News Bite

Tester’s Forest Jobs and Recreation Act Gets First Hearing

Comment By jed, 12-17-09

Tester is obviously cut from the same bolt of cloth as Baucus.

Comment By Kboy, 12-17-09

Interesting hearing. If you missed it you can watch it by accessing the hearing archives at: http://energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?Fuseaction=Hearings.LiveStream&Hearing_id=506d4038-9383-540e-6697-6db84663f270

The new coalition to fight this bill failed to convey anything of meaning. Except maybe the fact that came out that no one actually attempted to contact Sen. Tester directly!

Comment By jburnham, 12-17-09

Tester actually claimed that he's never heard from Koehler or other green opponents of this bill.

Comment By Eric01, 12-17-09

Clearly opponents of this bill have been in contact with Sen. Tester, and his staff. I know that Friends of the Bitterroot, Alliance for the WildRockies and Koehler's Wild West Institute among others have met in person with staff, exchanged Emails, etc. Bizarre that he made this claim in a public forum. Did he think nobody would check?

Tester looked like his head was going to explode LOL!

Comment By BNative, 12-17-09

Mmm, I thought Koehler looked far more uncomfortable than the Senator, and never denied the claim of not having attempted to make any direct contact. Tester stated his claim for the record so I guess it will be easy enough to check. It was good to see a witness list that included folks who were passionate about both sides. It wil only get more interesting.

Comment By Michael Garrity, 12-17-09

Senator Tester claimed today in the hearing on his bill today that our coalition did not try and work with Senator Tester's staff on this bill.

I talked to Senator Tester in December of 2008 and told him that MWA would try and come to him with a bill like this and I wanted to work with him on a wilderness bill.

I talked to Senator Tester's MT Chief of staff Bill Lombardi a year before the bill was dropped and he promised me that he would let me see a draft bill proposal to offer suggestions before they made up their mind.

I talked Senator Tester's aide in Missoula several months before the bill was introduced and told her that I would rather work with them then against them on their bill. Tracey Stone-Manning said thank you but they first had to get everything signed off by their inner circle before they let people outside that inner circle look at it, I then called a day before the bill was introduced and asked why I wasn't allowed of offer constructive suggestions. Tracey said she was sorry but it took longer than they thought to get the inner circle signed off. So Senator Tester is incorrect when he said that members of our coalition did not try and work with the Senator or his staff.

Sincerely,
Michael Garrity
Executive Director
Alliance for the Wild Rockies

Comment By Dave Skinner, 12-17-09

Several amazing things:
1. Only Wyden and Tester bothered to stick around, Risch as well. Where the heck was everyone else?
2. Kabuki. Wow, the dancing and the fan-waving, with nobody talking about the real problems.
3. I gotta hand it to Matt, he's pretty good at shoveling it out. He's right that Tester's office is not cooperating with anyone opposed to the bill in any substantive way. I remember making a request of Tester's office that got me some Aaron guy, who pretty much tried to blow off my request for the recommendation status of the various parcels (too much work was his excuse) and stopped replying after I said that wasn't an excuse. This has been a one-way dog and pony.
As much as I dislike Matt's position on this, I'll concede his discipline is first-order. He handled himself as well as the best corporate lobbyist would under fire.
4. The worst, most inept, most poorly-prepared testimony? Max. Anyone watching has to really think less of Montanans when they realize that this guy has actually been repeatedly elected by a majority of state citizens. He certainly has not grown into the job, and clearly never will.

Comment By Michael Garrity, 12-17-09

Correction.

I met with Senator Tester in December 2006 and told him that I wanted to work with him on a wilderness bill not in December 2008 as I wrote earlier.

Michael Garrity

Comment By Randall, 12-17-09

Matthew Koehler did one hell of a job in this hearing. Tester had a lot of nerve asking if Matthew had contacted him with his concerbs about the bill, when all our attempts to comment and voice concerns were stonewalled. I attempted to express my concerns with the bill to Jennifer Madgic, Tester's staffer in Bozeman, and got nowhere. Tracy Stone-Manning was more responsive to my concerns, but I did not get the impression anything in the bill would change as a result of our conversations.

Again, awesome job Matthew and thanks for respresenting the disenfranchised wilderness lovers of Montana.

Comment By medium rare, 12-18-09

by not allowing mr koehler to respond to his accusations before moving on, mr tester appeared nervous, and disingenuous.

having noticed over the years that mr koehler doesn't shy away from either collaboration or confrontation, i'd wager that the jr senator was misinformed- or attempting to misdirect- when claiming he'd never received an email stating coalition concerns.

and remind me: why again are we asking these stuffy suits in congress to take away forest management from the paid administrators, biologists and foresters already on the ground? aren't we already paying an entire agency of professionals to make these decisions?

at least the uncomfortably obvious pre-arranged Q&A;between Tester/Sherm Anderson came off just as scripted as it was, a sorry dog/pony show just as embarrassing as max's incoherent ramblings.

Comment By medium rare, 12-18-09

mr tester:

if you're looking for missing emails (almost sounds rove-ian...), perhaps this will help: i just found this posted in a bill schnieder column last summer:

http://www.newwest.net/main/article/tester_secrecy_on_wilderness_bill_is_embarrassing/

the email's from mr koehler, seemingly addressed to your staff and asking to be included.

glad to be of help.

By Matthew Koehler, 7-09-09
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2009 12:59
To: "Stone-Manning, Tracy (Tester)" <Tracy_Stone-Manning@tester.senate.gov>,
<Matt_Jennings@tester.senate.gov>,
"Swanson, Dayna (Tester)" <Dayna_Swanson@tester.senate.gov>
From: Matthew Koehler <koehler@wildrockies.org>
Subject: Tester's Staff: We're still waiting for you to break the silence

Hello Tracy and Matt:

I'd just like to point out that the silence, secrecy and shenanigans from Senator Tester's office continues regarding your Wilderness/Logging legislation, as we still haven't been given a copy of the legislation. This is despite repeated requests all week long and yesterday's promise from someone in your DC office that we'd at least be given maps of the Beaverhead part of your secret proposal.

Your spokesperson's notion that once your secret legislation is introduced into Congress "It will be the beginning of the process, not the end" is insulting to everyone. Do you really think that anyone believes that average, ordinary Montanans and Americans will have more of a say in this legislation once it goes to DC?

Please stop the secrecy and the smoke blowin' and open up this process to a broad-cross section of Montanans and Americans, who are the rightful owners of these public lands. All your folks have done is served to reward the secret, selective, exclusive nature of the Beaverhead-Deerlodge Partnership. That's not the way we do things in Montana, even if one of the big Beaverhead Partnership promoters happens to be Tracy's former boss.

Thanks,

Matthew Koehler
WildWest Institute

Comment By Ochenski, 12-18-09

Tester's memory must be slipping. This contents of the bill came about PRIOR to the Senator deciding to sponsor it. The "deal" was already cut between TU, NWF, MWA and the mills well before anyone had any reason to contact Tester about it. And that deal was cut in closed-door meetings, not through any public process. This is all well known and once a "collaborative" deal is cut, how would members of the public then be able to provide input that would change the specifics of the deal? Simply put, they couldn't. And can't.

I personally contacted my friend and colleague of 20 years, Tracy Stone-Manning, formerly head of the Clark Fork Coalition and now working for Tester in Montana, and warned her of the potential for bad fallout because of the limited number of groups and individuals involved in striking the deals contained in the bill and not only didn't I get the information I asked for -- which was a copy of the latest bill -- I got a reply telling me that she couldn't talk to me because I was "a member of the press" and I'd have to deal with Aaron Murphy because that's the way Tester's office has decided to handle any inquiries or media communications.

I, too, have seen Matt Koehler's emails to Tester's office -- which, unless Jon Tester wants to put up his personal email address -- is how you have to contact him. Whatever baloney anyone wants to spew about "directly contacting" him, or talking to him, is primarily fiction...getting past the staff is always the first hurdle.

So, now Tester is stuck with a bum deal that was unrealistic to begin with because it ignored market conditions, long-standing environmental laws, agency budgets and bureaucratic protocol for national forests. But instead of accepting that, he lashes out at the critics who, after all, have pointed out for some time now what the Obama administration stated yesterday at the hearing.

Maybe next time we can have a REAL public process to formulate a REAL wilderness bill instead of this phony charade. In the meantime, the Wilderness Study Areas remain in their protected status, the roadless lands remain in their protected status, and the Forest Service can continue to maintain scientifically and legally mandated analysis for what forests should be harvested when and where and in what amounts.

Comment By Pronghorn, 12-18-09

Thanks, Matthew K., for representing the interests of public lands and public land citizen advocates. The senator's scolding, bullying tone during his attempt to deflect accurate criticism appears all the more pathetic given the evidence produced above. And the snide remark about the "far left"? I'm opposed to this bill for a number of reasons, but my largest opposition is reserved for the manner in which S1470 weakens the future of wilderness protection for future Americans--citizens who will come to know "wilderness" as a place where helicopters can land and ATVs can herd sheep. This puts me on the far left? Because I share a vision for wilderness that was shared by the visionary bi-partisan parties to the 1964 Wilderness Act? Sen. Tester is sadly out of touch and now stooping to the use of labels in an attempt to denigrate the opposition. Too bad for Montana, too bad for America.

Comment By Larry Campbell, 12-18-09

Friends of the Bitterroot has over 20 years of conservation work on the Beaverhead Deerlodge National Forest just over the Sapphires from the Bitterroot. We were excluded from the " B-D Partnership" ( a self-selected group) and we were not contacted by Senator Tester's aides regarding his bill. Our investment of time, energy and money were totally ignored. At our initiative nine of us met with Tracy Stone-Manning, Tester's aide in Missoula. We sent a follow-up letter on 10-7-09 asking for a timely response to just one question, clarification of the actual disposition of Inventoried Roadless Areas on the B-D NF. The letter, with its many recommendations has not been acknowledged and the simple clarification still has not been addressed.
We strongly believe the good Senator has been led into a secretive, exclusionary process that resulted in proposing a policy quagmire by advisors that were so bent on being dealmakers they have been willing to throw conservation and fair democratic process under the bus. The conservation groups involved have been seldom seen doing the difficult forest watch work to protect wildlands from specific proposed projects over the decades. Now collaboration seems to be more important to them than conservation. These collaborationist groups certainly should ponder the situation they got themselves into. They may feel free to dismiss the local grassroots conservation groups, but now they have learned from the US Forest Service that their secret, exclusive deal making resulted in a recommended timber cut that is unreasonable and probably unsustainable. They appear to have failed at conservation and political deal making.
I hope they don't take Senator Tester down in their exuberance for exclusive scheming and power tripping.

Comment By George Vincent, 12-18-09

Dave Skinner -- cut Max a bit of slack. Of course he wasn't prepared. Between the mess he's made of Health Care Reform and trying to keep his honey a secret, the guy's got stuff on his mind he sees as more important than something he's never shown any interest in -- i.e., protecting the land in the state of Montana.

As for Tester, Larry Campbell brings up an interesting point in his final sentence. First there was Jon's play to expand his right flank with his Guns in the Parks bill. And now this -- not just the appalling bill itself, but his apparent mis-statements on public involvement. He may dismiss thoughtful opposition to his Forest Logging and Wilderness Dilution Act as the "far left," but I bet this "fringe" has more people in it than was his margin of victory over Conrad -- who wouldn't have introduced either of these bills.

As I overheard at work, "With Democrats like these, who needs Republicans?"

Paul Richards has said that Tester promised that he'd stand up for our wildlands even if that meant he'd be a one-term senator. He may get that result anyway.

I wonder if Denny is salivating.

Comment By steve kelly, 12-18-09

Tester had a choice, either respond to substantive questions and criticisms by a growing number of constituent skeptics, or change the subject by lashing out in an attempt to marginalize the messenger. Matthew Koehler spoke clearly for maximizing the wilderness option on behalf of many groups and individuals that oppose privatization and deregulation of our national forests, and are especially outraged at the disregard Sen. Tester has shown toward Sen. Lee Metcalf's S-393 Wilderness Study areas. A shameful performance by Tester, and a disoriented Sen. Baucus, who is apparently having trouble living in the moment. It's like reality tv 24/7.

Comment By Criminy, 12-18-09

The bill is in the middle of the committee process. Input is being promoted right now, and the bill will undoubtedly be amended. If Koehler and co.'s intention was to modify the bill rather than defeat it altogether the whining concerning fair involvement might hold some water. You don't support the bill, you never did support the bill, you're not interested in maintaining forest jobs so let's not pretend like you are. If you see forest practitioners and the income they provide for their families as expendable then you won't support this bill. People who are fundamentally opposed to the aims of specific legislation are not generally included in its drafting. That seems to bewilder some, but I find it rather logical. The fact that Koehler was invited to D.C. to give his two cents seems fair enough. Is there a better forum to give voice to perhaps warranted criticisms? I can think of none. This nonsense with Mathew Koehler is like a soap-opera in real time, and the issues at hand, such as the levels and types of logging, and sheer acreage of wilderness are being glossed over.

Also when did we come to trust the Forest Service as the singular experts on land management decisions? Now, because as conservationists we have locked things up to the point that 'management' in any sense of the word is impossible, we're satisfied about the work they're doing (or more accurately not doing). There's a lot of numbers being thrown around by people about how much logging will be done, and absolutely no discussion about methods of harvest. Who here can tell me how Pyramid Lumber harvests trees?

Larry Campbell: You clearly underestimate Senator Tester as you liken him to some bull being led by the nose, unaware of what he's doing. It's his bill, not the bill of the collaborationists who support it. I'll repeat, his bill, that he introduced as a Junior Senator against (clearly) the desires of some of his constituency (that's you). He wouldn't take the risk if he didn't believe in the merits of the bill. Don't let the flattop fool you, even if he isn't from Princeton the man can still use his brain.

And finally is there an alternative? Two are frequently offered: The politically unviable NREPA and the probably unconstitutional Clinton Roadless Rule. The latter is set to be overturned, again, and the former will never generate the support necessary. I, for one, cannot in good conscience support such far-reaching legislation that effectively disenfranchises so many especially those who live in Montana for more than the pretty view. And sometimes, over dinner, I actually sit to the left of Mathew Koehler.

Comment By elkamino, 12-18-09

i'm single issue on this: my family's elk hunting grounds are in a WSA that's released in this bill. it's not much of a timber area, mostly sage and grass, and its currently protected against motorized and logging. its beautiful and and special and i'm not naming it.

but despite the low timber value the tester bill opens it up, as well as something like a dozen other similarly precious areas, to motorized and logging. that's nuts and expensive and i don't want $ spent punching "temporary" logging roads into our elk areas.

tester admits they don't even know what it would cost, but i do, because just across the drainage ther's no wsa protection and the place is trashed by atvs and 4 wheelers. it's full of road hunters and we avoid it. it's also weedy as hell, and elk are bumped out of there early. open this wsa and the elk'll have even less cover, bumping more down to private, already a problem, and only for a meager but important stand of trees.

bummer these decisions don't seem to have been made on the ground.

Comment By Mike, 12-18-09

Tester looked really upset there. I was sad to see he focused on a personal attack rather than the bill.

Comment By Glenn Hockett, 12-18-09

I have similar concerns to elkamino and those left out of the process. This bill threatens the area I hunt and as far as the proposed Snowcrest Wilderness Area that could be called a "wilderness without wildlife" because the Jobs Bill added in a motorized exception to perpetuate domestic sheep trailing through this area of historic but unoccuppied bighorn sheep habitat (see pages 58 & 59 of the bill). Bighorns and domestic sheep can not coexist due to disease transmission issues from domestic sheep to bighorn sheep.

Members of the Gallatin Wildlife Association Board of Directors have met with Senator Tester's staff, provided written comment and personally talked to him at the hearing in Bozeman, but none of our suggestions have been incorporated into the bill, in particular dropping the special domestic sheep trailing motorized use clause in the proposed Snowcrest Wilderness, not to mention dropping the mandated timber harvest which the Forest Service notes is not achievable muchless sustainable.

Comment By Larry Campbell, 12-19-09

Note to Criminy. You may want to re-read my earlier comment. It has very little to nothing to do with the complex content of the bill. I certainly do not underestimate Senator Tester's mental prowess. Nobody could be expected to master all the arcane technicalities of all the issues a senator would have to deal with, so they use trusted advisors, who presumably understand the facts and figures and policy implications. I think the Senator got some real bad advice.
But the bigger issue, the crux of my previous comments, is that the Senator isolated himself from his constituents - right, left and middle - anybody who wanted to improve the bill or oppose the bill for assorted good reasons. People opposed to the bill have been castigated as extremists. Now the Undersecretary of Agriculture has opposed the bill using some of the very same criticisms as the supposed "extremist" conservationists. It is this anti-democratic isolation of decision making and disenfranchisement of constituents that allowed the proposed bill to go so far afield that County Commissioners and grassroots conservationists and even the Forest Service oppose it as unreasonable and unsustainable.
Not only did Senator Tester get bad advice, he cut off the opportunity to shine some daylight onto the mess.
I am less concerned about Senator Tester's conservation ethic, we Montanans have been getting by with very little conservation ethic in our political leaders for some time - excepting the late Senator Metcalf. I am more concerned about this glitch in democratic process. Is this the good Senator's leadership style that we are seeing -the secrecy and isolation from and marginalization of well-meaning constituents. Or is this an anomoly brought by the self-annointed deal makers??

Comment By Criminy, 12-20-09

Larry Campbell: You evidently didn't understand the point I was forwarding initially. So let's assume you were granted involvement, what would you change about the bill that would not radically contravene the interests of other stakeholders in the collaboration, and would also alleviate most of your concerns about the bill? If you can offer me something, even something tentative, I'll be very interested.

Comment By Larry Campbell, 12-20-09

Well Criminy, my prsonal bottom line would be to protect Montana's few remaining unprotected roadless wildlands from motorized recreation and resource extraction...because they are few (over the broader American and global landscape) and they are irreplaceable. They are also quite useful, if one is worried about that...pristine water and world-class wildlife, not to mention isnspiration flow from the wildlands at no taxpayer expense.
On remaining public land that is already roaded I would carefully and prudently manage logging, mining, grazing, etc in a sustainable way using the best available science for planning along with a responsible monitoring program to watch that the expectations of damage mitigation are being met.
I would use a process open to every American much like the Forest Service uses now.
Any taxpayer subsidy should go to the loggers in the woods, not the highly capitalized, highly mechanized infrastructure.
Actually, that is what efficient and effective fire hazard work would look like. Lots of saws, lots of labor piling/windrowing slash.Not much commercial value as saw timber, but feed the sawyers and slash handlers, save on fire fighting costs to taxpayers and fire insurance costs to homeowners. I believe this along with road restoration to protect fisheries , which are locally quite valuable, would be a huge benefit to residents of communities.
I believe there are opportunities for commercial saw timber also, but overreaching for sawtimber can cause significant harm to local economies. Focusing the existing and future public subsidies on woodswork rather than product could solve a lot of worry about jobs and fire and a lot of money sent to insurance companies and bankers carrying the debts for the expensive high tech machinery.
I have negotiated with local loggers and Forest Service people and come to agreements that profit the timber industry and conservation.
Freinds of the Bitterroot came to an agreement that allowed 60 million board feet of logging on the Bitterroot after the 2000 fires. This level of cut, in one project, was more than the previous decade total volume. We took a hard look at the recent, local Trapper Bunkhouse timber sale in the Bitterroot and did not appeal it. In fact we rarely appeal or litigate, but when we do it is for good reason and so we have a good track record.
FOB collaborates on the local Restoration Committee, the Resource Advisory Committee, various attempts at Forest Planning and Travel Planning. We have never been threatening or disruptive. We do our homework and stick to the law and our principles of being conservationists.
We are not averse, as our history shows, to collaborating/negotiating and getting to constructive results. We were not invited for any level of involvement by the insular group that proposes to divvy up our national public wildlands.

Comment By Horst, 12-20-09

Jon Tester glowers just like Republican senatory in that picture.

Comment By Smithhammer, 12-21-09

Well said, Criminy. The most rational contribution to this thread so far.

And the notion that Tester was "lashing out" by asking Koehler whether he had ever attempted to contact his office directly, is laughable. It was hardly an attempt to marginalize anyone, and was a perfectly fair question for Koehler to have to respond to in front of those present, given all of Koehler's allegations of "secrecy."

The bottom line for me is that this bill will create over 600,000 acres of new Wilderness in Montana. To those of you involved with conservation organizations that oppose this bill - how successful have you been in doing the same? Or anything even remotely close to it? The answer is simple - you haven't, since these are the first new Wilderness designations in the state in over 20 years. While the rest of you have been dithering, this is happening. And while it may not be ideal and to everyone's liking (an impossible prospect anyway), it IS progress. And as harsh as it may sound, it is certainly more than the rest of you have been able to bring to the table.

Comment By Smithhammer, 12-21-09

self-correction before someone beats me to it - the bill would create just under 600,000 acres (that's what I get for posting before coffee....). Still, you get the point.

Comment By elkamino, 12-21-09

wrong, smithhammer- releasing wsas that are currently non-motorized is not what hunters or conservationists consider "progress," even if marginally stronger protections are gained by others.

simply, these lands- including my hunting grounds- are currently protected. under tester's bill they wouldn't be.

Comment By Smithhammer, 12-21-09

I'm a hunter and a conservationist, and if I focus on the big picture of what this bill accomplishes, I DO consider it progress.

And it will help protect a lot of prime elk and whitetail habitat that currently isn't.

Comment By Bernard Shakey, 12-21-09

Smithhammer calling himself a conservationist is like Tester calling himslef an honest politician.

Comment By Bernard Shakey, 12-21-09

Thanks Matthew K. for standing up for MT.

Comment By Smithhammer, 12-21-09

"Smithhammer calling himself a conservationist is like Tester calling himslef an honest politician."

Easy to throw stones when hiding behind a fake name. You clearly know nothing about me.

Comment By Bernard Shakey, 12-21-09

Ummmm fake name?

Is Smithhammer your real name?

How does my screename take away from the truth of my statement. I'd say your hurling stones considering your only responses to my claims was that i'm not using my real name so I should'nt be taken seriously. It's called an alias and in this case i've been using Neil Young's alias Bernard Shakey and I think it's a cool name. Excuse me for not posting my real name becuase I dont want right wing extremists from Kalispell attacking me or my family for having even a moderate conservation ethic.

I know enough about you to know your not a conservationist, considering your beligerent support for a bill that destroys MT wilderness and puts decisions about national forests in the hands of politicians. Do you just sit idly waiting for people respond to your comments. It's quite easy to figure out a hack like you.

Comment By Smithhammer, 12-21-09

Is this just "Beargrass" under another name, or another similarly deranged wingnut?

Comment By Bernard Shakey, 12-21-09

Smithhammer "To those of you involved with conservation organizations that oppose this bill - how successful have you been in doing the same? Or anything even remotely close to it? The answer is simple - you haven't, since these are the first new Wilderness designations in the state in over 20 years. While the rest of you have been dithering, this is happening."

All the more reason to oppose a bill that only creates rock and ice wilderness and sets dangerous precidents in forest management.
If you say NREPA is lopsided i'd have to say that the Tester bill is as lopsided in the other direction.

Throwing stones again Smithhammer?
Your only response to my points is to call people names.
Thats the sign of someone in the corner who is beaten.
Also it really does seem that you sit idly by the comp. waiting for other's opinions to be posted so you can trash them and pat yourself on the back.

Comment By Smithhammer, 12-21-09

I believe it was you that started with the name calling, my friend. "Belligerent?" "Hack?" Once again, it was you that changed the tone of the discussion, not I.

Regardless, I'll respond directly to your claim, a claim that has already been thoroughly debunked, and that even most of the people on your side of the argument have dumped as a talking point because it is patently untrue - the claim that this bill only protects "rock and ice" wilderness. That is an absurd claim, which could only be made by someone who has no firsthand knowledge of the areas that would be protected, and a claim that would only be believed by someone who is similarly clueless.

You would describe the Lima Peaks proposed Wilderness as "rock and ice?" You would describe the Centennials, or the Snowcrest range this way? How about the Ruby mountains?

There you go - no name calling, and a direct response. Care to abide by the same?

Comment By Bernard Shakey, 12-21-09

"Clueless" thats name calling, perhaps you never learned the rules in preschool.
Beligerent is not a name it is a description of your refusal to accept that anything in this bill is misguided at the very least.
"Hack" is just what you are.

The Lima Peaks WSA is an arid, high elevation WSA that is quite scenic however it is not the most importasnt wildlife habitat. Just look at the names Snowcrest, Ruby Mtn's they all are the traditional staus quo wilderness areas. High elevation, composed mostly of sub-alpine and alpine environments. In MT we still have roadless areas that include moderate elevations as well which we all know are more important to wildlife and hunters. Come on we all know why most of the proposed wilderness in this bill is sub-alpine/alpine, becuase the timber mills want the lower elevation areas. Across the USA we have a pattern of only protecting the most inaccesible areas as wilderness with a few exceptions such as the Bob Marshall wilderness area and the greater Salmon/Selway however the entire area of those places is so rugged it would be tough to extract resources anyway.
Smithhammer responds within minutes of any posting becuase he sits by his computer idly.

"I promise to protect all remaining roadless areas in MT" Jon tester

Excuse me but I believe in holding politicians accountable for broken campaign promises. Apparently Smithhammer beleives we should praise them regardless. This is the fundamental difference between the two of u; also I dont sit idly by the computer waiting to lash out at other's with opposing views.

Comment By Smithhammer, 12-21-09

Sorry, but the description of of proposed Wilderness in the Lima Peaks area as "arid, high elevation" misses a fair bit of what would be protected, including extensive, healthy forests, headwaters home to native trout, etc. Same goes for the Rubys and the Snowcrests, and many of the other areas that would receive a greater level of protection than they currently have. To claim that all that would be protected would be "rock and ice wilderness" is to spread falsehood, whether deliberately or unknowingly.

And nowhere have I said we should "praise politicians" for this.

Why don't we stick to the issue and dispense with the personal attacks? Are you capable of that?

Comment By Bernard Shakey, 12-21-09

Smithhammer

you obviuosly have a vested interest in this bill passing. I did not continue to refer to these as "rock and ice wilderness" that was you. The Lima Peaks WSA is an arid area of the continental divide that has both limited timber production and is not ideal habitat for wildlife except for the summer months. Why are these the only areas protected by this bill? We all know the answer becuase they dont have the vast, mid-elevation old growth forests that the timber mills want. You seem to be more than willing to give away our last old growth forests in the name of preservation. I for one think that MT can do better than that. These areas have been in lidigation for over 20 years but at least they were'nt harmed in that time. I am not willing to give away our last roadless areas in MT or any other state when it does not make ecological or economical sense to do it. We all know these last wild forests of the norther rockies are worth more standing than as one last bone thrown to a failing timber industry.

Comment By Greg Beardslee, 12-22-09

You guys are just going back and forth. No one is going to win this debate. Plus you are both sort of right in my estimation about some details. That doesn't make you completely right.

Lima Peaks has good hunting, and is an important elk habitat. Moose live there year round. It is not just rocks and ice.

It is also pretty important to the locals, who would like to keep access as it now is. I like it for the CDT and Little Sheep trails, the wildlife, and the views. Because I like to ride a bike there, I want to see it stay wild. Sacrificing access will be hard for bicyclists, but it will be harder for the locals. The bad local economy will get worse.

I am concerned about the unprotected, released lands Elkamino mentioned. Those are covered under the BLM travel plan. That area and others will have to be reviewed by the Dillon BLM office, and probably have to undergo a public travel plan process. I'm not sure if this is so, but I'm pretty sure. It's not necessarily a given that those places would be automatically a motorized free for all. Why not lobby Testers staff for a lesser designation for certain released lands? Bikers would, if we weren't so busy already.

Comment By Wheelie of Peace, 12-22-09

Thanks Shakey and Smithhammer for your entertaining exchange – it’s kinda like a rerun of the Three Stooges – complete with eye gouging, juvenile sound effects and bad hair.

After watching the S-1470 hearing, it is obvious that the bill introduced by Senator Tester may look nothing like the final protection package / jobs scheme. It is a work that will be in committee process right up until it is signed into law – or not.

This is the first ‘Wilderness bill’ in 25 years that stands a chance of passing and I am pessimistic that there will be another in my lifetime – if ever again in Montana. This is not our daddy’s Wilderness bill. Much has changed in our society in the 25 years since the Lee Metcalf was designated. I doubt that another Partnership style ‘collaboration’ will ever get off the ground to be the genesis of another bill – let alone another politician willing to risk the firestorm that has been brought upon Tester’s flat-topped head. With NREPA a politically untenable pipedream and the Clinton Roadless Rule in jeopardy, the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act might be the only opportunity to offer permanent protection to a Montana landscape in a generation or two.

It is going to take broad support from all sides to make this bill fly.

That said – the quiet, non-motorized, conservation oriented bicycle community weighed in at the Senate hearing by submitting a position paper that supports new Wilderness with a list of trail access concerns and proposed solutions. The paper, presented by the International Mountain Bicycling Association, represents the work of bicycle advocates from across Montana. In asking for continued access to roughly 70 miles of trails from across the FJRA landscape that have been respectfully ridden for decades out of the 400 miles that will be closed to bicycles, bicyclists still support over 95 percent of the proposed Wilderness. Nothing suggested in the paper is precedent setting or new to a Wilderness bill.

Have a read and let the dialog productively continue.

http://www.montanamountainbikealliance.com/static/S.1470IMBATestimonyFinal.pdf

Comment By jay, 12-23-09

Unless the USFS is willing to employ traffic cops to patrol its trails, those bicycle trails will soon be choked with motorized nincompoops on ATVs.

Comment By Wheelie of Peace, 12-23-09

Often stated by the conservation community as fact that if bicycles are allowed on trails that ATVs are sure to follow - but this is nothing more than fear mongering and unsubstantiated BS at its worst.

Most ATV incursions are already illegal so IT IS an enforcement issue – having absolutely nothing to do with bicycles, horses or hiking boots. We cannot manage our public lands out of fear of illegal activity.

Perhaps a line item missing from Tester’s bill is money set aside for hiring more enforcement personnel and promoting a comprehensive education program for all users. Lacking that maybe a private sector funded pool of money could finance enforcement and education. It is obvious that the first conservation step should be to enforce the laws already in place. It would seem that if the conservation community was sincere about preservation – they would be taking the lead in helping the under funded agencies deal with illegal activity.

Comment By Bernard Shakey, 12-23-09

Wheelie

not surprised to see a mtn. biker willing to give away our last MT roadless areas.

Comment By Bernard Shakey, 12-23-09

If your spineless then wilderness will be destroyed if you show them you have a backbone and keep fighting to protect ALL remninig roadless areas in MT they will have to listen.

Anyone supporting this bill is not a conservationist.

Comment By Bernard Shakey, 12-23-09

If as US citizens you allow politicians to lie and you still support them, then they will walk all over you. Is MT really that spineless, just becuase they've been stalling on wilderness for 25 years we should accept this horrid deal.

"I promise to protect all remaining roadless areas in Montana" -Jon Tester in 2007 in front of his family in a campaign speech.

I beleive in holding politicians accountable for their campaign promises. Esepecially considering this statement was the sole reason that Paul Richards dropped out of a very close race with Tester.

Come on MT they are walking all over you becuase they know everyone is itching for new wilderness and NREPA is continually shot down by the right wing politicians despite an overall majority of support in the 5 states affected.

Last best place or just like every other place

Comment By Bernard Shakey, 12-23-09

This bill doesn't just destroy roadless areas but changes the entire way resources are extracted from our public lands for the WORSE.

Comment By Nikon 1, 12-23-09

A 25% margin in the primary doesn't seem like it was very close.

Comment By Horst, 12-23-09

If you are willing to increase taxes for more traffic cops along the trails, wheelie, maybe we ought to pay just a little more and put in paved trails.

Comment By Kappelcock, 12-26-09

Did you hear about the new PBR brewery opening up in Missoula? Its going to also be venue for music and maybe even promote a new micro-brew PBR for Missoula. Its gonna be a hell of a time and its going to create some good jobs in Montana.

Comment By lance olsen, 12-27-09

NREPA is better by far. Tester's bill has mostly comedic value. He and the bill's boosters seem to have set this bill in place to save Smurfit, but Smurfit's own judgement made that salvation moot, so our junior senator is desperately scrambling for whatever next new justification he can find for his folly. Interviewed on MPR, he admitted that, now that Smurfit's business decision moots much of the reason for his bill, he's now listening to ideas that he first thought goofy. What could be goofier than that?

This article was printed from www.newwest.net at the following URL: http://www.newwest.net/topic/article/watch_hearing_on_testers_forest_jobs_and_recration_bill_today_live/C559/L559/