The End of "Analysis Paralysis"?

BigHornRam

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2004
Messages
6,416
Location
"Land of Giant Rams"
+1 for Trump!


I like this line in the NPR story...............

"But according to the government's own analysis — the last done in 2010 during the Obama administration — fewer than one-fifth of all timber and forest projects are appealed by citizens or environmental groups. "

Instead of relying on 2010 "analysis" maybe they should look into current timber and forest projects under appeal......... in Montana National Forests alone.
 

shoots-straight

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 6, 2005
Messages
5,925
Location
Bitterroot Valley
+1 for Trump!


I like this line in the NPR story...............

"But according to the government's own analysis — the last done in 2010 during the Obama administration — fewer than one-fifth of all timber and forest projects are appealed by citizens or environmental groups. "

Instead of relying on 2010 "analysis" maybe they should look into current timber and forest projects under appeal......... in Montana National Forests alone.
Do you have any data to show?
 

elkduds

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 22, 2016
Messages
1,398
Location
CO Springs.
BHR, I agree w half of what you said. Trump is actively seeking to end analysis w his public land policy. Witness sage grouse plan, Bears Ears, drilling regs, oversight and leases, air quality deregulation, water quality deregulation...
 

375H&H

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 16, 2017
Messages
1,069
Location
Northern Wyoming
BHR, I agree w half of what you said. Trump is actively seeking to end analysis w his public land policy. Witness sage grouse plan, Bears Ears, drilling regs, oversight and leases, air quality deregulation, water quality deregulation...
You won’t see any difference in the quality of air or water due to the changes, except for the better air quality due to less wildfires and more forest management happening.
 

elkduds

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 22, 2016
Messages
1,398
Location
CO Springs.
You won’t see any difference in the quality of air or water due to the changes, except for the better air quality due to less wildfires and more forest management happening.
While I hope you are correct, we will never know as long as the few remaining government-employed professionals are prohibited by the WH from planning, accurately measuring or even uttering any results that disagree w White House disinformation in every category. Environmental science is near the top of T's list-to-lie-about.
 

BigHornRam

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2004
Messages
6,416
Location
"Land of Giant Rams"
While I hope you are correct, we will never know as long as the few remaining government-employed professionals are prohibited by the WH from planning, accurately measuring or even uttering any results that disagree w White House disinformation in every category. Environmental science is near the top of T's list-to-lie-about.
I was at a meeting with the newly appointed Montana State Forester, and she clearly stated that the Trump Administration and the Bullock Administration are both on the same page when it comes to our forests health. This issue has bi-partisan support and she was certain that positive results were coming in the near future.

And here we are.
 

BigHornRam

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2004
Messages
6,416
Location
"Land of Giant Rams"
2 years of delays later and how much money did it cost to come to this conclusion?

 

Sytes

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Messages
5,666
Location
Montana
Finally! Some common sense and reduced kowtowing to extremist evironmental obstructionists...

Federal agencies have long complained of "analysis paralysis" when it comes to getting large landscape-scale projects approved. Policymakers frequently decry what they call frivolous lawsuits by litigious-minded environmental groups who use the courts to try to stop logging on public land.
Interesting, NPR went with Backcountry Hunters and Anglers for the dissenting perspective. Says something when that is NPR's perspective. I should add, an unexpected decent perspective provided by BHA. Seems it's hard to fight this too vocally when their FB page members are actually quashing the anti anything Trump BHA members for a change.
 
Last edited:

Nv_archer

Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2017
Messages
34
I'm torn on this issue. Adequate NEPA analysis is vital to the protection of the terrestrial and aquatic resources on the landscapes. The current "main streaming" of NEPA is clearing up some of the backlog of projects but it is becoming a full time job for state wildlife agencies to comment every oil and gas lease, timber sale, and mine exploration.

With that said I am glad something is being done on the forestry side of things. I was fortunate to grow up in a logging family and love forestry. Logging is not the end all, be all to forest health but it is certainly a major component, not mention an economic driver. I think wildfires are an important ecological tool for restoring nutrients to the landscape and improving habitat wild ungulate numbers but the litigation of every timber sale from groups like Center for biological diversity completely undermine any proactive approach to mitigate wildfire or the spread of pine beetle.

Sorry for the rant but I can see both sides of what Trunp is doing. I am just tired of the political pendulum swinging to the extreme every 4 to 8 years....
 

BigHornRam

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2004
Messages
6,416
Location
"Land of Giant Rams"
Finally! Some common sense and reduced kowtowing to extremist evironmental obstructionists...



Interesting, NPR went with Backcountry Hunters and Anglers for the dissenting perspective. Says something when that is NPR's perspective. I should add, an unexpected decent perspective provided by BHA. Seems it's hard to fight this too vocally when their FB page members are actually quashing the anti anything Trump BHA members for a change.
I actually think NPR does a pretty good job presenting the news. I do also think that they get a lot of pressure from the more rabid listeners that sometimes negatively effects the way they do journalism, but that is just human nature.

I guess it's up to the listeners to sort out the bias from the facts.

I suppose I should edit this to say I like Montana Public Radio's news perspective better than NPR'S. There is a big difference.
 
Last edited:

jryoung

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 16, 2012
Messages
4,351
Location
Unable to determine due to velocity
Finally! Some common sense and reduced kowtowing to extremist evironmental obstructionists...



Interesting, NPR went with Backcountry Hunters and Anglers for the dissenting perspective. Says something when that is NPR's perspective. I should add, an unexpected decent perspective provided by BHA. Seems it's hard to fight this too vocally when their FB page members are actually quashing the anti anything Trump BHA members for a change.
Pretty sure John made his statement based in the merits and potential risks of the proposal and nothing to do with Facebook comments.
 

Hilljackoutlaw

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 15, 2019
Messages
835
Location
Southeast Idaho
While I hope you are correct, we will never know as long as the few remaining government-employed professionals are prohibited by the WH from planning, accurately measuring or even uttering any results that disagree w White House disinformation in every category. Environmental science is near the top of T's list-to-lie-about.
Planning what exactly elkduds? Planning how they can word some study just perfect so it plays on people's emotions and fears to create the most amount of division possible on the issue.
 

Sytes

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Messages
5,666
Location
Montana
Pretty sure John made his statement based in the merits and potential risks of the proposal and nothing to do with Facebook comments.
Well good on John Gale. As mentioned, a decent statement that hopefully keeps the salivating extremist enviro's at bay. 😉
 

Sytes

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Messages
5,666
Location
Montana
I was at a meeting with the newly appointed Montana State Forester, and she clearly stated that the Trump Administration and the Bullock Administration are both on the same page when it comes to our forests health. This issue has bi-partisan support and she was certain that positive results were coming in the near future.

And here we are.
This is a quality step. How's Tester on this? I'm quite confident I know Daines position. Tester, I imagine is also on board with this...(?)

Edit added: I'd imagine so... This is a recent action. Bipartisan in nature.
 

Ben Lamb

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 6, 2010
Messages
10,499
Location
Helena
So essentially, this continues the kind of work that Forests in Focus does, which was passed under the 15 farm bill. Not a bad thing in and of itself, but the proof is in how this is administered, and excuse many of us if we have little faith in the band of brigands currently auctioning off our public lands. ;)
 
Last edited:
Top