Governors say Interior Department shift didn’t include them

[wolfbait]

Governors say Interior Department shift didn’t include them

http://www.therepublic.com/2018/02/08/us-interior-secretary-western-governors/

[bigtex]

"The governors pointed out that under Zinke’s plan, some states would be divided among two or three of the new regions. They asked how that would affect the department’s ability to coordinate with states."

Washington would be split into two regions. BLM/USFWS/NPS currently have WA in one region. Supposedly the regional boundary lines were drawn to align with watersheds.

It should be noted that under Zinke's proposal there would be 13 regions, all of the DOI agencies currently have fewer than 13 regions which begs one to believe will there now be more beaurocrats? 13 regional directors at USFWS instead of the current 8? 13 regional directors at the NPS instead of the current 7? Nobody really knows.

[wolfbait]

Might be a reason for not including the Governors, like putting a stop in the implementation of agenda 2030?

Looking at the job the USFS, BLM etc. have done so far does not lead to a positive outcome in the future.


Remember Zinke stopped the BS grizzly bear introduction into WA, which means the USFS, WDFW, USFWS, BLM etc, would not be able to close off large chunks of public lands for grizzly bear habitat.

Glad to see Zinke mixing things up.

[bigtex]

Might be a reason for not including the Governors, like putting a stop in the implementation of agenda 2030?

Looking at the job the USFS, BLM etc. have done so far does not lead to a positive outcome in the future.


Remember Zinke stopped the BS grizzly bear introduction into WA, which means the USFS, WDFW, USFWS, BLM etc, would not be able to close off large chunks of public lands for grizzly bear habitat.

Glad to see Zinke mixing things up.

Zinke doesn't oversee the Forest Service.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[wolfbait]

Good Read:

Zinke's World View

https://www.outdoorlife.com/zinkes-world-view

[dwils233]

I think this is another good article that conveys how Zinke views his role and our resources. https://www.outsideonline.com/2266216/man-flies-his-own-flag

Regarding the interior shift particularly: "JMAs would be based on ecosystems, not geographic regions, and would, in theory, eliminate redundancies in staffing and allow for more streamlined decision-making. Zinke told me that the JMA idea was inspired by the U.S. military’s Joint Special Operations Command, in which a mix of uniforms direct blended teams of elite operators. “That’s how we fight wars"

but the author (and fellow veteran) makes an incredibly valid point: " With roughly 70,000 employees, the branches that make up Interior are nothing like the small and unorthodox outfits that make up JSOC. They’re more like what we used to call the Big Army—sprawling, slow-moving, and charged with waging the utterly unsexy daily battles that keep the lights on, the grazing permits up to date, and the forms properly filed."

I think it makes sense to have "task forces" and "joint command units" in certain region and ecosystems, but it doesn't ever replace the bigger picture operational needs. Develop those units (ie: the GYE Interior Office) to supplement and support the greater mission of the Interior, not perform the job entirely. Regional cross-collaboration is great, but it isn't the end-all, be-all way to run a large scale organization

[davk]

I think this is another good article that conveys how Zinke views his role and our resources. https://www.outsideonline.com/2266216/man-flies-his-own-flag

Regarding the interior shift particularly: "JMAs would be based on ecosystems, not geographic regions, and would, in theory, eliminate redundancies in staffing and allow for more streamlined decision-making. Zinke told me that the JMA idea was inspired by the U.S. military’s Joint Special Operations Command, in which a mix of uniforms direct blended teams of elite operators. “That’s how we fight wars"

but the author (and fellow veteran) makes an incredibly valid point: " With roughly 70,000 employees, the branches that make up Interior are nothing like the small and unorthodox outfits that make up JSOC. They’re more like what we used to call the Big Army—sprawling, slow-moving, and charged with waging the utterly unsexy daily battles that keep the lights on, the grazing permits up to date, and the forms properly filed."

I think it makes sense to have "task forces" and "joint command units" in certain region and ecosystems, but it doesn't ever replace the bigger picture operational needs. Develop those units (ie: the GYE Interior Office) to supplement and support the greater mission of the Interior, not perform the job entirely. Regional cross-collaboration is great, but it isn't the end-all, be-all way to run a large scale organization

I think everyone in the article is taking his JSOC comment too literally. Not an expert here but I remember hearing about issues that SOF had early on when multiple units were involved there were breaks in communication, etc, etc.  Im sure people paid the price.  JSOC was created because of that.  With that, "Eliminate redundancies in staffing and allow for more streamlined decision-making," makes sense.  Its not to develop small special teams to zip around the wilderness solving issues.

[bearpaw]

I like Zinke because he values hunting for all and access for all users and he wants to find new ways to make administration more streamlined. I like this quote:

“Some of the loss [of hunters] is because we’ve lost public access,” he responded. “When you close roads, you lose hunters. When you emphasize backcountry hunting over more accessible hunting, that limits the ability for most people to participate. You lose grandparents, dads, disabled veterans. When you make the process to secure permits to use our public lands cumbersome, you lose participation. America’s hunter legacy has historically been a family thing. I want to bring family events, as well as shooting and hunting opportunities, back to our national wildlife refuges.”

I think Zinke is trying to balance economic prosperity with public land conservation and public land multiple use. For too long preservationists have controlled land policies and our economy has suffered, we have seen a continued push to eliminate multiple use on federal lands, those policies have destroyed local economies and put hardships on countless families. I see the articles being written from the view of writers who are obviously wilderness advocates and not multiple use advocates. While I value wilderness areas we must also balance our wilderness views with maintaining a strong economy and providing access for all users, not just the wilderness crowd.

If you live in an area like Seattle with a thriving economy based on internet technology it might seem natural to want to protect other areas from becoming concrete parking lots. But there are countless local economies and families struggling due to the extreme limitations on everything involving their lifestyle and rural based economy that have been imposed by city dwellers. It's a breath of fresh air to see government considering the people and economies that exist outside the city limits of the big cities.

[Skyvalhunter]

If you listen to some of Beers speeches you will find his belief is that it is the direction of many of the huggers groups to eliminate any access. Expanding of some of the wilderness area by the Democrats is another way to limit access by some of the groups. I just hope Zinke is able to accomplish some of his goals before the next presidential election should it happen to change parties.

[bearpaw]

If you listen to some of Beers speeches you will find his belief is that it is the direction of many of the huggers groups to eliminate any access. Expanding of some of the wilderness area by the Democrats is another way to limit access by some of the groups. I just hope Zinke is able to accomplish some of his goals before the next presidential election should it happen to change parties.

  You are correct, Beers may even say it more bluntly! 

[davk]

I like Zinke because he values hunting for all and access for all users and he wants to find new ways to make administration more streamlined. I like this quote:

“Some of the loss [of hunters] is because we’ve lost public access,” he responded. “When you close roads, you lose hunters. When you emphasize backcountry hunting over more accessible hunting, that limits the ability for most people to participate. You lose grandparents, dads, disabled veterans. When you make the process to secure permits to use our public lands cumbersome, you lose participation. America’s hunter legacy has historically been a family thing. I want to bring family events, as well as shooting and hunting opportunities, back to our national wildlife refuges.”

I think Zinke is trying to balance economic prosperity with public land conservation and public land multiple use. For too long preservationists have controlled land policies and our economy has suffered, we have seen a continued push to eliminate multiple use on federal lands, those policies have destroyed local economies and put hardships on countless families. I see the articles being written from the view of writers who are obviously wilderness advocates and not multiple use advocates. While I value wilderness areas we must also balance our wilderness views with maintaining a strong economy and providing access for all users, not just the wilderness crowd.

If you live in an area like Seattle with a thriving economy based on internet technology it might seem natural to want to protect other areas from becoming concrete parking lots. But there are countless local economies and families struggling due to the extreme limitations on everything involving their lifestyle and rural based economy that have been imposed by city dwellers. It's a breath of fresh air to see government considering the people and economies that exist outside the city limits of the big cities.

Totally agree. 

[olyguy79]

Working in the legislature I can tell you legislators and governors in many states are not happy, and it really comes down to the boundary lines. Right now most boundaries are aligned by state lines, but Zinke wants in under watersheds.

Under Zinke's proposal WA would be split into two regions with Ferry & Okanogan county in the same region as western WA, western OR, and northern CA. The remainder of E WA would be in the same region with NE OR, most of Idaho, and western Montana. If you think its hard for states to work with feds under the current system, imagine when you have one state under three different regions (such as Nevada and Oregon).

Let's face it, in WA the "big" federal land management agency is the Forest Service, which Zinke doesn't oversee. So like how Bigtex has mentioned in posts, you won't be seeing a lot of changes in WA because of Zinke, whereas you might in states were there's a ton of BLM lands. There's counties in Nevada and Utah that have more BLM acreage in them then the entire state of WA does.