GUEST COMMENTARY

Pat Williams Speaks Out Again on Tester’s Bill

Secrecy claim not true, but the bare-knuckled debate is just Montana's brand of politics.

Comment By Murphy, 2-24-10

"Jon Tester, his staff, and reliable Montana proponents from both the environmental and logging communities are accused of developing their proposals in the dark, in secret, outside of the public’s view. That charge is simply a violation of fact. "

Wow what a liar just like Tester

sorry not gonna applaud your boy for lying to the people of MT in order to get elected and then stabbing them in the back with this bs bill.

Sit down pat we dont want tester's bs bill

Comment By Murphy, 2-24-10

Sorry to replace my civility with anger Pat, but you've replaced the truth with lies just like tester.

That causes anger in most people.

Comment By Murphy, 2-24-10

Try looking at Bill Shneider's article "Here's how i'd end the war over wilderness" on new west.

I dont agree with all of it buit it's a heck of a lot better and infinetely less lopsided than tester's dangerous precident setting roadless land grab.

Comment By Dave Skinner, 2-24-10

Thanks for the confession about your own machinations, Pat. Nineteen bills, and none of them "public and locally oriented legislation?" That's good to know, and to remember.

Comment By Horst, 2-25-10

The land being considered is not local land. It Federal Land held for people in all fifty states. The major problem with Tester's bill is the same problem which caused the sagebrush rebellion.
The only way to have any wilderness is pretty much to ignore local greed...

Comment By medium rare, 2-25-10

sadly, mr. williams is uninformed regarding the secrecy of this bill's crafting. he has weighed in not because he's confident the bill was crafted in the open but in hopes of bolstering his legacy. as proof he offers nothing in support of his claims.

i venture we'll see, in another month, another newwest story titled "Again Pat Williams Speaks Without Substance on Tester’s Bill. Again."

Comment By Pat Williams, 2-25-10

In my column I stated, "One has only to read the comments on NewWest(and other sources) to understand that, for some, anger has replaced civility, neighborliness, and mutual respect..."

Sure enough this morning's comments are the sad proof. Those self centered, angry, wrongheaded accusation are most evident, aren't they?

Off the mark personal criticisms have always run off me like water off a duck, but they certainly debase important discussions and make rational solutions difficult to reach.

Comment By TJW, 2-25-10

Pat: I happen to share your dismay over the tone of rhetoric that pervades our society (and is in no way unique to MT), and want to get this in before this thread disintegrates any further into diatribe. My understanding is that, while the Seely Lake group was open, the Beaverhead Deerlodge was definitely closed to participants who had much more experience and connection to that forest, while the Kootenai group was somewhere in between public and secret (e.g., folks who were actively involved in negotiating over Wildland/Urban Interface and other appropriate areas to log never heard of these other negotiations, even though the Yak folk straddled the two efforts). Please explain your understanding, especially w/re: the BDNF, which after all is driving this bill, and also your position on Tester promising to protect roadless to the "excluded" groups in order to get their votes during his election, and then using those same areas as bargaining chips. Finally, do you think mandated logging levels is good policy? Even if unsustainable?? I appreciate honest debate, and look forward to your honest answers to these basic questions...

Comment By DB, 2-25-10

Good words, Pat; after reading the first 8 comments, does anyone really think anything would get done if we put those folks around a table? Montana is blessed with parity - we don't have a Denver or Portland to screw up all the politics. The left can't run roughshod over the right, and vice versa. you either come to the table constructively, exercise "give" and "take", or accept the status quo for another lifetime. In the meantime the hard work of conservation - protecting habitat, boosting stream flows, restoring riparian areas - and maintaining a viable rural economy - goes by the boards.

Comment By Mr. Twister, 2-25-10

I agree with Mr. Williams. I won't post again...no great loss there I suppose. Other things I was passionate about are not important to me anymore as well. Politics, voting, hunting issues, the local school board, county elections, healthecare debates, resource fights, and all the rest of it. I feel better for it. It's easy to be drawn into this evil crap, I find myself becoming mean and stupid. Good bye and good ridence to this rotten garbage.

Comment By Dave Skinner, 2-25-10

Look, I feel no obligation to be particularly civil when I'm being dealt with dishonestly.
Anyone remember the Kootenai Accords? Unions at PC and Stimson, along with management, tried to lock in a "deal" while tossing the competition under the bus, as well as folks not in either the timber or environmental industries. Pat should.
So, there I am in P burg, waiting to talk to this rancher with a roaded, logged, burnt, fenced and watered lease in proposed S-1470 wilderness. This green guy from Missoula is telling him not to worry at all, and brings up the Accords, saying there would still be mills in Lincoln if it had passed. I just about choked myself trying to stay "civil" as in silent.
Was this guy ignorant of Jeff Juell et al et cetera? Probably not. A more plausible explanation is he'd simply decided to tell a bald-faced lie to a stranger in order to get what he wants. Well, I'm from Montana and not used to that. New York, maybe. Washington, DC, fer shure...where politicians lie to strangers every minute of every day. And it's SO civil.

Comment By oddball, 2-25-10

Proving Pat's point:
"Liar liar pants on fire" has become the primary argument of many of the blowhards on each end.

Followed closely by claims of secrecy.

By that definition, every bill ever crafted and presented to Congress has been drafted in secret.

Comment By Binky Griptight, 2-25-10

"... reliable Montana proponents from both the environmental and logging communities are accused of developing their proposals in the dark ..."

By what criteria do you recognize reliable proponents from unreliable ones? And how do you think the 'unreliable' proponents feel being called that - encouraged to continue participation in your type of politics?

Comment By Dave Skinner, 2-25-10

So, Oddball,
Where do you stand on S-1470? And what are your affiliations?

Comment By John Gatchell, 2-25-10

Thanks Pat for your words of experience and wisdom--

Those who cherish Montana's wilderness can borrow a bit of its serenity

Comment By Ben Smith, 2-25-10

Thanks for putting this bill in perspective Pat. I've long thought what's missing in this whole debate is the context of how these types of land management bills were crafted twenty years ago.

I trust your experience and insights more than critics.

Comment By Gabriel Furshong, 2-25-10

What a remarkable guest opinion. Thanks for refocusing this dialogue on the facts, Pat. This bill would protect the headwaters of Rock Creek, the North Fork of the Blackfoot, Monture Creek, and the headwaters of the Clearwater River AND it actually has a good chance of making it all the way to President's desk precisely because it's the product of years of grassroots organizing. I'm so proud to come from the state that produced this bill and so proud to come from the state that was represented for 18 years by Pat Williams.

Comment By George Vincent, 2-25-10

Pat,
I have great respect for your work as our Representative, and since. But I have to second TJW's request. MWA made SOME of the areas in the Beaverhead-Deer Lodge Area apparent on their maps, but what they presented in the many months prior to Tester's unveiling the legislation is not what that legislation contained. There was no public discussion over the BLM areas -- I know, not your area of expertise -- but instead, old, out-of-date recommendations from Bush the Elder were slapped on the bill without public input. Worse, the many special "exceptions" to standard wilderness managment this bill includes were never mentioned in any meeting I went to. If you have different information, Pat, I'm sure lots of us would like to hear it.

Yes, the vitriol has gotten out of hand. And it goes both ways (as we saw this morning in the Missoulian from the current MWA President). And I have no problem with the details of bills being written in "secret" -- except when its proponents and sponsor claim otherwise.

Comment By Treehuggin' Cowgirl, 2-25-10

Pat, thanks for reminding us all to play nice :) Of course the reason the debate becomes so vitriolic is because we all value Montana's public lands so highly. The same thing that makes wildernuts, loggers, ranchers and recreational users snap at each others' throats is the exact same reason we should work together.

The creators of this bill were willing to set aside their differences, because they realized that their love of Montana's land was more important. I hope that more Montanans make the choice to work together instead of against each other.

Comment By Emma Young, 2-25-10

Pat,
Thank you for your comments on the current Tester bill, it's always good to hear your thoughts on issues of our state's land designation. It is important to remember that getting hot under the collar doesn't get anyone very far and that the ability to remain calm and reasonable when discussing something you truly love and care for, as we all do for our land, is a necessary and rewarding struggle. I applaud you for re-calling people to civility and sense in this debate. Hope to see you around.

Comment By Murphy, 2-25-10

Tester lied

"I promise to protect all remaining roadless areas"

His bill releases close to 100,000 acres on BHDL alone


and this bill was crafted in an exclusive, close door fashion.

Excuse me for calling out lies and the lying lairs who tell em.

I'm just a maverick is all.

Comment By Murphy, 2-25-10

I'd say Tester got a little hot under the collar at the hearing and was both disrespectful and bullyish.

Anyone who cares about the health of our forests needs to realize they cant just play the "anyone who does'nt support this bill is an extremist' card and expect all the fols in MT to be fooled.

" I don't reckon i'm smart, but I think I can see
When someone is pulling the wool over me"

Excuse this old cowboy for having B backbone and calling out these political hacks for what they are.

Sorry if the truth hurts pat, nothing personal.

Comment By Murphy, 2-25-10

Not saying your whole carrer has bee a hack job but right here this article and tester's bill are 100% Hack Material


Politics will never progress unless the citizens hold their reps. responsible for their campaign promises.

Comment By Murphy, 2-25-10

I apologize for the way I said it but my words are true.

hHonestly, how do you expect people to remain cool with all the lies and misinformation being perpetuated from the higher ups in MT?

MWA article in the missoulian today was pure "slanderistic" propoganda from big whigs in MT who dont give 2 bits about the health of our forests.

Also Pat it's rude to comment on your own article.

You had your piece this ours.

Comment By Murphy, 2-25-10

"I believe civility and fact are somewhat jeopardized by the current rash of debate about the Tester legislation." PW

When facts are thrown out the window, civility follows close behind.

not to make excuses, but again my words are true.

Comment By Murphy, 2-25-10

Tester Wildlands Logging Bill Posted by Paul Richards at Jan 16, 2010 12:54 AM

Once a man who stood for principles, Farling has become a sycophant. His contention that Tester is honest concerning our public wildlands legacy is a bad, bad, bad joke.

In the 2006 Democratic primary campaign for U.S. Senate, Tester specifically promised, in the presence of his wife, Shar, and his son, Shon, that he would "Work to protect all of Montana’s remaining roadless wildlands." (Details at: http://www.Richards2006.us )

Northern Rockies wildlands are the only place in the lower 48 states where all native species and wildlife remain! These are our public wildlands, belonging to all Americans.

The Tester Wildlands Logging Bill strips away the protection of these public wildlands currently provided by the Clinton Roadless Rule, the Obama Roadless Initiative, and Senator Lee Metcalf’s incredibly farsighted Senate Bill 393.

By fragmenting the Northern Rockies Ecosystem, the Tester Wildlands Logging Bill is a direct assault on the scientific principles for which so many dedicated citizens have worked so hard for over a century.

If the Tester Wildlands Logging Bill passes: Secluded, rare, threatened, and endangered species will be adversely impacted, particularly in the Kootenai National Forest and the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest.

The “wilderness” areas in the Tester bill are fragmented and unconnected islands of largely “rocks and ice,” with NO biological integrity and NO potential for sustaining biodiversity. These minimal “wilderness” designations in Tester’s bill fail entirely to protect different elevation habitats and their dependent species with core areas, buffer zones, and connecting biological corridors.

By forcing costly, taxpayer-subsidized, unsustainable, industrial-scale logging upon our public wildlands -- lands that only contain sub-marginal timber -- the Tester Wildlands Logging Bill would irrevocably harm essential habitat of species that characterize the wild nature of the northern Rockies.

Species such as the: Gray wolf, bull trout, cutthroat trout (Montana’s official state fish), otter, mountain goat, mountain sheep, elk, arctic grayling, northern goshawk, boreal owl, pileated woodpecker, ferruginous hawk, Montana vole, sage thrasher, wild bison, peregrine falcon, bald eagle, pine marten, fisher, lynx, wolverine, and grizzly bear (Montana’s official state animal) are all at risk.

As an afterthought, the deal cynically “protects” a mere 10 percent of our priceless public wildlands legacy!

As a result, people get upset.

People get upset because the secret deal sells out 90 percent of our public wildlands legacy; a legacy that provides our farms and communities with pure water, our freezers with healthy meat, our lungs with clean air, and our spirits with rejuvenation only Nature can provide.

People get upset because WE WANT to live in a healthy and functioning ecosystem with wolves, bull trout, cutthroat trout (Montana’s official state fish), elk, lynx, wolverine, and grizzly bear (Montana’s official state animal).

People get upset because we voted into office a politician that we actually believed was an honest farmer who promised to protect ALL of our few remaining roadless wildlands.

People get upset because we don’t want to pay more than $100 million in taxpayer subsidies to destroy the priceless public wildlands legacy that is the very reason we so enjoy living in Montana.

Well, what else can you possibly expect if you underhandedly try to dictate public lands policy from behind-the-scenes, with NO scientific input, NO comprehensive legal review, NO compliance with environmental laws, NO adherence to proper forest management, NO agency review, and NO public involvement???

full quote at http://www.hcn.org/wotr/sen-testers-montana-bill-is-a-true-collaborative

comments section.

Comment By Murphy, 2-25-10

http://testerloggingbilltruths.wordpress.com/tag/beaverhead-deerlodge-national-forest

United by our common understanding that Montana’s wild country is its greatest treasure;

And, that once degraded or impaired, this wild country can never be restored or replaced;

And, cognizant of Thoreau’s belief that “In wildness is the preservation of the world;”

And, schooled by Aldo Leopold who long ago warned that wilderness can only shrink and not grow;

And, keenly aware of the definition of wilderness in the Wilderness Act of 1964 as being “untrammeled by man,” where “man himself is a visitor who does not remain;”

And, fully recognizing that the Northern Rockies ecosystem is the only functioning ecosystem in the lower 48 states where all native species still reside;

And, being of one mind in our desire and determination to protect and preserve what remains of our public wildlands to the greatest extent possible;

We hereby state our intention to work together to achieve the most inclusive and comprehensive protection under the law for all remaining publicly-owned de facto wilderness in Montana.

In full affirmation of the above and, after having been unsuccessful in our earnest efforts to improve Sen. Tester’s so-called “Forest Jobs and Recreation Act,” or “S. 1470,” we must now unanimously oppose this bill.

The bases for our opposition are exhaustively catalogued in separate analyses and papers, but we submit this foundational document to concisely articulate our chief objections. They are as follows:

1. The Tester bill specifically eliminates from mandated protection large portions of the late Senator Lee Metcalf’s wildlands legacy, Congressionally designated as Wilderness Study Areas in 1977 by his farsighted bill, S. 393. By eliminating this protection, the Tester bill opens these priceless public wildlands for road building, logging, and other development.

2. The Tester bill undermines the overwhelmingly popular Clinton Roadless Rule and Obama Roadless Initiative. Over one million acres of federally-inventoried roadless wildlands protected under the Roadless Rule and the Roadless Initiative would be classified as “Timber Suitable or Open to Harvest.” (see map)

3. The Tester Bill surrenders decisions about our national forests to a handful of local bureaucrats and extraction-oriented corporations, thereby promoting fragmentation of America’s national public lands legacy into locally controlled fiefdoms.

4. The Tester bill undermines the National Environmental Policy Act by imposing unrealistic and arbitrary requirements that preclude the Forest Service from accurately assessing environmental impacts of road building, logging, habitat loss, water degradation, weed infestation, and other costs of developing public wildlands.

5. The Tester bill mandates unsustainable logging quotas regardless of environmental costs, thereby jeopardizing safeguards provided public lands by the Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act, National Forest Management Act, Wilderness Act, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act.

6. In its effort to isolate decisions to log wildlands from national attention, the Tester bill disenfranchises public lands stakeholders, by overriding legitimate science-based forest planning that involves full public information and participation. It deprives the public of our rights to be included in irreversible decisions concerning our own land.

7. The Tester bill mandates cutting at least 100,000 acres over 10 years. It dictates at least 7,000 acres be logged per year for 10 years in the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest. In recent years, the Forest Service has set its sustainable cut level for the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest at 500 acres per year. In past years, when the Forest Service was dedicated to “getting the cut out,” an average of 3,213 acres per year was logged, from 1954 to 1996, in the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest. On the Three Rivers Ranger District of the Kootenai National Forest, Tester’s bill mandates logging of 3,000 acres per year for 10 years in fragile Yaak grizzly bear habitat, already severely damaged by decades of overcutting. While logging at least 100,000 acres would be compulsory, the Tester bill contains no accompanying mandates for restoration, leaving all post-logging reclamation and forest restoration optional.

8. The Tester bill fails to address at least $100 million in costs to U.S. taxpayers that would be incurred by the Forest Service for subsidizing “below-cost” timber sales and power plants for the few specially-privileged timber corporations involved. The bill interferes with free enterprise by mandating that five favored private mills be subsidized with perpetual supplies of national forest trees, at huge economic costs to taxpayers. The bill ignores the financial realities that the United States currently face: Economic crises and a lumber “depression,” with new home construction down 70 percent and demands for lumber down 55 percent.

9. By forcing unsustainable industrial-scale logging upon our public lands, the Tester bill would irrevocably harm essential habitat of species that characterize the wild nature of the northern Rockies, such as the gray wolf, bull trout, cutthroat trout (Montana’s official state fish), otter, mountain goat, mountain sheep, elk, arctic grayling, northern goshawk, boreal owl, pileated woodpecker, ferruginous hawk, Montana vole, sage thrasher, wild bison, peregrine falcon, bald eagle, pine marten, fisher, lynx, wolverine, and grizzly bear (Montana’s official state animal).

10. The “wilderness” areas in the Tester bill are fragmented and unconnected islands of largely “rocks and ice,” with limited biological integrity and no potential for sustaining biodiversity. The minimal “wilderness” designated in the bill fails to protect different elevation habitats and their dependent species with core areas, buffer zones, and connecting biological corridors. The bill promotes numerous abuses that are clearly in violation of the 1964 Wilderness Act, including motorized access into and through “wilderness,” military aircraft landings in “wilderness,” possible “wilderness” logging, and other intrusions that violate the principles of Wilderness.

Due to these severe deficiencies, we intend to see that the Tester bill is not endorsed by Congress. Instead, we will constructively stand for a scientifically-sound, ecologically-based Wilderness Bill that preserves the greatest amount of our priceless and rapidly-vanishing public roadless wildlands in Montana.

We, the following, are conservation organizations and citizens dedicated to wildlands protection, Wilderness preservation, and the sound long-term management of our federal public lands legacy. Our coalition includes small-business owners, scientists, educators and teachers, health care practitioners, hikers and backpackers, hunters and anglers, wildlife viewers, outfitters and guides, veterans, retired Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management officials, ranchers and farmers, craftspersons, and community leaders – all stakeholders committed to America’s public wildlands legacy.

Note: Individual citizen supporters are encouraged to sign this version of the sign on letter.

Alliance for the Wild Rockies (MT)
Big Wild Advocates (MT)
Buffalo Field Campaign (MT)
Conservation Congress (MT)
Deerlodge Forest Defense Fund (MT)
Friends of the Bitterroot (MT)
Friends of the Rattlesnake (MT)
Friends of the Wild Swan (MT)
Montana Rivers (MT)
Swan View Coalition (MT)
Western Montana Mycological Association (MT)
Western Watersheds Project (MT)
Wilderness Watch (MT)
WildWest Institute (MT)
Yellowstone Buffalo Foundation (MT)
Allegheny Defense Project (PA)
Bark (OR)
Big Wildlife (OR)
Biodiversity Conservation Alliance (WY)
Buckeye Forest Council (OH)
Caney Fork Headwaters Association (TN)
Cascadia Wildlands (OR)
Center for Biological Diversity (AZ)
Center for Sustainable Living (IN)
Citizens for Better Forestry (CA)
Clearwater Biodiversity Project (ID)
Cumberland Countians for Peace & Justice (TN)
Dogwood Alliance (NC)
EcoLaw Massachusetts (MA)
Ecosystem Advocates (OR)
Environmental Action Committee of West Marin (CA)
Environmental Protection Information Center (CA)
Green Press Initiative (MI)
Friends of Bell Smith Springs (IL)
Friends of the Breitenbush Cascades (OR)
Friends of the Clearwater (ID)
Heartwood (IN)
Hells Canyon Preservation Council (OR)
John Muir Project (CA)
Kentucky Heartwood (CA)
Klamath Forest Alliance (CA)
League of Wilderness Defenders (OR)
Native Forest Council (OR)
Network for Environmental & Economic Responsibility, United Church of Christ (TN)
Protect Arkansas Wilderness! (AR)
Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) (DC)
RESTORE the North Woods (ME)
Save America’s Forests (DC)
Selkirk Conservation Alliance (ID)
Umpqua Watersheds (OR)
Utah Environmental Congress (UT)
Western Lands Project (WA)
WildEarth Guardians (NM)
WildSouth (NC)

Tags

Comment By Murphy, 2-25-10

Tester's bill actually more like one million acres of roadless much of it on the BHDL.

http://www.wildrockiesalliance.org/news/2009/080909billMSLA.shtml

Comment By Murphy, 2-25-10

actually releases around 1 million roadless acres

Comment By Murphy, 2-26-10

Wilderness Lost: Former MWA Board on Tester Logging Bill
Submitted by Bryan Buchan on 2-18-2010 – 5:29 pmCommentsFormer MWA Board on Tester Logging Bill:

“It is with a heavy heart we are compelled to oppose the organization we once served as Council members and officers.”

February 17, 2010

Wilderness Lost

We, the undersigned former Council members and officers of the Montana Wilderness Association, respectfully urge Senator Tester to modify the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act of 2009 to rectify the problems outlined by the Undersecretary of Agriculture as well as the Last Best Chance Wildlands Campaign. We cannot support the legislation as now written. We diverge from MWA here because we believe that the bill degrades both the quantity and quality of some of America’s most cherished wildlands in Montana. We encourage consideration of the issues we have outlined below that would be necessary in order for us to support it.

We endorse the 10-point position paper, Keeping It Wild! In Defense of America’s Public Wildlands, which has been submitted by the Last Best Place Wildlands Campaign.

The bill legislates the net loss of hundreds of thousands of roadless area acres, including S-393 Wilderness Study Areas designated in 1977 by the late Senator Lee Metcalf. This will create widespread environmental damage and the loss of an irreplaceable legacy for which future generations will, quite correctly, hold ours accountable. Also, the bills’ Congressional mandate for timber cut levels sets a dangerous precedent. Resulting below-cost timber sales will cost taxpayers over $100 million. And proposed new Wilderness Areas are small, often disjointed, primarily “rock and ice” parcels that would fail to protect fragile wildland and wildlife ecosystems and corridors.

To make matters worse, the bill includes special provisions for new “Wilderness” units that defy both the intent and letter of the Wilderness Act, and the spirit of Wilderness that so many Americans believe is a vital and wondrous part of this great nation’s heritage. Motor Vehicles, including helicopters, simply have no place in designated Wilderness. Yes, we need more Wilderness – lots of it – but we want it to be real Wilderness!

The bill also codifies secretive negotiated agreements – such as the Beaverhead-Deerlodge – that excluded many individuals and groups who’ve long been involved in the public process. This, and similar agreements, have been sealed by MWA and others over the objections of excluded organizations and individuals, of whom most live and work close to the land and know the compromised areas intimately.

It is with a heavy heart that we are compelled to oppose the organization that we once served as Council members and officers. Most of Montana’s undeveloped wilds are long gone, and we cannot afford to lose big chunks of what remains. We believe that in recent years, the Montana Wilderness Association [MWA] has clearly compromised its long-held wildland protection mission and vigilant advocacy. We know many current and former MWA members who agree. In fact, many conservationists in the region are convinced that, quite simply, MWA has lost its way. We are among those people.

In summary, this bill will irreparably damage Montana’s dwindling public wildland legacy. It will salt the gaping social wounds created by MWA’s recent actions. It degrades the Wilderness Act of 1964 with provisions that damage both Wilderness and the Wilderness Idea. And it’s a bad deal for future generations of Montanans who will need wild country more than ever in an increasingly crowded and uncertain future.

Lou Bruno (past President) – East Glacier
Joan Montagne (past President) – Bozeman
Elaine Snyder (past President) – Kalispell
Dan Heinz (past Vice-President) – Reno, NV
Loren Kreck (past Vice-President) – Columbia Falls
Paul Edwards (past Chairman, Wilderness Committee) – Helena
Larry Campbell – Darby
Susan Colvin – Great Falls
Randall Gloege – Billings
Keith Hammer – Kalispell
Steve Kelly – Bozeman
Lance Olsen – Missoula
Bob Oset – Hamilton
Paul Richards – Boulder
Ross Titus – Big Fork
George Wuerthner – Helena/Livingston
Janet Zimmerman – Pony

http://blog.pdamerica.org/2010/02/wilderness-lost-former-mwa-board-on-tester-logging-bill/

Comment By Murphy, 2-26-10

The bill also codifies secretive negotiated agreements – such as the Beaverhead-Deerlodge – that excluded many individuals and groups who’ve long been involved in the public process. This, and similar agreements, have been sealed by MWA and others over the objections of excluded organizations and individuals, of whom most live and work close to the land and know the compromised areas intimately.

ring a bell?

Comment By jim, 2-26-10

dear murphy,
if I had 2 days to wade through your screed I would. As I don't, I'll just say this: Thank god for Pat Williams and Jon Tester.

Comment By Murphy, 2-26-10

Afraid to read the truth

Willfully ignorant anyone?

Comment By Murphy, 2-26-10

Thank god for Paul Richards, Bryan Buchan and others who stand in the name of truth and justice.

Comment By Murphy, 2-26-10

By jim, 2-17-10

"Gotta agree with Buttrot. Nothing but NREPA will be good enough for these folks. They're the ones responsible for stagnant wilderness bills, not other groups."

Jim if you think NREPA is so lopsided then if you have any honesty left in you, you would have to realize tetser's logging bill is just as lopsided in the other direction.

Come on Jim admit it.

BTW that's quite a response to the hundreds of points brought up in the articles I posted. Way to quell the opposition jim.

Comment By Murphy, 2-26-10

I guess reality does'nt matter to these folks as long as they believe their god is on their side.

Comment By Murphy, 2-26-10

Manifest destiny anyone?

Comment By Murphy, 2-26-10

elsie said on: February 25, 2010, 12:18 pm
Elsie is the account name of Larry Campbell.
I will credit Daphne for coming out of the shadows and into a public discussion about Senator Tester's bill. Most of the select group of primary supporters do not come out in public here in Montana, at least under their given names.
However, I see that Daphne uses the same disfunctional ad-hominem approach as most of the second team supporters (and even Senator Tester himself) who have entered the public discussion. 'Old school', 'blinded by ideology', 'extreme', 'fringe' are terms that do not shed light on the actual content or effects of the Bill.
Among the crowd of critics dismissed with these terms are the Undersecretary of Agriculture, a past Chief of the Forest Service as well as several Forest Supervisors, along with many well-behaved, well-meaning people, including many past officers and board memebers of MWA, who are dedicated to protecting Montana's irreplaceable wildlands.
The fact is the Bill releases many more areas from wildland protections than it protects. This belies the "Wilderness" name MWA claims. In fact many Montanans will lose the good hunting, fishing and quiet recreation they have become accustomed to in many wildland areas due to mandated permanent motorized wreckcreation areas.
How will increased access to public timber provide forest jobs when there is an existing glut of sold, but unlogged timber and even more timber sales that are ready for bids but going unsold? This political ploy is a tease to timber workers who might get their hopes up (but who are probably smart enough to see through the ploy). Meanwhile forest restoration jobs could go forward, independent of the timber industry which has stalled out, as it is prone to do, because of market conditions, which will probably be slow to recover.
There are so many factual criticisms of the bill that go unanswered because of the attention given to (some of) the messengers instead of their message. Why do you suppose that is? Is it just pique and sophmoric name calling? Or is it a tactic to draw attention away from the damaging content and implications of an ill-advised bill?

Comment By Murphy, 2-26-10

posted in missoulian opinion page feb 26, 2010

Comment By Fotoware, 2-26-10

Once again, I am not in favor of trading the potential for "illegal logging" for designated Wilderness. Judges cannot take away Wilderness but, they surely WILL take away "illegal logging", leaving Americans with a one-sided deal that only makes a tiny few backpackers happy, and doesn't supply any jobs or forest restoration. It's a clever try to grab more Wilderness but, I'm seeing through this "bait and switch" effort.

Comment By Sarah Red-Laird, 2-26-10

Thank you Pat,

You bring up a great point that while high emotions, strong opinions, and hard heads are often times intertwined with Montana politics, there is no need for the lack of civility. While facebook and online newspaper blogs give everyone the chance to state their opinions, it seems as though it has taken away from the humility that a face to face conversation has. Hate only breeds hate, and I feel that some of these out-of-control virtual tongue lashings have taken away from the collaborative process that this bill was born from and still strives to achieve. Tracy Stone-Manning has invited anyone who has any suggestions for this bill to come to Tester's Missoula office and sit down with her. Tester is your employee... this bill is for you. If you don't like it, I suggest you come out of the "closed door room" where you sit with your computer and go and talk person to person, face to face with Tracy or Jon. Civilly.

Comment By Ben Smith, 2-26-10

Effective tactics Murphy.. everyone thinks your very sane and credible now..

Comment By Murphy, 2-26-10

"There are so many factual criticisms of the bill that go unanswered because of the attention given to (some of) the messengers instead of their message."^^^

"As an afterthought, the deal cynically “protects” a mere 10 percent of our priceless public wildlands legacy.

As a result, people get upset."

Comment By Murphy, 2-26-10

2. The Tester bill undermines the overwhelmingly popular Clinton Roadless Rule and Obama Roadless Initiative. Over one million acres of federally-inventoried roadless wildlands protected under the Roadless Rule and the Roadless Initiative would be classified as “Timber Suitable or Open to Harvest.” (see map)

one of my major gripes about the bill.

Whats your response to this?

and dont tell me they just intend to prune understory or thin in these old growth forests.

Comment By Mike, 2-27-10

The Obama adminstration will be defending the Roadless rule March 10th. This is the first time this rule will be *defended* by the federal government. The Bush admin tried to take it down for eight years.

Root like heck for the decision to be favorable and take a pass on the poisonous Tester bill. I dislike saying that because I do like Tester. I think his heart is in the right place. However, his bill just sets a bad precedent for public lands.

Comment By Fotoware, 2-28-10

So, what do we do when these "de facto Wilderness" areas die a horrible death from catastrophic wildfire? Do we really need "protected snag patches"? Originally, Roadless Areas were simply just that, areas open to management without installing roads. I'm just fine with keeping them "roadless", as most Roadless Areas really don't have that much in the way of timber that should be available to be thinned. If they are worthy of being "Wilderness", and they meet the Wilderness Act, I'm not against them being protected. Do you know what those guidelines are?!?....I do.

Comment By the real mike, 2-28-10

Good! We have a breakthrough! We agree that the Clinton roadless protections, for all the roadless lands in every state, will be fully reinstated and vigorously enforced and we'll deal with wilderness as a separate issue later. In the meantime, we will table the Tester Trojan Horse Bill until the reinstatement of the Clinton roadless protections is complete, just as Clinton had it in January of 2001. I'm happy; let's shake on it.

Comment By Fotoware, 2-28-10

Since Clinton's Roadless Rule did NOT follow established environmental law, in a truly objective court, it would be struck down. It did NOT follow NEPA so, it should not be in force. I also think that going back to 2001 would be a BIG mistake. We know a LOT more about what hasn't worked for Roadless Areas during the last 9 years.

This issue needs to be re-visited, as there are many of these "roadless" areas that do indeed have roads in them. Those acres need to be filtered out and put into the proper categories. Timber management activities should be allowed, but tightly constrained with the ultimate desire being that no roads will ever be built and the projects are truly needed for ecosystem improvement. That would mean that such projects would be quite costly but, that should be the framework that Roadless Areas live by. Many LMP's still count on a sustainable amount of timber coming from such areas.

Comment By Murphy, 2-28-10

Delay wilderness and shriek about catastrophic wildifres, so more roads can be built and we have excuses to penetrate our last wild forests. Reward motorized intrusions by keeping the illegal orv roads there and then placing the areas in the proper "categories"

"This issue needs to be re-visited, as there are many of these "roadless" areas that do indeed have roads in them. Those acres need to be filtered out and put into the proper categories. Timber management activities should be allowed, but tightly constrained with the ultimate desire being that no roads will ever be built and the projects are truly needed for ecosystem improvement."

Last time I checked these forests were doing fine for thousands of years without "timber management activities"

I really dont like your suggestions, I prefer along with 80+% of americans the clinton roadless rule.

Comment By Dave Skinner, 2-28-10

Murph, you are really special.
Just fine is not 600,000 acres a year gone to bugs and fire in Montana since 2001. 2008 and 2009 infestations of 2.7 million acres of new beetle kill in Montana is not "doing fine." It is a travesty, a disaster, all of which could have been avoided had eco-litigants not gathered de facto control through rulings by pet judges using garbage legislation.
Had forestry not come to a standstill for the last 20 years, and had the eco-freaks focused on the environment rather than on political control, the environmental result would have been much better. That much is becoming glaringly obvious as entire basins go from green to brown, red and black.
The Big Picture tells the truth, no matter the sum total of the torrent of wordy lies you have showered upon the public. Go ahead, stand in front of a burnt jackpot and say, oh, this is good, this is NATURAL.
Your rhetorical skills are not going to save you...not any more.

Comment By Matthew Koehler, 2-28-10

I'm hoping that former Congressman Pat Williams will comment on the following items directly related to his guest column.

The first item is a letter to the editor from Jack de Golia, the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest's public affairs officer from 1989 to 2008. The Beaverhead Partnership Strategy, which makes up a large chunk of the FJRA, was originally developed by the Montana Wilderness Association, National Wildlife Federation and five timber mills behind closed doors during the period of December 2005 until it was released to the public in mid-April 2006. 

Mr. de Golia has a much different take on the Beaverhead Partnership's proposal and process than what Mr. Williams has stated above, so I'd like Mr. Williams to comment on these differences. One would assume that Mr. de Golia's position on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge NF from 1989 to 2008 might give him a unique, insider's perspective on the Partnership's actual process and proposal. Specially, I wonder if Mr. Williams would claim that Mr. de Golia's account of the Partnership's process is "simply a violation of fact?"

Background on the Forest Service, forest partnership
By Jack de Golia - 02/23/2010

Source: http://www.mtstandard.com/articles/2010/02/24/opinion/hjijjhhghhiehf.txt

Sunday's online article by Standard State Bureau reporter Jennifer McKee on Sen. Jon Tester's wilderness/timber bill for the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest was very accurate and an exceptionally good summary of the Beaverhead Partnership, except for one phrase: "The Forest Service accepted the plan." The Forest Service accepted the Partnership proposal as it accepted any comment from the public. It gleaned a few ideas from it. But no, the Forest Service did not adopt the Partnership's wilderness/timber proposals. That's why the Partnership went to Tester to try to legislate the idea. The story goes on to say that the eventual forest plan didn't satisfy the Partnership group.

The unfortunate outcome of the Partnership was to cast doubt on the integrity of the forest planning work that people had felt was open until about 2006. The Partnership's political shenanigans then put the forest plan on hold for a time and it never regained public trust.

Now Tester wants special legislation for decisions that should be left to forest managers. Does this mean we'll get special laws for each national forest? If we do, it's the end of "national" forests — they'll become legislated fiefdoms of the local congressional delegation. That's not a good outcome. And mandating a cut isn't good forest management either.

The Partnership group was on to something, but drew up their drawbridge too soon, before bringing in the Mike McGinleys and Matthew Koehlers and others who were definitely left out.

Then the Partnership sold their idea like it was the best thing since sliced bread and they did that very effectively.

But, putting their plan into law is not the right thing to do. Let the forest planning process work. Tester should not be monkeying with that.

Jack de Golia
(Editor's note: Jack de Golia, now retired, was public affairs officer for the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest from 1989 to 2008.)

-----------------

The next item I'd like Mr. Williams to comment on is the statement from the Obama Administration's Under Secretary of Natural Resources and Environment, Harris Sherman, from the US Senate's hearing on the FJRA last December.

You'll notice that Senator Bingaman asked Under Secretary Sherman directly about the Beaverhead Partnership's process, and Under Secretary Sherman responded that the Forest Service wasn't included in the Stakeholder's "collaborative" process. So again, Sherman has a much different take on the Beaverhead Partnership's process than what Mr. Williams has stated above, so I'd like Mr. Williams to comment on these differences. Again, specially, I wonder if Mr. Williams would claim that Under Secretary Sherman's account of the Partnership's process is "simply a violation of fact?"

Sherman also goes into great details expressing the Forest Service and Obama Administration's significant concerns with the FJRA, so I'd like Mr. Williams to comment on these concerns also, especially as they relate to mandated logging, NEPA/NFMA provisions and substantial budgetary implications to the Forest Service and US taxpayers.

After all, at this point, there is a bill in Congress and what's actually written in the bill should be much more important to people than how poor or how great the "collaborative" process which birthed these proposals.

Thanks in advance for your comments to these items Mr. Williams.

From Harris Sherman, the Obama Administration's Under Secretary of Natural Resources and Environment:

"The levels of mechanical treatment that are called for in S1470 are likely unachievable and perhaps unsustainable."

"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 met 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."

Senator Bingaman: "Let me ask Secretary Sherman, first this is with regards to S1470. I believe you stated in testimony, 'The levels of mechanical treatment that are called for in S1470 are likely unachievable and perhaps unsustainable.' I guess that raises the question in my mind as to whether the Forest Service was involved in the discussions, the collaborative discussions that lead to this legislation that Senator Tester and Senator Baucus have put forward here. Did the Forest Service discuss sustainability and achievability with the various stakeholders as part of those discussions? Are you aware of what the history of that is?"

Under Secretary Sherman: "My understanding is that the regional and local offices of the Forest Service did not have, were not participants, in the stakeholder process."

Comment By Fotoware, 2-28-10

Regardless of how popular a Rule is, if it is illegal, it's against our laws. The courts should embrace the law instead of what is "popular". I hear that Obama is ready to go forward with his OWN rule, which WILL follow proper NEPA rules and laws. I say, the SOONER the BETTER! We'll need "hard looks" at every possible "Alternative" and comprehensive cumulative effects analysis of every potential environmental outcome. Let's do it RIGHT!

Sorry that your reading comprehension is so bad, Murph. WHERE did I say I wanted more roads?!? You simply don't want to discuss the scientific facts and the cruel realization that our forests are, indeed, disappearing at a horrific rate. I think that Obama will be convinced that active management is the way to save our forests....but not before we lose more of the old growth we all want to save. Stop being closed-minded eco-dittoheads and open your minds to a truly scientifically-progressive way to save and restore our forests.

We should also have a law against making dead and dying forests into designated Wilderness Areas......(OOPS, there ALREADY IS!!)

Regarding Matt... I'd have to agree with your slant on it that the Forest Service wasn't consulted or collaborated with. From what I can see, from my decades in the Agency, is that the USFS is more than happy to see Tester fail if he isn't going to learn the laws and the process before tossing them aside. I'd bet that the USFS isn't going to spend a dime on this until the bill passes. After that, they spend the minimum amount required in advance of inevitable litigation. Tester's Bill has no chance of making it through court, especially when the Forest Service doesn't even support it. I enjoyed reading that, Matt.

Comment By the real mike, 2-28-10

Okay, everybody, let me ask you to take a look at part of the exchange that happened earlier today on this topic.

"Fotoware: I'm just fine with keeping them "roadless", as most Roadless Areas really don't have that much in the way of timber that should be available to be thinned. If they are worthy of being "Wilderness", and they meet the Wilderness Act, I'm not against them being protected.

the real mike: Good! We have a breakthrough! We agree that the Clinton roadless protections, for all the roadless lands in every state, will be fully reinstated and vigorously enforced and we'll deal with wilderness as a separate issue later. In the meantime, we will table the Tester Trojan Horse Bill until the reinstatement of the Clinton roadless protections is complete, just as Clinton had it in January of 2001. I'm happy; let's shake on it.

Fotoware: Since Clinton's Roadless Rule did NOT follow established environmental law, in a truly objective court, it would be struck down. It did NOT follow NEPA so, it should not be in force. I also think that going back to 2001 would be a BIG mistake. We know a LOT more about what hasn't worked for Roadless Areas during the last 9 years... This issue needs to be re-visited, as there are many of these "roadless" areas that do indeed have roads in them. Those acres need to be filtered out and put into the proper categories. Timber management activities should be allowed..."

Dearest Fotoware, you're so full it we can smell you a mile away.

Comment By Fotoware, 2-28-10

Just do it right, as the law says to do it, and I will be happy. I'll HAVE to be happy because that is how the process works. Congress has shown that they cannot overturn the conflicting rules, laws and policies that control what happens in our forests. Shouldn't areas with current roads in them not be designated as "Roadless"? (Of course, I agree that the definition of "road" be as refined as possible to eliminate certain possible right-wing loopholes) You are using my quotes out of context, Murph. You know, that only diminishes your credibility, as most people here can read quite well what I said. It's right up there!! ^^^^^^

Established environmental law says we must jump through the hoops in any action that substantially impacts the environment. I tend to think that setting aside 58 million acres of land should be analyzed, as law says it must. Once again, I never said I was in favor of more roads. I am also in favor of not re-opening most bad and/or not necessary roads. If you think I like energy development, you're very wrong. I also see that you have added the mandatory insult to your unimaginative posting of innuendo.

Comment By Fotoware, 2-28-10

Oops...sorry Murph....that should have been "the real mike"

Comment By Fotoware, 2-28-10

AND, little do people know that, yes there WERE Roadless protections in place before Clinton. Most of them, at the time, had no resources worth extracting. Timber salvage could occur but, the old style of salvage was not a good thing. Temporary roads could be built at the discretion of the District Ranger. I was happy to see the authority for that go up to Regional Forester. It is currently in the hands of the Chief, right now, and on hold for a limited time. Roadless Areas were created to keep them safe from roadbuilding. We still are responsible for good stewardship in those areas, without the use of roads. Sure, that limits management options but, that's the way it is, and should be. If its not economical, then that's the way that is, too. If it needs to get done, it'll get subsidized (but that's a long longshot and WAY off in the future).

Right now, it looks like people want to eliminate both foresters AND forestry from the forests. Someday, panic will set in and our advice will be begged for. We'll be ready, if we're still alive. I'm retired and have no ties to anyone. I just love the forests, I live in the forests and I've seen the ongoing disaster.

Comment By the real mike, 2-28-10

No, I don't want to eliminate foresters. Neither do I want to eliminate car salesmen; I'm just really tired of being given a song and dance and sold a lemon.

Comment By mick, 2-28-10

Why is Pat trying to shine a turd?

Comment By Murphy, 2-28-10

Skinner the fact that you claim I "shower the public with wordy lies" after you post an absolute lunatic rant of that caliber is just utterly bogus. I've never seen someone embelish so much from one statement about everything from my views on forestry to a condemnation of all the ills in the MT woods.

Wow skin skin......just WOW

and you probally think you really told me this time...LMAO

Alas at no great loss I will follow in the footsteps of Mr. Twister

"Let's never post again"

Comment By Murphy, 2-28-10

"Right now, it looks like people want to eliminate both foresters AND forestry from the forests. Someday, panic will set in and our advice will be begged for. We'll be ready, if we're still alive. I'm retired and have no ties to anyone. I just love the forests, I live in the forests and I've seen the ongoing disaster."

Fotoware-By people who support roadless areas you gather this?

you think anyone who suports roadless wants to eliminate all forestry?

It mystifies how you and skin skin gathered that from support for the roadless rule.

i guess i'll just always have to wonder..

Comment By Murphy, 2-28-10

One last thing

it's rather eye catching that tester's bill deals exclusively with the national forests with large roadless acreage.

BHDL being #1 in MT with over 1.8 million roadless acres

while the kootenai and lolo are in the top 5 in MT

hmm I wonder why that is?

Comment By Fotoware, 3-01-10

Sorry, Murph, but recent articles out there claim that wildfires are good and "natural" and welcome, in the face of vast expanses of dead trees mixed in with the surviving biodiversity that will be lost when the next inevitable fire reduces the landscape to rock and ash. Have you seen when entire trees are consumed, from the tip-top of the tree down to the tips of its roots. The articles conclude that foresters and forestry aren't needed and that the answer to environmental salvation is to just do nothing at all. Every anti-forestry person, like Chad Hanson, is also pro-Roadless. Preservation, by definition, does not include restoration.

Comment By Pronghorn, 3-01-10

TJW, George Vincent, Matthew K. and perhaps others have civilly raised substantive questions begging for substantive answers...where are the answers? Mr. Williams, we are still waiting.

I heard you speak once years ago about wilderness and it honestly brought tears to my eyes--you talked about Democracy and how wilderness is the thread that stitches together our diverse components into one unified nation; it was a beautiful and moving image. But now, given your support for this anti-wilderness, anti-national public lands bill, I believe those were just pretty words.

Here's my question for you, offered respectfully: How can a wilderness proponent support a bill that sets a precedent allowing motorized grazing in designated wilderness? A bill that redefines wilderness and degrades the National Wilderness Preservation System to something less than the inspired national vision created by Howard Zahniser and other great and visionary thinkers and doers of that era? At the time that you spoke those inspirational words, I counted you among them, but no more.

Comment By stuart lewin, 3-01-10

I agree with Pat that civility and facts are where it is at. I do not agree with his failure to embrace NREPA or his belief in what Tester has done, and I do not believe that the most important thing lost in the debate is civility and fact. Rather it is focus: a wild forest not the human political process to balance human differing views of uses of the forests must be our focus.

In thirty two years Pat Williams moved a long way from his Butte roots to embrace a value for living wilderness. In my opinion he is still held back by his political experience as great as that may be.

His experiences places him well, however, to help us all transition to a better understanding of our shortcomings as humans. So that we might build on our strength to survive in better balance with the rest on the Natural World rather than compromising away what we know we need to hold dear so that we can smile at each other. What say you Pat? Are you still up to the challenge? Can you help us all (and Senator Tester) find a better direction, a better method of managing ourselves?

Stuart Lewin who still thinks the forest can move down the mountains to the plains === (and what he has learned over time) to be met by tall grasses and perhaps a sun tower or two.

Comment By janet zimmerman, 3-01-10

wow. I am thrilled to see so much interest in wilderness! And Mr. Murf, whoever you are, is really taking up the role of David here.

Pat Williams is a person hero of mine. He worked closely with MWA and many others to craft W legislation when it was dangerous to his career to take this stand and I will always be grateful for him for keeping the issue alive in a way that NONE of our other legislators have.

But I am also very sad to find myself on the other side of the fence here. I have decided to drop the "secrecy" element of my argument against the Tester Bill. I do want to go on record as saying that none of my requests for maps, info or being a part of the process were ever honored by MWA staff even though they PROMISED to send me the materials/allow me in the loop. Only when the bill was submitted did I get to see what was decided.

I stood by and watched for almost a year, while eager wilderness supporters in my county were lobbied by feel-good emmisarries from the Tester camp into supporting this bill as the 'best ever' (NOT) W bill with no real information (MAPS, LANGUAGE) presented to them.

Omitting WSA acreage in the Tester bill is a step back. I am opposed to giving up WSA acreage. I realize that many citizens who worked on this are now dead. And many of the living have conveniently forgotten.

I was a two term MWA council member in the 1990s, I lobbied for the last Pat Williams bill in D.C. in '93. CArryng a petition signed by 500 supporters of wilderness in the TRoots, we were able to add 20,000 acres to this valuable area. Tester's bill has 5,000 token acres. I guess I should be grateful.

I do support the suggestions made by those urging a more cordial dialogue on this issue so all W supporters can continue the work... it's far from over and we need all of us.

I plan to write a personal letter to Pat Williams and ask him to consider that there may be more going on here than what meets the eye.

Comment By Cold Smoke, 3-01-10

I'd say Murphy has too much free time on his hands.

Comment By Matthew Koehler, 3-02-10

Hello, I too am hoping that former Congressman Williams will get an opportunity to address and comment on the quite civil and respectfully-submitted substantive questions raised above from myself and other NewWest.net readers. Thank you.

Comment By Matthew Koehler, 3-02-10

I'd also like to respectfully ask the Montana Wilderness Association's John Gatchell or Gabriel Furshong to respond to the substantive concerns with major aspects of the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act brought up by The Wilderness Society.

I will paste below major portions of the official testimony The Wilderness Society submitted to the US Senate's Energy and Natural Resources Committee. As Mr. Gatchell and Mr. Furshong are well aware, The Wilderness Society is listed as a supporter of FJRA (see http://www.montanaforests.org/about).

What's particularly interesting is that when you read major portions of the official testimony from The Wilderness Society you'll notice that when it comes to substantive issues contained within the actual bill, such as the mandated logging and NEPA provisions within FJRA, the concerns expressed by The Wilderness Society are nearly identical to the concerns expressed by a host of former Montana Wilderness Association leaders, by members of the Last Best Place Wildlands Campaign (including some of America's living Wilderness legends), by groups such as the Sierra Club, Defenders of Wildlife, Center for Biological Diversity and even by the Obama Administration and the US Forest Service's own leadership.

Specifically, The Wilderness Society's said: "We oppose Congressionally mandated treatment levels in the bill because they, a) neglect the root causes of the problems this bill is intended to address, b) set an adverse national precedent, c) create unreasonably high expectations, d) fail to provide the agency the resources it needs to do its job, and e) most important, we do not believe this approach will work on the ground. "

Also, The Wilderness Society said: "based on consultation with NEPA experts, we do have concerns that some of the specific language in this section of S. 1470 could effectively undermine the application of NEPA and its implementing regulations."

These are hardly insignificant or trivial concerns.

The fact of the matter is that some of the environmental organization supporters of Senator Tester's bill are expressing the same exact concerns as the environmental organization opponents of Tester's bill.

And The Wilderness Society isn't the only supporter expressing these serious concerns. For example, the Great Yellowstone Coalition's official testimony includes strong concerns about the NEPA provisions in the FJRA. And even the president of the Lewis and Clark Chapter of Trout Unlimited from Sheridan, MT has sent Senator Tester a letter that details seven major concerns this TU Chapter has with the FJRA.

It's important for the public to understand that while Senator Tester has made some proposed changes to the bill, none of the proposed changes deal at all with the substantial concerns raised by bill supporters and opponents alike regarding the logging mandates or the NEPA provisions.

I'm providing this information in the spirit of a more informed and focused discussion about what's actually in the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act and what it would actually do, if passed. I can't help but wonder how the whole debate about the FJRA would be different if more of the general public clearly understood that many of the same exact concerns expressed by people and groups labeled as "bill opponents" were the same exact concerns expressed by "bill supporters." Hopefully in the weeks ahead, more of this information can be made public through various media outlets.

In the meantime, in the spirit of an open and honest discussion, I and other NewWest.net readers greatly look forward to the Montana Wilderness Association's John Gatchell or Gabriel Furshong responding to these substantive concerns with major aspects of the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act brought up by The Wilderness Society, a bill supporter. Thank you.

-----------------

Below are some more snips from The Wilderness Society's Statement to the US Senate's Energy and Natural Resources Committee concerning: S.1470 - Forest Jobs and Recreation Act of 2009

RE: Timber Supply Predictability
The Wilderness Society has concerns over S.1470's provision that calls for a mandatory number of acres to be mechanically treated on the Beaverhead and Kootenai National Forests. The Society strongly endorses the overall goals of the bill to provide a more predictable supply of timber to mills, and we have been quite vocal in stating that Montana needs a viable, diverse wood products manufacturing infrastructure to meet our forest restoration and fuel reduction goals. The question is how to best meet the goal of a more predictable supply while achieving restoration goals. We oppose Congressionally mandated treatment levels in the bill because they, a) neglect the root causes of the problems this bill is intended to address, b) set an adverse national precedent, c) create unreasonably high expectations, d) fail to provide the agency the resources it needs to do its job, and e) most important, we do not believe this approach will work on the ground.

While the Blackfoot-Clearwater Stewardship proposal was being crafted we deliberately avoided mandatory mechanical treatment language because we, and our partners, believe strongly that a strategy based on inclusive, diverse, pre-NEPA collaboration, adequate funding and a clear Congressional and agency commitment to ecological restoration will produce far greater positive results on the ground.

While we were crafting the BCSP proposal, TWS conducted a review of collaborative efforts between conservation and timber interests throughout the West. The collaborative efforts that successfully completed projects had in common strong pre-NEPA collaboration and adequate funding. In examples where mandatory targets were created, they were never met, even in cases where adequate funding was provided.

RE: The Montana Forest Restoration Committee and Principles
The Wilderness Society is engaged in a number of collaborative forest restoration efforts around the country and we believe that the Montana Forest Restoration Committee (MFRC) offers a promising model that we should consider as we work together to refine and advance S. 1470. The MFRC, founded in early 2007, has developed 13 restoration principles that define a "zone of agreement" regarding the restoration of national forest lands in Montana. The Wilderness Society has played a leadership role in this effort from its inception to the present day and these principles, coupled with pre-NEPA collaboration and consistent agency engagement, have resulted in strong consensus and significant progress regarding the development of on the ground restoration work on the Lolo, Helena and Bitterroot National Forests in just two short years. Earlier this year, the first project to go through NEPA analysis to a decision document under the MFRC principles was developed in the Blackfoot-Clearwater Valley without any appeals or litigation.

We believe strongly that the MFRC principles, highlighted below, coupled with adequate funding and diverse, inclusive, pre-NEPA collaboration at the project level can provide a viable model for forest restoration in Montana, including areas affected by this bill on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge and Kootenai National Forests.

Comments on Specific Provisions of S. 1470
In addition to the issues listed below, there are issues raised by USDA that carry national implications for the management of the National Forest System that should be reviewed and modified by the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources when it reports S. 1470 to the U.S. Senate.

RE: S. 1470's NEPA provisions in Section 102(2)(b)(6)
While the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act includes important language requiring full compliance with NEPA and its implementing regulations, it also has provisions constraining how NEPA will be applied to projects catalyzed by other requirements in this bill. We support many of the goals of S. 1470's NEPA provisions, such as encouraging more comprehensive environmental analysis at a landscape scale, engagement of local multi-stakeholder advisory groups, more efficient NEPA reviews, and the continued implementation of project components that have not been challenged or enjoined. However, based on consultation with NEPA experts, we do have concerns that some of the specific language in this section of S. 1470 could effectively undermine the application of NEPA and its implementing regulations.

We have three major concerns with these provisions:

First, current bill language would restrict project alteration and supplemental NEPA analysis, if needed, because of unexpected, changed circumstances, major unanticipated changes in the project or monitoring results that should trigger changes through adaptive management. We believe the bill's requirements for a single EIS per large landscape project allowing supplemental NEPA review only "if based on project monitoring and determination that this would better meet the Act's purpose" is inconsistent with longstanding CEQ guidance.

Second, existing NEPA provisions could complicate the Forest Service's full consideration of all alternatives, including the no action alternative, given that S. 1470 compels the agency to issue the ambitious timeline of at least one Record of Decision per year.

Third, existing language lacks clarity regarding the implementation of projects that do not comply with applicable law (or implementing regulations) as their legal deficiencies are remedied. While the bill does not have language explicitly limiting appeals or litigation, it does state that projects, "will be implemented following completion of EIS/ROD" and then states that if modified, the original project, "shall continue until the modification is approved by US District Court or Secretary;"

Our NEPA concerns are amplified when one considers the woefully inadequate agency funding and staffing levels relative to the levels needed to effectively carry out the project design, data collection, analysis, public engagement, and other tasks related to NEPA. While this is a larger National Forest System problem and it is not S. 1470's intent to remedy this (or to appropriate new, dedicated funding), this on the ground reality must be considered when evaluating S. 1470's NEPA provisions.

RE: Additional Questions and Components for Review
If we hope to complete these forest restoration needs, we believe we must take the following steps:

* Ensure adequate funding for Forest Service restoration programs in Montana and nationally;

* Sustain a right-sized timber industry infrastructure adequate to carry out much-needed forest restoration activities;

* Protect the integrity of all existing laws and regulation including the National Environmental Policy Act, Endangered Species Act, National Forest Management Act, and others;

* Examine other forest restoration models to ensure the final version of S. 1470 is modeled after approaches that have worked on the ground while avoiding the pitfalls of failed attempts at forest management.

* Consider the impact of S. 1470's provisions on other collaborative efforts under development or those that could arise in the future, given the growing interest in tackling forest protection, logging, restoration issues outside of the regular national forest planning process and the tendency to incorporate approaches already ratified by Congress.

Comment By Fotoware, 3-02-10

We've already seen examples of where well-funded collaboration has failed. The Quincy Library Group, a Clinton-Era "experiment", has utterly failed in the face of litigators who refuse to come to the table, preferring to go to court to "talk". Surely, there will be those who will never come to any consensus about how to manage our forests. Luckily, a bill is in the works to make Federal litigation less profitable and more visible. The public has to tell their lawmakers that they do not want frivilous lawsuits that hurt our forests far more than any thinning project could ever do.

Comment By janet zimmerman, 3-02-10

I'm sorry that I have to state the obvious... this frivolous lawsuit thing... dear fotoware person, what do you mean? A frivolous lawsuit does NOT WIN IN COURT. Lawsuits that raise substantive issues about natural resource policy decisions do "win" in a court of law... it is our right as citizens to do this. (It's that pesky constitution thingie.)



Are you saying that lawsuits that are successful in addressing natural resources policy decisions are frivolous? If so, it is logical to then say that US courts and judges are also frivolous.

Plus it costs citizens a lot of money to bring the lawsuit and all we get is conservation management of the public resource for the future. Some call it altruism. Some call it consciousness. Some call it love of the common good.

Public lands have never been managed by "consensus". If that were the case, we would have no public National Forests or Parks. (My opinion...Ken Burns' too, see his documentary about National Parks)

Science-based fact, and a vision for conservation is what public land is all about.

My opinion.

Perhaps you could bring us an example of a "frivolous lawsuit".

Comment By Fotoware, 3-02-10

When a lawsuit targets process and procedure instead of substance, they have succeeded in their goal to "monkeywrench" the legal system, and get paid very well for that "right". It's not the objective courts that follow the conflicting and confusing rules, laws and policies. It's the litigators that exploit those conflicts for ulterior motives (like ending all timber sales). No collaborative plan to manage our forests will succeed unless we acknowledge and address the concept of a frivolous lawsuit. For example, maybe make potential litigants attend meetings and field trips to be allowed to litigate. Force them to address their concerns well before the project's ROD is introduced.

Here's a perfect example of a frivolous lawsuits. Blocking the cutting of dead trees along public forest roads. Surely, the public's safety is worth more than a strip of dead trees that might benefit an ordinary woodpecker? Does cutting dead trees in an incinerated forest merit expensive lawsuits to "stop the destruction"? Does cutting small trees while leaving perfectly viable, or, dare I say it, IMPROVED forest habitat constitute "environmental catastrophe"? It's damn easy to litigate when Congress refuses to close the loopholes of the "frivolous lawsuit". Now who is "plundering our National Forests in the name of profits"??? I think I would call $600 per hour "plundering", yes I would! I highly doubt that any logger who ever lived made that much money per hour.

Comment By Mike, 3-02-10

Dave Skinner -

Do you wear your tinfoil hat when you post or does it cause monitor interference? I don't think anything you have said in this thread is based on facts.

Comment By the real mike, 3-02-10

Okay, everybody, let's look at it again...

Fotoware in an earlier posting: Since Clinton's Roadless Rule did NOT follow established environmental law, in a truly objective court, it would be struck down. It did NOT follow NEPA so, it should not be in force.

Fotoware in his most recent posting: When a lawsuit targets process and procedure instead of substance, they have succeeded in their goal to "monkeywrench" the legal system... It's the litigators that exploit those conflicts for ulterior motives (like ending all timber sales). No collaborative plan to manage our forests will succeed unless we acknowledge and address the concept of a frivolous lawsuit.

So dearest Fotoware, when those who oppose you target an improper NEPA process, they're targeting "process and procedure instead of substance" and that's just a "frivolous lawsuit." But, you refuse to honor the Clinton Roadless Rule because "It did NOT follow NEPA so, it should not be in force" and "in a truly objective court, it would be struck down." Do you see the confusion, the inconsistency (generally known as hypocrisy), and the self-contradictory thinking you're displaying in just these few excerpts from your own posting over the course of just a few days? Do you still wonder why, during your long and worthless career, we made fun of you and joked about you, at various times, as being a timber beast, a knucklehead, and a waste of skin? Do you see why it will be a cold day in Hell when we trust you to be able to think clearly enough to tell us how our forests should be managed? I'm sorry; I tried to stay silent; but, you persist in being a total screw up.

Comment By Fotoware, 3-02-10

Once again, more slime than substance, persisting with the insults.

There's a WORLD of difference between nitpicking small details to see what will stick, and not setting up alternatives, collecting data, analyzing options, assessing impacts and assigning mitigations, allowing public input collaboration and, finally, creating an unassailable part of our world.

Obama says he will go ahead and produce his own Rule, and I say, YES WE CAN! I will trust him to follow the letter of the law on this.

Will you?!?

Comment By the real mike, 3-02-10

Okay, let's peel off another layer of your silliness. Are you saying 1) that you took the taxpayers' money for all those years because you knew something about NEPA and 2) that the NEPA process for the original roadless rule, one of the most carefully-designed-to-be- bulletproof-and-unassailable NEPA processes in history, a NEPA process built on a scoping phase that included a enormous outreach effort and a record number of public comments and town meetings, a NEPA process that included more public input than any other on record up to that time was incomplete and inadequate? That's a joke.

Now, it could be that you're saying that we should scrap the Clinton process and start over from scratch with a new roadless rule process; but, that would be ridiculous. It would be every bit as ridiculous as the GOP (rightwingers, neoNAZIs, KKK, cockroaches, whatever you want to call them) coming to the realization of their new status as a political minority and trying to use stalling tactics to slow down every political process possible until they can get a chance to taint another election cycle and reshuffle the deck. The current GOP position on the health care reform effort is an example, where their congressional minions have been instructed to stay in lockstep with a chorus of scrap the current process and start over from scratch on blank sheet with a new process. Now, you're not saying the same thing with regard to the roadless rule are you? Wouldn't that be a sickening transparent coincidence?

Comment By Fotoware, 3-02-10

Where were the alternatives?? Where was the hard look at the environmental factors? Where was the hard look at the economic factors? How come deals were made in the back rooms? Clearly they didn't do the required solid science that is required by law.

And, obviously, we don't have to "start over". Law says we have to take into account any new science. And in 10 years, there is considerable "new science". There are also considerable facts that continue to support road bans.

I have no doubt that Obama will follow what the scientists recommend. On a side note, I'd also be in favor of transparent peer review. Only named peer review should be accepted in helping shape government policy. If you're going to peer review something, own it by putting your name on it!

Comment By Fotoware, 3-02-10

And, yes.....I did see those additional insults, yet again. And I also saw you try to change the topic to nothing that relates to me. It looks like you don't trust Obama to do the right thing.

Comment By Dave Skinner, 3-02-10

Right, Faker, and a 1400 page plus EIS layered with procedure than only buried the bottom line on page A-20 of the Appendix, where not only roadless areas would be suitable for wilderness, but "unroaded" areas, a term not even defined or in federal regulation anywhere that I was able to root out at the time.
There was no range of alternatives, no public input aside from dog-and-pony open houses....it was a foregone conclusion from the get-go, a grab for 58 million acres in order to preempt the process as intended by Congress.
We'll see what happens in court, and then we'll see what happens to the Administration the next two election days.

Comment By Fotoware, 3-03-10

While some timber projects get tossed out because of "not enough alternatives", you think the Roadless Rule should be exempt, having no alternatives at all? And that's not nitpicking a process or procedure. It's a basic part of all NEPA. Many government agencies don't fully understand it, will actively try to circumvent it or hope that no one will challenge the document. On the other hand, eco-lawyers very commonly use NEPA to "monkeywrench" in court, to stop, or at least, slow down projects on Federal lands. The only thing the eco-lawyers want to "preserve", is the controversy!

Comment By Stoneman, 3-03-10

Most of us do not have the time to become experts on specific legislation or the nuances of a particular act such as the Tester Bill. Involvement in one cause, be it school issues, city politcs, or land management, can totally absord any free time. Issues like this Tester Bill are complex and confusing to the average citizen. One thing is certain, there will always be fringe elements on any serious issue.

The thing that strikes me about wilderness, motorized users and logging opposites is the continued confusion and uncertainty about the management of our last remaining wild lands. It only hurts those lands and the values represented therein. We have to rely on knowledgable and fair minded individuals and organizations (be they governmental or private) to craft a solution that will at least support the good legislation. Obviously there is no consensus.

I worked as a logger/timber faller for several years and know the devastation to the logging industry created by this disagreement; I have also been a school teacher, a fighter pilot and an attorney, among other things; I know many of the players in this dispute; and, I have seen the massive abuse by corporations who could care less about the land, its creatures or the cititzens who own the resources. But, I have also seen the terrible damage that stalemate over land use designation has done to individuals and entire industries, especially logging.

For well over 30 years I stood silent while expecting The Wilderness Society, Montana Wilderness Association, and like organizations to resolve their differences within and work with opponents to reach a solution. They are still fighting within their own ranks. Now, we see thousands and thousands of roadless acres trampled by unthinking ATV users and others who show no respect for law or the process; and we see millions and millions board feet of timber rotting in areas that could be logged. Why?- gridlock.

I and other Montanans/US citizens have to rely on those of you who have specific knowledge of specific areas to come up with a viable compromise. I don't expect Senator Testor has anywhere near the amount of experience I have in the backcounty; however, I likewise don't have any experience in raising grain or cattle or Washington politics. I am glad he is Senator and not me. Maybe he doesn't have the fiery heart for preservation of wild areas that many do; but I do not conclude from that that he is a sell-out or a liar. He represents all of the people. Some of this reminds me of the IRA and British dispute. Bombing and burning each other is not a viable tactic.

My sense after reading all these comments is that some of the opposing members to the process on each side are hostile to any compromise, to the detriment of our last remaining wildlands.

Our government has failed us. The Roadless Study Areas have been overrun, some wilderness advocates have blindly followed the mantra of All or None; and, those who hate wilderness or roadless designations resort to name calling, stalmate and illegal trespass.

I want Congress and I want those directly involved in these land management issues to resolve the disputes by reasonable negotiation; or, if it goes to litigation, live with it. I want our government to do its' duty. That will never happen; so, it is up to us.

It is time to stop the personal attacks, identify the issues, identify a framework of solutions and work toward the common goal of a negotiated management plan. We all cannot have all that we want.

Some of these exchages sound like children with personal dislike for each other. We are a nation of laws. We certainly cannot be said to be a nation of reasonable people under the current model.

I am the only one who is right and nobody listens to me. I should be King; but, some people object.

Please Remember, it is the land, the resource and the creatures in the wild lands that are totally reliant upon us. We and our government have failed them badly to date. There are many, many good people in the logging industry and related industries who could also benefit from a resolution to this maddening stalemate. All lose under the current climate.

The average citizen wants resolution, not more dispute and delay. How about a positive approach to problem solving? C'can't we all get along?

Stoneman

Comment By Pronghorn, 3-04-10

Stoneman said, "We are a nation of laws."
Agreed. And the Wilderness Act has defined Wilderness and guided its management for the integrity of the land, the creatures who live there, and the benefit of citizens since 1964. Sen. Tester's bill deals a damaging blow to the very meaning of Wilderness. Is it any wonder people react passionately? While I appreciate your reasonable tone, this issue HAS been identified. It is one of the Senator's "made in Montana" solutions that is not up for further discussion, according to him. It's likely he had no understanding of the Pandora's Box he was opening when he chose to tamper with time-tested Wilderness law.

Comment By Stoneman, 3-04-10

Pronghorn: I understand your point. I have always thought that RARE II and Wilderness Study Areas related to a process where there is criteria that the FS, Congress and other agencies must follow.

They do not, and we all know it. If the FS and Congress did their jobs we would not be hearing these arguments about Tester's Bill. That's where we citizens come in.

Potential Wilderness and Roadless Study Areas should be protected while going through the process. We know that is another unrealistic dream considering that most proposals/reviews are never timely instigated by the government responsible for protection or release.

So, Here is my question to you, Pronghorn. What areas of "Wilderness" have been legislated in Montana in the last 30 years? Specifically name me one legislated Wilderness designated as such in Montana since the Lincoln Scapegoat and Great Bear??
In the meantime, the agencies tasked with implementing the law ignore their responsibilities with absolute immunity; and the politicians don't like hot potatoes, and the advocacy groups hate each other. So what loses? Our last remaining wild lands.

It is time to recognize that our opionions are just that. The laws should be followed and processes implemented and solutions provided. It is of no value if I or you think we win by calling anyone a liar while the very thing you want to protect is destroyed by users who take advantage of apathy, beaucracy, ineptitude and gross negligence.

Unless I misunderstand, A Wilderness area is different from a Wilderness Study Area.

I want reason and knowledge to rule; Emotion is great for arguments but gets us nothing but more loss of remainingg undeveloped lands. I usually find that people who demand that their view is the only view, lose when put to the test.

How about working toward a solution for the benefit of the resource? I am glad Senator Tester has taken the initiative to get this moving. I am relying on knowledgable people like you and opponents to work it out. Get it resolved for the land, wildlife and our people. Stalemate means more loss and more damage.

I am not interested in getting into a fruitless, unending exchage of emotional pros and cons. I want some action that will result in legislation.

Stoneman

Comment By Dave Skinner, 3-04-10

And there it is in a nutshell. "Stoneman" has this reasonable tone, but then he gives himself away...fighter jock, teacher and lawyer? Ummm...no, Judge Molloy was a backseater in the Med and never a teacher. Hmmmm. Ah HAH!
Stoney Burk, the guy who just ripped off a snarling rant equating all ATV and motorized users with poacher crooks? One who has never, ever stood silent out there on the Front, no sir. An officer and gentleman, indeed.
Sorry, Stoney, but the only reason you support Tester's bill is for the same reason as Rick Bass. You want it all, by increments. Once the BD bill goes through, you hope mightily the Pew-funded bigs will then shift their resources to back your cause and pound your local opponents into dust with a concentrated effort.
That is, of course, an eminently reasonable strategy when the grabitallnow approach has failed. So in that way, you are reasonable.
So what's Dale's stealth moniker for threads like this, Mister Reasonable?

Comment By Stoneman, 3-04-10

Dave Skinner:

Gee. Such vitriol. It is obvious you don't have the slightes concept on how to build bridges. I am not against ATV's. I am against ATV users who violate the law. I am sorry I am so far below your mental acuity. I guess I should remain silent about the country and things I love.

Thank you for enlightening me.

Stoneman

sb

Comment By Pronghorn, 3-04-10

Stoneman said: "Unless I misunderstand, A Wilderness area is different from a Wilderness Study Area."
Perhaps you do misunderstand. One of Tester's "unique provisions" allows motorized sheep herding in designated wilderness.

From the Wilderness Act, Sec. 4:
PROHIBITION OF CERTAIN USES
(c) ... there shall be no temporary road, no use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment or motorboats, no landing of aircraft, no other form of mechanical transport, and no structure or installation within any such area.

From Jon Tester's website:
"Changes Sen. Tester considered but cannot make":

Remove certain exceptions from proposed wilderness areas
The Issue: Some people feel the exceptions made in the bill compromise the definition of wilderness. The Forest Jobs and Recreation Act includes exceptions such as sheep trailing and motorized access to maintain water infrastructure.
Why it cannot be changed: Sen. Tester put these exceptions in the bill to make sure this is a made in Montana solution that works for Montanans. He carefully chose these exceptions he included and they each serve specific purposes to ongoing activities in Montana's local communities.
http://tester.senate.gov/Legislation/forestchangesconsidered.cfm

This "made in Montana solution" doesn't stay in Montana but sets a precedent for the entire National Wilderness Preservation System.

Comment By Matthew Koehler, 3-04-10

Hello: I'd just like to point out, and let the record show, that it's been 5 days since I made a very respectful and civil request to former Congressman Williams, and two days since I made a similar request to the MWA's John Gatchell and Gabriel Furshong, in regards to substantive concerns with the Tester bill and Beaverhead Partnership process (both requests are above in the comment stream).

To date, there has been no response from these individuals.

On a related note, today the General Accounting Office (GAO) issued a brand new report titled, "Information on Appeals, Objections, and Litigation Involving Fuel Reduction Activities, Fiscal Years 2006 through 2008." The entire report is available at: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d10337.pdf

The GAO report found that  98% of projects (and more than 99% of the acreage) involving Forest Service hazardous fuels reduction projects from 2006 through 2008 were implemented without any litigation.

The findings of this new GAO report stand in contrast to what some supporters of Senator Tester's Forest Jobs and Recreation Act have been telling the public regarding litigation of fuel reduction projects. In fact, last September, Senator Tester went so far as to tell a Bozeman crowd that "lawsuits have stopped forest management cold."

------------------------

From the United States Senate Committee on Energy & Natural Resources
http://energy.senate.gov/public

For years, critics have complained that hazardous fuels reduction projects in the National Forests have been tied up by administrative appeals and lawsuits.  Senate Energy Chairman Jeff Bingaman and House Natural Resources Chairman Nick Rahall asked the Government Accountability Office to ground that discussion in fact.

Today, GAO posted a report that includes detailed statistics on public appeals, objections and litigation regarding hazardous fuels reduction projects on National Forests in recent years. The report includes the first glimpse of the "pre-decisional objection process" that was established for projects carried out under the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003.  Key finding: 98% of projects (and more than 99% of the acreage) involving hazardous fuels reduction were implemented without any litigation. 

Sen. Bingaman: "It is encouraging that litigation rates remain extremely low and administrative review rates have dropped over the last decade. I think these statistics reflect a growing public understanding of fuels reduction and restoration projects, and increased collaborative efforts among stakeholders and the Forest Service."

GAO surveyed Forest Service projects involving hazardous fuels reductions that were approved during 2006-08. Most of these projects were subject to an administrative review, where stakeholders can "appeal" a decision to more senior Forest Service staff for review. Others were subject to a pre-decisional objection process, where stakeholders can submit objections to a proposal before the Forest Service staff makes a decision on a project. After the objection or administrative review is complete, Forest Service decisions could then be challenged in Federal court for compliance with applicable laws. Here are other key findings:

LITIGATION

•  2006-08 Litigation Rate:  98% of Forest Service projects (and more than 99% of the acreage) involving hazardous fuels reduction were implemented without any litigation.

•  Trend:  Litigation rates have dropped from 3% during 2001-02. For projects with potentially significant environmental impacts (i.e., those thoroughly analyzed in an Environmental Impact Statement), litigation rates have dropped by nearly half.

ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEWS

•  2006-08 Decisions Subject to Administrative Review: 84% of decisions approving hazardous fuels reduction projects were subject to the traditional administrative review process.

•  2006-08 Administrative Review Rate: Stakeholders sought administrative review of 18% of decisions approving hazardous fuels reduction projects that were subject to the traditional administrative review process.

•  Trend:  For decisions subject to administrative review, formal administrative review rates have dropped by 69% since 2002.

• 2006-08 Litigation Rates:  2% of decisions subject to administrative review were challenged in Federal court.

HEALTHY FORESTS RESTORATION ACT OF 2003 (HFRA)

•  2006-08 HFRA Decisions:  8.5% of the projects involving hazardous fuels reduction were approved under HFRA.

•  2006-08 Administrative Objection Rate: Hazardous fuels reduction projects approved under HFRA were objected to at more than double the rate of projects subject to the traditional administrative review process.

•  2006-08 Litigation Rates:  The new pre-decisional objection process did not result in a lower litigation rate than the traditional administrative review process.

TIMING

• The Forest Service processed all appeals and objections within the prescribed times.

• Although the HFRA objection process lasts not more than two months (30 days for stakeholders to file objections, 30 days for the USFS to respond), half of the decisions proposed under HFRA were finalized by the Forest Service within three months.

#   # #

Visit our website at http://energy.senate.gov/public/

Comment By Treehuggin' Cowgirl, 3-04-10

Pronghorn,

Let's at least put the full clause in there.

"Except as specifically provided for in this Act, and subject to existing private rights, there shall be no commercial enterprise and no permanent road within any wilderness area designated by this Act and, except as necessary to meet minimum requirements for the administration of the area for the purpose of this Act (including measures required in emergencies involving the health and safety of persons within the area), there shall be no temporary road, no use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment or motorboats, no landing of aircraft, no other form of mechanical transport, and no structure or installation within any such area."

Notice all those exceptions? And clause 4d(4)

"(4) Within wilderness areas in the national forests designated by this Act, (1) the President may, within a specific area and in accordance with such regulations as he may deem desirable, authorize prospecting for water resources, the establishment and maintenance of reservoirs, water-conservation works, power projects, transmission lines, and other facilities needed in the public interest, including the road construction and maintenance essential to development and use thereof, upon his determination that such use or uses in the specific area will better serve the interests of the United States and the people thereof than will its denial; and (2) the grazing of livestock, where established prior to September 3, 1964, shall be permitted to continue subject to such reasonable regulations as are deemed necessary by the Secretary of Agriculture."

There's a lot of exceptions in there too, and the language about grazing management is very vague. Congress left it that way intentionally.

Congress also further clarified what it meant in House Report 96-617, "Grazing in National Forest Wilderness," that was referenced in 1980 Colorado Wilderness Bill. I'll let you read the whole thing on your own, but here's the jist.

"In summary, subject to the conditions and policies outlined in this report, the general rule of thumb on grazing management in wilderness should be that activities or facilities established prior to the date of an area's designation as wilderness should be allowed to remain in place."

So while it's true that no previous bill has specifically allowed "motorized trailing of sheep," allowing pre-existing motorized use for livestock management has been part and parcel of the Wilderness Act from the beginning. The Gila, one of our crown jewels, has rather extensive livestock grazing and motorized stock tank maintenance.

Comment By George Vincent, 3-04-10

The problem, Treehuggin', is that you selectively quoted from the Congressional grazing guidelines that came with that 1980 Colorado Act, ignoring the specific direction that comes later. Guideline #2: motors can be used for to maintain existing facilities if they are necessary, yes. "Occasional" use. But not "where such activities can reasonably and practically be accomplished on horseback." Beyond that, Guideline #5: they are authorized only for emergencies. "This privilege is to be exercised only in true emergencies, and should not be abused by permittees."

Tester's bill not only allows for motorized maintenance and emergency use, but for "inspection" of developments ("Gee, it's a beautiful day -- I think I'll drive up and inspect my tank. And if it's nice next weekend, I'll inspect it again. Wanna come?"). It also allows the use of ATVs to herd sheep. Both of these activities can be reasonably accomplished on horseback -- they have been for decades and continue to be in every other wilderness where grazing is allowed. Neither of these provisions constitutes an emergency.

Surely you can't be saying you think it was Congress's intent that herding livestock in wilderness should be done off an ATV?!

Comment By Dave Skinner, 3-04-10

Mr. Burk, I'm not against your freedom of expression. I'm just against your little kabuki dance here. It unbecomes you. Let me clarify:
Over your name, you declared "abuse of public lands by ATV and off-road vehicles is rampant" et cetera...which is like saying guns kill people, which redneck-hater "redneck" appropriately called a rant.
Then here, as the "reasonable Stoneman," you say you don't oppose ATVs but are merely against "ATV users who violate the law." Of course, you'd like laws that prohibit ATV use, period, and a Congressional designation is pretty effective law.
T'would be more honest to say you want ATV and other forms of motorized use barred from major parts of the landscape, preferably through wilderness designation and barring that, travel "management" that leads to the elimination of the user community and their stake, so when the time comes, wilderness will be a slider.

Comment By Redneck, 3-05-10

Read the post again Mr. Skinner.

Comment By Treehuggin' Cowgirl, 3-05-10

George,

Congress's intent was to be vague and allow interpretation based on the situation. The Wilderness Act was written very carefully not to impose on existing uses. It never would have passed Congress otherwise. The idea wasn't to "create" wilderness, but to maintain it in its current state. I don't think an ATV or two entering one of Wildernesses in Tester's bill 4 or 5 times a year is a significant detractor from the wilderness character.

Now the cherry stemmed road that goes through most of the Cebolla Wilderness and the rail tunnel under the James Peak Wilderness along with the wonderful view of the subdevelopment and the highway, those I see as detractors from Wilderness quality. A few ATV's that very few users are ever likely to see, nah. Certainly not any worse than that airstrip in the Bob Marshall.

Comment By Marilyn Olsen, 3-05-10

March 4, 2010

Pat Williams Cowboy(s) rhetoric re: the Tester Bill proves him to be the one influenced by “images on a flickering screen”. Using language such as “wrangling”, “tribal battles”, “hunting grounds”, “shoot ‘em ups”, “bare-knuckled” and “rough and tumble” he sets himself up by using good ole boy icons. Guess what, Pat? My Dad dragged me to every John Wayne movie ever screened. He was a Republican In Old California who loved Wilderness. And I’ve got news for you, the land there is “real”, too. California has more designated Wilderness than any state in the lower 48. Butte, on the other hand, is one of the largest Superfund sites in the world. But let’s Cheer Up And Smile, pilgrim, and forget about the “rough streets of Butte” for a moment.

Spoilers of The New Frontier, West of The Divide, put Roadless Areas In Harms Way, as though They Were Expendable, while you frame the Conflict as a Range Feud. This shows just how out of touch and archaic the High And The Mighty, Born To The West really are. While you Train Robbers polish your spurs and prepare your War Wagons the Greatest Story Ever Told of How The West Was Won will become your Legend Of The Lost.

While the Idol of The Crowds focuses on Two Fisted Law, Searchers of True Grit Sit Tall In The Saddle. I Salute my Pals Of The Saddle, the Riders OF Destiny, Hellfighters, Wyoming Outlaw(s) and Night Riders, Without Reservation(s). We will travel Undefeated down the Sagebrush Trail, under the Shadow Of The Eagle. Yes, this Lady Takes A Chance (Wild Girls Demand Excitement) that the Big Trail of Wilderness advocacy will Reap The Wild Wind, while the Deceivers will be swept away like a Texas Cyclone. Okay, enough with the John Wayne movie titles.

Just pokin’ fun pardner, in your vernacular. Seriously, Pat, you had a chance and you chose to protect a mere 1.9 million acres of Montana’s 6.2 million roadless acres available for Wilderness designation. That put you on a pretty Lonely Trail. Pat, your Stagecoach has left. It is time for some non-colloquial dialogue.

Senator Tester’s Bill is called the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act, a misleading name for a bill that mandates logging 100,000 acres in our bioregion over the next 10 years and proclaiming over one million acres of inventoried roadless wildlands timber suitable and open to harvest.

I’m confused. I thought our ecosystem already had forest jobs. From microbes to landscape processes with local to global ramifications, Montanan forests are busy providing non-timber forest products, game habitat, wildlife corridors, carbon sequestration, pollination, natural pest control, water purification, flood control, erosion control and human recreation.

With over-population, the services our intact forests provide are even more essential, while fragmentation renders their services less effective. I’m not sure politicians understand the relationship between biodiversity and ecosystem health and sustainability. It is critical that our elected officials recognize that the Northern Rockies ecosystem is the only ecosystem in the lower 48 states that still has all it’s native species, although not in all suitable locations and in healthy numbers. They need to promote and support efforts to protect and sustain this vital core of life in our bioregion.

The ethics in recognizing the intrinsic value of biodiversity, our communities’ species right to exist, may be beyond the grasp of politics but commercial value seems to grab lots of attention. Ecosystem services are currently inexpensive. What are the costs incurred in the absence of ecosystem services such as: human health costs due to flooding or loss of waste treatment or replacement costs for water purification plants, to name a few? Who pays for this? Additionally, ecosystem services provide for the enhancement of incomes through healthy fisheries and hunting opportunities and the demand for services related to ecotourism travel and associated goods. What will we do when they disappear? At what point does an ecosystem’s ability to provide services breakdown? In the case of uncertainty, shouldn’t we proceed cautiously? What is the cost of losing the biological integrity of our home and the home of all the other organisms in our community? This is our true wealth, our storehouse, our capital.

Elected officials and resource managers need to be certain how their actions affect our region’s health and economy. Isn’t this more critical than subsidizing private timber mills with public land resources while touting “local collaboration” credentials. These are public lands supported with public dollars collected from the folks that elected you to serve in the best interest of the public trust. Remember, these are federal lands of international renown, vital to the planet. We deserve open, substantive discussion. I find Pat Williams’ dialectical ramblings unhelpful to this process.

I think Jon Tester’s Senate Bill 1470 represents irresponsible logging and motorized recreation on public lands. It undercuts the popular roadless rules, and by requiring excessive logging it clashes with environmental laws that public land agencies must obey. It usurps Forest Service authority by handing public lands management decision-making to locals and private interests, and it establishes unbalanced resource advisory committees by overriding an existing law prohibiting this.

The bill’s unprecedented mandated logging levels requires the Forest Service to cut 14 times the sustainable level identified in the Beaverhead-Deerlodge Forest Plan plus 10 years of cutting in the Yaak, which is already over-cut, unconnected and too roaded to support biological diversity.

Logging acreage and time frames are mandated; restoration levels and timelines are not. Montanans have repeatedly witnessed logging where restoration agreements were never implemented. Tester’s bill fails to require restoration completion; worse, “restoration” can be accomplished on any national forest in the U.S. Montana sustains the damage while other states can get the “restoration”. And it’s not ecological restoration, because the bill defines restoration primarily as logging. Plus, access roads can be converted to motorized recreation routes and connected with other motorized routes.

The bill’s new wilderness designations are pitifully small, isolated and exclude diverse elevation habitats. Low-level military over-flights, helicopter landings and ATV herding of domestic sheep will be allowed. This is not real wilderness.

The bill’s road density language encourages increased logging in unroaded and less roaded areas of the forests.

Wilderness Study Areas (WSA’s), Montana’s irreplaceable legacy from the late Sen. Lee Metcalf (a true statesman), will be released and degraded under Tester’s bill, precluding wilderness designation. The illegal motorized intrusions in WSA’s gets sanctioned. Instead of law enforcement we get release language, rewarding law breakers. This is disgraceful!

Folks who care about public lands need to read the bill. Let elected officials hear how you feel about it.
Pat, if you are going to support the bill, then we need more than provincial proclamations. We need information, discussion and decision making based on good science. This is the real thing, not a western movie.

Marilyn Olsen

Comment By Dave Skinner, 3-05-10

And there you have it from The Big Wild. Was that a movie, too?

Comment By Treehuggin' Cowgirl, 3-05-10

Marilyn,

The changes Tester has proposed address a few of your concerns, and these were released before your above editorial ran in the Missoulian. Monitoring requirements are being expanded and increased to make sure the implementation is not having any unintended and unforeseen consequences. Timelines are being added for the restoration work. Any receipts from stewardship contracts will stay on the appropriate forest (that was a typo in the original bill that created the confusion.) The are in which the 3,000 acres per year to be treated (not necessarily logged) in the Kootenai is being expanded, so that it will be easier to find treatment areas that won't impact grizzly bear habitat. The Highlands area where the helicopter landings occur will no longer be designated wilderness. Instead it will be a Special management Area, that will still be largely managed for its wild values.

You also make two assumptions that are simply incorrect. The 10,000 acres per year of mechanical treatment are not necessarily logging. It can include any work with machines in the woods including very necessary fuel reduction work in the wildland urban interface. In fact, another one of Tester's suggested changes is to prioritize the wildland urban interface for treatment.

Secondly, logging does not necessarily equate with habitat destruction. The Forest Service isn't terracing slopes or doing Section sized clear cuts. For one thing, they'd never get away with it (and rightly so). For another, the agency culture has changed, and there is a much better focus on ecology.

Comment By janet zimmerman, 3-05-10

Still waiting to hear M's concerns being addressed. ???? Me too!

Loggers will pay USFS to perform fuel reduction and fuel reduction work in the urban interface? Wow, that is revolutionary. Problem solved!

I thought these kinds of projects COST the USFS? silly me.

Comment By George Vincent, 3-05-10

Treehuggin'

Congress's intent was anything but vague. "In order that an increasing population, accompanied by expanding settlement and growing mechanization does not occupy and modify all areas of the United States..."

The Congressional grazing guidelines clarified what they meant by "grazing shall be permitted to continue" in Section 4(d)(4)(2). They certainly did NOT mean that ranchers could do whatever they had been doing (any more than the agencies could continue to do whatever they had been doing) -- that is obvious by the five guidelines enumerated in their appendix.

And, as I said before, surely you don't think Congress intended ATVs to be used for herding animals.

As for the frequency of use: a) the bill has no limits on motorized use; and b) of course landing strips in the Bob affect wilderness character, but that is an allowance (a compromise) in the original '64 act. My point is that Tester's exception is a new one. ATVs are not permitted for herding, nor is their unrestricted motorized access for "inspection" allowed in any wilderness that I know of -- as I've made the point about bicycles before (please, people, let's not revisit that here!) -- if Congress had wanted the use of these motors, they would have amended the grazing guidelines. Maybe Tester thinks his bill will do so. If so, he should come out and say it; if not, these provisions should be dropped.

And the cherry-stemmed route citation doesn't work here. You do know that such routes are not IN the wilderness, right -- they are, in effect, boundaries. I've heard people argue that the sheep herders will just stay on some existing route. Those people have never tried herding sheep!

Comment By elkamino, 3-06-10

koehler's calls for clarity from mr gatchell are going unanswered for one reason: this bill's d.o.a., and gatchell- like tester- is starting to realize it.

but now that this effort in futility is wrapping up, it's time to look toward the next question: how will this failed attempt to pack 3 radically different collaborative efforts into one legislated forest policy affect the original 3 distinct plans? clearly- and unlike the b-d partnership- the three rivers partnership had/has some real merit, but will that plan's assets be thrown out with the rest of the misdirected bill?

seems our well-intending senator may have undermined two thoughtful and valuable grass-roots collaborative efforts by slapping them into a poisoned package with the crooked b-d partnership. it'll be interesting to see this all play out- politically and otherwise.

Comment By the real mike, 3-06-10

No proposal has assets or merit as long as it constitutes an obfuscation of the issue on the table, which is and has been the improper abrogation of the roadless rule. We need to settle the roadless rule, not piecemeal, but with a full and clear resolution, then do a gap analysis on what these other proposals do or do not offer and work from there.

Comment By Aspenlight, 3-08-10

Not sure if folks saw this or not but Secretary Vilsack was in Montana over the weekend and sees "tremendous opportunities" with this bill as a pilot project.

DEER LODGE — The Obama administration could support the mandate in Sen. Jon Tester’s forest bill to log a set number of acres every year as a pilot project, U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said here Saturday.

Vilsack, in a change of position for the administration, said some changes to the measure, which mandates a set number of acres be logged every year, could be tried to see how well it works.

“We’re going to continue to work with Sen. Tester to accomplish what the bill is supposed to do,” Vilsack said before more than 70 people. “There’s a tremendous opportunity here.”

Vilsack came to Deer Lodge at the request of Tester to meet with members of a partnership of logging and conservation interests whose plan shaped his Forest Jobs and Recreation Act. The controversial measure would designate more than 600,000 acres of wilderness in three national forests statewide, while mandating that 10,000 acres be logged every year for a decade.

Tester has touted the bill as a way to end decades of fighting over logging and wilderness protection and says it will help the Forest Service clean out forested areas that are dying from beetle infestations. He also says the bill will help struggling timber mills that need a supply of timber to survive.

But Madison and Beaverhead county commissioners, as well as multiple-use groups and some environmental groups, have strongly opposed the bill. Commissioners from those counties say they will get the majority of the wilderness, yet the bill does nothing to guarantee that any trees will be cut, because the logging is still subject to lawsuits. They say the bill represents two narrow interests while ignoring the concerns of ranchers, motorized users and counties.

Vilsack’s comments were a sharp contrast from the position of the Forest Service in December during a hearing on the bill. Agriculture Undersecretary Harris Sherman said at the time that the logging targets in the bill were “unworkable” for the agency and could set a precedent in which each national forest is managed differently by Congress.

Vilsack brought up that concern with members of the partnership in a separate meeting at Sun Mountain Lumber, whose owner Sherm Anderson is part of the partnership.

“We have 155 different forests across the country,” he said. “We don’t want a situation where we’re legislating the management of every forest.”

But Vilsack also said the plan’s stated goal of clearing overgrown areas near homes, protecting watersheds and restoring damaged landscapes matches the key goals of the Obama administration for the national forests. He added that keeping small-town timber mills in business is vital because rural parts of the country are suffering from unemployment, loss of young people and lower incomes.

“This is also about the future of rural America, not just rural Montana,” he said. “What’s at stake here is the area of the country that provides the food, the water, the clean air and now the fuel for the country.”

Vilsack said other national forests are seeing similar efforts to get work done on the ground. He said the agency would consider the bill as a test to see if it’s effective to improve forest health and help rural economies.

“It’s not necessarily a precedent,” he said. “It’s a recognition that we’re dealing with a unique set of circumstances.”

The environmental groups opposing the bill don’t want it to succeed because it would make it harder for them to shut down logging and restoration projects, Tester said in response to a question.

“They don’t like this bill because it’s going to hamper their ability to work the system,” he said.

Mark Petroni, a retired district ranger on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge Forest, told Vilsack the logging goals could be reached because most of the studies are done. He said that work started more than 20 years ago.

“There’s a shelf in Dillon that has all these landscape analyses sitting there waiting to go through,” he said. “There are 280,000 acres available for mechanical treatment.”

Tester said he is still changing the bill to help garner more support. His latest proposals include making the bill a pilot project, as well as extending the time frame for the logging mandates in an effort to make it more palatable to county officials.

The public meeting drew more than 70 people, nearly all of whom voiced support for the bill. Commissioners from Missoula, Powell, Granite and Broadwater counties also said they’re behind the measure because it could help the struggling timber industry.

Among the opponents was Howie Wolke, a wilderness outfitter from Emigrant who said he fears the bill could open large swaths of roadless lands to timber companies. He asked Tester to write guarantees in the bill that the logging would take place near homes.

“Logging the backcountry doesn’t do any good to reduce the risk of wildfire to communities,” he said. “I feel very uncomfortable with a congressional mandate on logging, and this goes beyond that and mandates a level of logging that even the Forest Service doesn’t advise.”

http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/montana/article_ee4990ea-2992-11df-8e60-001cc4c03286.html

Comment By Matthew Koehler, 3-08-10

Hello, Anyone who's experienced with public policy knows there is a seriously big difference between the head of the US Forest Service (Harris Sherman, Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment) giving very specific, well-thought out, carefully researched and constructed comments (see below) in OFFICIAL testimony before the US Senate's Energy and Natural Resources Committee....

....And Agriculture Secretary Vilsack speaking off-the-cuff in generalities at a political meeting in Deer Lodge or during a private meeting with bill supporters at Sun Mountain Lumber Company.

Below are snips from the official testimony from the US Forest Service and Obama Administration delivered before the Senate's ENR Committee on Dec 17, 2009. The entire testimony is available here:
http://energy.senate.gov/public/_files/ShermanTestimonyonS1470121709.pdf

I seriously doubt that some off-the-cuff remark about "tremendous opportunity" and uttering the words "pilot project" discount, nullify or supercede all of these substantive concerns from the US Forest Service and Obama Administration.

However, I'm sure supporters of Senator Tester's bill will use Sec Vilsack's visit to give the public the impression that the US Forest Service and Obama Administration have changed course 180 degree and that they now support the Tester bill as written.

I seriously doubt that's the case. It would certainly be nice if members of the media, at a minimum, call the head of the US Forest Service (Harris Sherman) to see if the official US Forest Service's position has indeed changed.

My hunch is that the US Forest Service and Obama Administration would potential support Tester's bill as a "pilot project," as long as these serious, substantive concerns from the USFS and Administration are addressed by the Senate's ENR Committee. Given that Senator Tester, and supporters of his bill, have failed to even acknowledge these concerns (much less express a willingness to address them through proposed amendments to the bill) we'll see what happens. Thanks.

From Under Secretary Harris Sherman:

"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 met 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.

And lastly, there are a number of other issues that I have flagged in my written testimony that we think needs to be addressed and hopefully corrected."

"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."

P.S. Still waiting for former Congressman Williams, Gatchell and/or Furshong to respond to the inquiries above....

This article was printed from www.newwest.net at the following URL: http://www.newwest.net/topic/article/pat_williams_speaks_out_again_on_testers_bill/C41/L41/