sapperJ24
Well-known member
Circling back to Buzz's comments on local control and comment periods.
By law, the land management agencies have to read and respond to the comments received. Having perused comments for various projects, there's typically a pretty clear trend. On a positive note, this pattern shifted with the most recent project and more comments were received in support of the proposed action from other interested parties.
For vegetation management type projects (including commercial timber harvest), typically the only comments in support are from one or two of the nearby mills. Maybe there would be another supporting statement from someone else associated with the timber industry.
And then there would be numerous comments in opposition to the project. Often these objections were from local protectionist groups and local chapters of national organizations. The groups would make formal statements, but also drive their members to make individual comments as well.
The result was often something like 80% of the comments in opposition which made it tough to justify the proposed action. This usually meant some aspect (cutting and thinning) of the project was dropped jeopardizing the soundness of the overall project.
I would challenge the idea that local control doesn't currently exist. It exists, but it might just not be going the way you want it to go. The apathy of locals who couldn't be bothered to comment in support is part of the problem.
A couple years ago, one of the FWP ungulate working groups called up and was wondering why more veg management wasn't happening in a certain area. There was widespread agreement that work was needed to be done to improve conditions for ungulates. They were asked if they had commented on the ongoing proposal for that area, they had not. Basically the above conversation was shared with them. Ultimately, many members of the working group commented resulting in the Forest Service being able to say, 'yeah there's local support for this project.'
Get informed and make a comment!
By law, the land management agencies have to read and respond to the comments received. Having perused comments for various projects, there's typically a pretty clear trend. On a positive note, this pattern shifted with the most recent project and more comments were received in support of the proposed action from other interested parties.
For vegetation management type projects (including commercial timber harvest), typically the only comments in support are from one or two of the nearby mills. Maybe there would be another supporting statement from someone else associated with the timber industry.
And then there would be numerous comments in opposition to the project. Often these objections were from local protectionist groups and local chapters of national organizations. The groups would make formal statements, but also drive their members to make individual comments as well.
The result was often something like 80% of the comments in opposition which made it tough to justify the proposed action. This usually meant some aspect (cutting and thinning) of the project was dropped jeopardizing the soundness of the overall project.
I would challenge the idea that local control doesn't currently exist. It exists, but it might just not be going the way you want it to go. The apathy of locals who couldn't be bothered to comment in support is part of the problem.
A couple years ago, one of the FWP ungulate working groups called up and was wondering why more veg management wasn't happening in a certain area. There was widespread agreement that work was needed to be done to improve conditions for ungulates. They were asked if they had commented on the ongoing proposal for that area, they had not. Basically the above conversation was shared with them. Ultimately, many members of the working group commented resulting in the Forest Service being able to say, 'yeah there's local support for this project.'
Get informed and make a comment!
![pic AmodeiAmendment_NVnorth_051325[60].jpg](/data/attachments/342/342172-18d3265d348baffee9d68f0852f76a62.jpg)
