Back to How to submit

Up to Table of Contents

Ahead to UPDATE ON CONGRESSIONAL FELLOW

LETTER TO THE EDITOR

2 February 1997

Dear Editor,

The interplay of science and law strongly affects management of our public lands. Two recent appellate court cases (1,2) allow the U.S. Forest Service to overlook conservation biology when undertaking land management decisions in the National Forests.

Because these are appellate court cases, district courts must follow them if citizens sue the Forest Service. These decisions affect all National Forests and Grasslands in the following 12 states: Alaska, Arizona, California, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin. In these states, the Forest Service can disregard conservation biology in forest management decisions with immunity from legal challenge. It is unlikely that Congress will pass a law obligating the Forest Service to implement conservation biology, but the Chief of the Forest Service could require the agency to do so. Because a new Chief, a fisheries biologist, is just taking over, this is an excellent time to urge the Forest Service to perform conservation biology analysis before undertaking logging, road building, or other management activities.

I encourage scientists to write Michael Dombeck, the new Chief, to express their support for implementation of generally accepted principles of science by the Forest Service, and to request that he issue a regulation requiring all units of the National Forest System to implement conservation biology studies and consider conservation biology for any land management decisons.

To contact the new Chief:
Michael Dombeck
Chief, United States Forest Service
201 14th Street NW
Washington, D.C. 20250
Telephone (202) 447-3760

Sincerely,

Randy Webb
Net Work Associates
200 Park Ave.
Eugene, Oregon 97405
Telephone (541) 689-1460

(1)Sierra Club v. Marita, 46 F.3d 606 (7th Cir. 1995)

This decidsion upheld the district court's ruling in Sierra Club v. Marita, 843 F.Supp. 1526, 845 F.Supp. 1317 (E.D. Wisc. 1994) in the Nicolet National Forest and Chequamegon National Forest in northeastern Wisconsin.

(2)Inland Empire Public Lands Council v. United States Forest Service, 88 F.3d 754 (9th Cir. 1996)

This decision upheld an unpublished district court decision regarding the Kootenai National Forest in Montana.

The actions by the Forest Service involved logging that would cause habitat fragmentation. Again, these rulings affect National Forests in 12 states, not just the ones listed here.

Back to How to submit

Up to Table of Contents

Ahead to UPDATE ON CONGRESSIONAL FELLOW