BLM Sucks [again]

[cjcj]

Buzz its you and 1pt. who have knowlegde of the inner workings of your agency`s..... But why isn`t there a culture change? has everything remained the same for 10-20-30 years?

trust me I have worked in and around government contracts/ regulation in the aerospace industry... but we were able to change some things that were "written in stone " procedures,etc, and still have the same result as the original intent. [ meeting quality/safety/"blueprint standards"]

I guess maybe you guys could tell me.. who are you customers? and what is your agency`s Mission Statement?

 

[JoseCuervo]

trust me I have worked in and around government contracts/ regulation in the aerospace industry... but we were able to change some things that were "written in stone " procedures,etc, and still have the same result as the original intent.

I am guessing we now know why two space shuttles have blown up.....

 

[Nemont]

BLM
Mission Statement

The Bureau of Land Management administers public lands within a framework of numerous laws. The most comprehensive of these is the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA). All Bureau policies, procedures and management actions must be consistent with FLPMA and the other laws that govern use of the public lands.

It is the mission of the Bureau of Land Management to sustain the health, diversity and productivity of the public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations.

The forest service is a little more wordy

FS Mission

 

[BuzzH]

cjcj,

To answer your questions:

1. No the agency and how they do business has not stayed the same for 10-12-30 years. Its much more complex today to do the same things the agencies did 30 years ago. The changes have been because of the increasing awareness of the customers (PUBLIC) about what's going on with THEIR public lands. Thirty years ago, the public just assumed that the land management agencies were following the laws and regulations they were supposed to. They assumed that the agencies were managing in a correct manner. In some cases they were...in other cases they werent. A huge amount of distrust (some legitimate, some maybe not) was inbedded in the public via high profile cases of neglect on the agencies part. This came about, because suddenly, public lands were a hot commodity. You had lots of people with lots of free time to enjoy public lands in all kinds of ways. On any given parcel of public land, there are a multitude of users and uses for that land. Enter in the laws and regulations. The agencies are required to give equal consideration to all uses when making management decisions.

For example...lets go back to that 5 sections the FS wants to cut timber on. They just cant ignore the other potential uses of those 5 sections. Before they cut the timber off those sections...they have to make sure that other users and uses are being mitigated. Thats where the EIS process comes in. If they find a sensitive plant...that changes how they go about setting up the sales. If an outfitter uses those 5 sections for guiding clients...that has to be addressed in the EIS. There is an absolute endless amount of conflicts that could come up.

Within reason, I think its the best process to have over-all. On a case by case basis...maybe not.

The land agencies can't I repeat...absolutely can't...cut corners and ignore the laws, regulations, and public involvement when implementing management. When they do, they get sued by the public.

It cant change that much because what laws and regulations that the congress (public) has passed are the agencies supposed to ignore? The ESA? How about the Clean water act? Should they ignore the Resource Planning Act? How about NEPA, should they ignore that? How about the dozens of others? Ignore them? If so, who should decide that timber receipts are more important than Clean Water? Who should decide if bald eagle habitat is more important than motorized travel?

Who makes the decisions on what Resource Policy should be ignored or prioritized?

I assure you the agencies dont have the luxury to ignore any of them...unless they want to spend considerable time in stuffy courtrooms.

The other thing you dont get is that the FS is not like the aerospace industry where they're simply making "widgets". In land management, the decisions made today dont result in an instant "widget". The decisions on how we manage has many, many effects on everything else. To top it off, many times it takes years and years and years to see what the final result of that management was...and if we got it right or wrong.

Managing the environment is much more complex than building a part for the space shuttle.

The customers are YOU, ME, and every other U.S. Citizen.

I understand your frustration, but YOU have to understand that its very difficult to please everyone with every decision. The only recourse the agencies have is to follow the laws, do what they can, and hope their decisions are really whats best for the land and the people.

 

[1_pointer]

Buzz- Thanks for putting my thoughts more eloquently into words than I would have. And I resemble the comment about being 'inept'; you should know you've hunted with me!

cjcj- The wheels of change are slow for the federal agencies because they are laws. With your passion about immigration issues I'm sure you can understand the difficulty of making these types of changes. I do find it sort of ironic that you voice an opinion on the slowness of a federal agency to act in a thread that you started that involves an appeal (that you support) of a federal agency action. THAT is one of the biggest reasons the agencies are slow to act, to give you, or in the case of this thread the AZ F&G the opportunity to have a say in the action.

 

[cjcj]

Well Buzz that was a very good response, thank you....I Just feel that in certain situations
it would be nice to have a "fast track" type of "team" in place for say a emergency, somehow get people together for the best results.

I was told at Sperry that you could not change FAA/NASA procedures... I could not believe how "outdated" some of these regs. were.

But by getting the right people together we were able to show vast improvements in manufacturing, we not only got them done but it started a "revolution' in the industry... constant quality improvement became the "norm" . always looking for a better way

But I`m glad that you can define customer , although I think the BLM mission statement is vague, [ 1976?]
at least they have one.

Hope they have set in motion a mechanism for achieving the Mission, do they?,, I just hope its not Business as usual at BLM and U.S.F.S.

1pt. let me ask you this about ineptness.. do they ever fire anyone at BLM for incompetance? or just shuffle them around?

 

[BuzzH]

cjcj,

There are some fast tracks on certain projects...green slip timber sales are an example (small timber sales to reduce fire hazzards or stop bug infestations). They dont require an EA or EIS if under a certain size. Fire fighting is another...lots of coordination between FS, State, Tribal, BLM, NPS, etc. all managed under an inter-agency team. That hasnt been around that long either...I remember when jurisdiction on a fire depended on ownership of the land or who got there first. There was no coordination between agencies. Every agency kind of did their own thing...vey ineffective and not very efficient.

The bottom line though, on problems like not being able to hunt in a N.P....thats a major deal to try to change. I doubt the public would allow it, whether or not you agree with the publics view and what the agencies decide...is no reflection on the agency not doing their jobs. They just arent doing the job that cjcj wants them to do. They most likely are following all the regulations and listening to what the majority of the public wants when making decisions.

The public could have a lot more influence than they do if they were more engaged in addressing the agencies with their requests.

JMO.

As far as firing people...thats a sticky one. I've only seen people fired for stealing gov. property and things like that.

We have a saying that goes something like...F'up...move up.

 

[1_pointer]

I only know of one firing and it did not have to do with incompetence. In some ways that's the double edged sword of working for the federal agencies. Once you get permanent status it is a very secure job, likewise it's hard to get those that are not good at their jobs out of them. However, I do know that this is not exclusive to working for the government.

I think the BLM mission statement is vague for a reason, it manages the largest land mass in the country for a very diverse set of uses. Besides, if the mission statement is met, there's not a whole lot of people that shouldn't be at least somewhat happy.

 

[cjcj]

I am guessing we now know why two space shuttles have blown up.....

Hoser if you knew anything about the shuttle, you would understand how "risky' every single launch is....Those fuel tanks are pretty much a "controlled explosion" and Sperry/Honeywell was only involved with an avionics box [ mdm]control... which worked to perfection

 

[cjcj]

BLM whistleblower!

She contacted the local BLM field office in Monticello, concerned that irreplaceable artifacts were being destroyed, and pulled together a group of local landowners to push for an emergency closure. The agency eventually closed 2.5 square miles of dunes, although the group had requested twice that amount.

Today, Schalk is still fighting to protect public lands, but now her adversary is the very agency that once employed her. And the fight isn’t just about the sand dunes next door, but about the damage the BLM is letting off-roaders do to invaluable archaeological and historic sites in southern Utah.

“I see agency malfeasance here, and I have a problem with that,” says Schalk, looking out her window at the redrock walls that surround Bluff. A small ancient granary is visible from her home. “This is the most archaeologically rich landscape in North America. And the BLM and county are hell-bent on destroying a unique resource.”