cjcj,
To answer your questions:
1. No the agency and how they do business has not stayed the same for 10-12-30 years. Its much more complex today to do the same things the agencies did 30 years ago. The changes have been because of the increasing awareness of the customers (PUBLIC) about what's going on with THEIR public lands. Thirty years ago, the public just assumed that the land management agencies were following the laws and regulations they were supposed to. They assumed that the agencies were managing in a correct manner. In some cases they were...in other cases they werent. A huge amount of distrust (some legitimate, some maybe not) was inbedded in the public via high profile cases of neglect on the agencies part. This came about, because suddenly, public lands were a hot commodity. You had lots of people with lots of free time to enjoy public lands in all kinds of ways. On any given parcel of public land, there are a multitude of users and uses for that land. Enter in the laws and regulations. The agencies are required to give equal consideration to all uses when making management decisions.
For example...lets go back to that 5 sections the FS wants to cut timber on. They just cant ignore the other potential uses of those 5 sections. Before they cut the timber off those sections...they have to make sure that other users and uses are being mitigated. Thats where the EIS process comes in. If they find a sensitive plant...that changes how they go about setting up the sales. If an outfitter uses those 5 sections for guiding clients...that has to be addressed in the EIS. There is an absolute endless amount of conflicts that could come up.
Within reason, I think its the best process to have over-all. On a case by case basis...maybe not.
The land agencies can't I repeat...absolutely can't...cut corners and ignore the laws, regulations, and public involvement when implementing management. When they do, they get sued by the public.
It cant change that much because what laws and regulations that the congress (public) has passed are the agencies supposed to ignore? The ESA? How about the Clean water act? Should they ignore the Resource Planning Act? How about NEPA, should they ignore that? How about the dozens of others? Ignore them? If so, who should decide that timber receipts are more important than Clean Water? Who should decide if bald eagle habitat is more important than motorized travel?
Who makes the decisions on what Resource Policy should be ignored or prioritized?
I assure you the agencies dont have the luxury to ignore any of them...unless they want to spend considerable time in stuffy courtrooms.
The other thing you dont get is that the FS is not like the aerospace industry where they're simply making "widgets". In land management, the decisions made today dont result in an instant "widget". The decisions on how we manage has many, many effects on everything else. To top it off, many times it takes years and years and years to see what the final result of that management was...and if we got it right or wrong.
Managing the environment is much more complex than building a part for the space shuttle.
The customers are YOU, ME, and every other U.S. Citizen.
I understand your frustration, but YOU have to understand that its very difficult to please everyone with every decision. The only recourse the agencies have is to follow the laws, do what they can, and hope their decisions are really whats best for the land and the people.
