pics
Location: Back Again Like A Bad Penny
Malachai Constant
Member
PostFri Sep 22, 2017 5:48 pm 
ditto.gif ditto.gif Nothing really to add but defendants almost always say the suit against them is frivolous.

"You do not laugh when you look at the mountains, or when you look at the sea." Lafcadio Hearn
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
treeswarper
Alleged Sockpuppet!



Joined: 25 Dec 2006
Posts: 11272 | TRs | Pics
Location: Don't move here
treeswarper
Alleged Sockpuppet!
PostFri Sep 22, 2017 6:09 pm 
Here are some statistics . This is a summary of a paper. This study provides a comprehensive analysis of USDA Forest Service litigation from 1989 to 2008. Using a census and improved analyses, we document the final outcome of the 1,125 land management cases filed in federal court. The Forest Service won 53.8% of these cases, lost 23.3%, and settled 22.9%. It won 64.0% of the 669 cases decided by a judge based on cases’ merits. The agency was more likely to lose and settle cases during the last 6 years; the number of cases initiated during this time varied greatly. The Pacific Northwest region along with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had the most frequent occurrence of cases. Litigants generally challenged vegetative management (e.g., logging) projects, most often by alleging violations of the National Environmental Policy Act and the National Forest Management Act. The results document the continued influence of the legal system on national forest management and describe the complexity of this litigation. Steve and Mal, you both are assuming that every law suit is lost. This is not the case. However, every lawsuit costs dollars in time and people who must work on it. As mentioned before, lawsuits are also used to slow down the awarding of a timber sale when the timber is liable to deteriorate. By the time the court case is over, no matter how the judge rules, the enviros won the sale becomes worthless. Then you may add even more tax dollars thrown away in the preparation work for the sale. I would call that an abuse of the law system.

What's especially fun about sock puppets is that you can make each one unique and individual, so that they each have special characters. And they don't have to be human––animals and aliens are great possibilities
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
DIYSteve
seeking hygge



Joined: 06 Mar 2007
Posts: 12655 | TRs | Pics
Location: here now
DIYSteve
seeking hygge
PostFri Sep 22, 2017 6:23 pm 
treeswarper wrote:
Steve and Mal, you both are assuming that every law suit is lost.
No, we did no such thing. How could you possibly conclude that I made such an assumption? Stop making stuff up out of thin air.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Ski
><((((°>



Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 12798 | TRs | Pics
Location: tacoma
Ski
><((((°>
PostFri Sep 22, 2017 7:40 pm 
drm wrote:
Which district? Do you have any links on this? Very curious about what you consider the natural order to be. The Mt Adams District of GPNF is my primary area and non-clearcut logging has occurred in recent years in a number of areas I visit.
Formerly the Randle Ranger District, now part of the Cowlitz Valley Ranger District. No, I do not have any "links". I suppose "natural order" may not have been the best way to phrase that, as the term is open to subjective interpretation, and in the case of the lands on the Cowlitz Valley Ranger District, "natural" may be wildly different than in some other location. I am not overly familiar with the activities on the Mt. Adams Ranger District. I do not believe I am on their mailing list. I have been on the mailing list of the Randle Ranger District, subsequently the Cowlitz Valley Ranger District, since 1994. During that time I have read a lot of scoping letters, EA's, EIS's, gone on field trips, and spoken at length with various staff members up at Randle. So, let me ask: should I believe what's being said here, or what I've seen with my own eyes and heard with my own ears? There have been innumerable project proposals put forth out of the Randle office during that time. All have required an investment of their resources of time, money, and manpower. In some cases lots of all three. Silviculturalists have to go out and field check project sites. Wildlife biologists have to go out and do "survey and manage" for threatened and endangered species. The people who work on compliance have to make sure everything falls within the parameters set out in NEPA and the ESA and all of the rest of the Federal and State statutes and regulations that have to be followed. There is a huge investment of resources just putting a proposal together. Then it's put out, and inevitably the objections come - mostly from what was the Gifford Pinchot Task Force - now known as the Cascade Forest Conservancy. Most of those commercial and pre-commercial thinning projects only get a handful of responses to the original scoping letter. In one case that I checked, I was one of six parties who submitted comment on the proposal. That is not uncommon for the CVRD. Time and again projects were delayed, or the number of cutting units was trimmed down, or some of the cutting units required harvesting with helicopters, or some objection was raised because some threatened or endangered three-toed-spotted-one-eyed-salamander might have been on one of the project sites so they have to go back and do the "survey and manage" thing all over again, or any number of different wrenches get tossed into the gears to the point where the project proposal just dies a slow death for lack of action, or (and I've seen this happen more times than I can count) the proposal is watered down or altered so that helicopter harvesting is required on more units and in the end the USFS receives no bids on the proposal. Ergo: no management is done. No commercial thinning. No pre-commercial thinning. On parcels that were clearcut decades ago and then replanted at a ratio of five to one on the assumption that the then-current management plan to revisit the area in so many years would be followed through on. But that management plan from the 1940s or 1950s or whenever isn't being followed through on; the thinning isn't being done, the forests become more overcrowded with dog-hair stands of Douglas Fir and Western Hemlock and Silver Fir, and become prime targets for fire, bugs, and diseases. This was not the way Gifford Pinchot and his compatriots envisioned these forests to be managed, and it is a waste of public resources, and it is detrimental to the overall health of the forest, and the result on the ground is a condition that is unlike anything that might be considered "natural" (at least on the CVRD) by any stretch of the imagination. All of this is without litigation. If and when the District Ranger signs off on a project proposal after the original scoping process is when the legal action begins. As noted above by treeswarper, whether the case is won or lost in far too many cases isn't even the issue. In the case of the plan to salvage timber after the Biscuit fire, objections and appeals held the process up long enough that the standing timber became worthless. Ergo: no sale. This is not the way to run a business. It is not the way to run a forest. It is most certainly not the way to run a National Park Service. If you are actually involved in the process, and you take the time to communicate with the people behind the scenes shoving the paperwork back and forth at the District Ranger offices, and you go out into the field and look at the project sites, these things become clear. If the source of your information is limited to what you can read online or in books or magazines or legal briefs, you are unfortunately not privy to all of the gory details about what is actually happening. But don't take my word for it. Get yourself on the mailing list of your favorite USFS District Ranger office and your favorite National Park, read all of the scoping letters, comment on all of them so you're in the loop, follow up by reading the EA's and EIS's (or FONSI's), go on the field trips with people you don't know, talk to staff people on the phone long distance for hours and hours, and then find out what actually happens on the ground. Do that for about... oh... 20 or 25 years and you'll understand why some of us take different positions on these issues. wink.gif

"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach. I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
drm
Member
Member


Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 1376 | TRs | Pics
Location: The Dalles, OR
drm
Member
PostFri Sep 22, 2017 7:44 pm 
treeswarper wrote:
thinning for wildfires is not a way to stop the fire. It is a way to give the fire less fuel to burn and lessen the conditions for a crown fire by keeping trees apart.
Yes, that's basically how I understand it. I was responding to Walden's letter and press release that suggests thinning will prevent wildfires. I'm off for a three-day loop so I'll catch up on all this next week.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Ski
><((((°>



Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 12798 | TRs | Pics
Location: tacoma
Ski
><((((°>
PostFri Sep 22, 2017 8:06 pm 
^ There hasn't been anyone here who's claimed that commercial or pre-commercial thinning is going to prevent wildfires. Who's "Walden"? There have been all kinds of people who are employed in the business of managing forests (whether working for a commercial enterprise or a public lands management agency) who have demonstrated on the ground that commercial and pre-commercial thinning reduces the damage done by wildfires by reducing their intensity, as treeswarper notes above. There are also lots of examples where for want of commercial or pre-commercial thinning, wildfires were much worse than they might have been otherwise, long-term damage was greater than it might have been otherwise, and far more money was spent putting out the fires than what might have been otherwise. (i.e., Sequoia-Kings Canyon National Park just a few years ago.) (Although unless I'm mistaken, the thinning didn't happen because they lacked funding to go ahead with that particular project.)

"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach. I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
   All times are GMT - 8 Hours
 Reply to topic
Forum Index > Public Lands Stewardship > Lawsuit Backlash
  Happy Birthday noahk!
Jump to:   
Search this topic:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum