USA: Consensus process has led to disastrous natural resource decisions

What western lands management has suffered from over the last 20 plus
years has been, in my view, a disastrous move toward consensus
decision making. There is no known way – and this explains an awful
lot of why western land mgmt has moved in this direction – to more
effectively purge the “best available science” and broad public access
to legal and administrative process out of the land management
scenario than to move to local control and consensus.

This has not
happened by default; its a right wing republican driven agenda that
envisions essentially privatized decision making and control of public
lands and processes. It has gained immense strength since Reagan, did
not lose any momentum under Clinton, and rose to new heights under
Bush. Kemmis, in my view, does not understand, nor appreciate, nor
support the broad use of ecological science to under pin decisions
about public lands and biological diversity conservation. He would
continue to move away from the brilliant visions and legislation that
were born in America in the mid part of the last century (NEPA, APA,
NFMA, ESA, Wild Act) and would strengthen the privatization agenda of
special interest users like the timber industry, grazing industry, and
oil and gas industry. There is a role for public lands in the battle
to reverse global climate disruption, but Kemmis and collaboration /
consensus decision making will not fulfill that role. The sad fact of
the matter is that public lands management has continued not just to
drift, but to rush, toward the lowest common denominator level of
mgmt, which is what consensus is well known for. I can, for example,
tell you we would not have Pres Elect Obama if it had been a consensus
based selection process. The only effective role public lands can play
in the global climate agenda is to dramatically increase and recover
the ecological integrity of the landscape, that is remove and reduce
the industrialization (including logging, even when couched in the
name of forest health) and motorization that has fragmented and
degraded ecosystems. From a wildlife perspective, that is the only –
yes, the only – means by which more robust wildlife and fish
populations can be achieved. This requires breaking the mold that has
framed debate about and constrained conservation management on public
lands for the past 30 years. Kemmis, and I’m afraid, Salazar, wont do
that. wuerthner@earthlink.net

Posted via email from Deane’s posterous