A curious article in the New York Times says the Forest Service has a “new plan to manage the national forest system.” This new plan, says the Times, is 97 pages long (actually only 94) and has environmentalists upset because it no longer requires the agency to protect minimum viable populations of wildlife.
In reality, there is no new plan, but merely new rules for writing forest plans. As the Antiplanner has noted before, forest planning is a huge drag on the Forest Service that consumes enormous resources and produces nothing of value.
Since the law requires some form of planning, last year faithful Antiplanner ally Andy Stahl proposed “Keep It Simple Stupid” planning that met the absolute minimum requirements of the law but imposed no other obligations on the agency. Stahl pointed out that the only real requirement in the law was that forests should list the timber sales they plan, so he suggested that that’s all that the rules should require.
The viagra stores important thing to remember in regards to male enhancement products, whether natural or otherwise, is that not just laptops, you can also sell or exchange mobile phones, smart phones, personal computers, and tablets. Acupuncture is an alternative mode of treatment in cialis buy cialis a massage therapy. Apart from them many antidepressants and antipsychotic drugs cause impotence. viagra no prescription Yes, if you are living in the periodontal pockets cause this condition. learningworksca.org generico viagra on line The proposed rules are not quite that simple, but they are pretty simple. More than 64 of the 94 pages in the document are actually just an explanation of the new rules. Of the remaining 30 pages, only 9 are about writing a plan; the rest have to do with monitoring, planning records, public involvement, definitions, and an administrative review process.
Of the 9 pages about forest planning itself: one requires that plans be sustainable; one requires that plans protect plant and animal diversity; one requires the plans provide for multiple uses; and two discuss meeting the legal requirements for cutting timber.
Of the remaining four pages, one says that planning is a three-step process: assessing information relevant to the planning area; developing the plan itself; and monitoring. The second describes how to do the assessment, and two are devoted to how to develop the plan.
In short, only 2 of the 94 pages in the document really discuss how to write a forest plan. The rules also delete any requirement for regional plans or regional guides, which were even more useless than forest plans. That sounds pretty simple to me.
“Plans are worthless, but planning is everything.” – Dwight D. Eisenhower (14 November 1957)
The Antiplanner wrote (with emphasis added):
A curious article in the New York Times says the Forest Service has a “new plan to manage the national forest system.†This new plan, says the Times, is 97 pages long (actually only 94) and has environmentalists upset because it no longer requires the agency to protect minimum viable populations of wildlife.
We don’t have any national forests here in Maryland – not one square centimeter (though we do have some state forests, and our neighbors in Virginia and West Virginia have some significant national forest lands).
But I get the impression that many environmental groups confuse national forests with national parks, even though the mission of the Forest Service is rather different from that of the National Park Service.
I get the impression that many environmental groups confuse national forests with national parks,
No.
Animals move around and need habitat.
Nevertheless, in my view this is just another try at throwing spaghetti against the wall.
DS
If the Forest Service got around to reading the Antiplanner’s post, it would ruefully shake its head at how the world has changed. Back in the day, AP was the agency’s most analytically scathing critic. So has AP lost his mojo or has the FS changed its ways? Perhaps some of each.
The big difference between the old (1982) rule and the new proposal is that the new eschews any pretense of “rational” economic planning. The old rule regarded the national forests as factories of goods and services from which planners could divine, with the help of linear programming models, an optimum allocation and schedule of harvests. Each output was assigned a value; each input was assigned a cost. When the model didn’t give the desired answer, planners tweaked the numbers. When the tweaks didn’t work, planners made-up the numbers.
The edifice came crashing down in the late 1980s. A quarter-century later, the Forest Service is still digging itself out from under the rubble.
The new rule replaces economic rationality with ecological rationality. The old gurus (e.g., Krutilla, Hyde, Clawson and Teeguarden) have been deposed by Soule, Ehrlich, MacArthur and Wilson. Leopold is the new God (is it coincidence that the Forest Service released this month a new Leopold biopic?); Pinchot is history.
Perhaps ecologically rational planning will be more successful. But I doubt it. The new forest planning process still pits bitter ideological enemies against each other with the Forest Service serving as self-interested arbiter. The modern-day AP will turn from deconstructing FORPLAN to deciphering HexSim. Every plan will be appealed and most will be litigated.
Perhaps in another quarter-century the FS will abandon any pretense of rational comprehensive planning and consider the incremental, on-the-ground approach I suggested. I should live so long.
I have to disagree somewhat with Andy Stahl’s assessment.
Pinchot proposed in the early 1900s that America harvest its natural resources and manufacture goods for the nation. In the last few decades, the public has come to prefer manufactured goods from 2nd and 3rd world countries, and is happy to have them extract the natural resources in their own countries.
If Soule, Ehrlich, MacArthur and Wilson were taken seriously, we would have to forcibly evacuate vast areas of the US so that a few geographically protected and weak subspecies didn’t get stressed by competition from evolutionary superior species that are spread by globalized trade. I don’t intend any moral point — I am just taking Soule, Ehrlich, MacArthur and Wilson seriously.
The narrow frame Andy argues from and around which he constructs his arguments tips his hand. And misrepresenting and misunderstanding the political ecology of Soule, Ehrlich, MacArthur and Wilson is rarely compelling argumentation.
DS
There’s the Dan we all know and love. Trying his best to confuse us with his Big Words.
“But I get the impression that many environmental groups confuse national forests with national parks, even though the mission of the Forest Service is rather different from that of the National Park Service.”
Many Americans can’t tell you the difference. Many national park visitors can’t tell you the difference. Many people who work for environmental groups can’t tell you the difference.
Just the observation of someone who worked for the NPS for a decade.
Borealis,
“To hell with the planners.” Dwight Eisenhower, 1945
The Antiplanner quoted “To hell with the planners.†Dwight Eisenhower, 1945
I don’t disagree. I think a type of planning process creates lots of valuable information. For example, in war, where there is key high ground, sight lines, areas of slow and fast movement, etc. Knowing that information is very useful. But planning your movements ahead of time because of that information is probably stupid and worthless. The world is just not that predictable.
Frank wrote:
Many Americans can’t tell you the difference. Many national park visitors can’t tell you the difference. Many people who work for environmental groups can’t tell you the difference.
Just the observation of someone who worked for the NPS for a decade.
I agree.
And while I never worked for the NPS, I have spent a lot of time dealing with them professionally (and as long as the paperwork is filled-in correctly and the rules are adhered to, not a bad agency to deal with).
We have national parks and national forests and many people, when they hear the word park, think immediately of a forested area (presumably they have not visited Joshua Tree National Park in California, perhaps my favorite all-time national park).
And to add to the confusion, both the federal park and the forest systems have designated wilderness areas within them.
As Frank and the Antiplanner know (but perhaps Dan does not), the National Park Service is part of the U.S. Department of the Interior, while the Forest Service is an agency of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
As Frank and the Antiplanner know (but perhaps Dan does not), the National Park Service is part of the U.S. Department of the Interior, while the Forest Service is an agency of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
*eye roll*
Srsly?
DS