FORMER MONTANA WILDERNESS ASSOCIATION COUNCIL MEMBERS BOLT
Tester’s Bill Causing Major Rift Among Wilderness Advocates
Updated: 10 am, 2-18-10You'd think that one of the major supporters of the long overdue effort to end Montana's Wilderness Drought would remain united in its support for the bill. Wrong.
By Bill Schneider, 2-16-10
Roderick Mountain in the Kootenai National Forest will be Wilderness if S.1470 passes. Photo by George Wuerthner.
UPDATED, 10 am, 2-18-10: After seeing this article, two more former MWA council members, Susan Colvin and Dan Heinz (past vice-president) have joined the list and signed the letter opposing Tester’s bill, bringing the total to 18.
Anybody who has followed the torturous, eight-month path of Senator Jon Tester’s (D-MT) Forest Jobs and Recreation Act, S. 1470, already knows the bill has caused a split among conservationists. But that split just got a lot more more serious.
From the day Tester announced the bill last July at a timber mill in Townsend, Montana, a broad coalition of 54 conservation groups called the Last Best Place Wildlands Campaign (LBPWC) has opposed the bill while the state’s primary wilderness advocate, the Montana Wilderness Association (MWA), has not only supported S. 1470, but also helped create it. Two other major environmental groups, Montana Trout Unlimited and the National Wildlife Federation, joined MWA in a combine with representatives of the wood products industry to write and push for passage of S. 1470.
Now, it seems, serious dissension has broken out within the ranks of the MWA.
Sixteen former MWA council members and officers, including three past-presidents, have released a public statement to the media urging Senator Tester to modify S. 1470 to be more in line with the position outlined by the LBPWC.
“It is with a heavy heart that we are compelled to oppose the organization that we once served as council members and officers,” the group wrote in the statement. “Most of Montana’s undeveloped wilds are long gone, and we cannot afford to lose big chunks of what remains.”
They went on to say that the MWA has “lost its way” in recent years and compromised too much. “We know many current and former MWA members who agree,” they added.
Here is the complete text of the letter:
We, the undersigned former council members and officers of the Montana Wilderness Association, respectfully urge Senator Tester to modify the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act of 2009 to rectify the problems outlined by the Undersecretary of Agriculture as well as the Last Best Chance Wildlands Campaign. We cannot support the legislation as now written. We diverge from MWA here because we believe that the bill degrades both the quantity and quality of some of America’s most cherished wildlands in Montana. We encourage consideration of the issues we have outlined below that would be necessary in order for us to support it.
We endorse the 10-point position paper, Keeping It Wild! In Defense of America’s Public Wildlands, which has been submitted by the Last Best Place Wildlands Campaign.
The bill legislates the net loss of hundreds of thousands of roadless area acres, including S.393 Wilderness Study Areas designated in 1977 by the late Senator Lee Metcalf. This will create widespread environmental damage and the loss of an irreplaceable legacy for which future generations will, quite correctly, hold ours accountable. Also, the bills’ Congressional mandate for timber cut levels sets a dangerous precedent. Resulting below-cost timber sales will cost taxpayers over $100 million. And proposed new Wilderness Areas are small, often disjointed, primarily “rock and ice” parcels that would fail to protect fragile wildland and wildlife ecosystems and corridors.
To make matters worse, the bill includes special provisions for new “Wilderness” units that defy both the intent and letter of the Wilderness Act, and the spirit of Wilderness that so many Americans believe is a vital and wondrous part of this great nation’s heritage. Motor Vehicles, including helicopters, simply have no place in designated Wilderness. Yes, we need more Wilderness - lots of it - but we want it to be real Wilderness!
The bill also codifies secretive negotiated agreements--such as the Beaverhead-Deerlodge--that excluded many individuals and groups who’ve long been involved in the public process. This, and similar agreements, have been sealed by MWA and others over the objections of excluded organizations and individuals, of whom most live and work close to the land and know the compromised areas intimately.
It is with a heavy heart that we are compelled to oppose the organization that we once served as council members and officers. Most of Montana’s undeveloped wilds are long gone, and we cannot afford to lose big chunks of what remains. We believe that in recent years, the Montana Wilderness Association [MWA] has clearly compromised its long-held wildland protection mission and vigilant advocacy. We know many current and former MWA members who agree. In fact, many conservationists in the region are convinced that, quite simply, MWA has lost its way. We are among those people.
In summary, this bill will irreparably damage Montana’s dwindling public wildland legacy. It will salt the gaping social wounds created by MWA’s recent actions. It degrades the Wilderness Act of 1964 with provisions that damage both Wilderness and the Wilderness Idea. And it’s a bad deal for future generations of Montanans who will need wild country more than ever in an increasingly crowded and uncertain future.
Signed by: Lou Bruno (past president), Joan Montagne (past president), Elaine Snyder (past president), and Loren Kreck (past vice-president), plus the following former council members: Larry Campbell, Susan Colvin, Paul Edwards, Randall Gloege, Keith Hammer, Steve Kelly, Lance Olsen, Bob Oset, Paul Richards, Ross Titus, George Wuerthner, and Janet Zimmerman
Footnote: For more Newwest.Net coverage Montana’s Wilderness Drought, click here.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
Add your comment below
I must be missing something because almost every single one of these "former council members" have already penned a column or gone on the record in opposition to Tester's bill. The only news is this group is too pig-headed to see beyond their own zealotry.
The other day we obtained copies of the official testimony submitted to the US Senate's Energy and Natural Resources Committee by The Wilderness Society. As people may know, The Wilderness Society is listed as one of the few environmental groups in the country who actually supports Sen Tester's FJRA (see the coalition's very own website: http://www.montanaforests.org/about).
What's I find particularly interesting is that when you read major portions of the official testimony from The Wilderness Society you'll notice that when it comes to issues of mandated logging and NEPA provisions within FJRA, the concerns expressed by The Wilderness Society are nearly identical to the concerns expressed by these former MWA leaders, by members of the Last Best Place Wildlands Campaign and by the US Forest Service leadership.
Given this fact, one has to wonder if "OldArt" believes that The Wilderness Society and the US Forest Service are also "too pig-headed to see beyond their own zealotry?"
Specifically, The Wilderness Society's said: "We oppose Congressionally mandated treatment levels in the bill because they, a) neglect the root causes of the problems this bill is intended to address, b) set an adverse national precedent, c) create unreasonably high expectations, d) fail to provide the agency the resources it needs to do its job, and e) most important, we do not believe this approach will work on the ground. "
Also, The Wilderness Society said: "based on consultation with NEPA experts, we do have concerns that some of the specific language in this section of S. 1470 could effectively undermine the application of NEPA and its implementing regulations."
These are hardly insignificant or trivial concerns.
The fact of the matter is that some of the environmental organization "supporters" of Senator Tester's bill are expressing the same exact concerns as the environmental organization "opponents" of Tester's bill. Of course, groups like TWS may not be doing this publicly, but they are certainly expressing these same concerns to the Senate's ENR Committee and to Senator Tester and his staff.
And The Wilderness Society isn't the only "supporter" expressing these serious concerns. For example, the Great Yellowstone Coalition's official testimony includes strong concerns about the NEPA provisions in the FJRA. And even the president of the Lewis and Clark Chapter of Trout Unlimited from Sheridan, MT has sent Senator Tester a letter that details seven major concerns this TU Chapter has with the FJRA.
It's important for the public to understand that while Senator Tester has made some proposed changes to the bill, none of the proposed changes deal at all with the substantial concerns raised by bill supporters and opponents alike regarding the logging mandates or the NEPA provisions.
I'm providing this information in the spirit of a more informed and focused discussion about what's actually in the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act and what it would actually do, if passed. I can't help but wonder how the whole debate about the FJRA would be different if more of the general public clearly understood that many of the same exact concerns expressed by people and groups labeled as "bill opponents" were the same exact concerns expressed by "bill supporters."
Hopefully in the weeks ahead, more of this information can be made public through various media outlets. It would certainly be interesting if members of the media got some of these bill "supporters" on the phone and just asked them point blank: "If Senator Tester continues to ignore your major concerns about the bill, will you still support the bill?"
-----------------
Below are some more snips from The Wilderness Society's Statement to the US Senate's Energy and Natural Resources Committee concerning: S.1470 - Forest Jobs and Recreation Act of 2009
RE: Timber Supply Predictability
The Wilderness Society has concerns over S.1470's provision that calls for a mandatory number of acres to be mechanically treated on the Beaverhead and Kootenai National Forests. The Society strongly endorses the overall goals of the bill to provide a more predictable supply of timber to mills, and we have been quite vocal in stating that Montana needs a viable, diverse wood products manufacturing infrastructure to meet our forest restoration and fuel reduction goals. The question is how to best meet the goal of a more predictable supply while achieving restoration goals. We oppose Congressionally mandated treatment levels in the bill because they, a) neglect the root causes of the problems this bill is intended to address, b) set an adverse national precedent, c) create unreasonably high expectations, d) fail to provide the agency the resources it needs to do its job, and e) most important, we do not believe this approach will work on the ground.
While the Blackfoot-Clearwater Stewardship proposal was being crafted we deliberately avoided mandatory mechanical treatment language because we, and our partners, believe strongly that a strategy based on inclusive, diverse, pre-NEPA collaboration, adequate funding and a clear Congressional and agency commitment to ecological restoration will produce far greater positive results on the ground.
While we were crafting the BCSP proposal, TWS conducted a review of collaborative efforts between conservation and timber interests throughout the West. The collaborative efforts that successfully completed projects had in common strong pre-NEPA collaboration and adequate funding. In examples where mandatory targets were created, they were never met, even in cases where adequate funding was provided.
RE: The Montana Forest Restoration Committee and Principles
The Wilderness Society is engaged in a number of collaborative forest restoration efforts around the country and we believe that the Montana Forest Restoration Committee (MFRC) offers a promising model that we should consider as we work together to refine and advance S. 1470. The MFRC, founded in early 2007, has developed 13 restoration principles that define a "zone of agreement" regarding the restoration of national forest lands in Montana. The Wilderness Society has played a leadership role in this effort from its inception to the present day and these principles, coupled with pre-NEPA collaboration and consistent agency engagement, have resulted in strong consensus and significant progress regarding the development of on the ground restoration work on the Lolo, Helena and Bitterroot National Forests in just two short years. Earlier this year, the first project to go through NEPA analysis to a decision document under the MFRC principles was developed in the Blackfoot-Clearwater Valley without any appeals or litigation.
We believe strongly that the MFRC principles, highlighted below, coupled with adequate funding and diverse, inclusive, pre-NEPA collaboration at the project level can provide a viable model for forest restoration in Montana, including areas affected by this bill on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge and Kootenai National Forests.
Comments on Specific Provisions of S. 1470
In addition to the issues listed below, there are issues raised by USDA that carry national implications for the management of the National Forest System that should be reviewed and modified by the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources when it reports S. 1470 to the U.S. Senate.
RE: S. 1470's NEPA provisions in Section 102(2)(b)(6)
While the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act includes important language requiring full compliance with NEPA and its implementing regulations, it also has provisions constraining how NEPA will be applied to projects catalyzed by other requirements in this bill. We support many of the goals of S. 1470's NEPA provisions, such as encouraging more comprehensive environmental analysis at a landscape scale, engagement of local multi-stakeholder advisory groups, more efficient NEPA reviews, and the continued implementation of project components that have not been challenged or enjoined. However, based on consultation with NEPA experts, we do have concerns that some of the specific language in this section of S. 1470 could effectively undermine the application of NEPA and its implementing regulations.
We have three major concerns with these provisions:
First, current bill language would restrict project alteration and supplemental NEPA analysis, if needed, because of unexpected, changed circumstances, major unanticipated changes in the project or monitoring results that should trigger changes through adaptive management. We believe the bill's requirements for a single EIS per large landscape project allowing supplemental NEPA review only "if based on project monitoring and determination that this would better meet the Act's purpose" is inconsistent with longstanding CEQ guidance.
Second, existing NEPA provisions could complicate the Forest Service's full consideration of all alternatives, including the no action alternative, given that S. 1470 compels the agency to issue the ambitious timeline of at least one Record of Decision per year.
Third, existing language lacks clarity regarding the implementation of projects that do not comply with applicable law (or implementing regulations) as their legal deficiencies are remedied. While the bill does not have language explicitly limiting appeals or litigation, it does state that projects, "will be implemented following completion of EIS/ROD" and then states that if modified, the original project, "shall continue until the modification is approved by US District Court or Secretary;"
Our NEPA concerns are amplified when one considers the woefully inadequate agency funding and staffing levels relative to the levels needed to effectively carry out the project design, data collection, analysis, public engagement, and other tasks related to NEPA. While this is a larger National Forest System problem and it is not S. 1470's intent to remedy this (or to appropriate new, dedicated funding), this on the ground reality must be considered when evaluating S. 1470's NEPA provisions.
RE: Additional Questions and Components for Review
If we hope to complete these forest restoration needs, we believe we must take the following steps:
* Ensure adequate funding for Forest Service restoration programs in Montana and nationally;
* Sustain a right-sized timber industry infrastructure adequate to carry out much-needed forest restoration activities;
* Protect the integrity of all existing laws and regulation including the National Environmental Policy Act, Endangered Species Act, National Forest Management Act, and others;
* Examine other forest restoration models to ensure the final version of S. 1470 is modeled after approaches that have worked on the ground while avoiding the pitfalls of failed attempts at forest management.
* Consider the impact of S. 1470's provisions on other collaborative efforts under development or those that could arise in the future, given the growing interest in tackling forest protection, logging, restoration issues outside of the regular national forest planning process and the tendency to incorporate approaches already ratified by Congress.
This virtually assures that if Tester's Bill is voted in, that eco-groups WILL sue to stop it. That is what they DO! "NOT ONE STICK" is often the cry for some groups. Others just want the cash. Some fear a precedent and some just dislike the Forest Service.
The firestorms ARE coming and that will "radically" change the NEPA and ESA mindsets of Congress, just like it did with "Healthy Forests". Alas, Bush never funded it much because of the major changes (essential, IMHO) the Democrats insisted on before voting for it. We will eventually see a new "Healthy Forests" that will be surprisingly similar to the old one. Will it come in time to save our National Forests? Probably not. Will it survive in court? Probably not. Will it stop the gridlock?? Probably not.
I and many others react to the awful red of the dying, beetle killed trees with horror. But, we need to stop and intellectually review what is really happening. As trees die, new ones, including understry and broad leafs have a chance to thrive, creating a more diverse habitat.
I am not opposed to logging, in the right places using good restoration practices. And my possibly uneducated opinion is that there should be a streamlined process for logging off the dead trees.
What I strongly object to is mandated quotas that will only serve to drive down the value of the logged timber. That is basic economics. What could the rationale possibly be for that? mandating that Montana is forever on the public dole to subsidise an industry we intentionally ruined?
I'd really like you to put up a link, or citation, for that statement: "NOT ONE STICK." I think you're hyperventilating, or hallucinating. Breathe into into a paper bag (preferrably made of hemp - save a tree), as plastic can in rare cases cause suffocation.
"Gridlock" is not an accurate description of what's happening right now. Actually, there's way more volume under contract than you think. More volume (supply) is being offered (remember non-declining, even flow?).
Lumber prices are rising, but the market (demand) remains very weak. And wishing for a bigger budget in a prolonged recession is like waiting for the tooth fairy. Breathe.
Again, we see people using namecalling because they can't argue with facts and science. There never has and never will be a shortage of dead trees in our public forests. NEVER!
The big challenge is to create markets for using our excess trees. We desperately need to do something with that wood instead of letting "free range fires" release centuries of carbon locked up in dead and dying forests. We can lock up carbon in wood products instead of metals and plastics.
Do you folks not know the concept of having too many trees? The land can only support so many trees per acre for the annual rainfall. We are so far beyond that threshold that entire watersheds are dying right before our eyes, in both catastrophic wildfires and insect infestations unprecedented in the last 50 years.
When pressed, on what eco-groups want to establish "forest restoration" on, they clam up tight and don't want to talk about it. Many eco-websites carefully avoid any talk about dying forests because many know they cannot defend mainstream eco forest preferences They want "natural" forests but don't define just what that is and how to best get there. They don't define it because they simply don't know. They talk about the "Precautionary Principle" but, ignore the damage done by unstewardship and catastrophic wildfires. Hell, go back and look at Chad Hanson's contentions and see that he doesn't care if forests burn at high intensity. He's in denial, and so are you if you can see the brushfields, the erosion and the increased bark beetles that are welcomed into our forests through "preservationism". What good does it do to preserve radically-unnatural forests?!?
We need to decide which color of trees to cut. Green, black or brown. And...ahem....it is a VERY important decision for the future of forests and the future of humans.
And maybe that's a good thing. This bill really doesn't do much to create jobs, which is what Montana really needs right now. If this bill goes down the tubes, it could weaken Tester's prospects for reelection, and it could pave the way for the election of a senator who is more concerned about creating jobs than messing around with cap-and-trade schemes, Rube Goldberg health-scare contraptions, wilderness bills, and so on.
You know damn well that the Forest Service couldn't possibly manage every acre or restore every burn. No one is proposing that. However, there ARE many people proposing the opposite, who sue to get their way, by legal monkeywrenching for fun and profit, at the forest's expense. (Thank You, Chad Hanson!)
and frank, you're just a political hack
The people that I do know within the USFS say that the amount of timber the bill says should be cut annually is unfreakinfeasible.
Been to a ranger station lately? You'd be lucky if half the offices have people in them, their so understaffed.
Did anyone really expect George Wuerthner to support Tester's bill?...the same guy wrote a treatise philisophically justifying tree-spiking and likened intensive land use to wife beating.
Not so shocking that people of that mind-set don't support Tester's bill and also are no longer the members of the board of MWA.
Some real news please.........
It looks like the far left fringe in attacking something they don't like.
A bunch of "Shoot the messenger" comments rolling in from people who are being less than up-front with their true identity...while they simply ignore any of the seriously, legitimate policy questions or concerns about Senator Tester's bill coming from diverse people and organization's with vast experience working on these issues.
Yep, that sounds about par for the course since the bill was introduced in July.
Yep, no use having a discussion about the actual bill and what's in it...nope...just label the messengers "far left fringe," "bush league environmental groups," "bomb throwers," etc and that should do it.
Of course, in order to use this strategy, one must ignore the fact that many of the same exact concerns expressed by the former Montana Wilderness Association Board and Council members have also been shared and expressed by the United States Forest Service, Department of Agriculture and the Senate's Energy and Natural Resources Committee.
Yep, anyone who has concerns about Tester's bill is just a bush league, fringer and clearly is a [insert favorite derogatory name here].
Never mind the fact that the same basic concerns and questions have come from the likes of the Sierra Club, Defenders of Wildlife, Natural Resources Defense Council, The Wilderness Society (a supporter of the bill), Center for Biological Diversity and PEER (Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility).
Yep, ignore the facts about the federal timber sale program in Montana and how diverse interests, including those "far left fringe, bush-leaguers," have actually come together over the past five years and are actually moving forward with bona-fide forest management solutions, as witnessed by the Montana Forest Restoration Committee.
Just tell people "lawsuits have stopped forest management cold" and how we need to get "people workin' in da woods." After all, such statements feel so good to say and are so, like, popular!
Don't pay any attention to the fact that the Bitterroot NF hasn't seen one timber sale lawsuit in 8 years and the Lolo hasn't had a timber sale lawsuit in over two years.
And of course, no reason to admit that lumber demand in America is down 55% and new housing construction is off over 70% and not expected to rebound anytime in the near future. This economic reality clearly has no bearing whatsoever on the ability of the Tester bill to create all those timber industry jobs.
And what difference does it make that the Forest Service in the Northern Region ended 2009 with more timber sale volume under contract to logging companies than at any point in the past decade? Nope, the fact that right now logging companies already have 300 million board feet of Forest Service timber (enough to fill 60,000 log trucks lined up end-to-end for 500 miles) already under contract should be ignored...just like the man behind the curtain, right Toto?
Woody, I've been in the Biscuit country, too. I guess you could say some of it was a mosaic, with big whackin' tiles. I was stunned time and time again by the sweep of the char and lack of any respite from black across drainages from ridge to ridge. Sure, there were a few draws that were missed, making it a "mosiac" but wow....this stuff got nuked in general and claiming it was a mosaic burn in the conventional, beneficial sense, is dishonest.
I hunt the Biscuit fire area and the Kalm. Wilderness. The burn was a mosaic. You don't know wtf you're talking about. That place is a deer and bear hunting heaven. So shut your pie hole!!
I also have another post pending, because of links to pictures on my blog. We'll see if New West will allow my pictures of very successful salvage logging and rehabilitation.
More details about the 2003 Biscuit Fire and the so-called Biscuit Fire Recovery Plan can be found in this newspaper primer: http://nativeforest.org/pdf/Biscuit_Primer.pdf
These are also interesting quotes from US Forest Service employees regarding the Biscuit Fire:
“If you look at what’s happening this year on the Biscuit fire, [it’s] really not out of the range of normal events.” And “In the long run it maintained the well-being of individual species and the forest as a whole. It’s important that part of the system be burned at high severity.”
– Tom Atzet, US Forest Service ecologist for southwestern Oregon
“We don’t anticipate any (long term) adverse effects out there on the fish and wildlife and flora. There is a lot of unburned area, and there’s a lot that burned at a very low intensity. This is by no means 500,000 acres that has been wiped out.”
– Greg Clevenger, resource staff officer for the Rogue River and Siskiyou National Forest
Back to the topic of this article, I really don't think Tester's bill will pass. Many other Congressmen would like to do the same thing but, changing established rules, laws and policies just isn't going to happen. It is going to take serious human tragedy in order for the gridlock to be broken by Congress. It's sad but, it's reality. I've said my piece, and you can choose to not believe what I have seen and analyzed. You can choose to ignore photographic evidence. You can choose to ignore scientific logic. You can choose to "fiddle" while forests burn to the bare ground.
Lovely!
Its not just litigation, but the threat of litigation that slows timber sales down. It forces higher levels of analysis. CE's become EA's. EA's become EIS's. Small EIS's become super EIS's. Lots of time and money to cross the t's and dot the i's just in case it goes to court. NEPA requires an analysis and a reasoned decision, not PHD level documentation.
Tester's bill will fail because it is bad policy and the fringes on both ends of the spectrum are pulling out all the stops to kill it. Its fate will be dealt with in the back rooms of Washington, not based on a careful analysis of facts. Tester hasn't shown me much transparency in the way this bill was brokered.
So, to recap: there has been only one lawsuit of a timber sale on the Bitterroot NF since 2002, and that would be the Middle East Fork Healthy Forest Restoration Act timber sale.
P.S. Larry/Fotoware: I often have trouble posting links in the comment section too (ie they get marked as spam). I'm sure if you contact NW they'll be happy to make sure your links go up.
There's a lot of that in the RRSNF. Big fir stands right next to brushfields, just an amazing thing. And while the Atzet quote above sounds exactly like Tom, and I'd agree with him, Tom has never placed his science in complete isolation from societal consequences.
As for litigation, and why the lack of litigation reform in Tester's pathetic bill renders the entire exercise moot: The tiny, insignificant, singular MEF lawsuit pretty much killed the chance of doing any sort of jump-starting on a new forest in any kind of economic way after the big Bitterroot fires. So it wasn't just the legal fees, but lots of revenue that could have been recovered during a rather hot market and then plowed back into rehabilitation. A complete loser for everyone except the enviros. And the habitat didn't come out of this very well, either. Lots of big, fine trees no longer live thanks to bug outbreaks from adjacent fire morts and stress in "low intensity" areas.
Loggers, at least Indian, state and private loggers, know how to salvage in a responsible manner. What the heck, the soil is already disturbed huge, and lots of tree species like mineral soil for regeneration anyway. Go to any salvage or even a fairly new green harvest and where are the seedlings? In the disturbance zones, in the pad ruts, in the skidder ruts, et cetera.
"I am a fourth-generation Montanan who grew up in a U.S. Forest Service family. Guy Brandborg, my father, served as supervisor of the Bitterroot National Forest from 1935 to 1955. I still fondly remember Gifford Pinchot, during one of his last western trips, visiting with my father in front of our fireplace. And, I still marvel at Bob Marshall's one-day hike from White Cap Creek on the Selway River up and over the Bitterroot Divide down Boulder Creek in time to join my family around the dining room table for supper.
After earning my bachelor's degree in wildlife technology in 1949 and my master's degree in forestry and wildlife management in 1951, I worked over 12 years as a wildlife biologist with the Forest Service and state wildlife agencies in Montana and Idaho. I then served as assistant conservation director with the National Wildlife Federation in Washington, D.C.
For more than 70 years, I have been intimately involved with our public lands. I have a special appreciation of Montana's 9 million acres of roadless wild lands, richly endowed with diverse, world-class wildlife. This grew out of my 12 years of research in the Bob Marshall, Selway-Bitterroot, and Frank Church-River of No Return wilderness areas, and my experience in National Forest backcountry on timber and range surveys and lookout fireman jobs.
I was associated over 20 years with The Wilderness Society, including 12 years as its executive director, from 1964 to 1976. I was privileged to advocate for the protection of our public lands legacy. During my tenure, Congress passed landmark public lands legislation, including the Wilderness Act of 1964, and laid the groundwork for the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act.
We in southwest Montana have the best of it, to be enjoyed by all who value unspoiled, natural ecosystems and the bounty that these public wild lands provide us: hunters, anglers, students of nature, and the many others who seek solitude, peace of mind, refreshment of spirit and the privilege of experiencing the best of life in the backcountry.
It is with this appreciation and background and a deep personal concern that I share reservations about Sen. Jon Tester's logging and recreation bill, S. 1470. This bill was conceived in private and written by five corporate logging entities and a few conservation 'collaborators.' Deliberations purposefully excluded major players — the Forest Service, local county governments, watershed and irrigation interests, local and state land, wildlife and wilderness interests and a broad segment of other user groups.
Tester's bill dictates logging at least 7,000 acres a year for 10 years in the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest, over seven times the sustainable harvest rate of 975 acres per year, established by Forest Service professionals. They have determined the bill's mandatory logging quotas to be unachievable, unsustainable, and unaffordable. Since the Beaverhead-Deerlodge has little precipitation, short growing seasons, high altitudes, and very low timber value, it costs the Forest Service at least $1,400 per acre to subsidize logging. The senator's mandated cuts would cost taxpayers $100 million.
Maps accompanying the bill remove 1 million acres of roadless areas in the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest from protections currently provided by the Clinton Roadless Rule and the Obama Roadless Initiative and officially re-designate these public wild lands as 'Timber Suitable or Open to Harvest.'
Tester's bill attacks the legacy left us by our farsighted Sen. Lee Metcalf. In 1977, Metcalf protected 94,000 acres in the Sapphire Wilderness Study Area, east of my home in the Bitterroot, and 151,000 acres in the West Pioneers Wilderness Study Area, southwest of Butte. If the bill were to pass, two-thirds of the Sapphires and West Pioneers would be opened to development, as would the Axolotl Lakes, Bell/Limekiln Canyons, East Fork Blacktail, Henneberry Ridge, and Hidden Pasture wilderness study areas.
The bill threatens remaining habitat of wildlife of special concern, such as the bull trout, arctic grayling, northern goshawk, boreal owl, ferruginous hawk, peregrine falcon, fisher, lynx, wolverine, and cutthroat trout (Montana's official state fish).
We are blessed to live in this 'Last Best Place' with rolling prairies, snow-capped mountains, plentiful wildlife, and fish-laden streams! Wilderness and roadless wild lands are an irreplaceable part of this heritage. They deserve the fullest possible protection. The Tester bill places them in jeopardy."
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_qRVP02SjfCs/S4G8Iv2dGUI/AAAAAAAAAtA/hBdoevTOoBI/s400/P2150516-web1.jpg
This is from last summer escaped prescribed fire, attempted during near-record high temperatures, and burning in unmodified fuels, with ZERO logging slash, inside Yosemite National Park. Does this look "natural and beneficial"? Ya know, it USED to be majestic old growth.
This IS the future of much of our National Forests if the "preservationists" get their ways.
Here is another picture from the Big Meadow Fire. This doesn't look too good, either, being formerly old growth
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_qRVP02SjfCs/S4G8JbEUgQI/AAAAAAAAAtI/PSKcxNdqKVM/s400/P2150273-web.jpg
I agree that these kinds of areas indeed ARE a part of a healthy mosaic but, how many "moonscapes" do we REALLY need?!?!?
http://foresta.tv/sites/default/files/images/image18.jpg
So, to recap, in just 20 years, the Foresta area has went from pristine, old growth to eroded moonscape, without the "help" of logging.
I think that most people will say that all three pictures represent an "undesired condition". This isn't a slamming of prescribed fire but, a plea to be sensible about doing it right. "Free range fire" is the right idea at the most horribly-wrong time.
The Middle East Fork is not a fire salvage sale. The process did not keep the loggers out while the ground was still smoking because the ground was not smoking. The big delay has come since the logging contracts have been signed. Any delay caused by "process", as you call it, are miniscule compared to the delay we have seen since the timber sale has been in the hands of the timber companies. Here we are about 5 years later and the sale is still not logged, even after a special $ million taxpayer stimulus for helicopter logging. At the time we heard how it was an emergency to protect homes and lives from fire. This catastrophic hyberole scenario was propagandized by the FS and the timber industry. Now that the contracts are out (for years now) there's not a peep from FS or others about the delay even with no end in sight.
Please Mr. Skinner, get a perspective by stepping back from your rhetoric and looking at reality.
I'm sorry, Larry, you can hang up on the technicalities, but MEF was certainly exacerbated by bugs that got a heck of a head of steam up in the upper East Fork on fire ground...so the situation there can certainly be termed a salvage from fire event. Didn't directly burn, but might not have died if modern technology and forestry had been applied -- over your objections, I might humbly add.
The aftermath is a disaster, and you can't defend that.
The science was pointing at even aged thick stands of LP reaching simultaneous points in the cycle and going boom. Duh.
Never mind that "science" operates in a societal context. Sometimes the society has a value system that values human-beneficial outcomes better than optimal "natural" outcomes.
For example, you yourself have chosen a beneficial outcome in terms of having a heated home rather than the natural outcome of freezing your green bupkes to death.
Just curious...how does "post-mortality harvest" "give surviving trees more water"?
I believe you have mixed red and green kool-aid here.
In the forest, when those dead trees are allowed to fall over, they provide moisture retention (example - nurse logs) and they eventually provide organic matter in the soil which holds moisture in its own right and promotes physical conditions in the soil that allows for more water absorption/percolation.
Nonetheless, there is still the problem of jackpotting, and the fact remains that clearing out a stand means more sunlight to go with the water, and less dry fuel.
Tell me what would be so wrong about going into a beetle stand, cross-falling nursewood while clipping off the merchantable goodies?
Better yet, tell me what is so wrong about going into a homogeneous stand that is ripe for beetle kill (according to known science, and proven out by current results) and parking it out, perhaps sneaking in a few diverse seedlings with the proceeds?
We also have a Forest Service "control group" in the burned area just west of the park that burned catastrophically in 1987, and was salvaged and planted. Apparently, that area on the northwest side of the park was a haven for monstrous sugar pines. Now, it's a "mosaic" of dominating bear clover, tree plantations and brush. Maybe this spring, I'll take jaunt out there and see what it looks like today. The last time I was there was in 1990 and the devastation of 175,000 acres was heartbreaking.
The nearby Granite Burn is yet another example of re-burn. I was there as an 8th grader, seeing the old style of salvage logging that left 3 snags per acre. It was amazing to see blackened, flattened forests. Thirty years later, I was there preparing thinning projects in the plantations. Many chunks of contiguous land that were set aside as snag patches became the thickest manzanita and whitethorn mix imaginable. Before the projects could get sold and completed, a wildfire wiped out 30 years of tree growth in yet another re-burn fire.
If these catastrophic burns are soooooo common, as people like Chad Hanson claim, then how can old growth possibly ever grow?!?
Because the Injuns burnt early and often!
Yay a gold star for ME!
Then I told him to find a logger, file a salvage permit, and cut every tree, even the green ones, that are merch size. 90% of those with green tops will die in the next three years. And he did that. The fire was still burning miles away when he began logging. They were done, the slash piled, skid roads ripped, before deer season. He got a permit to rebuild his cabin, and a share cost deal with the BLM on a piece of fence. Only the pissant USFS has yet to replace their fences. He finally got them to furnish the materials and he paid the labor, and that is now done. He got 50,000 trees to plant for free. I found a grass seed grower who put together a seed mix I think is the best deal for the high, dry country of Eastern Oregon: 30% tetraploid annual rye grass, 50% Paiute orchard grass (Profile if it is less than 8" annual moisture), 10% tall fescue and 10% Lator orchardgrass. He spin spread that on with ATVs on top of the first significant snow of winter. The results next spring were spectacular. His seed cost was $1.00 per pound. 7000 lbs over 800 acres. The USFS suggested seed mix cost right at $100/lb. That is what the BAER teams buy with their credit cards for fire trail rehab. The land is not worth what seeding an acre costs, which goes a long way to explain "negative cost recovery timber sales" for fire salvage. The game is rigged by the NGOs, and prejudice. The same Outfit has planted nursery grown trees for 75 years.
The next spring, he built a new cabin, fenced it out so cattle wouldn't get into 40 acres around it, and fenced out the timberlands and let the neighbor's cows use the meadow for a pulse graze in spring (they, of course, had lost their Forest graze due to the fire). They come back for another pulse in September, and are gone by deer season. Ten months after the fire, his place was green, and the green leaf/needle trees began to die. He had all the local elk eating his orchard grass out of the rocks, and aspens began to sprout, and some of the other brush, and the PPines grew with surprising survival. He, who had been absolutely hosed by the USFS and piss poor fire command from someplace in the Deep South (transient overhead teams can do that to you), was just pleased as punch. He was not out much money as he had some insurance and attended all the government meetings with the proffered help. His sold timber completed the finances for recovery. His place was in the beginnings of recovery, and there was no fuel there now to to burn in the certain reburns of the surrounding Federal lands, which are closed to the public due to falling tree hazards. Mostly , the USFS is tank trapping roads and denying the public any ease of access. Locking it up. Management by denial. Just what the Wilderness Society types have wanted all along. And in the middle of the ceonothus stands how hogging the ground, sits his little emerald isle of husbandry, loaded with big game. Cougar kills, including a young cougar in the wrong place at the wrong time, and soon wolves if not already. The elk are there daily, and the track hoe ripped out some of the unburned willow old growth clumps and water spread on the meadow in spring and created new channels in the stream which is now filled with fire sediments. State Fisheries reports that redband rainbow are using his newly formed channels for spawning. This year the cows get to graze in the reserve as the trees are able to with stand them, and the grass needs a pruning. That will stimulate lots of new growth, and the elk will be there all summer along with all the other animals.
Of course, what is wrong with this scenario is that he used a domesticated native orchard grass and domestic annual rye grass and fescue seed, none of which can be used on public lands because it is exotic. Other than some cow elk with eye liner, lipstick on the cougar and probably tattoos on the wolves along with satellite phones, we can't find anything exotic about the landscape. The annual grass is dying out and being replaced naturally by the native grasses, now that there has been three years of peeing and pooping and hooves on the ground by ungulates and other wildlife. The spring flowers are as abundant as before in the refreshed meadow. All the burned off organic material is being replaced by the results of grazing on the exotics. There is food for birds, for small mammals, for the game, and for the predators. A couple of thousand acres of green in the middle of the Great Grey of the USFS WFU, fire for beneficial use. 150,000 acres of instant beneficial use, all at one time, and all in timber preserved as "late successional reserves" (which begs the question of what succeeds Ponderosa Yellowbelly Pine except USFS burning?). All the preserved old growth pines got killed. One does wonder where the goshawks that migrated into there every winter will move to, and it was not logging that displaced them. Nope. Enlightened management by committee from a patently stupid public. The stark difference between the private land of a U of Montana Forestry grad on his own place, and the publicly held land is dramatic, intense, and stark. That a vast collection of private ownerships does not provide more diversity to forest lands than that of the public owned forest lands, has not been recognized for its intrinsic value. The Government monoculture is failing daily, if only due to their one-size-fits-all application of Congressional law and in house bending to the wishes of the NGOs they choose to cultivate.
The public chooses to have their lands closed to entry as a result of supporting holocaust forestry. My friend will send you to jail for trespass. So hunting on his ranch and the others near by, is closed to the public..The public can hunt on their Great Grey whenever it is again open to the public.