My comment was that history will judge all of us - Forest Service officials, state officials, county commissioners, enviro/Wise Use/recreation NGOs, interested publics, etc. - not by our good intentions, attendance at meetings, or lofty goals, but by how well we collectively solve the increasingly serious problems today that our children and grandchildren will otherwise inherit. These problems include, and somewhat overlap or interrelate:

1) Expansion of invasive weeds, especially cheatgrass

2) Excessive fuel loads due to past fire suppression and/or browse removal of fine fuels in fire-dependent natural habitats

3) Proliferation of unauthorized routes

4) Degraded watersheds, stream downcutting, soil erosion, and aquifer
depletion

5) Decline or extirpation of native species and reduced diversity of biotic communities

At this time of rapidly growing populations, increasing land use presssures, and greater user conflicts, federal land management agencies face the depressing prospect of flat or declining budgets. “Do more with less” has apparently become their matching order. This reality means that managers must make tough triage decisions to get the most “bang” from their limited dollars. However, in my cursory initial review of the proposed plan, I
could not find any explanation of how the plan will specifically guide how these difficult decisions will be made. This could lead to a continuation of a “status quo” that has not been sufficient, overall, to “turn the corner” on putting us on the trajectory to solve one or more of these problems.

Hence, my triage-related question: Is the draft plan a “menu” of positive objectives that may or may not be achieved, or an actual selection of those highest-priority and most urgent objectives that will receive the Lion’s share of future attention and funding at the project level?

From my perspective, I fear that the answer may be the former rather than the latter. If so, imagine being a waitress at a restaurant, and, after reviewing the lenghty menu choices, the customer says “yes.”

I look forward to reviewing the draft plan in more detail, and maybe I’ll find some specific “menu selections” in terms of specific management priorities that transcend the hundreds of “shoulds” throughout the document.

In any case, I agree with the speakers who said that we need to invest much more time and energy in building collaborative partnerships with positive energy and eclectic funding sources to implement high-priority projects. Ultimately, that is our best or only hope to get where we need to go.