Missoula Notebook
Is Tester’s Bill Our Best Bet For New Wilderness?
With its concessions to both industry and conservationists, the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act just might pass. Would that be a good thing?
By Sutton R. Stokes, 9-22-09
“What’s interesting to me about these mountain ranges is that they’re kind of subtle,” says Tom Reed. “You don’t realize how beautiful they are until you’re in them.”
Or over them.
Reed and I are in a 6-seater Cessna 210, buzzing just a few hundred feet above forests and meadows in the upper reaches of the Lima Peaks range, also known as the Garfield Mountain Roadless Area. Reed, the Wyoming/Montana backcountry organizer for Trout Unlimited, is in the co-pilot’s seat, pointing out the window at sections of the Beaverhead-Deer Lodge National Forest that would gain protection as federal Wilderness Areas under the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act of 2009. The act designates about 600,000 acres of new federally protected wilderness and also mandates logging 10,000 acres per year outside those areas, all in Montana. Senator Jon Tester is the sponsor of the legislation, which is supported by a coalition of environmental groups—including Trout Unlimited—as well as by members of the recreation and timber industries.
If passed, the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act would designate the first new Wilderness Areas in Montana since 1983, and I’m up here, in a plane provided by the non-profit Ecoflight, to get a first-hand look at what the bill would actually mean to miles of backcountry in some of the most cherished wilderness in the state. Down below me is the battle zone: forests and landscapes treasured by hikers, loggers, snowmobilers, mountain bikers, horse packers, anglers, hunters, and oil and gas firms, among others. The Tester bill aims to protect wild land while satisfying as many of these groups as possible. But can it succeed?
“This kind of open, roadless country is pretty rare these days,” Reed continues. “This is an area where you’ve got pure Westslope cutthroat trout. You’ve got trophy mule deer that are highly desired by Montana hunters. There’s good elk hunting. It’s just stunning country, with tremendous wilderness qualities.”
The problem, Reed explains, is that—absent federal action to preserve the Lima Peaks and other similar areas—it might not stay stunning for long. For one thing, the level of motorized-vehicle incursions into potential wilderness areas is on the rise. Add enough jeep trails, motorcycle ruts, and other side effects of heavy use by humans, and it isn’t just the landscape that erodes: The legal case for extending wilderness protection weakens, too. And casual recreational use isn’t the only threat. Reed says some of the proposed new Wilderness Areas have been identified as having potential for oil or natural gas development, which could tear up the landscape with new wells, roads, and other necessities of drilling.
“Designating something as wilderness does heavily restrict what you can do there,” he says. “So obviously there are some people who would rather not see this act move forward.”
He’s right. Despite a recent poll that found 70 percent of Montana residents supporting Tester’s bill, the act does have some vocal critics (as does the poll itself). Interestingly, just as supporters of the bill include some traditional adversaries, there are odd bedfellows among the bill’s opponents, too.
This fact struck home for me when I was interviewing a representative of Sun Mountain Lumber, one of the timber companies pushing for passage of the bill. I was talking to Tony Colter, the company’s vice president and plant manager, and he made reference to “the opposition.” Normally, when I hear a logger talk about “the opposition,” I assume he’s talking about environmental groups. So it took me a moment to realize he was referring to the many (though not all) motorized-access advocates who have come out in force against the bill.
In other words, for perhaps the first time in history, people like Kerry White (of Citizens for Balanced Use) find themselves agreeing with people like Michael Garrity (of Alliance for the Wild Rockies)—agreeing, at least, that Tester’s bill is a bad idea.
That’s not to say that parties like White or Garrity have the slightest common ground when it comes to the alternatives they would prefer. White’s opposition arises from the fact that snowmobile access and oil, gas, or mineral extraction are not permitted in designated Wilderness Areas. “Wilderness designations are forever,” says White, and it’s clear from the way he says this that he thinks it ought to scare us.
Garrity, meanwhile, would prefer to see passage of the Northern Rockies Ecosystem Protection Act (NREPA), legislation that’s been in the works since 1991 but has never come up for a vote. While Tester’s bill would only protect a total of about 600,000 acres of wilderness—and only in Montana—NREPA would protect 10 times that amount in Montana alone, along with another 18 million acres throughout Idaho, Wyoming, eastern Oregon, and eastern Washington.
The problem from Trout Unlimited’s perspective, says Reed, is the local perception that NREPA is being imposed from afar, without attention paid to the needs and desires of Montanans.
“NREPA is a solution that comes from a New York congresswoman [Democrat Carolyn Maloney] whose concept of Montana is Jackson Hole, Wyoming,” Reed says. “We live in these communities—I live in a town that’s probably about 100 people—and we’re tired of fighting. We’re neighbors, we like each other. We want to see Joe at the mill continue to have his job, we want to have a place to go fishing and teach our kids how to fish, and we want to be able to go to a place where we can turn off the motor vehicles and get away from that kind of noise. [But] NREPA’s just never going to fly because it doesn’t get people on the ground involved.”
Indeed, the Tester act’s unconventional mixture of concessions to both conservation and industry have put us within reach of the first new wilderness designations in Montana in more than 25 years. It would, of course, be a mistake to conclude that just because this bill has brought together unusual coalitions, both in support and opposition, it must be the right way to go. There are well-reasoned arguments on both sides of this fight, and my colleague Bill Schneider has compiled many of them here.
From the sky and on the ground, however, it’s hard to credit opponents’ most dire argument, i.e., that the bill’s logging requirements would cause irreparable damage to wildlife, given that the number of acres that would be logged is minuscule compared to what would be protected.
More worrisome is the possibility that this act could “poison the well” when it comes to future Wilderness Area designations in Montana. Currently, less than 4 percent of Montana is protected as wilderness, and for a state with as much remaining open land as this one, that’s not a lot. Even if passed, the Tester act won’t increase that total by much, at the same time that passage could make it politically easier for Washington to move the issue firmly to the back burner, making new wilderness designations even harder to come by.
Another important criticism has to do with the bill’s language, which some critics deride as “sloppy,” in the sense that the wording contains ambiguous “mays” where some would prefer straightforward “shalls.” The bill might also leave too much wiggle room for ranchers and others to get around the commonly understood definition of wilderness.
But if it comes down to a choice between Tester’s bill and doing nothing (and, to be fair, Garrity argues that it doesn’t), it would be a shame to let this opportunity slip by.
Tomorrow: my Q & A with Tom Reed of Trout Unlimited.
Thursday: my Q&A with Tony Colter of Sun Mountain Logging.
Want more Notebook? Read the rest here. I’m also on Twitter, and I write a blog.
Uh hello... this is a good article, asking intelligent questions and outlying some common-sense solutions for public lands management options the majority of Montanans would agree with...
So where are all the comments from the crazy people?
There are a number of significant problems with the bill:
1. It would open areas protected by the Roadless Rule to large scale logging - logging that could not happen if the bill doesn't pass. I'm surprised this article doesn't mention that. It's a big deal. We shouldn't trade the Roadless Rule for Wilderness. We can have both.
2. The self-selecting nature of the drafters is just bad policy making.
3. Enshrining the unethical and irresponsible "sledneck" status quo on the B-D is unacceptable. Just because the FS has refused to reign in snowmobiles doesn't mean enviros have to write legislation blessing that lack of management.
3. The "sloppy" language is bad for Wilderness - eroding the strength of the Wilderness Act and the potential of future bills. Montana isn't alone - this precedent would be terrible nationwide.
It doesn't come down to a choice of doing this or doing nothing. Let's hope the bill can be fixed - otherwise it might just have to die.
Tim... I'm hearing presumptions from you not in evidence in the bill.. yes, some roadless will be logged but only if it can be done withut building new roads. The "Obama Roadless Rule", mirroring Bill Clinton's, cannot be abrogated in the bill. Roadless will stay roadless. Jon Tester was offered to carry a bill supported by organizations usually on opposite sides of the issue, wilderness advocates, water quality advocates, hunter/anglers, and timber companies. With this breadth of supporters, he is moving off center. Problem with the 100%ers, nothing ever, ever gets anywhere... this is going somewhere for good reason. If it is sloppy as you say, then help clean it up; it isn't in final form. Your opportunity to help is now; Tester wants constructive comments. Give a little, get a lot, what's wrong with that? Doing nothing gets you nothing. It's naive to think any legislation will be ideal and still make it through Congress to the President's desk. I persoanlly don't agree it's a "do something, even if it's wrong" bill.
Comment By Sutton R. Stokes, 9-22-09Thanks, Tim. Just so everyone knows, this "opening roadless areas to logging" is a matter of interpretation. It might be a reasonable interpretation, but the bill doesn't actually say this. The only way to infer this is from a map key that does describe large swaths of roadless land "Timber Suitable or Open to Harvest." Wild Bill's written about this (http://tinyurl.com/mvwbal):
"It is true, according to Tester’s office, that around 1.9 million acres of the BDNF are colored yellow [i.e., "Timber Suitable or Open to Harvest"] on the map, of which 904,058 are considered Inventoried Roadless Areas. Under any circumstances, however, only a maximum of 70,000 acres can devoted to any type of timber management, and most if not all of that will be stewardship logging. When that limit is reached, the legislation expires and mandates no additional timber harvest."
Also, in tomorrow's Q&A;, Trout Unlimited's Tom Reed gives his response to some of these criticisms.
Arthur Jay...city slicker...you just answered your question...you are the crazy people.....
Comment By Dave Skinner, 9-22-0910,000 acres a year on the B-D alone would be at least a 100-year rotation. That's about the lifespan of lodgepole, anyway.
On the other hand, since 2000 alone, Montana has been averaging combined fire and bug kill of 600,000 acres every year. Dribs and drabs of harvest here and there won't significantly moderate what is a complete disaster...a disaster that really didn't have to be, and which nobody except the anti-capitalist radicals wanted.
At least two of the proponents, Sun and Roseburg, bought Louisiana-Pacific facilities and have debt to pay. So right there is a darn good reason to throw everyone else under the bus to save your fanny.
It is important to remember that Sun and partners put forth a pretty good, science based harvest alternative several years ago when the B-D presented their limp-wristed new forest plan alternatives. That work cost a lot of money.
All of us now being tossed under the bus realized the Sun group's plans were worthy of support, and we mobilized to show that support at the blizzard hearing.
I felt that common sense might be making a comeback. But guess what? Sherm Anderson might be good at reading a spreadsheet, but he can't read a room well at all. Tim Baker read the room very well. And responded in a politically masterful way when he found himself in the car with Conrad Burns and Sherm Anderson.
While I want our forest products sector to prosper, and want the sector to be large enough to deal with the fuels and disease problems, the fact is, what little forestry happens under this "Partnership" is a temporary bridge to the day the "partners" pay off their mortgages and can walk away. And to do that, a million acres of wilderness is the price?
Can't wait to read what Reed and Colter have to say. And I hope you've got White and Barrett, Vincent, and others in the hopper for interviews, right?
Under the partnership plan, the 70,000 acres logged in 10 years is only 2.5% of the "forested acres" on the BDNF. Hardly "large scale logging". Only 5% has been logged in 50 years. Of course, I'm sure you live in a wood house, share with us your list of justifications. Talk about biting the hand that shelters you. Or do you just take that for granted too.
Something interesting is going on in Colorado. Colorado is very different from Montana, the majority of their voters really are enviros. And yet the Democrat governor is exploring revising and opposing the "roadless plan". Why? The pine beetle has killed off 90% of the lodgepole around their ski areas. There's like 15 large ski slopes within a 50 mile radius. The ski areas, who are very green I might add, want the option to log the roadless areas around them for fear of fire. They're already clearcutting their slopes to remove the dead hazard trees. Denver also gets 75% of its drinking water in the beetle killed forests. perhaps a bit of judicious salvage logging may mitigate the effects of future widlfires.
Search for perspective.
Below are snips from "War of words: Tester bill may rewrite the book on wilderness" available at
http://missoulanews.bigskypress.com/missoula/war-of-words/Content?oid=1162300 . These snips give some context to some of the concerns with Tester's mandated logging bill. Thanks.
--------------
Snips:
Sen. Jon Tester's 84-page Forest Jobs and Recreation Act doesn't exactly make for scintillating summer reading. But environmental groups who have pored over the proposal warn that its 'incredibly sloppy' language may set a dangerous precedent for what's permissible in wilderness areas, and federal employees have confirmed that some provisions read unlike anything they've ever seen before-and not necessarily in a good way. The concern is that the bill, as currently written, will change the very definition of wilderness."
"Once these provisions get into wilderness bills, they often get replicated in future bills," says George Nickas, executive director of Wilderness Watch, a Missoula-based nonprofit dedicated to protecting federal wilderness. "You see that in Tester's bill, where he's included provisions that have shown up in other recent bills. All these bills are now becoming a race to the bottom. They never put in any provisions that strengthen wilderness protections. Each one seems to be allowing more and more nonconforming activities so that wilderness becomes less unique, less protected and less special."
The most glaring example in Tester's bill allows military helicopters to land inside the Highlands, a portion of the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest slated for wilderness designation.
"Forget about the legality or the illegality or the conflict with the original Wilderness Act," says Nickas. "It's really hard for me to envision anything that's more contrary to the idea of wilderness, to these sacred places where nature is in charge, than overlaying military training in these places."
[T]he Forest Service still expressed surprise with how Tester's bill addressed typically boilerplate wilderness provisions. In a portion of the bill covering the proposed Snowcrest Wilderness Area, one passage allows specifically for "historical motorized access to trail sheep."
"I'm not familiar with that specific term," says Terry Knupp, a Washington, D.C.-based wilderness program manager with the Forest Service, when asked whether she's heard of "historical motorized access to trail sheep" before. "There are several pieces of legislation that have some accommodation for historical grazing practices in them, but it's typically listed in a general way. What you're asking me, I'm not sure what that means, as written. I've never heard of something like that before."
"One of the problems with the bill, in general, is that it's incredibly sloppy," says Nickas. "Having been involved in a lot of litigation and appeals and other things involving the Wilderness Act, words matter. Language matters a lot. The sloppy language in Tester's bill is really problematic in a lot of places."
Hello, Below is an email from Dr. Martin Nie at UM's College of Forestry and Conservation. It concerns research they've done regarding the Beaverhead Deerlodge partnership. The paper is available for viewing at:
http://wildwestinstitute.org/pdf/Place_based_forest_law.pdf
----------------
Please find attached a paper that might be of some interest to you. It is focused on the emerging interest in place-based national forest legislation in Montana, Idaho, and beyond. Part of the work focuses on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge Partnership proposal, and we touch upon similar initiatives in the Northern Rockies (U.S.) Region.
The paper asks a series of questions for proponents and opponents of various place-based initiatives (e.g., Three Rivers Challenge, Blackfoot-Clearwater Landscape Stewardship Project, Clearwater Basin Collaborative, etc.). We also draw some lessons from a few existing cases of place-based legislation. It appears to us that some key factors and considerations are missing from the political debate, and we hope that the paper brings those important issues to the fore in a constructive fashion.
We welcome any comments of course, and feel free to pass along to those who might be interested.
Sincerely,
Martin Nie
Professor, Natural Resources Policy
College of Forestry & Conservation
University of Montana
Missoula, MT 59812
(406)243.6795
One major concern with this bill, which this article fails to cover, is the notion that we can use money generated from logging to pay for needed restoration work through the use of "stewardship contracting" (which sometimes is incorrectly termed "stewardship logging").
The Forest Service was given the ability to use "stewardship contracting" instead of the normal timber sale contracting methods about ten years ago. The term refers to the actual contracting, not the actual logging. In other words, a timber sale conducted via "stewardship contracting" is not necessarily a great timber sale in terms of what many people might consider "stewardship." For example, many of the biggest (and in our view worst) timber sales in the northern Rockies over the past decade have been conducted using "stewardship contracting." It's important for the public, media and politicians to know, and understand, this difference. Most everyone I've heard use the term "stewardship contracting" just thinks that means "light on the land" logging. That's certainly not true and the nearly 10 year history of these types of logging projects in the northern Rockies helps clearly illustrates that point.
Anyway, the "stewardship contracting" strategy (which is being so lauded by the Beaverhead Partners and Sen Tester's office) has largely failed to pay for much restoration work in the northern Rockies over the past decade. And this was even when lumber demand and prices were high. The fact that the Forest Service in MT and ID has over $100 million in "shovel ready" restoration work just waiting for funding proves this point. Much of this restoration work was actually part of these former "stewardship logging" contracts.
What happened? Well, the logging got finished years ago, but there was no money generated from these timber sales to do much of the restoration work. And remember, that was when lumber demand and prices were at near record highs. Now that there's no demand for lumber and lumber prices are low and we're in the the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression this "stewardship contracting" strategy is even more bankrupt.
For example, the Beaverhead Partners have already proposed a test pilot project called the East Deerlodge Valley Project. The Forest Service analyzed the project area and found 3000 acres suitable for logging. Apparently, in a private meeting with the Forest Service MT TU's Bruce Farling and Sun Mountain Lumber's Steve Flynn objected to "only" 3000 acres of logging and instead have proposed 10,000 acres for logging. I have the actual maps the Forest Service produced. Ironically, the maps are called the Sun Mountain Lumber Additions.
Funny thing, for every acre of more logging above 3000 acres, the project actually loses more and more money. How such an approach pays for all that restoration work these "partners" keep touting is a real mystery.
This is yet another real world example of how "stewardship contracting" might sounds really good (especially in soundbites from politicians and timber mill owners) but as they say...the devil is in the details. If we are dealing with public policy concerning public lands, shouldn't we at least be given all the facts, instead of just focus-group-developed sound bites?
Hopefully the media asks some tougher questions and spends some time digging a little deeper and contracting those organizations who have actually spent the past couple of decades following the federal timber sale program, (unlike Montana Wilderness Association, MT TU and the MT office of NWF) all of whom haven't been active participants in the federal timber sale program for years and years. (except that they met behind closed doors with the timber industry back in 2006 to hatch out the Beaverhead Partnership proposal.)
Thanks.
Hello:
This very interesting exchange regarding the Beaverhead Deerlodge Partnership appears at High Country News here: http://www.hcn.org/issues/41.13/collaboration-schmlaboration.
The exchange is between Jack de Golia, the recently retired public affairs officer for the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest and Ray Ring of High Country News. Many of Mr. de Golia's concerns stated below are also shared by others in leadership positions on the Beaverhead Deerlodge National Forest, based on their personal communications with us.
An interesting exercise for the media would be to talk with the Forest Service employees in leadership positions on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest. See what they think about Senator Tester's bill...or the process used by the Beaverhead Partnership players in projects like the East Deerlodge Valley one referenced above...or how the Beaverhead Partners prefer to have the NEPA process outsourced to private consulting firms, even if it costs the US taxpayers more money. We have been contacted by people who work for the Forest Service and, suffice to say, if the general public could hear some of these concerns from BHDL NF employees I think people would have a better understanding of what's going. Thanks.
Nice job Sutton. I think your piece does both sides justice (brief justice) and asks the right question - is this bill better than nothing.
To the rest of you:
Opposing factions, who each genuinely believe they are right and therefore refuse to make sufficient compromises, create a situation where nothing will happen until one of them dominates the landscape of the other. Perhaps this is our destiny, but I don't think so. Holding out until one side humiliates the surroundings of the other side does not lead to good or lasting public policy.
If this bill does not pass in some form, the most tragic consequence will be the horrible message it sends to disparate parties that attempt to find common ground. The efforts of the BD Partnership participants (and the Yaak working group) should be applauded, if for no other reason, than because they had the courage, sense, maturity, and ability to see beyond their own narrow interests. They went out on a limb to find solutions to very difficult issues and their effort should be supported and sanctioned.
This is not to say that the BD Partnership did everything right and the threads on this site have pointed that out. But if we are going to condemn everything that is not perfect or be spiteful to ideas because they are not our own, then we will never get anything done.
This bill should be supported and passed and we should learn from the shortcomings of the process to improve the next bill.
This bill is simply a very sophisticated attack on some of the last remaining wild country by a politician trying only to make a name for himself. Unless something is done at a national level, local politicians in the western states will keep chipping away at the roadless areas until there are none left.
Comment By Vincent Vangocart, 9-23-09I wholeheartedly support Senator Tester and his Forest Jobs bill. As Mr. Reed explains, Montanans have grown sick and tired of the shouting over public land management and desire something better.
The folks in the three separate regions who were willing to sit down and work together should be applauded and they built the foundation for Senator Tester to step up and offer common sense legislation that has something for everyone.
Nice work Senator Tester. Your leadership on this issue is welcome.
Montucky, Senator Tester didn't single-handedly develop this legislation, it was inspired by a coalition of diverse interests; he simply put it to paper. So, why are you attacking him as a so-called local politician trying to make a name for himself... that's a pretty shallow and ignorant conclusion and has almost no redeeming logic. Please read the bill, then comment.
Comment By Dave Skinner, 9-23-09Last wild country? Give me a break, Montucky. 10,000 acres a year, almost all concentrated in areas where roads will be taken out and only select existing trails will REMAIN? A little logic, please.
As for Larry, Diverse? Nah. Sawmills and big-greens only, along with a smattering of isolated motorheads legitimately afraid of losing everything -- as are the struggling sawmill "partners" -- example being two sections of Otatsy play area in exchange for 79,000 acres of new wilderness? Oh, and a boiler.
No, the battle has always been between the economic users and the do-nothingniks, while the vast public, who own the land and want it well managed AND accessible for common forms of recreation, have been cut out of the debate and are now being thrown off the ground.
The only possible reason for supporting this misnamed bill is that it might (yet likely won't) help the forestry sector survive in some fashion. But the fact remains, our forestry sector needs to be much larger and more robust. There is just too much wood out there to expect "natural" forces to act upon the forest in a good way. Too much bugs, too much overdense, not enough ground ready for good burns. If I had any confidence at all that S-1470 would put our forestry side on a sound platform where it can be effective in terms of the larger landscape, I'd support it.
But I don't.
So...where's the other two interviews, Sutton?
A major argument by the big green proponents of Tester’s bill is that the bill would designate Montana’s first wilderness in over 25 years. That presupposes Tester’s bill designates wilderness consistent with the 1964 Wilderness Act. The language in the bill is sloppy and there are several measures that are inconsistent with the Wilderness Act. Not one acre of the so-called wilderness this bill would create would actually be real wilderness.
1- Tester’s bill would allow measures for prevention of fires. The Wilderness Act only allows broad discretion in fighting fires (control), not prevention measures. Most timber sales in the Northern Rockies are now justified for fire prevention. This provision opens the door to roadbuilding and logging for fire prevention. What makes this threat even more real is that Tester’s bill states "Timber harvesting may be permitted" in the special management areas the bill designates "to the extent allowed under section 4(d)(1) of the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1133(d)(1)) for purposes relating to the necessary control of fire, insects, and diseases, and for public safety." Nowhere in section 4(d)(1) of the Wilderness Act is timber harvesting or public safety mentioned. Yet, this bill’s language suggests that timber harvesting (a commercial activity) for public safety (or other reasons) is consistent with the Wilderness Act. Cutting of trees whiole fighting (controlling) a fire may be, but not preventative commercial logging.
2- Tester’s bill commercializes the Wilderness. One goal of the Wilderness Act is to preserve the wild nature of the landscape by making it as free from human commercialization as possible. In that sense, wilderness is a place of self-discovery. Commercial enterprises are prohibited in Wilderness, with a narrow exception for commercial outfitting and guiding and only as long as it is both "necessary" and "proper." Rather than preserving wilderness character, Tester’s bill declares all current commercial outfitting permits "necessary" without bothering to go through the normal, periodic public involvement processes which even non-wilderness areas of the national forest system go through in order to determine whether commercial outfitting should be allowed on any given tract of land.
3- The US military and national guard can land aircraft (helicopters, presumably) in the Highlands proposed wilderness.
4- Motorized use for trailing of sheep, instead of doing it on horseback, is allowed in the Snowcrest proposed wilderness. Tester’s bill also mandates that motorized use continue for other ranching activities in the Snowcrest proposed wilderness regardless of whether motorized use is necessary to continue those activities.
5- The language in the wilderness section that says "Nothing in" the bill "affects access for any recreational activity allowed by any law" is unclear. While I am certain it is not the intent of Senator Tester or the bill’s proponents to allow existing motorized use for hunting or other activities in the areas which would be designated "wilderness" in the bill, this language could easily be interpreted to mean motorized access for recreation. Federal judges interpret laws, not TU employees, Senate staff members or other proponents of this bill.
These exceptions are not all inclusive. There are others in the bill that weaken wilderness as both a place and an idea. All of these exceptions have a negative impact on the integrity of the National Wilderness Preservation System.
Ironically, Tester’s bill gives the agencies less ability to protect wilderness character of the so-called wilderness, under many circumstances, than even non-wilderness portions of the public lands. Tester’s bill is really about setting aside commercial, non-motorized backcountry recreation zones with other nonconfroming uses. That’s not wilderness under any definition.
It is time for the proponents of the bill to be honest about what it really is. The wilderness it would designate is a kind of non-motorized/non-mechanized backcountry. There is nothing necessarily wrong about these other kinds of protective measures (indeed, some are included in Tester’s bill), just don’t weaken the National Wilderness Preservation System in the process.
We went over this bill and over this bill weeks ago and nothing in it has changed. Weeks ago, Tester's office was insisting that the maps didn't properly indicate what the bill would actually do and it's been weeks; but, the map seems to have remained the same and still shows the apparent release of a lot of roadless. If the maps don't properly indicate what the bill would actually do, then a responsible legislator would provide better information in a formal form that can be trusted; that is what a good staff does. If the bill contains contains vague language, it means the bill needs to be rewritten to make it clear ...and none of this has anything to do with whether the intent of the bill is good or not or agreeable to anyone or not. It has to do with good, clear, transparent governance and legislative professionalism. As I have said before, if we're going to debate a bad piece of legislation, then it ought to at least be written well enough to be clear about what is being debated.
Look, we've been through some recent "conservation mistakes" where well-intentioned people tried to do things that were beyond their skill set and did unintentional damage as a result. The most egregious recent example is the effort, spearheaded by many of the same organizations that back this bill, to work with CUT to obtain additional bison winter range rights. In that case, these organizations (and I'll give them credit for trying to do the right thing) were out of their league in dealing with people like CUT and the result was that CUT rolled the conservation movement for $ millions for a thirty year lease on twenty or thirty AUs worth of bison range that CUT is making sure the bison never get to use anyway. That well-intentioned effort cost the conservation side dearly and did great unforeseen damage. Now, we have the same organizations entering into closed-door private (some would say secret) negotiations with exploitive industry and thrillcraft recreation groups (people who can easily be as "tricky" to deal with as CUT) and backing a freshman politician and his inexperienced staff (staffers who clearly have trouble even crafting a clear bill) in their negotiations with these "tricky" constituencies.
Why do we need to take this risk right now? We're not even that hard up right now. Right now, all of the roadless areas covered by this bill are under Vilsack's direct control and may or may not be touched in the foreseeable future, especially since Vilsack has recently gone out of his way to make it clear that he wants a single national resolution to the roadless question and not piecemeal stuff like this Tester bill. We don't need to go down any risky paths right now, especially not with a freshman politician, his staff who can't write a clear bill, and a bunch of organizations that fouled things up on their last attempt. There is no rush needed here, especially a rush toward a risky bill that, from a conservation standpoint, isn't even all that good.
There are "about" 5 or 6 million acres of candidate Wilderness in Montana, primarily in the form of WSAs and other roadless areas. This Tester proposal protects a bit more than 10% of that 5 or 6 million acres while releasing two WSAs and probably a lot more roadless than we expect. I understand that this is supposed to be a compromise, with both sides giving a bit; but, protecting 10% of the areas that should be protected still leaves those of us on the conservation side a long way from our goal and opening a "collaborative compromise" relationship with a 90/10 split doesn't seem like a great beginning. I might have been more inclined to be more positive about a 70/30 split, but a 90/10 split seems skewed. What happens to that other 90%, that other maybe 4 million or more acres? Once we go down this "tit-for-tat" path, will it be another 25 years before the conservation side gets any more of it protected? Are we supposed to be happy with a 10% bone to gnaw on? If this is Tester's big push to break the wilderness logjam, why propose only a 10% solution, especially if you truly intend to see more than 10% protected later anyway? In fact, this bill only protects a bit more than 600,000 of Montana's roadless acres; Colorado is working to protect over 4 million; and that's Colorado! If this is going to be Tester's new model for a new collaborative beginning, why did the collaboration stop at only a 10% offering to the conservation side? What faith can we have that this kind of a lopsided beginning is only the beginning and that we should be happy with this start?
Also, Tim Border made a good point in another posting. Tester's bill, undoubtedly ghostwritten by timber mill operators, mandates an annual timber harvest that even the foresters on that forest say is excessive, "but more than that by subsidizing the mills with public owned timber the private landowners who are battling the loss of their own forest will be paid pennies on the dollar due to the market being saturated with public logs..." This will create artificially subsidized public competition for private wood lots. Why do we need to do that?
...and yes, as I have said before, I worry that the passage of this bill might be used as a political ploy to poison the well for further Wilderness protection. I can hear it now, "Tester gave them some wilderness; but, the enviros are never satisfied." I've heard that before.
Again, we're not that hard up and I don't want to see us get spooked into taking the bait on a bad deal. Lot's of people seem desperate to convince the conservation side that NREPA is dead, will never be anything but dead, that we need to cut a deal while we can, and that we're so hard up that even a 10% charity share is the best we're ever going to get. I've played that nasty game myself before and I, for one, won't fall for it.
Oh, yeah, I didn't directly answer the question. "Is Tester’s Bill Our Best Bet For New Wilderness?" No.
Comment By Treehuggin' Cowgirl, 9-24-09Wow, where to start.
Gary, so many of our most special wildernesses have these "inconsistencies." In the Gila, motorized maintenance of stock tanks is allowed. The Bob Marshall has a landing strip. The original wilderness bill (since modified, thank goodness) only designated the waterways of the Boundary Waters as wilderness and allowed clearcutting on the slopes. Think of all of the exceptions made in the Alaska Wilderness bill including oodles of motorized access. Allowing most legitimate historical access and economic activity when there's a land based claim (i.e. mining claim, grazing allotment) is commonplace.
The definition of wilderness certainly can be weakened, but I don't remember hearing these sirens blare when James Peak Wilderness in Colorado was designated. That bill didn't include any timber provisions for other areas, so of course no one threw a fit about designating a wilderness where you can see a highway or a subdivision from almost every point within it. Did I mention there's a train tunnel under it as well? When you enter the Cebolla Wilderness near Grants, New Mexico, there's a big sign that asks you to please keep your car, truck or ATV on the road. Congress didn't make any special provisions to allow that. They just drew the wilderness boundary so it started about 5ft off the road.
Gary, I do agree that we need to defend the definition of wilderness. However, there isn't anything that unusual in the bill. I'm sure there is room for improvement in the language of the bill, and I invite you to join in this process to help make it better. Unfortunately, I suspect, you are merely using this "watering down wilderness" and "poor language" argument as substitution for disliking other provisions of the bill.
Cowgirl... thank you for a voice of reason. All "W" is customized to meet the intentions of each tract... Maintenance roads are already a part of the Selway Bitterroot, established dercades ago; the precedence for special accomodations shouldn't be your "out" for supporting a viable possibility here. Each and every time a new proposal emerges the outpouring of cries of "there is 6 Million acres of potential wilderness in Montana and I won't accept anything less than the 6 Million!!!" I continue to maintain that idealism doesn't produce one acre of "W" designation. I clarify the word "designation" because by definition these lands remain true wilderness whether or not an act of Congress completes the paperwork! Whether the Tester Bill meets the requirements of the Wilderness Act is worth pursuing, but in my mind, only for clarity not to derail the process. The best yardstick to use is the 1988 Montana Wilderness Act vetoed by President Reagan to spite the Democratic Party, no other reason. It released over 4M acres to "National Recreation Areas" and other release language, not unlike Tester's. Only 1.3M acres (or was it 1.6?) made it into this landmark bill. So, if you measure the acreage of "W" in the BH/DL NF in Tester's Bill to the acreage in the 1988 bill, I suspect you'll find them comparable. I finding the acrimony about this bill to be disengenuous or at least go beyond any realistic expectations of ever getting "W" anywhere in MT in the forseeable future. So, ask yourself the question, "do you or do you not want to get off dead center and actually turn ipso facto wilderness into protected "W"?? . I'd suggest you continue to offer suggestions to Jon's people. They may be new at this, but they're learning fast.
Comment By Larry, 9-24-09I guess since both extremes dislike it, it must be a good bill!!! LOL
Comment By George Vincent, 9-25-09It's one thing to criticize the content of NREPA. I think there's a lot to critize. But for Tom Reed to summarily dismiss it as "a solution that comes from a New York congresswoman whose concept of Montana is Jackson Hole" just because she introduced the bill (these are NATIONAL lands, after all) shows he is woefully ignorant of the work of many dedicated Montanans have put in on it. Well, ignorant, or just flat-out lying to stoke the xenophobia so prevalent in this state.
Either way, it speaks poorly of TU.
In the Sudan (Africa) warring tribes are committing genicide not for ideology or religious reasons but for access to grazing ground for their goats. As the Libyan desert migrates south--destroying more of the grasslands--the genicide intensifies.
Although most of the above comments are informative, rationale and an honest effort--in lieu of name calling--to "locate" shared values, the discussion reminds me that "wars" are always about space, property and resources. Wars are about humankinds inability to live within the constraints of their "tent".
One of the great attractions of Montana is the "physical freedom and open space" found in our public lands as contrasted with living in New Jersey. I will always choose quality over quantity, and excellence over mediocre and hope that this will be part of the values that may be agreed upon.
I have no idea what a "balance use" of our public lands looks like but I do know that "Constraint" must be part of the solution--if there is a solution. Jared Diamond's book "Collapse", a history of how previous civilizations choose to fail or succeed, doesn't paint an opptimistic future.
George, while I don't disagree with your assessment of Tom's flippant remarks, many Montanans are very supportive of NREPA, the point of his comments still remains valid. Reality is that no Wilderness Bill is going to pass muster in Congress that doesn't originate with that state's delegates no matter how compelling the content of the bill; at least it's been the accepted given within most if not all wilderness designations to date. NREPA is probably the ideal for many wilderness advocates, but if it can't get passed, what good does it do? At this juncture, I'm not convinced Tester's Bill will do any better, but almost all successful legislation has gone through numerous versions & Congressional cycles not unlike what resulted in the 1988 Montana Wilderness Act. Every Congressional session in the early 80's had one version or another of a wilderness bill, none of which survived the rigorous challenge in place to get anything passed through Congress except the '88 bill. Still, in my mind, a Montana-specific bill in one form or another sponsored by Tester will have a better chance than a multi-state bill introduced by a Carolyn Maloney, no matter how comprehensive NREPA is. What we do with that reality will be the proof in the pudding!
Comment By abostebet, 10-02-09Welcome to MYBETWINN, the investment fund specializing in betting on sports events through bookmakers.
All investments are managed by a skilled team of professionals in the field, providing a steady income to all participants.
MYBETWINN provides a modern and simple way to earn money on the internet.
Types of investments:
Plan A: 20$ to $499 - 29 days investment period paying 1.5% daily
Plan B: $500 and upwards + 10% - 39 days investment period paying 2.5% daily
http://mybetwinn.net?ref=399 - For more details, please register at MyBetWinn.net
Hey Guys and....maybe a girl or two...Has anyone heard of the Vegas Nightmare Sports Betting System?
Just curious...I have been betting online for a while now and am always looking for an "edge"
Let me know if anyone has tried it and if so what did you think?
Thanks All!