facebook-pixel

Letter: Redge Johnson is just plain wrong on state management of federal lands

Redge Johnson

Redge Johnson, head of the Public Lands Policy Coordinating Office, recently wrote an op-ed advocating for state management of federal lands. His central thesis is that wilderness and other protected designations are less healthy than manipulated lands because they prohibit projects like vegetation treatments.

He seems to think that nature would fall apart without the Firm Hand of Man to guide it, but he provides no empirical support for this generalization.

Lacking actual data, Johnson instead relies on divisive dog whistle phrases like “overly burdensome regulations” and “heavy handed fortress conservation” to make his case. Mr. Johnson’s myopia isn’t surprising.

His background in real estate, ranching, and bureaucracy has not prepared him to develop policy that balances the competing needs of humans while providing for wildlife, carbon sequestration, and other ecosystem processes on public lands.

Science should guide land management, not politics.

To successfully restore degraded land, you have to know what caused the problem in the first place. In general, researchers point to a combination of human-caused fire suppression, climate change, and improper grazing. That last issue is never addressed by managers, and it should be. Livestock have contributed to unhealthy vegetation, soils, and hydrology for decades. Mr. Johnson cites Monroe Mountain as an example of successful management, but I’ve been up there too. There are dying aspen, overbrowsed seedlings and trampled riparian areas. Permittees have a history of aggressive noncompliance with the terms of grazing permits. These problems can’t be fixed with treatments.

We humans have such hubris to think we alone can fix the problems we caused in the first place. Our world is experiencing existential challenges. We can’t get this wrong. And Redge Johnson is just plain wrong.

Laura Welp, McCleary, Wash.

Submit a letter to the editor