Montana Public Radio collected some interesting perspectives.
What collaboration looks like to what some would consider a “far-right politician:”
“We were thrilled to have the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation with us today, that is exclusively focused on habitat restoration for elk and sportsmen. We want to continue to have all voices at the table,” Gianforte said… I think all voices needed to be at the table in these collaboratives, but you have to participate in good faith,” he said. “There have been instances here in Montana where a collaborative worked literally for years to put a project together, and yet people who were at the table still sued. We have to prevent that sort of bad behavior.”
Is it “collaboration” when your participation means you can’t sue over the outcome?
What this idea of collaboration looks like to what some would consider an “extreme environmental group” (Alliance for the Wild Rockies):
“He wants to have all voices that agree with him at the table,” Michael Garrity says. Garrity says he had no advance notice about Thursday’s roundtable. The Alliance is frequently at odds with — and in court fighting against — timber interests over forest policy. Garrity said Friday that not only did he not receive an invitation, no one from what he called the environmental community got one either. And without that perspective, he says this week’s roundtable was simply an echo chamber. “It’s not going to be a good dialog unless they invite groups that oppose some logging by the Forest Service.”
My emphasis, especially on the “some,” not all logging. (The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation does not oppose logging, though some elk hunters and groups do.)
What collaboration and litigation look like to the Forest Service:
“Different people see it in different ways; including different courts,” (USDA Undersecretary) Hubbard said. “The idea is for us to come together and agree on what kind of treatments make some sense, what satisfies most of the interest out there in one way or another, and then be able to implement that and have the courts support that with some consistent rulings.”
(My emphasis.) The implication is that courts are just another form of public opinion. And that it’s ok to exclude some of the interest out there, like “groups that oppose some logging.” (And my usual gripe – the scope of project collaboration should include not just the “kind of treatments,” but which areas should be treated.)
(And there’s some discussion of categorical exclusions and the Good Neighbor Authority, too.)