LET'S HAVE AN APOLOGY
What Tester’s Outburst Tells Us
Mean-spirited, personal attack at congressional hearing completely out of line, especially coming from a member of the U.S. Senate.
By Bill Schneider, 12-30-09
Fortunately, for Senator Jon Tester (D-MT), not many people watched the video feed from the Public Lands and Forests Subcommittee’s hearing on his Forest Jobs and Recreation Act, S. 1470, held December 17.
All testimony was excellent and expertly presented, as were most questions from subcommittee members, but not Senator Tester’s embarrassing and misinformed personal attack on a witness who dared say something he didn’t want to hear.
More significantly, this outburst serves as a “tell” as what’s really happening behind the scenes of efforts to end Montana’s Wilderness Drought.
When Senator Tester’s turn to ask questions came around, he wasted no time in assailing Matthew Koehler who had testified at the hearing representing the views of a broad new alliance of 54 small conservation groups called the Last Best Place Wildlands Campaign (LBPWC) and who had submitted a detailed, line-by-line analysis of S. 1470 along with many suggested changes to make the bill more palatable to the group.
You can click here to see a video of the entire hearing for yourself (go to the last few minutes for the Q&A section), but here’s a summation.
Right out of the chute the Senator said, quietly and mainly to the subcommittee members, “Isn’t it funny how the far left and the far right often connect up.” Followed by laughter.
Translation: Koehler represents a fringe element, so don’t pay attention to what he said. Even if this is true, is it appropriate for a U.S. Senator to joke about it and belittle and ridicule constituents before a congressional hearing?
Next, he asked when the LBPWC was formed, and Koehler told him mid-July after S. 1470 was introduced.
Translation: The group hasn’t been around long, so it has little standing and not much chance of knowing anything important, but ignoring the fact that the campaign is a merely a recent combine of many groups that have been working on forest issues for twenty years or more.
Then Tester asked, “I think the first time we’ve met is here today, correct?”
Koehler said, politely, no, he had come to Washington, D.C. and met personally with the Senator soon after he was elected.
Instead of apologizing about forgetting about that meeting, Tester dismissed the response and asked, “You have gotten a hold of our website? Is that correct? You’ve sent us emails? The reason I ask is that I review all the emails and I haven’t seen one.”
In his reply, Koehler tried to explain to the Senator that what he personally did or didn’t do wasn’t important compared to the issue at hand. He also reminded Tester that he was testifying on behalf of many volunteer organizations, not as an individual constituent, and he and his partners had sent emails and met with members of Tester’s staff, but without much success. “To be honest,” he replied, “there was a time when members of your staff weren’t returning our emails and weren’t returning our phone calls.”
“That’s because we didn’t receive any,” Tester rudely interrupted, “because I looked at all the emails and your name wasn’t on them.”
Montana’s junior Senator then launched into an old-fashioned scolding, reminding Koehler how privileged he was to even be on this “distinguished panel” of witnesses, and finally, more or less told the subcommittee Koehler was lying. “Don’t make the claim that is unfounded,” Tester said, “because I tend to stick up for my staff on such issues.”
No, he did not extend Koehler the courtesy of responding to the lecture. Instead, he moved onto likely pre-arranged, softball questions for witnesses who supported his bill.
There’s a lot of issues here, but the key point I want to get out is that, to be kind, there’s obviously a disconnect between the Senator and his staff. I hope it isn’t intentional because his staffers know as well as their own names that Koehler and several of the groups he represents have made many attempts to be part of any congressional efforts to end Montana’s Wilderness Drought including this bill and virtually every other wilderness and forest management issue, but have more or less been snubbed and written off as the “far left.”
I’ll take the Senator’s word for it when he says he reads all the emails sent in on the “contact” form on his senatorial website, but I doubt many in Koehler’s group used that form in lieu of sending longer, detailed emails directly to the Senator and his staff. The Senator’s staff obviously received these emails, but Tester obviously didn’t read them.
I happen to have copies of several of these emails, and they aren’t short snipes (I hate this bill, etc.). They’re thorough, professional and constructive. If I had space, I’d print some of them, but that would be even more embarrassing to the Senator. In retrospect, I most ask, why does it matter if Koehler sent an email? He was there at the hearing testifying on behalf of many Montanans and deserves the respect all other witnesses received.
I contacted Koehler after the hearing, and he told me that members of the LBPWC have had “five face-to-face meetings” with Tester’s staff and called and emailed “four or five dozen times” during the past few months. Many of these calls and emails have gone without replies and the meetings haven’t generated any agreement to change anything in the bill. Yet, Tester stands up at a congressional hearing and claims he hasn’t heard about any of this?
The truth is, Tester’s staff isn’t interested in listening to “non-supportive” constituents, more or less considering them bugs on the windshield. And, it seems, they keep the Senator in the dark about attempts by anybody except true-blue followers to affect change in this legislation and end up allowing their boss to embarrass himself at a congressional hearing. You have to wonder if his staff wrote the questions Tester asked at the hearing and demonized Koehler and the LBPWC in advance.
Now, for a little disclosure. For those who haven’t been following my frequent postings on Montana’s Wilderness Drought and Tester’s efforts to end it. I have, somewhat reluctantly and with amendments, supported S. 1470, to the chagrin of Koehler and other members of the LBPWC. But I certainly haven’t supported how the bill came to be or the uncompromising attitude of those who wrote it. Unlike Senator Tester, I’ve never met Koehler, but we’ve talked on the phone a couple of times, and we disagree on many issues, including S. 1470. I’m writing this commentary because I don’t think any constituent, in this case one representing a large slice of Tester’s constituency, 95 percent of whom probably voted for him, should be personally berated at a congressional hearing. I’d say the same thing if he’d publicly flogged an agency official or timber mill owner.
At the hearing, Tester implied that he’d invited Koehler to testify, but Tester is not a member of this subcommittee and the subcommittee’s staff put the “distinguished panel” together. Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR), chair of the subcommittee, sent the letters of invitation.
One more “tell.” Tester is obviously sensitive about claims that the drafting of the bill wasn’t an open process, an issue Koehler mentioned, again, in his testimony. Keep in mind that when Montana narrowly elected Tester in 2006, a strong “open government” promise was a cornerstone of his campaign. I’ve already covered this issue ad nauseam, but the fact still is, the process of crafting the bulk of this key legislation was a closed, backroom, political deal among a few major green group leaders and timber reps. Since then, there has been extreme reluctance to change anything. Tester’s inappropriate behavior at the hearing tells me he’s edgy about how this deal was done, as he should be.
He’s probably embarrassed about his behavior at the hearing, too, and his staff knows it, which might be why they only pulled out the supportive testimony to put on YouTube.com instead of posting the entire tape of the hearing, conveniently omitting the forgettable Q&A section, as well as perhaps the key part of the hearing where Undersecretary of Agriculture Harris Sherman, the main spokesman for the Obama administration on national forest issues, strongly objected to several sections of the bill. (Click here for his testimony.)
Anyway, what’s done is done, but to salvage something from this embarrassing episode, it seems appropriate for Senator Tester, on behalf of all Montanans, to send Matthew Koehler a letter of apology and release it to the press.
And, of course, if this hasn’t happened already, have a little chat with staffers about how this happened and how it can be prevented going forward.
Footnote: Not that we need more evidence of Tester’s staff snubbing “non-supportive” people like Matthew Koehler, but I just checked out the Senator’s Facebook page, where his staff has put up a series of photos from the hearing, including shots all witnesses except one, and you guessed it. It must have been a lot of work to carefully crop Koehler out of every one of them. Petty, eh?
[End of article]I watched the hearing live and I was appalled at Tester's behavior. In essence, he called Matt a liar. Not only must this be a breach of Senate protocol, it's important to realize that activists like Matt--whose grassroots group has to be working pretty close to the bone--have to shell out hundreds of dollars to get to DC to give 5 minutes of testimony. For any witness to have to endure incivility--or, in this case, abuse--is outrageous.
One can only guess that Tester was completely unprepared for the articulate and well-informed comments in opposition to the bill submitted by the new Undersecretary of Agriculture; the pointed questions put forth by the Chair of the Committee, Jeff Bingaman (D-NM); and the all-but-indecipherable remarks by the bill's co-sponsor, Max Baucus.
I thought Jon's treatment of Matt was a bit hostile. As for his declarations that he'd read everything incoming, that's complete hooey. Matt is pretty prolix, voluble et cetera, even shameless in self-assertion for his mighty cause. So I'm sure Tester's office and staff have been subject to plenty of incoming...perhaps so much that the spam filters kicked in? It's the webmaster's fault! Yeah, blame the webmaster!
Bottom line is Tester didn't help the cause of S-1470, which in my book is a good thing.
Not good on Jon's part. Matt K. is, in my humble opinion, one of the most respected, intelligent, hardworking, dedicated enviros around. His integrity is unquestionable. He is above reproach. SO, Jon, if you read this (and I suspect you will) you do way greater harm to yourself than you could possibly do to Matt with such behavior. Hey, you were our hero, but Matt is our champion! In single combat, you lose every time. Matt's that good.
You show disrespect to ALL of us who are concerned about the environment and wilderness here in Montana. We used to call you Big Jon. Please don't make yourself look like little jon!
Your friend.
Testy testy, Sen. Tester. Is it too much to ask for a minimum standard of civility from our elected officials--particularly with their own constituents?
But no. It looks like the Senator had prepared this "gotcha" moment in advance, and kept at it even when it turned out not to be true. The whole thing makes Tester look petty. Even more so when we find out his staff selectively edited the video portion. Stay classy, dude.
Now, when is Tester up for re-election?
RH
RH, in 2012.
Probably time for Steve Kelly to run again.
Great post, Bill!
I watched the hearing and was as surprised as the other commenters on this thread. Sen. Testy didn't ask Matthew a single relevant question about the content of his comments, and only used his aggressive line of questioning to suggest that Matthew and company should have played a part earlier in the process. But he didn't even explicitly make that point. So really, he didn't make a single point, and wound up looking disgracefully like a bully and an asshole. I hope he had the opportunity to double-check his statement that his staff hadn't received a single email from the coalition that Matthew represented, and man-up with an apology.
The one possibly optimistic takeaway from Testy's Tantrum is that maybe he was genuinely frustrated not to have had the opportunity to consider this kind of input earlier on in the process. And if that's the case, then unfortunately he needs to stop blindly sticking up for his staff and look for a possible disconnect in the chain of communications.
I wish I could say this is the first time Tester has been unprofessional but unfortunately it isn't. He has broke numerous promises since joining the senate, including his promise to protect ALL reamining roadless areas in MT. He seems to forget he won by a very small margin, and a lot of conservationists voted for him, including me. I won't make that mistake again. He appears to be a rude inept bully who is easily bamboozled by the corporate environmental establishment. Another promise he made was to listen to the grassroots yet with his timber and jobs bill he only listened to the corporate enviros and industry. He has no credibility.
Comment By Robert Hoskins, 12-30-09I strongly suspect Tester knew all about Matt and others' attempts to get involved. His behavior bespeaks both foreknowledge and a deliberate attempt to discredit Matt. This makes Tester the liar.
RH
It seems unfortunate for many of us who supported Senator Tester in his run for the U.S. Senate that he apparently is unwilling to listen to those of us who may disagree with him. Could his anger result from his knowing that the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act (S. 1470) provides less protection for Montana's wild lands than Senator Metcalf's Montana Widerness Study Act of 1977?
Comment By Mike Bader, 12-30-09This is all pretty sad. I hosted a political fundraiser for Paul Richards at which he announced he was dropping out of the race and urging all his supporters to vote for Jon Tester. There were several state senators and representatives at this gathering, as well as conservationists. Paul stated he had spoken with Jon Tester, who said he would be very strong for the environment. We all voted for him. But now he's not that strong. Lately it seems he's digging in and now will not entertain changes to the bill, negating his earlier pledge to open the bill up to changes once it had a hearing in the Senate. "Melcherization" isn't something he seems to understand, but he has one foot firmly in the process.
Comment By OldArt, 12-30-09All you progressive who say they won't vote for Tester again... You just going to just let Rehberg walk in and take the prize in 2012? Give me a break.
Also on NewWest today, a new report gives Montana's senators the highest scores for voting green -- and calls other lawmakers "natural disasters." Think Rehberg will be green or a "natural disaster".. don't think too hard about it.
http://www.newwest.net/city/article/whos_green_baucus_tester_get_top_eco_scores/C8/L8/
Gee, I don't recall him being this rude to the progressives who were rallying for him nationwide in 2006. That's been the most painful thing about 2009--I don't EXPECT anything from Mary Landrieu, Ben Nelson and Joe Liberman. But the people we worked hard to elect, who in several cases were literally elected ONLY because of that work, have apparently discovered once settling into the chamber, that it's no longer cool to acknowledge the left. You have to shit on them, or else you look like a sap.
Comment By Mr. Twister, 12-30-09I find Mr. Koehlers internet persona extreamly offensive as I suspect and hope he does mine. The guy rubs lots of folks the wrong way. Tester is a US senator, Mr. Koehler is a spokesperson for a fringe group. They are both human. I, for one, am happy Tester can give it as good as Koehler can. Over here in jackrabbit country its not a bad thing for a pol to kick a Missoula greenie once in a while. Plays real well at reelection time.
Jon's got my vote.
Michael Gregston
Come re-election time, Tester will remember that he had to court and will have to court those Missoula greenies because he needed them on the ground, doing the door-to-door, manning the phones, pulling out their checkbooks, and casting their votes. There never has been and won't be enough votes over in jackrabbit country to matter and the ones that are over there, your vote notwithstanding, will likely vote GOP no matter what kind of miscreant is on that ticket. Any Democrat in Montana who turns too blue to make a good showing among the greenies on the west side is making a mistake.
Comment By Larry Campbell, 12-30-09Senator Tester has shown his politics in his actions. He has persisted in acting in secrecy, excluding both constituent stakeholders and reasonable ideas, played the politics of hate by labeling, and blatantly bullied respectful critics. Tester is shelling up faster than a stonefly. Apparently he misses the point that his isolation from anybody not a selected collaborationist is what put him standing way out there, unhinged from reality-checks freely available from those dreaded and despised grassroots (read constituent voters and organizers) conservationists. He would apologize if he had a shred of statesmanship. And he would reform the above mentioned bad record if he has a sense of decency or democracy. Used to be considered bad form to throw slurs at each other just because we disagree. But it does serve the purpose of hiding the substantive issues.
Comment By Tom von Alten, 12-30-09That Tester "gotcha" expression with his lips pressed together and his mouth flattened out, peering over his glasses is seriously UGLY.
Accusing Koehler of lying (while ignoring any and all substantive issues raised)? When he's got his own facts crooked?
So much for any benefit of the doubt I might have given the Senator.
Poor Jon. He's a decent man. I respect him. I voted for him, gladly, and he might still have time to turn this mess around before the next election.
Alas, he's backed himself into a corner -- or got backed there by the band of folks who wrote the bill with his name on it -- and his ornery attitude at the hearing made him look like a cornered beast.
Even before that, 'though, he was cruising for controversy with language that left the bill's readers coming away with sharply discrepant impressions, including readers whose opinions I respect. For just two examples, Bill Schneider came away seeing little risk of roads spreading into the wild country, and Gary MacFarlane came away seeing plenty of just that kind of risk. Language like that is not good law.
I worked pretty hard for Senator Tester's election.
That won't happen again. He has been a real disappointment.
I think the fine Senator is sick of the Enviro Obstructionists. Good for Jon.
Comment By Denise Boggs, 12-30-09OldArt asks: All you progressive who say they won't vote for Tester again... You just going to just let Rehberg walk in and take the prize in 2012? Give me a break.
OldArt just doesn't get it. Are we supposed to reward Tester for lying and not representing us by voting for him so he can screw us over again? Sorry but he has to earn my vote - I don't just give my vote away because he has D next to him name. I have come to the conclusion that we need term limits for all. It is the only way to break the hold the Ds & Rs have on our government. Vote them all out and start over.
Most of life's choices involves identifying the lesser evil, rarely choosing between good and evil. Usually when enough folks get ticked of at the lesser evil, the greater evil wins.
Comment By problembear, 12-30-09overly defensive people always make me suspicious. jon must know what a can of worms this bill is or he wouldn't be attacking what most people would consider a person who represents "no threat"...
if there is smoke, there must be fire. what is the threat that matthew represents to a sitting united states senator's bill to warrant this unseemly spectacle. i think a famous senator from oregon named wayne morse
http://gladstone.uoregon.edu/~uofla/Summer00/Prince.html
who had courage of conviction once castigated another senator for berating a citizen at a hearing.
" it takes courage to attack another senator, but only sheer cowardice to attack one of your constituents."
where are our real leaders today? have they all died?
Jon, you lost my vote shortly after the knot in your tie cut off the circulation to your brain and you forgot all about the people who helped you squeak by Conrad. You've been tagging along behind our other lame senator, Min (as in minimum), casting aside your constituents right and left, thinking that perhaps your new industry and hawk-like pals will bring you votes. The D behind your name means the same to me as Min's, all show no go.
Good luck Jon, and your lame minions who answer my emails with form letters on other topics. You got my last vote and dollar in your first election. I don't like what you've done. You rode in on an old John Deere and traded it quickly for your new Humvee.
As a good friend and long-time environmental leader often says "would you rather be screwed by your 'friends' or your enemies?" I'm sick and tired of getting it from someone I voted for.
And save us all the cost of stamps and take me off your Christmas card list and further pleas for funding. Your arrogant effrontery in the hearing clinched it for me.
' As a good friend and long-time environmental leader often says "would you rather be screwed by your 'friends' or your enemies?" I'm sick and tired of getting it from someone I voted for. '
OK, who is that good friend? Because this is so spot-on and I want to use proper attribution when I use it.
I was prepared to be disappointed by Obama because I never had any illusions but after meeting him many times, with Senator Tester I really thought that I finally had a chance of really having someone in the halls of power who actually represented me.
The realization that hope was completely without basis has been incredibly disillusioning for me. And it has thrown my comittment to political activism into the wind... I had the honor of canvassing upper Grant Creek on election day 2006... traipsing through the rain for hours to help that one extra voter get to the polls... and for what? Does Senator Tester have any idea why I did that?
I mean, I am a cynic. I was actually a cynic long before I became involved in electoral politics. But somehow I convinced myself that the reality of politics in America meant that no matter how bad and false the choice was, we always had a choice between: a Republican, and, a Democrat.
There's no doubt which side of the aisle I want to sit.
But Senator Tester makes me just want to leave the room.
Dead, I would say, or in industry's pocket.
Mr. Tester did not take a very long time to bed down with wood products people..!
Wow, the Republicans will probably win big in 2010! I hate to think about it. They might well destroy the country this time because of their new tea party extremism.
Nevertheless, Tester and other Democrats need to get it right with their base of voters. The Republicans always heed their base. Tester is a too typical Democrat. Instead, he should question the Republicans the way he did this man who clearly represented the views of many of the senator's supporters.
Sad as it is, you can't treat your base so badly even in the face of overwhelming menace.
Golly -Jeepers, I wish this was a better bill! It’s the wrong prescription for the right cure. The cure being putting people back to work in the woods while simultaneously protecting many roadless areas with new capital W wilderness designation. The cure being actual multiple use sustained yield management in a balance that has yet to have ever been achieved. We are at perhaps the most critical crucial crossroads in the history of public lands management and it is essential that the future is steered by a bill that is better than this one. And it could be a much better bill with a few fundamental focus changes. With the recent closure of Smurfit -Stone these issues have become even more important and it is way past high time that this 30 some year battle between Wilderness proponents and resource extraction interests be resolved. Analysis paralysis and litigation nation need to forever cease NOW!! People on both sides and in the middle are so tired of this. It is so counter productive it’s sickening and way beyond stupid at this point.
Now regardless of what side you are on or where you stand within this perspective spectrum it is undeniable that Matthew Koehler is correct in his criticisms of some parts of this bill through the logic of basic economics and he deserved way more respect than he got from Tester. He is correct when he points out the fact that there is likely to be little demand for a lot of timber production any time within the foreseeable future. Especially the kind of timber that can be harvested on the marginally productive Beaverhead - Deerlodge continental climate habitat types that make up that particular forest. That’s part of why this bill is so flawed - the focus is on timber production and wilderness designation on the, B-D rather than the Kootenai where both Wilderness designation and timber production are more critical and feasible.
Does Tester not understand that the Kootenai is much more productive timber country by comparison - that 13 different conifer species grow there about twice as fast as the 5 species that grow on the B-D? From a timber production standpoint the wet relatively warm Cascadian flavored Kootenai has always been a lot more important than the high, dry B-D where a much less diverse forest of scraggly ass Lodgepole is the rule rather than the exception. The B-D s greatest private money generating potential lately has been that when it burns it usually offers up some of the best Morel mushroom picking in the world with literally millions of dollars worth popping up over any sizeable suitable habitat after a fire occurs. Thus it has become beyond the pale of lunacy that Forest Service officials there have lately BANNED! rather than encouraged commercial morel harvest. But that is another story within this whole larger tale of incompetence, misplaced focus and stupidity that I do not want to digress into trying to explain here.
The most valuable potential of the B-D today is recreation and wildlife habitat, yet the bulk of logging activity is inexplicably focused here? It is Lincoln, Mineral, Sanders and Flathead counties that have the most potential to be productive timber lands again, to a much larger degree than the B-D probably ever will. This also happens to be the region that is, in dire need of more, wilderness, especially protected habitat corridors that connect the greater Yaak –Cabinet –Selkirk ecosystems with their respective counterparts to the North so essential to saving the most threatened Grizzly and mountain caribou populations on the planet. That’s not to say that there should be no logging on the B-D ,if it could be profitable and some new wilderness would be valuable there also.
Of course no government officials are even willing to recognize the fact that the caribou are even present on the Kootenai, but believe it – they are. If they are going to have a fighting chance they need way more protected areas than the paltry amount of new wilderness in this bill - Roderick Mtn., Mt Henry, Pillick Ridge - West Cabinets - Scotchman Peaks and Northwest Peak would all be essential currently roadless areas that could make up such valuable habitat corridors.
So this bill needs way more wilderness designation on the Kootenai and perhaps less on the B-D and while were at it why not include the Lolo and Flathead? While new wilderness should be a key component to this bill, it is the JOBS that by and large really matter to a lot of people and rightly so.
That is the main reason why so many people are opposed to more wilderness. They are afraid that new wilderness designation will prevent profitable resource extraction and the solid well paying jobs they used to provide from occurring as well as restricted recreation opportunities. This makes sense to some degree since the tourism and recreation based jobs that wilderness can supposedly provide have by and large failed to materialize the way they were promised to, during the 90s, as resource extraction industries began to seriously decline. So we need to replace all of these lost logging jobs especially in the traditional Kootenai lumberjack zone.
Now I love both logging and wilderness and think they are both equally important – love the smell of both pristine air as well as fresh dust and love the feel and sound of a saw as well as bull trout and wapiti and big burly bad ass old –growth cedar trees like those found below Pillick ridge at Ross creek and most importantly think loggers are good people whose lives have been seriously messed up by circumstances beyond their control. That said, I think people like Matthew are correct that there just is not that much potential for a big spike in demand for traditional wood products any time soon. If that changes then we should have the leverage and flexibility to do some larger scale industrial logging again. Maybe by the time that happens we will actually have some bullpines transition in to yellows (loggerspeak for small ponderosa and large ponderosas)
So how do we put all these good folks and their currently rusting infrastructure machinery back to work in the woods if there is no demand for large scale logging? Well, by the grace of GOD in lots of ways! This is where the current bill is really missing the mark as well-it lacks new innovative, progressive promotion of the things that really are the wave of a better future-things like ECORESTORATION, URBAN INTERFACE BUT NOT WILDERNESS FUEL REDUCTION, ROAD MAINTENANCE AS WELL AS OBLITERATION, NOXIOUS WEED MGMT, WILDIFE FORAGE ENHANCEMENT, SPECIAL FOREST PRODUCT HARVEST as well as some and later maybe more than some LOGGING!!! A well balanced and organized mixed menu of all of these activities has the potential to put a LOT! Of people back to work in the woods, and from what I’ve seen, those of us who like to work in the woods don’t really care whether we are logging, cruising timber, picking mushrooms, planting trees, pruning boughs or picking cones for Christmas decorations, collecting seed for nurseries, harvesting yew parts for cancer medicine or sawing firewood-WE JUST WANT TO WORK IN THE WOODS !!! instead of Wal-Mart and be paid a decent wage to do so. But this ugly usage war that’s raged on now for decades has made it more and more difficult to do so - with the Forest Service so legally hamstrung by environmentalist lawsuits(this is why people get so mad at Matthew and Wild West –even though his organization is usually scientifically accurate in their criticisms) that they are afraid of being sued if some body farts the wrong direction in places like potential endangered species habitat (this season they started hassling people for pruning subalpine fir boughs calling it lynx habitat-utterly irrational, nonsensical stupidity like that is why they end up pleasing NOBODY and PISSING OFF EVERYBODY!). Even if you prune a subalpine fir bough – all it’s ever going to potentially do any where is ENHANCE the LYNX HABITAT!! as the tree grows back more biomass in a more healthy and vigorous manner than it would have, had it not been pruned.
All this kind of crap has to end and forest management has GOT!!!!! To change NOW!!!! That is why we need a bill that is much better than the current one. It’s a very basic step of a start in the right direction but it needs a LOT of modification, transformation, clarification and focus change to become the kind of legislative action that would catalyze the kind of cures necessary to resolve these issues to any worthwhile degree. WE need a bill that’s less of a stale pipe dream and more of a sound, progressive, balanced rationally derived steering strategy for the future - this one just isn’t quite there YET! 2010 has GOT to be the year that all of this rancidly stale conflict is resolved and progress begins!!!!!
There are actually 15 species of Conifers that grow on the Kootenai, just to be technically accurate.
Comment By OldArt, 12-31-09wow, one-issue type of people are really scary...
Comment By Tom von Alten, 12-31-09Thanks Johnny for adding some interesting information to the discussion.
The perplexing question is, how do we get from where we are today to a political process that can produce "sound, progressive, balanced rationally derived" strategies of any sort?
If our only input into the system is a choice between a poor candidate and a worse candidate every 2 or 6 years, we're pretty much screwed. For as many flaws as the Forest Service has shown over the years, managing just about anything by Congress seems even less likely to produce positive outcomes.
The next step of devolution--"managing" by Judiciary--is as much a symptom of failure as it is contributing cause.
Just thinking out loud. I don't have any good answers myself.
Go Green: Recycle Congress.
Comment By Bill Schneider, 12-31-09Not that we need more evidence of Tester's staff snubbing "non-supportive" people like Matthew Koehler, but I just checked out the Senator's Facebook page, where his staff has put up a series of photos from the hearing, including all witnesses except one, and you guessed it. It must have been a lot of work to carefully crop Koehler out of every one of them. Petty, eh?.....Bill Schneider
Comment By Dave Skinner, 12-31-09Now Bill,
You know that it is a sin in politics to mention the name of one's opponent, or give them any publicity. Especially if you are of a certain Sovietish persuasion, da?
I enjoyed Johnny's rant for the most part. I agree, I love "both" in their time and place.
As I've said before, wilderness is appropriate in the context of the original intent and goals of the Act. We should set aside outstanding and unique stuff. I'm even willing to concede that the mid-70's cycle of review is about the most-credible criteria of whether or not designation is appropriate. If it was recommended in the first NFMA forest plans, then those area should be duly designated.
But in states with hard release, such as Washington and Wyoming, the process is supposed to be over and done.
And "roadless" is not holy. It was an administrative stunt directed at bypassing Congressional intent. It has pretty much failed so far, which is why the same money outfits that funded the roadless "campaign" switched gears to incrementalist packages such as S-1470.
Never mind that S-1470 is pathetic in terms of the needs of the larger, non-wilderness landscape. WUI management alone will not do the job. When a fire starts in the boonies and runs for miles, sure, it might "stop" in a WUI belt, but the losses (economic AND environmental) are real. The Brush Creek fire was a classic example inasmuch as it toasted all except maybe 120 acres of "old" big wood inside the perimeter. The real shocker is it was root kill, and the harvest units stayed mostly green. So all that big wood is lost as live habitat for those species...and trust me, the blackbacks have lots of other places to peck nearby.
So it is imperative, in my view, to manage fuels for fire across the landscape, not just in the WUI.
How many of you really, truly LIKE the gray dead stuff? AND the black dead stuff? Is that what you really want, or is this just some kind of hard-wired ideological thing about making sure nobody ever makes a single penny of profit?
Pros and cons of this bill aside, the senator's claim that he sees all incoming e-mail is interesting. I've sent several in recent months (one on health care and one on foreign policy) and have had only two insipid responses (of the type you would expect from and intern), but heard nothing back regarding the FJRA bill. It seems that when you disagree with the senator, he discounts your input and kisses you off. What has become of that down-home Montana grain farmer we so admired in the last election???
Comment By problembear, 12-31-09important to remember that jon is an ORGANIC farmer.....very experienced in the liberal application of bullshit.....
as anyone who regularly hangs out at The Mint in Big Sandy can tell you....
The bottom line is Mathew only represents 10-15% of Montanans. The "partnership" poll found only 15% against, and I'd guess half of them didn't want more wilderness. The recent Chamber of commerce poll found 75% of Montanans wanted to "encourage more logging" while only 15% opposed more. Never have so few, litigated so much, to impose their will on so many. Mathew and the "radical" enviros are the reason so much animosity exists.
So he was treated "rudely". I can only imagine how many times he's treated forest service rangers "rudely". Give me a break.
I find it amazing that Colorado, which is full of old hippie enviros, has completed or soon will complete NEPA analysis to salvage clearcut 60,000 acres of pine beetle infestation. This brings up a strange anomoly. Will it be, that only in areas where enviros are the majority can large scale logging occur?
Mathews been so "adversarial" for so long, why would he possibly be invited to a "compromise". Whats he willing to compromise on? If he's so willing to compromise let's see some hard numbers and not tired retoric. Who really has a closed mind?
The "radicals" fear these collaborations because it strips away the "moderate" enviros that once supported them. Sen. Mark Udall of Colorado, whose consistantly recieved a 100% rating from the league of conservation voters, has introduced a bill that would "expediate NEPA analysis". Read his bill. It states "a designation of "insect emergency areas" shall not be subject to the following laws: The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. Thats it! Only one law.
Mathew and the radicals don't seem to realize that if they don't loosen up and allow these "healthy forest timber sales" to go through unopposed-that his own party will exempt them from any NEPA litigation. It's inevitable. Ironically the best chance of this will come from Democrats. Wouldn't it be much easier for a Democrat lawmaker, rather than a Republican, to persuade the Democrat from the east who are the only hope of the radicals to keep NEPA in place?
"The bottom line is Mathew only represents 10-15% of Montanans."
I'd like to see something more than that statement in support of your claim.
The bottom line is Tester represents all Montanans. As such all Montanans deserve to be heard and their views to be respected even if Jon may not agree with them.
Comment By Bernard Shakey, 1-01-10Mr. twister-
your a right wing crazy
and tester is a liar and crooked politician
way to go MT
kick him out and his BS bill.
logger
go back to south dakota ya right wing crazy
Mel-
your also a right wing crazy
go have a party with tester
he might lie about where it is though
As often happens, this thread includes some suggestions of a conflict between the economy and the environment, or between jobs and the environment. But I've never seen one of these arguments that wasn't actually a conflict between one kind of economy and another, one kind of job and another.
Roadless country is an economic asset. That's not all it is, of course, but it's an economic asset as much as any other natural asset is.
Roadless areas are, for example, the basis of jobs that can not be sustained where other forms of profit-taking prevail. And NREPA will guard that asset and those jobs far more meaningfully than Senator Tester's bill could even begin to approach.
Let's keep it straight. None of this is about some silly dichotomy of wilderness versus the economy or wilderness versus jobs. It is instead presents us with a crucial choice about the species of economy and jobs we most need to protect in the Northern Rockies.
And, as a further matter of simple fact, NREPA's more realistic stance on wilderness, in one key feature it most conspicuously shares with Tester's more meager effort, still leaves room for the logging industry and its jobs.
Like many others here, I've got no beef with logging. I've been caught on film doing some of it myself. But, hey, we all know that there can be too much of any good thing, and we've got no more reason to cheer the sprawl of logging deeper into woods that have already been hit than we do to cheer the sprawl of vacation homes and their inevitable No Trespassing signs.
It wasn't long ago that Bill wrote a column noting that this bill was really, in essence, a wilderness bill, and wouldn't do much to create jobs. I think Tester knows that, too.
And he's in a tough spot. He can read the polls. He knows that the public is rapidly souring on Democrats, as they continue to expand the reach of the federal government and spend money like drunken sailors. For example, in matchups with the GOP governors of their states, both Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Byron Dorgan of North Dakota are now both 30 points behind, because voters have turned so negative on the health-care legislation, etc.
Many Americans feel Democrats should be focused strictly on improving the economy instead of messing around with health-care, cap-and trade and so on. Again, Tester can't help but be aware of this.
And that may be a key reason why he turned hostile on Koehler. He knows his top priority, to be reelected, has to be jobs, and jobs, and jobs. He might figure that at this point he has no choice but to push ahead with this bill so that he doesn't anger his friends on the left. But somehow his key task is going to be to persuade voters that it will not mean any more lost jobs for Montanans. That will be a tough sell with the closure of more mills, Smurfit-Stone, etc.
So maybe the Koehler incident was sort of a "Sister Souljah" moment aimed at showing voters that Tester is willing to fight radical environmentalists in order to protect jobs. Of course, Tester is going to have to do a lot more than that to convince voters that his bill will create jobs, IMHO.
Re: logger - The partnership poll? What other results would you expect? And history shows us that it is always a small group of dedicated people who actually bring about change fighting tooth and nail every step of the way. Wilderness is good and we need much more and it shouldn't even be a question. And why is it that logger and others of like mind only see 2x4s when looking at a dead, burned, or diseased tree? This is the real problem. People with no background in ecology, biology, hydrology, soils, etc. are making political decisions about a biological system. Forests need dead trees, burned trees and diseased trees. It's laughable to mention Udall in CO. He is a D married to a Sierra Club staffer and every year before his next election he comes up with some half-baked logging bill that generally gets shot down. He knows nothing about forests and seems to take great pride in his ignorance. I don't like collaborations because they are generally filled with people who know nothing about forest ecosystems (see above) slicing and dicing and giving away our forests like they are stocks to be traded. I appeal and litigate the Forest Service when they break the law. It's that simple. If the FS doesn't want to get sued then it should follow it's Forest Plan and environmental laws. It's so funny how the loggers support the FS violating its own plan and laws. Do you really expect to have credibility when you advocate lawlessness? I make no apologies for what I do and don't consider myself a radical at all. The radicals are the lawbreakers, those who support them, and the people who concoct legislation based on politics instead of good science. And why should my tax dollars support welfare logging to a select few who insist on working in a dying industry? NREPA would employ people to work in the forests doing restoration work. That's a fact and one the logging industry refuses to concede. If they really wanted long term employment in the forests they would support NREPA. But it's like beating your head against a brick wall trying to save these people from themselves.
Comment By Let it burn:(, 1-01-10Testers pissed and sick of the greenies who will never be happy with compormise. This bill is completely in there favor. 7,000 acres a year for 10 years. Can someone tell me how many acres of MT has burned to the ground in the last 10 years? That would be an interesting statistic. The green, "pro-wilderness" movement accuratley represents 10 - 15% of Montanans view. Watch as a republican gets into Testers seat as he wastes his time trying to cater to the ungrateful greenies. Montana is in a wilderness drought for a reason. Montanans dont want it...The greenies get lots of out of state $$$ to flood DC with BS about MT forests. Lets keep logging heritage in MT. Why should we in MT buy Canadian lumber. Its unfortunate.
Comment By Dave Skinner, 1-01-10I'd be happy to help, Lets...
I called the staties down in Missoula to find out about the last decade. Since 2000, there's been an annual average a bit under 300,000 acres a year of fire; and another annual average of about 300,000 acres of beetle mortality. So...kissing away 600,000 acres a year at present, and Matt's upset about management on 10,000 acres a year tops?
Kind of shows how pathetic the situation really is. If it was 600,000 acres a year of harvest, the usual suspects would be screaming it's UNSUSTAINABLE, UNSUSTAINABLE.
Like these kind of fire and bug stats are? One thing about if we were swatting down that many trees....at least the aftermath would be greening up nicely.
Dang, Denise ... you kind of come off like a steamy mug of self-righteousness with a dab of extra foamy condescension. Perhaps not the most effective approach when advocating for a multi-state wilderness bill that needs all of the support it can get.
In a single post you manage to assert that: 1) you are in the small group of people who are actually noble and pure enough to "bring about change" while; 2) simultaneously lamenting that not even you and your noble philosophy can help the sorry & backwards timber workers who just cannot seem to understand the obviously superior principles of conservation biology and forest restoration.
If everyone would just realize how right you are then we could finally achieve some real change, protect some habitat, save some biodiversity and stuff. Maybe even put those sorry & backwards timber workers to work doing the work we want them to do.
I am also puzzled by the notion that "people who concoct legislation based on politics" are radicals? If that is so, then what you are actually advocating is for taking wilderness designation out the hands of legislators altogether. But since that is not how the wilderness act works, what you are actually advocating for is an entirely new method of designating wilderness that does not use the wilderness act's legislative process. That leaves me wondering what it is you are advocating for? I mean, I want a unicorn and free lifetime supply of lollipops, but that doesn't mean either are remotely possible.
Self-righteousness, condescension, and politics all seem like important considerations in passing wilderness legislation. And unfortunately, as Tester demonstrated, they are probably more relevant than conservation biology.
ryanus
you have niethier a point nor do you make any sense. You just seem to want to have your time on the soap box yet you can't refute the knowledge Denise and Dang have presented. If you dont have anything real to contribute then SIT DOWN.
Let it burn and Skinner-
full of he usual lies and propoganda. Yeah it's greenies fault there are more beetles...idiots. MT does want more wilderness over 80% of MT was in favor of NREPA which is the state it was created in. Once again if you right wing crazies think testers bill is a victory for the wilderness movement in MT it demonstrates how delusional you whackos really are.
Keep defending politicnas after they LIE and verbally attack anyone who calls them out.
Its the right wing crazy way, I think you should remember Denise's point of about continually voting against your own interests.
BTW
the vast majority of MT forests have been logged at some point and will be logged again. This is where MT can get it's lumber not from Canada. Another economic lie perpetuated by the RWC's.
We dont need our last old growth forests to be logged when the vast majority of the forests have already been logged, and could be logged again to provide lumber for MT.
So what do you folks who are advocating all this logging propose to do with the timber resulting from your projects?
Comment By Bernard Shakey, 1-02-10Jay-
i'm not advocating an increase in logging however it's a fact that our society uses lumber and i'd rather have it come from previuosly harvested areas than old growth boreal in Canada and certainly not the little old growth we have left in the U.S. northern rockies.
Bernard,
If the New West comment section is anything, it is a soap box.
Of course it is most useful if it stimulates thought and discussion.
The point is that wilderness designation is inherently a political process and arguing that politics (i.e. compromise) should not be a part of the process fails to account for reality.
The other point is that NREPA supporters who tell everyone how "right" they are, based on the science (and I agree that they are "right" based on the science), while describing detractors as too dumb to understand, don't do NREPA any favors.
Koehler was well spoken and made good points and Tester was unprofessional. Voting against Tester in favor of a "Burns/Rehberg (R)" would have far reaching negative effects that go well beyond public lands policy.
Sorry ryanus
I think we can do better than tester, rehberg and burns.
We should'nt accept bs out of fear of even worse bs.
If you want to talk about name calling then it's coming from all sides which unfortuately is the norm during public lands discussions. When you have let it burn (who does'nt even uderstand possesive apostrophes) logger, and skinner running their mouths with the same tired lies and prop. you have to stand up for the truth and the only these RWC's understand is by putting them in their place. I mean they actually believe the tester bill is a victory for wilderness advocates which demonstrates how opposed to any and all wilderness in MT. MT forests are only 3.5% wilderness, even if we protected all the roadless areas it would only equal 11% of the total forests in MT. That means 89% of the forests in MT would continue to be open to roads, timber and mining. If anyone wants it all and is not open to compromise it's the Right Wing Crazies.
OK I'll bite. For the record I didn't call anyone "dumb" - I said the people involved in crafting legislation and collaborative deals don't have backgrounds in science - and I stand by that. And I said Udall was ignorant and I certainly stand by that opinion. So help me understand. Folks in the timber industry have said repeatedly they want to work in the woods and get paid an honest living - they don't want to flip burgers. I hear that; understand that; and support that. So why are they so opposed to NREPA that would supply at least 100 years of restoration work in the forests at a living wage? Why do forest workers insist on logging in sensitive areas that shouldn't be logged that involve building more roads? Why are natural biological processes - like beetles that are endemic and fire that are a way of naturally thinning the forest w/o logging - used as a weapon to promote unsustainable logging? Why does industry support logging roadless areas in the Beaverhead/Deerlodge at an unsustainable rate - even the FS acknowledges this? I don't understand why the timber folks don't want long term employment in the forests that NREPA would supply - esp. since there is no demand for timber and prices are at an all time low. That does seem dumb to me. It's like if you are having a heart attack and someone offers you CPR and you tell them they have bad breath. I don't understand it. Please explain. And re: logger et al - at least I have the guts to sign my name.
Comment By Dave Skinner, 1-02-10Yep, there comes Denise with the magic "unsustainable rate" sound bite.
As I said before, there's really nothing "sustainable" about 600,000 acres of forest dying every year. Whacking 10,000 acres per year on that landscape is explicitly insignificant. The amount of harvest, markets aside, should be much higher...and if the biomass market in fact develops, even on an avoided-cost basis (Fram commercial) then there is a use for the wood, a means of perhaps reducing the huge losses from landscape scale bug and megafire events.
For example, an entry into a basin that breaks fuels up leads to smaller-scale fire and bug events, the sort of events that Montana's forest products infrastructure could absorb easily. No, don't hit me with Andy Kerr's burn-victim garbage, entry right after a fire (such as what Indians do, while things are still smoking) has almost no effect on the early succession greenup, especially winter operations on frozen dirt and snow.
What the heck, the wood is dead, let the loggers high-grade half, cut down and leave a quarter, and leave plenty of decent snags, and you've reset the system properly for the NEXT forest.
As for long term employment from NREPA, that's a, um, er, ah, fib. The "employment" would mostly be one-shot, taxpayer-subsidized road- and infrastructure-obliteration projects, after which the area would be pretty much inaccessible for any kind of substantive vegetation management. These are inherently not self-SUSTAINING projects.
I think it is dishonest and unfair for NREPA supporters to demand zillions of taxpayer money to destroy not only infra that, yep, taxpayers helped buy, but to set up a deal in which that which is being "saved" is in reality being left to random, yet inevitable and complete, destruction.
Skinner-
So taxpayers
should pay dearly for unsustainable old growth logging that hurts their local environment and employs very few people. You repeated cries about beetles killing all the woods is all the more reason to protect the old growth we have left. But oh no skinner it's all those greens fault that the winter cold blasts are'nt lasting long enough to kill all the larvae. After all the green's control the weather, fire, the economy etc. at least according to you skinner.
Your such a joke in MT.
your fear of nature is so blatant it's laughable
you beleive you have to "save" the woods from themselves.
In reality we need to save the woods from YOU SKINNER.
Bernard,
The statistic you quote of 80% of Montanan's supporting NREPA is pure poppycock. Maybe a more accurate number would be 80% of Montanan's don't understand how socially irresponsible NREPA actually would be.
Pass the soap.
trail
I would beleive the natoion's leading ecological scientists over your opinion as to what's the socially responsible thing to do with MT's remaining roadless areas. We all know cutting our last old growth is'nt socially responsible. That's what tester is advocating we should. Also you lame attempt at insults merely expose your weak minded intellect and empty insults make you appear dumb.
Over 90% of the american public supports protecting all remaining roadless areas. Over 80% of MT residents supported the roadless rule which is essentially the same plan as NREPA.
Who's the obstrutionist here? Everytime you try put any more wilderness in the obviuosly lacking MT wilderness system you have all these right wing puff balls spouting the same lies and empty arguments. Everytime you try to close one eroding, seldom visited dirt road in the kootenai you have scores of folks claiming they're "trying to lock us out"
The truth is these right wingers are locking everyone else out who is'nt tickled by motorized recreation and Mtn Bikes.
3.5% of MT national forests are wilderness. If we protected ALL remaining roadless land in MT it would still only equal 11% of the national forest land in MT. California is already 15% wilderness despite the much higher population and I beleive red Idaho is over 11% wilderness. It's clear these people who are against any/all new wilderness in MT are the folks who are stubborn and unwillingly to make even a lopsided compromise in their favor. Their tilted so far to the right they actually think the tester logging bill is a Victory for wilderness advocates in MT.
3.5% of MT forests are wilderness
If all roadless protected it would = 11% of MT national forests.
These right wingers clearly want the entire forest for their exclusive use. The wilderness advocates simply want what little is left.
'Also you[r] lame attempt at insults merely expose your weak minded intellect and empty insults make you appear dumb'..hummmm? Take the soap and wash your mouth.
Suggesting that the roadless rule and NREPA's 7+ million acres of Wilderness in Montana is the 'essentially' the same thing is just more poppycock. It is not the same by a long shot.
Wilderness is not a religion nor is it a contest between states to see who has the highest percentage of the big "W". Does Montana deserve to protect roadless lands? Hell yes! Is a Wilderness designation the only way to offer protection? Hell no! Until everyone, left and right, can take a step or two toward the center to create permanent Congressional protection for Montana's spectacular landscapes, including new, socially responsible Wilderness, the drought will continue for another 25 years - or more.
This logging bill could be the best chance for Wilderness in your life time. Whatcha gonna do?
Keep the soap.
The one thing I like about this New West deal is you get to really kick the ant pile. None of us, on either side, is evil. This whole issue isn't a black and white "either or" deal. It's all shades of gray. It's all about seeking a proportional perspective.
Denise, I think you're believeing your own propoganda. Hey dude, the military industrial timber baron complex has manipulated and fabricated a poll. And the Chamber of commerce is a lackey of the capitalist pig establishment.Will you publically state that your views represent the majority of Montanans?
It's a great democracy that passes laws that ensure that the minority viewpoint is heard and considered. It's a broken democracy that allows such laws to be used to force the minority viewpoint on the majority. NEPA litigation has nothing to do with the law. I read an EA for a 4,000 acre MPB salvage clearcut in Colorado that was 57 pages long. I read one on the Flathead that would salvage 1300 acres that ran to 200 pages. It's all about lawsuit proofing them. Theres no more litigation in Colorado.
Look, my point is that I think Montanans want more logging but they also want more wilderness. You can have both. I do believe I read a poll where a little over 50% of Montanans wanted more wilderness. Interesting. It "hints" at the number of Moderate environmentalists.
Bernard. The following is how much of the "forested acreage" was logged in the last 50 years. 17% of the Lolo, 5% of the Beaverhead Deerlodge, 7% of the Helena, 5% of the Gallatin, 25% of the Kootenai, 15% of the Flathead. What ticks me off is than none of the prominent enviros even knew these numbers. They never even bothered to look. They just "knew in their heart" that too much was logged. It shows a total disregard for perspective.
Theres know doubt theres less old growth. I always wondered why the Plum Creek "railroad sections" were located away from the railroad. In Wyoming the UP sections are 20 miles either side of the track-not so in Montana. So I drove through Thompson River and my God there used to be some big trees. Nice big low elevation Ponderosa. I have a theory, which I would like help with, that the railroads got the "big timber", and yes, they cut em down.
And yes, you live in a wood home too. Failure to awknoledge this only highlights the "take it for granted since I was little baby boomer" attitude that permeates radical enviros. Einstien used to do "thought experiments". The whole e=mc2 started with him imagining what it would be like to ride a beam of light. Well, heres a thought experiment. 250,000 acres of the Lolo were logged in 50 years. Thats enough to build every house in Montana today. It's also home range for what, a hundred Grizzlie bears. So, would you be willing to give up every home for one million people so 100 bears would have a home? Let him who has no sin cast the first stone.
MOst of the timber Montana exported since 1945 went to the midwest. The Northern pacific goes right to Minneapolis. Do you suppose Al Frankens house is made out of old growth larch?
I realize that my "soapbox" retoric contributes to the animosity in the West. It only serves to add to the problem. It's hard to resist not doing it, but It only highlights the depth of old animosity. Our anger is becoming relics fellas. Time is passing us by. It's OK to change the way we think about things. It's OK to admit the other guy has real concerns and goals. But theres enough for all. The biggest obstacle to that is not knowing how much of the pie there is. The spirit of the wild rings in all our hearts, but a little percentage based perspective is in order.
Bernard shakey: Im not a right winger, I'm actually a moderate democrat. Thats my point. I am not a poser bud...I have a degree in fish and game from MSU 1993...Have spent hundreds of days hiking, biking, climbing, backcountry skiing, snowmobiling etc... throughout our great state. I used to feel the same way as most greenies in my youth. Standing on top of Mt Blackmore agghast at the many clearcuts around hyalite. Since then I annually summit Blackmore on my bike (not allowed in Wilderness) and view the beautiful forests. Tomorrow I will cross country ski on you guessed it, old logging roads...And when I really want to get away from it all, I sure as hell dont go to a Wilderness area full of tourists. I go elsewhere. The beetles and forest fires are here to stay, might as well harvest some while we can. And yes there is still a demand for lumber. I still buy it on a regular basis, thanks to moderate thinkers in Canada. Greenies, get out and observe our beautiful state, theres plenty for everyone. And when the fires are raging how can you not wonder why some of those acres werent utilized? Nope, you celebrate in the smoke and victory of the moderates and "right wingers"...How can you look at the miles of beetle kill and wait for it to burn. This is ecological??? You are the whacko, extremist Bernard. And moderates around MT like myself will never give in to left wing extremism. Have a good Sunday in the Mountains everyone...
Comment By jay, 1-02-10How can value be imputed to anything which has not become a commodity in our economy?
Comment By Woods Rider, 1-02-10Tester's getting it from both sides for good reason. In this post ( http://www.blog.westerntradition.org/?p=285 ) Tester got busted for claiming Kerry White "helped" him with S. 1470. He thinks he's smarter and better than the rest of us, and boy is it hacking him off that some of us are paying attention!
Little Jon must be running out of friends - that's pretty desperate!
I love how the libs just sit here and call names - like there's something wrong with being a "right winger"? At least we're not going to sit back while the government turns the US into Europe.
Yes, both 'right winger'™ and 'liberal'™ are pejoratives now; the only 'good people'™ are 'moderates'™.
Comment By Bernard Shakey, 1-03-10Let it burn
So i'm an extremist becuase I beleive 3.5% wilderness in MT forests is too little. Once again if ALL remaining roadless areas in MT were protected it would equal only 11% of the forests in MT.
That's a lopsided proportion that wilderness advocates are fighting for. No where did I claim I was against logging or other resource extraction, just not in roadless/wilderness. A lot of folks here dont want any new wilderness thats right wing extremism becuase they want exlusive use. I never claimed I wanted it all to be wilderness merely what is left of our wild country. If I werea left wing exremist I would be against all resource extraction and want wilderness for lands already logged/mined, roaded etc.
I spend my life in the outdoors and nothing matters more to me than seeing the last wild northern rockies forests left to be.
Your rants and raves about saving the forest from itslef are reminisencent of skinner. The woods will take care, but not if you whackos want to log every last wild acre. You right wingers turn this into a labeling game but really when you look at the facts ALL remaining roadless areas should remain roadless.
I am a moderate yet in MT i'm labelda left winger, I looking for the compromoise and expect our elected politicnas to live up to their campaing promises. Apparently the people of MT dont crae if tester lies in his campign about protecting ALL remaining roadless areas in MT. The people of MT call that progressive and groundbreaking legistslation. If you people want to award liars and crooked politicians go ahead your bed has already been made.
The alarmist bs about beetles is growing tiredsome. Mtn pine beetle larvae are not being killed becuase there are not enough consecutive sub zero days in the high country. Mtn pine beetles go through fluctuations as is happening in colorado. There have been documented cases of the beetles killing 90+% of lodgepole pine stands, yet the trees make a comeback eventually which I hope will be the case. This flase logic of "we gotta harvest the wood" before the fires" is not how things work out in the wild.
Notice how logger and the like make numerous assumptions about who I am and what I stand for. When did I ever say anything remotely close to no more logging yet logger acts as if i'm against all resource extraction. Right wingers like to stereotype anyone who disagress with them to justify their views despite local, national and global opposition. He acts like i've been decrying all logging and even claims i'm a hypocrite becuase I live in a wood house. Your so out of context logger it's laughable how about sticking to the issue and not placing broad stereotypes on anyone who disagrees with you.
Trail-
NREPA and the roadless rule are essentially the same thing. NREPA deals mostly with roadless however a few thousand acrs would deemed wildland recovery zones that are important lcorridor areas. Your use of poppycock and the like is really redundant and childish. What are you other ideas about how to portect the remaining roadless lands in MT. I'm all ears trail trail.
You can label me a left wing whacko but I know i'm not.
I'm not against logging, mining, 4 wheeling or biking. There should be at least 10% of the wild lands left for people who want a more primitive experience. Hunting and fishing are the best in wild country. If we ant these heritiges to continue MT will have to protect at least 10% of the old growth forest. People who dont want any new wilderness are extremists becuase they have so much and so little is protected. Compromise but not in tester's lying, deceitful fashion.
Last best place or just like every other place
If tester's bill passes MT is well on it's way to looking like colorado.
By the way let it burn
tester is a dem alos and look what he;s proposing. A moderate dem in MT would be considerd a right wing extremist elsewhere.
Woods rider-
WTF are u talking about watching the US turn into Europe. Where you been the last 8 years our country was robbed long ago by your boy bush and obama is continuing the same madness.
Hypocritical to the max these right wingers are.
If anyone here thinks that testers logging bill is best and only way to get new wilderness in MT, then you have lost both your backbone and your mind.
Any bill that destroys the little roadless we left in MT in the name of protecting other areas is pure BS. I beleive in Lee Metcalf over Jon Tester.
Come on he LIED to the entire state and nation in order to get elected. "I promise to portect ALL remaining roadless areas" Jon Tester in front ofd his family. That was how he got Paul Richards to drop out of the race. Apparently when a dem. pledges to protect all remaining raodless it's moderate, but when you expect these politicians to live up to their promises your labled an extremist. Thats some curious logic MT.
Obviuosly the wool has been pulled many people's eyes.
But you cant fool all the people all the time.
Tester and the like you aint fooling me.
Leave our last roadless alone.
Logger - turns out you are Derek from SD. Imagine that. The Black Hills NF is a poster child for one of the most heavily managed, heavily roaded, fire and bug prone forests in the country from unsustainable logging. Yeah - there's that pesky word again - the truth hurts. It is utterly lacking in biological diversity. I will never forget Rapid City as long as I live. Back in the early 1990's when the Forest Plan revision was being done I flew into the city at the request of some conservationists to look at the wildlife componenet. I had recently left my job with MDFWP. Word got out that the greenies were holding a meeting so the timber industry let their guys off and told them to show up in force - and they did. About 700 of them. They proceeded to tear the microphone out of the plugs and off the stage; curse us; create a very ugly scene; they threatened our lives and the police were called and showed up in force. I have never seen a larger group of violent half-wits in entire life. It was like something out of the movie Deliverance. Glad to know where you're coming from logger. You have absolutely no credibility. You just spew hate and lies and propaganda and you live in fear. I almost feel sorry for you - almost.
Comment By Woods Rider, 1-03-10Shakey you twit, I worked for Ron Paul, Bush sucks too. However, Bush did not try and force government takeovers of everything. Socialism is un-American as it REQUIRES the abrogation of Constitutional rights.
I love how some people only look at some rights. Only the brain-dead can jump to the conclusion that anyone who despises Obama loves Bush.
Bush=Fascist Big Gov't; Obama=Communist Big Gov't.
Look at history, the results are always the same (well, Stalin did edge out that other guy in sheer numbers dead, but...).
Oh and by the way, Wilderness is Big Government, you eco-freaks couldn't get your agenda through without it. NREPA makes it a crime to ride a bicycle on 24% of Idaho. You freaks must LOVE New York city-slickers like Carolyn McCarthy!
Bernard -
Here we go again - "NREPA and the roadless rule are essentially the same thing."
The millions and millions of acres in the roadless plan still allows bicycles. NREPA would close virtually all the alpine tails in every mountain range in Montana that have been quietly and respectfully ridden for decades by bicyclists. That, my man, is the poppycock - er, excuse me, the bullshit.
What exactly are you trying protect with a Wilderness designation; and from whom?
It seems that the highly touted grass-roots collaboration up on Rocky Mountain Front in the form of the Conservation Management Area could be an answer to A PIECE of the roadless puzzle. NREPA's 'Wilderness-or-nothing' mantra has doomed it from the beginning - that and having a New Yorker sponsor it.
The cycling community is a huge conservation asset to the Wilderness proponents when we are not put in an adversarial position over permanently protecting landscapes with bicycle banning Wilderness designations ONLY - especially when it comes to important trail systems that have been ridden for over 25 years without a problem. Companion designations combined with new socially responsible Wilderness areas seem like the most commonsense, and politically viable, path forward.
Ron Paul would have been a good president back about the time we traded The Frontier for Jim Crow...
Comment By B Burns, 1-04-10Right on Highest Trail and Let it burn.
Woods Rider, Obama = Communism..lol
Get out of Idaho a little more, it's a big world and Europe isn't so bad. You should check it out someday.
A little snippy, Bill. My, you're geting sensitive.
Comment By montanatom1950, 1-04-10Cropping their enemies out of photos.....Wasn't that something the commies used to do back in their good old days ? And then those cropped out people would mysteriously vanish forever ? Watch out Matt K.
Comment By PaMontanawatcher, 1/4/10, 1-04-10Charlatan fake wilderness freak had a write up in our local PA paper about S 1470. He supports it, wrote supportive letter to Tester's office. Best thing about the guy is he is blind to the huge glut of drilling on the only National Forest in PA, but thinks Tester's bill is the "greatest". Guy thinks that this might just work for all National Forests. I don't see anything wrong with Koehler questioning this bill and really don't agree with Tester's attitude. i will write to my legislators and tell them to tell Tester to go back to the ole drawing board.
Comment By Mike, 1-05-10Highest Trail - The biking community loses all credibility when they side with the Blue Ribbon Coalition, which you have.
You've already gone off the deep end.
Here's a good perspective on wilderness and the wilderness act.
http://www.hcn.org/wotr/setting-the-record-straight-on-wilderness?src=rc#1262485580
Mike - nice party line propaganda and misinformation.
While the Blue Ribbon Coalition may claim to represent cyclists because bicycles have wheels, bicyclists remain quiet, non-motorized and low impact users distinctly independent and separate from any allegiance to or representation by a motorized umbrella group.
Keep the BS to yourself.
Here's a good perspective on Wilderness and bicycles:
http://www.wildernessbicycling.org/
I've watched the vid several times. Calling it an "outburst" seems like a real stretch.
Comment By Ray, 1-05-10Here is another view about bikes and wilderness.
http://www.imba.com/resources/land_protection/stroll.pdf
Thanks Ray for the reference to Ted Stroll’s insightful paper – it’s raises important questions and highlights a COMPONENT of Senator Tester’s Forest Jobs and Recreation Act - and is suggested reading for any of you poor suckers that have stuck with this digital soap box for so long. Let’s get a life – really!
A paraphrased section from the Wilderness Act seems like a good place to start my rant - my apologies in advance.
"An area of wilderness is further defined to mean . . . an area of
undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and
influence . . . and which . . . generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man's work substantially unnoticeable.”
And
"An area of wilderness is further defined . . . [as] undeveloped Federal land . . . [containing] outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation. . . ."
So tell me how a wall tent city in the Bob Marshall Wilderness complete with wood fired hot tubs that were packed in by the animals that have worn the trails to shambles and graze their way across the scenic and hopefully-weed-free meadows while the dudes that paid BIG MONEY to recreate in and ‘experience’ the Wilderness via a commercial permit on our public lands sit in cantilevered canvas chairs listening to Mozart on their i-pods that were charged by the roll up 10 x 20 inch photovoltaic panel while sipping cappuccinos that were frothed by the steam generated in a fancy Italian contraption over a pressurized propane stove that was lit by a Bick lighter’s rotating spark wheel resulting in loosened bowels that were relieved in a pit latrine is in keeping the with Wilderness character of the area? But it is unacceptable to continue riding bicycles on trails that have ridden for years because the ‘mechanical presence’ destroys that same precious Wilderness character? And bicycles are perceived to stand in the way of new permanent land protection in the minds of those who subscribe to the Wilderness-or-nothing mind set / group think?
Excuse me? HELLO?
What exactly are we protecting with a Congressional Wilderness designation?
Bicyclists are not asking to get into Montana’s existing Wilderness areas – too much time, sweat and money have already been wasted in this pursuit. All that is being asked is to retain access to 74 miles of traditional trails that have been respectfully ridden for decades out of the 400 miles of trails to be closed under the FJRA -while still supporting over 95 percent of the proposed Wilderness and protection areas.
In case anyone missed it – here is a link to what was submitted as written testimony on behalf of Montana’s bicycle community at the December 17th hearing in question.
http://www.montanamountainbikealliance.com/static/S.1470IMBATestimonyFinal.pdf
To bring this back to the point of Bill’s initial posting – I was embarrassed and disappointed as a Montanan and a thinking human after viewing the Senate hearing of S1470. Baucus couldn’t stop talking and exit stage left fast enough and Tester’s interaction with Matthew Koehler left me wanting to push the rewind and erase buttons before trying again. Call me old fashioned but I want to respect my elected officials. Also the spin from our delegation and the invited proponents that stated the FJRA would be a major contribution to curb / manage / restore the beetle killed trees was misleading and greatly exaggerated at best. The FJRA, and for that matter, mankind, can do little in the face of 2 million acres of beetle killed trees in the B-D. To suggest that 10,000 acres of logging a year is going to put a dent in this disastrous natural cycle is pure folly – and to maintain that the proposed socialized logging is economically and ecologically sustainable is an entirely different issue.
Montana hasn’t had a Wilderness bill – er – Forest Jobs and Recreation Act – in 25 years and it seems that no one knows how to behave. The secret hand shake, cloak and dagger, back stabbing, smack talking, hidden agenda driven political dance has left me wanting a process more straight forward and above board – a little more grass roots – much less Industrial / Wilderness machine. Montana’s roadless lands are treasures that deserve to be managed as such. The question becomes what does that mean in terms of permanent protection and continued recreation and extraction access on our public lands?
It is interesting to note that Rehberg’s ongoing listening tour has brought out many voices that were not at the table at the genesis of the Partnership’s ‘collaboration’ or its aftermath, and combined with questions from the likes of Matthew Koehler – and Bernard Shakey and Skinner et al - we are reminded that S1470 is a work in progress and what was unveiled in July at RY lumber in Townsend is not what will be shat out Congress’ other end. The climate in D.C. is presently agreeable (to be rapidly shrinking after next election cycle) to pass a Wilderness bill – like it or not. We watch as the lumber and conservation ‘partners’ dig in their heels and say NO MORE GIVE or S1470 will lose their support. So what? FJRA is not in its final form or a done deal. It will only arrive when it is crafted into the truly collaborative piece of legislation Montana deserves – or not.
It is easy to stand on the periphery and throw stones – it is another to be part of the solution. Who knows what we could accomplish if shed the baggage of the past and all took a step or two toward the commonsense center? Little to lose, much to gain…
Ohhh wow
we got smithhammer and high trail touting tester and the blue ribbon real conservationists and prgressives in this blog....ROLF
smithhammer is so far up tester's as* he's doing the talking now
pathetic.
bikers
3.5% of MT forests are wilderness.
Even If ALL roadless were protected it would only equal 11% of the forests in MT. If 89% of the forests is not enough for the mtn. bikers then they are as unreasonable as the blue ribboners against all wilderness. I used to live on a forest that was 1.2 million acres with 23,000 acres of it being wilderness. Less than 1% of the forest was wilderness yet the bikers fought tooth and nail to eliminate that wilderness and continually violated the law by riding there. Real Mtn. bikers support wilderness especially in the obviuosly lacking MT wilderness system.
http://www.hcn.org/blogs/grange/ray-ring-andy-stahl-and-the-clinton-roadless-rule
Regarding roadless
I agree that roadless areas should be protected, but that doesn't mean bikes need to be kept out. As far as "real mtn bikers" supporting Wilderness, if it was managed the way it was meant to be, "In 1965, the USDA-Forest Service wrote formal regulations to implement the Wilderness Act, and defined "mechanical transport" to mean a cart, sled or other wheeled vehicle that is "powered by a non-living power source." (CFR 36 Sec. 293.6(a)"
but as it is, there are exceptions to several Wilderness allowing certain activities that should be prohibited.
http://www.wildernessbicycling.org/bikesbelong/exceptions_in_wild.html
Just seems kind of hypocritical to me. What is the purpose of Wilderness and keeping areas roadless? Preserving the land, right? Refusing to compromise with a user group that wants the same thing seems kind of unreasonable to me.
http://www.americantrails.org/resources/fedland/BikeWilderness.html
Keep it roadless;
if that means keeping the trickeys then so be it.
Thanks Ray for the reference to Ted Stroll’s insightful paper – it’s raises important questions and highlights a COMPONENT of Senator Tester’s Forest Jobs and Recreation Act - and is suggested reading for any of you poor suckers that have stuck with this digital soap box for so long. Let’s get a life – really!
And Porterhouse’s ‘Real Mtn. bikers support wilderness especially in the obviously lacking MT wilderness system’ inspires me to paraphrase a section from the Wilderness Act before I start my rant.
"An area of wilderness is further defined to mean . . . an area of
undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and
influence . . . and which . . . generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man's work substantially unnoticeable.”
And
"An area of wilderness is further defined . . . [as] undeveloped Federal land . . . [containing] outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation. . . ."
So tell me how a wall tent city in the Bob Marshall Wilderness complete with wood fired hot tubs that were packed in by the animals that have worn the trails to shambles and graze their way across the scenic and hopefully-weed-free meadows while the dudes that paid BIG MONEY to recreate in and ‘experience’ the Wilderness via a commercial permit on our public lands sit relaxing in cantilevered canvas chairs with bodies wrapped in zippered and velcro-ed eco-friendly plastic fuzziness while listening to Mozart on their i-pods and reviewing the days data on GPS' that were charged by the roll-up 10 x 20 inch photovoltaic panel while sipping cappuccinos that were frothed by the steam generated in a fancy Italian contraption over a pressurized propane stove that was lit by a Bick lighter’s rotating spark wheel resulting in loosened bowels that were relieved in a pit latrine is in keeping the with Wilderness character of the area? Oh - did I mention that fish were caught using one of those dreaded mechanical reels?
But it is unacceptable to continue riding bicycles on a small percentage of trails that have been ridden for decades because the ‘mechanical presence’ destroys that same precious Wilderness character? And this quiet, human powered and low impact mode of transport is perceived to stand in the way of new permanent land protection in the minds of those who subscribe to the Wilderness-or-nothing mind set / groupthink?
Excuse me? HELLO?
What exactly are we protecting with a Congressional Wilderness designation?
To bring this back to the point of Bill’s initial posting – I was embarrassed as a Montanan and U.S. citizen after viewing the Senate hearing of S 1470. Baucus couldn’t seem to string together a coherent statement or exit stage left fast enough and Tester’s interaction with Matthew Koehler left me wanting to push the rewind and erase buttons before viewing again. Call me old fashioned but I want to respect my elected officials.
Also the spin at the hearing that hinted the FJRA will significantly curb, manage and restore beetle killed trees was misleading and greatly exaggerated at best. The FJRA, and for that matter, mankind, can do little in the face of 2 million acres of beetle killed trees in the B-D. To suggest that the mandated logging and restoration of 10,000 acres a year is going to put a dent in this disastrous natural cycle is pure folly – and to maintain that the proposed socialized logging in the B-D is economically and ecologically sustainable is an entirely different issue.
Montana hasn’t had a Wilderness bill in 25 years and it seems that no one knows how to behave. The secret hand shake, back room, hidden agenda driven political dance that was the Partnership Plan has left me wanting a process more straight forward and above board – a little more grass roots – much less Industrial / Wilderness machine. Montana’s roadless lands are treasures that deserve to be managed as such. The question becomes what does that mean in terms of permanent protection and continued recreation and extraction access to these public lands?
It is interesting to note that Rehberg’s ongoing listening tour has brought out many voices that were not at the table at the genesis of the Partnership’s ‘collaboration’ or its aftermath, and combined with questions from the likes of Matthew Koehler – and Bernard Shakey and Skinner et al - we are reminded that S 1470 is a work in progress and what was unveiled in July at RY Lumber in Townsend is not what will be shat out Congress’ other end. The climate in D.C. is presently agreeable (to be rapidly diminished after next election cycle) to pass a Wilderness bill – like it or not. We watch as the lumber and conservation ‘partners’ dig in their heels and say NO MORE GIVE or S1470 will lose their support. So what? FJRA is not in its final form or a done deal. Still there is an opportunity to craft FJRA into the truly collaborative piece of legislation Montana deserves – or not. And still there is an opportunity for our elected officials to be LEADERS.
It is easy to stand on the periphery and throw stones – it is another to be part of the solution. Who knows what we could accomplish if shed the baggage of the past and all took a step or two toward the commonsense center? Little to lose, much to gain…
Will da Beast
those outfitters suck with their lace and ipods; I dont agree with that.
Just cuz the right wingers like to pack in everything but the kitchen sink does'nt mean your trickeys should be allowed everywhere.
Grow up
Since this "3.5% of MT forests" is Wilderness came up a lot in this thread, I should clarify that it should be 3.5% of the entire state of Montana, not just forested Montana. If all of the remaining roadless land became Wilderness it would be about 10.1% of the state's total land base (private and public lands), and about 36 percent of all public lands in the state. The point is the same--even if all roadless land became Wilderness, two-thirds of the state's public land would be--and already is--non-wilderness......Bill
Comment By Dave Skinner, 1-09-10And thank you for that, Bill. We can at least agree on the facts, if not what those facts signify.
Comment By Horst, 1-09-10A fact to skinner is an opinion which jibes with his biases...
Comment By ryanus, 1-09-10One thing the video does not show is Koehler's treatment of Tester and his staff all summer and fall.
Specifically, Koehler spent the summer and fall demonizing Tester and his staff by alleging that they are sell outs to industry and not working in good faith or in the best interests of the state.
Tester shouldn't have let it get under his skin. However, at some point I can understand Tester standing up for his staff. There is absolutely no evidence that Tester or his staff are acting in bad faith or are in cahoots with the timber industry. They are simply attempting to forge a piece of legislation that achieves goals for divergent interests. Koehler's allegations about the integrity and motives of Tester and his staff are not justified by any demonstrable facts.
ryanus, wow...
When will the wacko, extremist, elitist, out to destroy capitalism, tree hugging, stone throwing, bunny sniffing, out of state funded enviros stop demonizing our poor mistreated senators?
Sorry, but Koehler and others continue to bring up specific criticisms of the bill and its drafting process which the Senator and his staff refuse to address. Instead, anyone who has problems with this bill is labeled an extremist and attempts are made to marginalize them.
Horst,
Do yourself a favor, improve your mind a little, and run the numbers yourself. Bill and I are so far opposed on the wilderness issue it's not funny...but the fact remains that we both came up with the same numbers from different sources, which means they are more valid than Potterhemp's endless repetitions of his wrongly-contexted grab from some Greenie spin-house website.
As for Josh's point, the S-1470 process has been so tightly-scripted, so controlled, so one-way, it's amazing. I think the big Greens are afraid of an open forum because an open discussion would allow power centers to shift and other alliances to form -- just like was happening in the wake of the winter 2006 hearings. The mainstream groups knew they were about to lose primacy in the debate. Had Burns not been so desperate to fend off Abramoff, had Anderson et al not been so deep in debt, had the RINO Congress not been so mired in page scandals and whatnot, the "Partnership" could never have happened. And the partnership is truly an unholy alliance that has no staying power.
Let others at the table, and we'll see who ends up running the table. Won't be who's trying to stay in charge, fer shure.
More of those incontrovertable facts, eh, genius?
Comment By Drew Gustin, 1-10-10"I promise to protect all remnining roadless areas" Jon Tester
Tester is caught flat out lying yet the people of MT continue to praise and follow him.
Have fun in new colorado err i mean Montana.