19 Western governors protest Zinke’s plan to change Interior boundaries
- Thread starter Ben Lamb
- Start date
Veddy interesting. Especially Region 7 and how far it goes N/S
I see striking similarity of ecosystems in zone 7, like in the San Juan Mountains and their 14ers and northerly into Wyoming as compared to the Sonoran desert
Last edited:
I agree. And, I think if done properly, like actually engaging Governors and stakeholders before letting fly one of the most exepensive reorgs in an organization's history, it could help in terms of responsiveness and making sure we don't end up in another situation like we did with the dude out of UT who ran roughshod over so many people. But like all things with the administration, it's a top-down approach that ignores the input and wisdom of people they don't deem worthy of asking an opinion of.
In general, no. Each administration will put their own agenda ahead of the previous administration, but unlike past transitions, this one didn't really have people on hand to help guide and make the transition seemless. In fact, the way that this admin approached the transition was more of a "we're in, get out" approach that is leading them try and reinvent wheels that have been crafted collaboratively for a long time.
I didn't see a train-wreck of a transition between Bush II and Obama, largely because we had professionals who cared about governance in both admins working to ensure that moving from one administration to the next would work well, and in exchange, a lot of the Salazar people saw some of the wisdom of what the Bush folks were working on regarding grouse, grizz, etc.
The hubris and ignorance displayed by this administration is mind-boggling. They'd rather do what they want and lie to us all than actually work with folks to accomplish good things.
rideold
Well-known member
I've been kind of wondering about this for a while. On the surface the maneuvers and results seem pretty bone headed but maybe that is just on the surface. My opinion is more that they know exactly what they are doing and know there will be big backlash so they do things in parts and in as much of a closed door fashion as they can to mitigate that backlash. It' like my kid who agrees to do something then turns around and does what he wants in blatant disregard for what was just said and agreed. Not trying to divert attention to your comment because you make good points. Just something that has been tickling my brain lately.
I see striking similarity of ecosystems in zone 7, like in the San Juan Mountains and their 14ers and northerly into Wyoming as compared to the Sonoran desert
Not to mention NE Kansas and Missouri's uncanny resemblance to NW Wyoming and Montana. Amazing I had never noticed that before.....
Old Ranger
Member
Just about all of the posts within this thread sure align with a number of my perspectives on the matter. Some good observations, points, and questions asked. At least from the "hillside" I'm glassing this all from.
I certainly see tensions in some corners when Secretary Zinke is brought up on the Forum. I respect the viewpoints from the different corners of the room here.
Interesting front page article with the February 20, 2018 edition of the Great Falls Tribune. Folks can read if they wish and decide from there. Personal opinion aside... It is very poor Business and Governance for the Leadership of the National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, and United States Fish and Wildlife Service to all be without the permanent Leadership with selected Directors, thirteen months into this so called "Administration". Note: Personal "perspective" at the very end of last sentence.
From my viewpoint and former experience the past three Administrations have each in their own ways "whipsawed" the Land Management Agencies of both the Department of Interior as well as the Department of Agriculture. Budgets have been in continual reduction since the mid nineties. The Bush administration reduced budgets while all the while "knowing" that many key parts to the core Missions of these Agencies could be subcontracted out and save endless millions. The Secretary of Agriculture was absolutely Draconian in his contempt and outlook to the role and necessity of the US Forest Service. And now, we seem to be experiencing a knee-jerk... ready.. shoot.. aim type of approach to the issues and Missions of the DOI Agencies. Perhaps History may well prove the disservice of this era to the Natural Resource values of the Republic. Just saying..... again from my personal Hillside glassing point.
In a former Life and World I was in attendance at a Congressional Natural Resources Committee Hearing in Washington. The Chief of the Forest Service was in front of the Committee to answer questions and provide testimony on a matter. Then Congressman Zinke came in late and as a committee member gave testimony and stayed for a short period of time to ask a few questions. His respect for the individuals there was shall we say a bit lacking. His awareness and study to the issues being discussed was shall we say.... the same. But even back then he was comparing himself, on record, as a modern version of President Theodore Roosevelt. I sat there politely wondering. And now guess what....... You Just Can't Tell How High a Frog Can Jump by Looking at Him.....
I certainly see tensions in some corners when Secretary Zinke is brought up on the Forum. I respect the viewpoints from the different corners of the room here.
Interesting front page article with the February 20, 2018 edition of the Great Falls Tribune. Folks can read if they wish and decide from there. Personal opinion aside... It is very poor Business and Governance for the Leadership of the National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, and United States Fish and Wildlife Service to all be without the permanent Leadership with selected Directors, thirteen months into this so called "Administration". Note: Personal "perspective" at the very end of last sentence.
From my viewpoint and former experience the past three Administrations have each in their own ways "whipsawed" the Land Management Agencies of both the Department of Interior as well as the Department of Agriculture. Budgets have been in continual reduction since the mid nineties. The Bush administration reduced budgets while all the while "knowing" that many key parts to the core Missions of these Agencies could be subcontracted out and save endless millions. The Secretary of Agriculture was absolutely Draconian in his contempt and outlook to the role and necessity of the US Forest Service. And now, we seem to be experiencing a knee-jerk... ready.. shoot.. aim type of approach to the issues and Missions of the DOI Agencies. Perhaps History may well prove the disservice of this era to the Natural Resource values of the Republic. Just saying..... again from my personal Hillside glassing point.
In a former Life and World I was in attendance at a Congressional Natural Resources Committee Hearing in Washington. The Chief of the Forest Service was in front of the Committee to answer questions and provide testimony on a matter. Then Congressman Zinke came in late and as a committee member gave testimony and stayed for a short period of time to ask a few questions. His respect for the individuals there was shall we say a bit lacking. His awareness and study to the issues being discussed was shall we say.... the same. But even back then he was comparing himself, on record, as a modern version of President Theodore Roosevelt. I sat there politely wondering. And now guess what....... You Just Can't Tell How High a Frog Can Jump by Looking at Him.....
Old Ranger
Member
Editing addition to my previous post... if anyone is even interested:
With my personal perspectives of past Administration's oversight to the Land Management Agencies of both DOI and DOA. My account of the Secretary of Agriculture's handling of the Forest Service.... That Secretary of Ag served for the full length of the Obama Administration.
With my personal perspectives of past Administration's oversight to the Land Management Agencies of both DOI and DOA. My account of the Secretary of Agriculture's handling of the Forest Service.... That Secretary of Ag served for the full length of the Obama Administration.
Hunting Wife
Well-known member
Agree with you Ranger. A bit scary when it is apparent the SOI doesn’t have a good grasp on the differing agency missions within his own Department. I think undertaking a reorganization effort of this magnitude with no Agency Directors in place is ignorant at best, and makes me wonder about ulterior motives.
The news coming down from on high about this reorganization sounds like a cluster of epic proportions. Some of my favorite gems about the plan so far...
First, as a state representative Zinke signed a letter disapproving of a very similar idea for reorganization of BLM in 2015 (I think?) because of the burden it placed on states in trying to work with the agency. Seems odd it is now a great idea to roll out across multiple agencies. Dividing states between regions will make it much more difficult for states to work with each agency, and I don’t see how it doesn’t create more redundancy between regions at the federal level.
The proposed reorganization adds an additional layer of DOI staff in each region that doesn’t currently exist. Not sure how that helps put more “boots on the ground” for the agencies, and I don’t know how adding a Department level office to oversee each region helps local input. Those two ideas are diametrically opposed in my experience.
There will be “multiple chains of command” for local field stations, depending on what issue is being addressed. That sounds like a nightmare, and I again don’t see how that streamlines work at the local level.
Regional leadership would rotate every two years among the regional directors of each agency. Given the significant differences between agency missions and guiding legislation, I again don’t see how this is a good idea.
Programs will be lumped together across agencies, the primary example being NEPA. The example he’s provided on several calls and webcasts is for projects involving streams where US Fish and Wildlife Service issues a finding for impacts to a trout, but Marine Fisheries issues a different finding for a salmon for the same project. This is the “evidence” that the process isn’t working and DOI needs to be streamlined. I wish some staffer would point out that Marine Fisheries are part of the Department of Commerce, not DOI. Yes, some parts of the process could be streamlined (no small part of that being crap that Congress has enacted and needs to fix), but I don’t think restructuring DOI is going to solve all the problems he thinks it will. And if done poorly, it will create a bunch of new problems. But we are charging ahead....FY 19 budget request has lots of money in it for reorganizing.
I could see doing some consolidation for business admin functions, NEPA, planning etc. within agencies, but the intricacies that apply to each agency are so different I see a much increased potential for waste by trying to do those at a Departmental level.
The news coming down from on high about this reorganization sounds like a cluster of epic proportions. Some of my favorite gems about the plan so far...
First, as a state representative Zinke signed a letter disapproving of a very similar idea for reorganization of BLM in 2015 (I think?) because of the burden it placed on states in trying to work with the agency. Seems odd it is now a great idea to roll out across multiple agencies. Dividing states between regions will make it much more difficult for states to work with each agency, and I don’t see how it doesn’t create more redundancy between regions at the federal level.
The proposed reorganization adds an additional layer of DOI staff in each region that doesn’t currently exist. Not sure how that helps put more “boots on the ground” for the agencies, and I don’t know how adding a Department level office to oversee each region helps local input. Those two ideas are diametrically opposed in my experience.
There will be “multiple chains of command” for local field stations, depending on what issue is being addressed. That sounds like a nightmare, and I again don’t see how that streamlines work at the local level.
Regional leadership would rotate every two years among the regional directors of each agency. Given the significant differences between agency missions and guiding legislation, I again don’t see how this is a good idea.
Programs will be lumped together across agencies, the primary example being NEPA. The example he’s provided on several calls and webcasts is for projects involving streams where US Fish and Wildlife Service issues a finding for impacts to a trout, but Marine Fisheries issues a different finding for a salmon for the same project. This is the “evidence” that the process isn’t working and DOI needs to be streamlined. I wish some staffer would point out that Marine Fisheries are part of the Department of Commerce, not DOI. Yes, some parts of the process could be streamlined (no small part of that being crap that Congress has enacted and needs to fix), but I don’t think restructuring DOI is going to solve all the problems he thinks it will. And if done poorly, it will create a bunch of new problems. But we are charging ahead....FY 19 budget request has lots of money in it for reorganizing.
I could see doing some consolidation for business admin functions, NEPA, planning etc. within agencies, but the intricacies that apply to each agency are so different I see a much increased potential for waste by trying to do those at a Departmental level.
Topgun 30-06
Active member
Looks like the Governors got their message across because it just came out that he is withdrawing that sweeping plan and will be more closely following the state boundaries when changes are made!
The Governors did have an impact. And that is good, though still complicates decisions at the BLM level when they have to coordinate with so many different states within their new Region. I expect more rancor by states and their legislatures, not less.
One should probably not discount the politics of this pivot. That being Montana and Colorado, the two states to be sliced/diced more than other states by the proposal to reorganize the BLM, have Senate seats up for grabs in 2020. Two places where public land topics will swing the Senate races also happen to be Montana and Colorado.
dannyb278
Active member
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2015
- Messages
- 574
I totally get the idea behind this and it might not even be a bad one. That said, after a few years in the military and a few years with the forest service, what worries me is the execution of it. Talk about a time and money suck
CampRipleyLF
Active member
GOOD to hear!
CampRipleyLF
Active member
Agreed, that and I wonder what portion of the experienced and highly trained professionals that would decide to take a different position before making this move!
Similar threads
