"Protecting old-growth forests from wildfire risks is a worthy cause, but simply spending more money on existing bureaucratic processes will not solve the problem."
"Conservation groups and other private organizations have indicated that they would like to clean up these mines, unfortunately federal red tape is holding them back."
"Punishing Good Samaritans with unlimited liability for doing good when an original mine owner is nowhere to be found is the wrong approach."
"The focus on active restoration instead of strict preservation will go a long way to confront the wildfire crisis, but only if red tape and regulatory challenges don’t interfere."
There’s no way around it: you simply cannot claim to support addressing climate change on the one hand while opposing proven and practical forest management to help reduce the risk of massive forest fires on the other.
Forest managers face a daunting restoration backlog that fuels the wildfire crisis.
Money alone will not solve the problem if lawsuits continue to hold up on-the-ground projects. Reforming litigation will improve the ability to effectively put resources to work in our forests.
Oftentimes the best stewards of the land are those directly affected by the outcomes of its management.
Over just a few years, Montana has proven a capable leader in conducting forest restoration work on federal lands under a Good Neighbor Authority agreement.
Despite the consensus of fire playing an important role in the health of our forests, forest management planners have been crippled by bureaucratic red tape preventing the use of controlled burns.
It's time for Montana to reassess what it can do to reduce future wildfire risk.
Policymakers can help reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfires.
After a summer of flames and smoke, policymakers can—and must—improve policies to reduce the risk of future catastrophic wildfires.
We still hear a lot of criticism about active forest management from environmental commentators, who say we can “never log our way out of a baking climate.” These critics fail to see the forest for the trees