EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW
Rehberg on Wilderness: Montanans Want Issue Resolved
Montana's lone Congressman is learning a lot about Wilderness, but he hasn't heard enough yet to make his decision.
By Bill Schneider, 1-13-10
Last week, Congressman Denny Rehberg (R-MT) had 21 public meetings, all or mostly on the hot-button issue of Wilderness. In an exclusive phone interview with NewWest.Net this morning, he said that still wasn’t enough listening for him. Next Saturday, he’ll be in Libby hearing learning even more.
One thing he has learned, though, as he noted in his own guest column posted on NewWest.Net earlier today, is that collaboration doesn’t equal consensus.
“There’s a huge difference between the words consensus and collaboration,” Rehberg said. “Collaboration is two groups getting together and agreeing on a plan and then trying to convince everybody else to agree with it.”
That’s close to what has happened, he said, with Senator Jon Tester’s Forest Jobs and Recreation Act, S. 1470, and the media has “mischaracterized it” as a consensus. “The perception was that Jon’s bill was a consensus, and it wasn’t.”
Quite to the contrary, Rehberg discovered during his marathon listening tour throughout southwestern Montana, a lot of people feel they have been entirely left out of the process of developing Tester’s bill.
“I’m the Congressman and everybody knows I’m willing to take a position,” he said. “I don’t hide from making decisions, but we aren’t at that point if we want to create a consensus.”
Rehberg heard a lot of different opinions on how to proceed, but there seemed to me one point that came close to a consensus: Something needs to be done. “If there was one overriding perception, it was, do something. We would like to see this issue behind us. The only way to resolve this issue is to put something through Congress.”
Keep in mind, he noted, that “Doing nothing creates a bigger wilderness.”
He refers to the fact that Montana has about 6.4 million acres of roadless land and most of it has at least some form of protection that maintains its wilderness-like character. The protection is mostly administrative, not congressionally mandated, so not as formal or permanent. Nonetheless, most of these lands aren’t available for active natural resource management.
“Everybody has an opinion about how to manage natural resources in Montana,” he noted, “and people in western Montana get this issue. It might not be in their best interest to not resolve this issue.”
In the wake of his wilderness listening tour, I asked the Congressman how he planned to move forward with the issue. “That’s a good question that I can’t answer at this time,” he replied. “I’m not trying to delay, but I wanted to give people up in Libby and northwestern Montana a chance to get involved.”
Rehberg is a big fan of the consensus process and doesn’t want to put his stake down too early and become an opponent or proponent because at that point the consensus process stops.
One point he wanted clear up, though, is his purported attempt to “fix” Tester’s bill. At a teleconference held last Monday, he mentioned fixing S. 1470 as one possible option for moving forward, but that wasn’t his goal. In today’s interview, Rehberg made it clear that he felt that media misinterpreted that point. “I did not say I was going to fix Jon’s bill.”
“There has only been one hearing on the bill,” he noted, “and I need to open a dialogue with Jon,” which he plans to do soon. Every two weeks, the Republican Representative has lunch with Senators Tester and Senator Max Baucus, both Democrats.
Asked about the idea of supporting an alternative to Wilderness, the so-called Wilderness Lite option, that keeps roadless land undeveloped, but with fewer restrictions than Wilderness designation, he said, “I’m willing to consider anything that works.”
Rehberg is also focused on what to do with lands not designated as Wilderness and the possibility of “hard release,” which means Congress declaring that land can no longer be considered for Wilderness designation. “Can the rest be released?” he asked. “I’ve heard hard release is not on the table. Well, really?”
Right now, 3.7 percent of Montana is Wilderness. If all 6.4 million acres of inventoried roadless areas were designated as Wilderness, that would add up to 11 percent the state, but about 36 percent of the state’s 27 million acres of federal lands. I asked Rehberg if he felt that that was too much or not enough.
“I don’t think that’s how the decision should be made,” he answered. “I think it should be based on whatever use is best for that piece of land. You will have areas of intense use, areas where you need to protect the resource, and areas you have to actively manage. You don’t say we will establish 9 percent or 11 percent Wilderness.”
The same goes with stewardship logging, he said. “I have a little problem with the legislation of stewardship acreage. We shouldn’t second guess the recommendations of land managers. All of sudden, Congress is a logger. Would you buy a car made by a Congressman?”
[End of article]Sure, Bill, we want our forest issues resolved.
We want to resolve the legal framework that has prevented prophylactic management programs that could have moderated the current average of 600,000 annual acres of fire and bug kill in Montana. Imagine the howls if it were 600,000 acres of clearcut.
Sure, we want to resolve the wilderness issue, so that outstanding areas compliant with the intent of the Wilderness Act were set aside for future generations -- not simply on a road/no road criteria.
Sure, we want to deal with a dynamic environment in a balanced way that synergizes economic and environmental needs, but again, as long as the laws are set up to stymie management actions in areas that are clearly not wilderness-grade, but would function better with a combination of modern and historic human influence, well, look at the charming results. All that dead stuff on Flesher, McDonald, Georgetown hill, oh, it just makes my heart go pitter pat.
Mr. Rehberg makes an important semantic distinction between "collaboration" and "consensus." Point well taken, and I fully agree - they are not the same thing. However, the intended effect is to imply that the process that has produced S. 1470 was the former, while the process should actually, or at least ideally, have been the latter.
Mr. Rehberg reportedly goes on to say that collaboration is "two groups getting together and then trying to convince everyone else to agree with it." This is an incredibly simplistic insinuation of the broad spectrum of groups and individuals that came together to work on what would eventually become S. 1470. In fact, it is so simplistic, and flat-out wrong, as to be irresponsible to suggest. Support S. 1470 or not, but the notion that is was a process of "two groups" ("or close to it") is ludicrous and ignorant of fact.
A "consensual forest management plan." Hmm...a fine sentiment, perhaps, but I would love to see an example of a Forest Mgmt. plan in the recent past that could truly qualify as having been a "consensual" process? One in which "everyone agreed with it" as Rehberg states? The reality is that any proposed forest management plan is going to have a range of supporters and detractors, and they always do. Despite the egalitarian notion, it is impossible to give everyone what they want. As a former FS employee in Alaska once said to me, "Our mission statement forces us to try to balance so many different vested interests and pressures that the most we can hope for is that we piss everyone off equally." An exaggeration, perhaps, but also a fairly insightful look into the realities of public lands mgmt.
Just as we shouldn't confuse "collaboration" with "consensus" we also shouldn't confuse "public input" with "consensus" either." The truth is that the traditional way of going about this process has typically been far from consensual as well, despite extensive public input. More importantly, I don't think that the fact that forest management plans aren't consensual is a bad thing at all. In fact, I think a "consensual" forest mgmt. plan is a completely unrealistic pipe dream, and for a number of good reasons.
"Consensual" may sound warm and fuzzy, especially as a form of populist sentiment, as well as a rallying cry for those who feel they aren't heard, but let's not kid ourselves that "consensual" is the best recipe for smart management, or even possible, for that matter. If we approached all lands management by true consensus, there would hardly be much left to manage.
There's fallacy at work here. And every member of our Congressional Delegation is trying to sell it as good policy.
For one example, the collaborators are apparently assuming that public lands are the sole opportunity for jobs based on resource extraction. But TPL and TNC and others have put up a mountain of money to keep housing at bay AND to perpetuate "working forest" on tens of thousand of acres. Now add the fact that Congress has been expressing a lot of interest in development of biomass production on, ahem, private lands. None of that seems to have entered the Tester group's calculations, which is to say they're playing with less than a full deck. And they're asking the rest of us to do the same. But why should public lands be put in hot competition against private lands for the likes of biomass production?
Another fallacy lies in the false dichotomy (wedge politics, anyone?) of wilderness "versus" the economy. That's pure, unadulterated bull. I've never seen an alleged conflict between the environment and the economy that wasn't actually a conflict between one economy and another. NREPA (HR 980) is every bit as pro-economy as S 1470.
There's a jobs fallacy at work too. Truth is, the boom left millions of jobs in the dust when it went bust, and the Wall Street Journal this week laid out a scenario in which most of them will never come back.
Never.
That (permanent) loss includes jobs in the tightly timber-linked construction industry, on which the jobs in the forests depended up 'til the day the building bubble deflated. Tester's heart's apparently in the right place in trying to save/create jobs, but he has to be real about how many and which jobs he can really save or create. The folks back home don't need to get our hopes pumped up only to find ourselves caught in some next bout of irrational enthusiasm.
Who painted this bill as a "jobs vs. the economy dichotomy?" Just curious, because I haven't heard that, and my understanding of this bill is that it is an attempt to address both.
Comment By lance olsen, 1-13-10Smithhammer asks,"Who painted this bill as a "jobs vs. the economy dichotomy?" Just curious, because I haven't heard that, and my understanding of this bill is that it is an attempt to address both."
So far as I know, no one has painted it as a "jobs vs. the economy" dichotomy. I think you intended to challenge my comment about the fallacy of wilderness v. the economy."
I did say there's a fallacy wilderness v the economy. This fallacy predates S 1470, and is frequently brought into any discussion of wilderness designation -- and is basic to a lot of the opposition to wilderness designation. I doubt that S 1470 is or can be immune to this fallacy, whether the bill's supporters intend so or not.
I meant that many see
Not intending to "challenge" anything. And I'm fully aware of the fallacy, and I agree with you on that. Just curious how/if/when you had heard someone saying this in reference to S. 1470, since I thought that's what we're talking about here.
Comment By lance olsen, 1-13-10Smithy, you write, "Just curious how/if/when you had heard someone saying this in reference to S. 1470, since I thought that's what we're talking about here."
Well, truth is, I didn't hear anyone say it. I'm the one said it. Others might agree, but I'm the one that said it.
And I added that S 1470 could hardly be immune to it. You may have missed that point, otherwise I don't think you'd be reminding anyone that S 1470 is what we're talking about here.
S 1470 is taking place within an unfortunate context of fallacy. To my way of thinking, that has been one of its major handicaps.
Lance -
You seem to be a little defensive for some reason. I honestly don't believe I've said anything to warrant it. As I said above, I agree with you that in many land use arguments the "jobs vs. wilderness" argument is a deceptive fallacy designed to polarize the argument, and I usually think it is bull, as do you. No argument from me there.
But also, as you readily admit, whatever fallacy there may be in reference to a "jobs vs. wilderness" argument in this particular context is entirely your own conjecture, not the accurate reflection of actual statements by anyone involved in the formulation of S. 1470. Saying something could "hardly be immune to it" seems like a pretty far-fetched thing to say without any basis in fact. Just think that should be clarified.
Just a slight side-track...
Lance Olsen wrote 'NREPA (HR 980) is every bit as pro-economy as S 1470.'
While I'm all for new Wilderness in Montana and support most of FJRA 600,000 acres of proposed Wilderness additions, I am skeptical of the claims of the forest jobs to be created or retained by the bill's logging component. But NREPA's 7 million acres of Wilderness is so socially irresponsible that it would be the kiss of death for Montana's economy. There is no way to spin NREPA as pro-economy.
Montana's existing Wilderness areas do draw visitors and support a certain level of economic contribution to local communities ( not to be confused with their important ecological preservation legacy ). Significantly more Wilderness is not going to translate to significantly better economic health for our state - quite possibly it will do the opposite and cripple long term recovery / growth.
This is not to say that our remaining roadless lands should be opened up to a free-for-all for motorized and extraction abuse but we must balance permanent preservation and conservation with continued recreational opportunities and sustainable forest management. NREPA's Wilderness-only approach misses the mark for what is needed in Montana's communities - and out in the woods.
The conservation dialog needs to expand beyond the Wilderness-only mentality and embrace other companion designations to Wilderness like Conservation Management Areas and National Protection Areas that will be much more socially palatable, politically viable and economically beneficial ways to protect and manage the resource and provide opportunities for our communities.
We had a Republican congressman down here in Idaho give it hell of a try. Countless hearings, countless comprises etc. Had a good chance of getting it passed before the congress changed in 2008. So its back to gridlock. Its kind of like a couple of male dogs who have fought to a draw, almost killing one another, laying on the ground unable to move, still growling at one another. We really need to cut a deal, and move on to other squabbles.
Comment By janet zee, 1-14-10As a former board member of Montana Wilderness Association (elected by members two times) and Washington D. C. citizen lobbyist in the '90's for the last Pat William's wilderness bill, I was also prevented from participating in the Tester "negotiations" even though I asked on multiple occasions to see the maps. I have lived near the Beaverhead/Deerlodge forest and the Lee Metcalf Wilderness for over 30 years.
When I was on the MWA board, our policy was to support protection of all Wilderness Study Areas and Inventoried Roadless Areas. We all carried a notebook of extensive maps so we could be very clear on the data.
When did this policy change? What happened to the notebook (I still have mine) ?
I have to focus on the fact that this discussion is long overdue. But it is heartbreaking to see that John Tester is not honoring his campaign promise to protect Montana's remaining roadless areas.
I wish Tester, and his haircut,were selling used cars Whitefish. I'm not buying his load of crap.
Comment By lance olsen, 1-14-10By Will-da-Beast says "NREPA's 7 million acres of Wilderness is so socially irresponsible that it would be the kiss of death for Montana's economy. There is no way to spin NREPA as pro-economy."
Well, we can disagree on that. But I can't help thinking that we might also find points of agreement. For one example, in the case of Montana's logging industry, NREPA's protection of roadless areas would still leave opportunity on the acreage that wouldn't be designated. And I'll guess that we'd agree that there's still a lot of work (jobs) needed to help homeowners cut risk of fire from wooden shingles and fuels right around their homes.
Part of Montana's economy is going to rest on consumer spending. And part of that is going to rest on how much money Montanans will have left after paying energy bills. Now, weatherization of homes isn't work out in the woods, but it's work, and the money it will free up for other spending is going to help firm up the state's economy. NREPA raises no barrier to that and other ways of bolstering the economy of Montana or our neighbors.
I'd say that, instead, one of the bigger risks to our economy is the idea that it is and will be dependent on what we can take from the what's left of the roadless spaces of the region.
"The conservation dialog needs to expand beyond the Wilderness-only mentality and embrace other companion designations to Wilderness like Conservation Management Areas and National Protection Areas that will be much more socially palatable, politically viable and economically beneficial ways to protect and manage the resource and provide opportunities for our communities."
I really don't get why so many are against even considering these other two protection designations.
Mickey-
are u refering to the Mike Simpson bill reagrding the white clouds
that bill was total BS and is similar to the one tester is trying to pass.
Protect ALL remining roadless lands in MT as tester promised.
I'd like to address the issue concerning "resolving the Wilderness issue" in Montana, specifically as it relates to what's currently in Senator Tester's S1470.
There seems to be a growing perception in some circles that Senator Tester's S1470 will "resolve" the Wilderness issue. I see this concept brought up more and more in comments and in various media articles.
In this interview, Congressman Rehberg made several statements along the same lines. About putting "this issue behind us," and he even went so far as to allude to the possibility of "hard release."
In other words, pass a bill such as S1470 (that would protect only 600,000 acres as Wilderness) while the remaining 5.8 million acres of roadless wildlands in Montana would be released from ever being considered for Wilderness...ever.
If "resolving the Wilderness issue" in Montana is truly the direction that people want to head, I and many other conservationists don't necessarily have a problem with that. However, the fact of that matter is that Senator Tester's S1470 is a terrible way to "resolve" the Wilderness issue in Montana. Why?
Well, for starters, I think that even those who were part of inner circle that drafted S1470 would admit that it was never intended to "resolve" the Wilderness issue in MT.
For example, as it's currently written, S1470 contains ZERO new wilderness for ANY of the amazing, important roadless wildlands on the vast majority of National Forests in Montana. Montana is lucky to have 9 national forests, but S1470 would only address some of the eligible Wilderness areas on the Beaverhead Deerlodge and even a smaller portion on only one ranger district of the Lolo and Kootenai National Forests.
As written, S1470 doesn't at all address Wilderness designation for 7 national forests and major portions of 2 more. In other words, not only does S1470 include no new wilderness on any of the Bitterroot National Forest, Flathead National Forest, Lewis and Clark National Forest, Gallatin National Forest, Helena National Forest, Custer National Forest and the vast majority of the Kootenai and Lolo National Forests...but Wilderness designation for any of these national forests were never even considered as S1470 was drafted.
That begs the question: How can you "resolve" the Wilderness issue with S1470 if, in fact, those drafting S1470 never even considered the Wilderness issue on 7 national forests and the major portions of 2 more?
If we are truly going to "resolve" the Wilderness issue here in Montana, for starters, we need an open, inclusive and transparent process which recognizes that these land belong equally to everyone. I'm not sure if a politician, whether it be Senator Tester or Congressman Rehberg, is really the best leader of such a process. Seems as if the US Forest Service would need to be involved on some level.
I would also suggest that you start with the fact that we have somewhere around 6 million acres in Montana that is eligible (and likely deserving) of Wilderness protection and work from there, rather than working with S1470, which only deals with 600,000 acres, leaves most national forests out of the picture and has a host of other problems, as expressed clearly by the US Forest Service at last month's hearing (see end of this comment).
Since Wilderness is a finite resource, contains our cleanest water and best wildlife habitat and we aren't growing or making any more of it, the burden of proof should fall to those who believe that a specific area isn't worthy of Wilderness designation. If a roadless wildland should be opened to logging or mining or road building people should have an opportunity to state their case and provide the economic and scientific justification to support their views.
Personally, I'm comfortable with some of these roadless wildlands becoming National Recreation Areas, along the lines of the Rattlesnake NRA and Wilderness Area north of Missoula, which I think is managed pretty well, while allowing for uses such as bikes. Basically, this is similar to Bill's "Wilderness Lite" concept, although I'm not comfortable using that term, as the USFS already has alternative designations, such as NRA's, that appear to work well.
Finally, I'd be remiss if I didn't end by sharing some of the major concerns, which have been expressed from many quarters, regarding the provisions of S1470 un-related to Wilderness designation.
For the most part, the same concerns with S1470 have been expressed by: Undersecretary Sherman and the Forest Service, the Obama Administration, Senator Bingaman and the Senate Committee staffers, the Last Best Place Wildlands Campaign, Beaverhead County Commissioners, Defender of Wildlife, PEER, NRDC, Sierra Club, The Lands Council, Center for Biological Diversity, WildEarth Guardians, Wilderness Watch and a host of others.
As you'll recall, Under Secretary Harris Sherman had this to say at the Dec 17 Senate Hearing regarding S1470:
"If the Committee decides to go forward with a bill, we would urge you to first, alter or remove the highly specific timber supply requirements, which in our view are not reasonable or achievable.
Secondly, we like to urge you to amend the National Environmental Policy Act related provisions, which in our view are flawed and are legally vulnerable.
Thirdly, we would urge you to consider the budgetary implications to meet the bill's requirements. If we were to go forward with S1470 it would require far greater resources to do that and it will require us to draw these monies from forests within Region One or from other Regions."
"'The levels of mechanical treatment that are called for in S1470 are likely unachievable and perhaps unsustainable."
"There is the likelihood that if Congress were to move forward and pass legislation such as we are talking about today, that other regions will want to do so similarly. Now, if that happens, my concern is that there will be somewhat of a balkanization that occurs between the different regions in the country. Those who are first in may get funded and those who come later may find there are less funds available. There will be certain 'haves' and 'have nots' that result from this process. Then in someways there is no longer a true national review, an effort to sift out what priorities ought to exist across the country."
Anyone who knows something about federal public lands management understands that these are hardly insignificant, trivial concerns. Unfortunately, Senator Tester doesn't seem to be taking any of these serious concerns into consideration. Hopefully that changes now that the bill is before the US Senate's Energy and Natural Resources Committee, where an open, inclusive and transparent process is required. So one assumes proper attention will finally be given these concerns and we can move forward. Thanks.
Matthew - I think you answered your own question. No one considers Sen. Tester's Bill as the "end of the story". If it works, it has a good chance of becoming the template for similar agreements covering other National Forests in Montana. Tester's Bill is a piecemeal approach - a test case on specific parts of the whole that is, presumably, more palatable to the public than NREPA which has been characterized as not passable. The question is not "all versus none", but "something versus nothing" (I think that's the definition of compromize). Are there certain aspects of the draft legislation that could be improved? I have no doubt! But lack of perfection is not an adequate reason to vilify the participants or mischaracterize the intent. I feel it is a mistake to be so fixated on a comprehensive approach that is unlikely to pass that you throw away a chance to do some good, and establish a precedent, on a less comprehensive project. If you insist on "all or nothing", then you must be prepared to risk getting nothing.
Comment By Mickey Garcia, 1-15-10A number of conservation organizations and opposing organizations bought into Mike Simpson's bill,albeit after much soul searching. One thing for sure. Wilderness extremism and fundamentalism results in deadlock in both Montana and Idaho.
Comment By the real mike, 1-15-10Personally and as I have said before, the problem with the Tester bill is that I'm afraid that it would be a Trojan Horse that would "resolve" the issue. I don't want to see the roadless question "resolved" by protecting only 10% of what needs to be protected in Montana alone and calling the question "resolved" at that point. Protection for only 10% of what needs to be protected is not "resolution" of the issue in my book.
I also note that the Governor is now good pals with Newt Gingrich. If that is what blue dogs like Schweitzer and Tester see as collaboration, then I'm not going to be a collaborator either.
We are all familiar with our forests’ potential to be a renewable resource. The logic is straightforward. We cut some trees today, go back to that same acreage later, and cut the trees that grew to replace them.
And we all know the importance of economic sustainability. Again, the logic is straightforward. Because forests have had potential to be renewed, the businesses and jobs dependent on them could be sustained for decade after decade.
Alas, that's now how it works when a combined exuberance of lending feeds a construction boom that puts exuberant demands on the forests. These combined booms in lending, building, and logging have had popular appeal because they created booms of jobs in all three industries. But, as we all know now, they have ended with stress on the financial system, less roadless forest, and loss of jobs from Wall Street to the woods.
Busts like these have not been good for the economy or the environment. They are not things we want renewed or sustained.
So, when Senator Tester wants yet another push into roadless acreage, it makes me wonder if the potential for renewability of forests and the sustainability of business and jobs will ever get their day in the sun. I’d much rather see what’s left of Montana’s roadless areas protected under the Wilderness Act, and would prefer Senator Tester to put his good will behind keeping the promise of renewable forests and sustainable jobs alive and well in Montana.
Mickey-
mike simpson's bill was the first attempt at "wilderness lite" which included ATV throughways and other changes that certainly are not compatible with the wilderness act. Simpson's bill was nothing less than an attack at the founding proncipals of the wilderness act. They did'nt want it in Idao and we dont want it in MT. If you oppose bills only dealing with 10% of the availalbe roadless and assaults on the wilderness act itslef is considerd extremism, then i'd have to say as usual your the exremist mickey mick.
Nice try but not true. Simpson's bill got a sign on from both sides after a lot of compromises where hammered out. As far as "wilderness lite" goes. Roadless Areas are not "Wilderness" until and unless they are legally designated as such. Your using semantic trickery to claim "wilderness lite". Looks like the congress may flip again in 2010 and Wilderness fundamentalists will be left whining in the wilderness once again.
Comment By Lesley Chow, 1-17-10Most roadless areas exhibit wilderness charactersitics such as old growth forests and no signifigant human changes to the ecosystem. Simpson's bill got defeated becuase it did attack what "wilderness" designation meaned. Simpson's bill included an aTV throughway in the white clouds. Thats not semantic trickery mick thats the truth. You can try to justify "wilderness lite" any way you like but it remains what it is. Idaho roadless areas certainly qualify as wilderness quality lands. The only fundamentalist here is old right wing crazy garcia.
Comment By Mickey Garcia, 1-17-10You're misinformed. Simpson's bill didn't get defeated. He's awaiting the right time to bring it before congress. Probably after the 2010 elections. In any case, odds are, that no wilderness bill can get through congress that is simply a one sided wilderness extremist bill.
Comment By problembear, 1-17-10important to remember that this is really conrad burn's bill originally. it was simply dusted off and pulled out of the closet by tester and his staff. it is a poorly thought out plan based on ancient meetings which took place with burn's lumbermen friends in a completely different era that bears no resemblance to the current economic climate. the few environmentalists who were hand picked to roll over for milk bones back then should be ashamed of their participation in this fiction.
rehberg is right. there is no consensus. there is no bill. it is a mirage and a figment of jon tester's wild and very inexperienced imagination.
a real wilderness bill for this state requires leadership that we sadly lack right now, and as mr rehberg so succinctly states;
"Keep in mind, he noted, that “Doing nothing creates a bigger wilderness.”
He refers to the fact that Montana has about 6.4 million acres of roadless land and most of it has at least some form of protection that maintains its wilderness-like character. The protection is mostly administrative, not congressionally mandated, so not as formal or permanent. Nonetheless, most of these lands aren’t available for active natural resource management.
sounds good to me. until we get a metcalf or a mansfield representing us in this state no bill is a good bill.
Something to remember in these discussions: "Visitor draw" may be important, but it's a terrible thing to hang an economy or a policy on. Being dependent on tourism means you depend on *someone else's economy*, and if their economy goes in the dump, yours will too.
Comment By lance olsen, 1-22-10Rez makes a good point about the risks of hanging an economy on tourism. Those risks grow to the extent that tourism dominates. As just one of a bunch of strategies, tourism isn't in position to make an economy sink or swim. But it's dangers grow as its place in the economy grows. As we've all seen recently, that same lesson applies to the risks rising from too great a dependency on the combination of lending, logging and building, which all rose together, and have since fallen together.
And those hangers for the economy were also dependent on someone else's economy, namely the lend-log-build boom that ended with lost jobs in all three industries, and all across the nation.
Getting back to wilderness, and the lack of its protection in Tester's "jobs and recreation" bill, the virtue of wilderness isn't just that it can be draw for external money. It's also a key source of clean water, among other things, that play roles in the economy whether we depend on outside money or not.
Yes, Lance, Rez is right.
But don't fail to consider that the larger economy started to tip over when commodity prices finally exceeded the grasp of the common man. Oil, for one, and copper, silver, rare earth, lead...plus all the petroleum chemical derivatives, plus even wood if not necessarily paper.
Furthermore, the fact remains that clean water also originates from managed forests, too. Forestry practices have been under continual improvement, and while there are still sluffs and all from badly-done road cuts and whatnot, in the main, discharge water from managed forested lands is of acceptable, useful quality if not "pristine." And you minimize the impact of unmanaged, high-intensity fires, for example down in California where the frogologists had to evacuate red leg frogs from burnt watersheds to prevent extinction this coming spring runoff.
Skinner,
Untrue. Thousands of stream and river segments are not meeting State water quality standards from sediment caused by logging and roads associated with logging. You can check the 303(d) "impaired" waterbodies list put out by DEQ every two years. Wilderness streams and rivers don't look like chocolate milk everytime it rains. There is a BIG difference, one supports all beneficial uses, the others do not. Pull logging subsidies and watch a mass exodus to other regions with longer growing seasons, topsoil and more moisture. Remember Champion? If California, Conn., Mass. New York and other states that underwrite Montana's corporate entitlements take away the punchbowl, you'll wish all Montana's water is "pristine" again. Personally, I'd rather see subsidizes for cleanup of the huge mess left behind, not more stumps.
Depends on what water bodies where. The Clearwater, granted, but that's steep ground and old roads.
The Chetco out of the Rogue wilderness pretty much turned choco brown after the Biscuit. The North Fork was the same charming color after the Robert, and there's been darn little management there lately, what with your bears and your NREPA proposal for the park and preserve..
Never mind the 1964 floods in the Middle Fork....that wasn't logging, nor was it a burnt wilderness.
Never mind that sheet flows off roads don't travel very far with waterbars and vegetation augmentation on cutbanks and fill. Four meters or so? Especially if the road is active and managed, not just left to sit because there's no money in the budget for maintenance because the agency isn't selling any trees and blowing every loose dime on wildfire?
The sediment issue is one of timing. You don't want sediment in times of low flows, clearly, because it doesn't get transported. Nor do you want excessive amounts released off the landscape through poor practice. But geeze, you guys never acknowledge that wild fires of excessive intensity and spread make entire basins one gigantic sheet of muckwater. Might not hose that spring, or the following winter MIGHT be dry, but the impacts do in fact happen and they are not always optimal, even if "wild." Or "natural," or whatever excuse you'll use.
Just admit it, Steve, you're an anticapitalist and simply shudder at the thought of someone "exploiting" the landscape for profits that pay taxes that support the subsidies subset you would find acceptable if re-directed toward your own pet cause. The actual health of the landscape, its appearance, its actual productivity in terms of both wildlife, wood, water and the amenities, don't matter to you at all.
Dave Skinner says Steve is anti-capitalist. Well, Dave's sure gonna disagree, but there's take on the enemies of capitalism that others here are certain to appreciate. So I'm posting some snippets from it below.
‘ … the main dangers to the success of capitalism are the very people who would consider themselves its most ardent advocates : the bosses of companies, the owners of companies, and the politicians who tirelessly insist that they are ‘pro-business’.”
“… widespread and quite outrageous abuse, by capitalists, of capitalism … The danger exists everywhere in the world, but it matters most in the United States.”
“ … the abuse of capitalism and of democracy in the country that is seen – especially by itself – as the highway to greatness.”
The Economist, “A Survey of Capitalism and Democracy,” June 26-July 4, 2003, Special 160th Anniversary Issue
Lance, if I remember right, you posted this exact same stuff while dancing on the grave of some ski area real estate thing. For all that, the Economist was riffing on pure greed. I'm not in love with unrestrained capital, I think a lot of people are just plain crooks and if its legal in business, it's an option.
Kind of the screw me once, shame on you, twice, me, sort of thing. And a lot of people make rotten investments with scamsters and they get burnt, that's called risk. Big enough failure, it takes down the innocent, too, and I guess that's a problem. But "socialism" isn't the answer either, not with all those mass killings in the name of Marxist ideology over the past century.
Government is no kinder than the private sector, does no better job at fulfilling the fiduciary role. But I guess in your case, it is more accessible in terms of the court system and/or elections...even in the case of Steve's brilliant campaign, or Paul Richards' --- you guys would never be allowed that sort of access at a stockholder's meeting, right? Such as Champion.