GUEST COMMENTARY
Forest Jobs Bill: Working Together for Montana
By Senator Jon Tester, Guest Writer, 2-01-10
 |
|
 | |
| Senator Jon Tester, D-MT. | |
|
The numbers are painful. Last year, 1,700 Montanans lost jobs in our timber industry. Timber harvest across our state plummeted a staggering 40 percent. Several mills—including Montana’s largest—boarded up.
If we do nothing, Montanans who work in the woods will get hit even harder. It’s an industry that today directly employs just over 7,000 Montanans. Thousands more rely on the industry indirectly.
If we do nothing—or if we let partisan politics trump the ideas of Montanans who worked together for years on a common sense solution—all those jobs will be on the rocks.
In order to put Montanans back to work in the woods, we need to rethink the way we manage the woods. We need a 21st century plan.
That’s exactly why I introduced the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act.
It’s clear the way we manage our forests now isn’t working. It’s clear because too many people have lost their jobs—the people who know how to run chainsaws in the woods and bandsaws in the mills. Dead trees cover countless acres across Montana, just one cigarette flick away from catastrophic wildfire.
I wrote the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act after working closely with timber companies, conservationists, outdoorsmen and motor sports enthusiasts. For years, they fought each other over how to manage our public forests.
Then they realized that saying ‘no’ wasn’t getting them anywhere. So they put their differences aside and sat down together to work out a plan. That doesn’t happen very often these days. After listening to many other Montanans, public officials and organizations, I made my own adjustments to that plan.
That plan, now a bill before Congress, mandates timber harvest. It immediately creates permanent recreation areas. It offers incentives to use forest biomass—wood chips and small trees—for heat and energy. And it safeguards for our kids and grandkids some of Montana’s best places to hunt, fish and camp.
Without this bill, Montana will lose the loggers, the millers, the truckers and the infrastructure needed to keep our timber industry a strong part of Montana’s outdoor heritage. And if we lose our timber industry, we lose our ability to manage our forests and to protect our communities from catastrophic wildfire.
Over the past year, I’ve held public listening sessions across the state. I received feedback from thousands of Montanans. And in the coming weeks, I will propose significant changes to the bill based on that feedback.
But there are changes to the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act I cannot make—ones that will keep the bill from passing Congress. Some ideas have been kicking around for 20 years and done nothing but to pit Montanans against each other. We need new ideas.
The folks whose livelihoods are at stake have been working on these new ideas for many years. They know what’s workable and what isn’t.
The Forest Jobs and Recreation Act isn’t going to win unanimous support from everyone. No legislation ever has. No legislation ever will.
But here’s what the bill does: it strikes a very smart balance of fresh ideas. It will save jobs. It will create jobs. And it will improve the health of our forests.
There’s plenty of room in Montana’s forests for everyone, but only if we work together.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
Claim: "Creates New Jobs." False.
Best S-1470 could do is PRESERVE existing jobs IF it's not litigated to death, and the Green "partners" in this haven't been any more successful at making project go forward than the timber beasts.
IF there's no lawsuit paralysis, the MOST jobs based on Montana averages and rules of thumb, is 55 to 110 jobs for the Yaak and 211 to 385 jobs on B-D, with most of the Yaak jobs actually being in Idaho where the mills are.
No jobs associated with grazing, mining, and modern recreation will be created.
Where's the recreation? Quiet recreation gets a million acres, while modern recreation will be eliminated from 670,000 some acres and limited on the other lands to existing infrastructure that can be closed at any time through planning, Secretarial diktat or litigation. Nor do existing mining, grazing and modern recreation rights get any protection on any other lands, anywhere.
As for the forest, just on the B-D's base, 96 percent will be untouched when the agreement expires. Every year this thing is in force, 88 to 120 million feet of wood will be left in the B-D forest to be removed by fire -- about 8,000 acres worth a year.
So, the title of this bill is a lie. S-1470 does nothing for jobs, takes away recreation, and does next to nothing for the forest that has had ANOTHER 2.7 million acres of bugs in the last two years....while creating a million acres of permanent, up-front, unconditional wilderness and inevitable wilderness.
So, I'd really like to ask its sponsor what the heck he was thinking...oh, but questions are not allowed at Tester's dog-and-pony shows.
Subject: Request for Jobs Figures for FJRA
Senator Tester:
I caught your guest column on the FJRA. Are you aware that we're in the middle of the biggest economic crisis/recession that our country has seen in 70 years?
Are you aware, Senator Tester, that demand for lumber in America is down 55% and housing starts in America are down 70%? Do you know that because of the economic crisis, lumber mills in places like Main, North Carolina, New York, etc, - where nearly all the timberlands are privately owned - have also closed?
I ask these questions in all sincerity because your guest column here makes no mention of these profound economic realities facing the logging industry and our nation.
Rather, it seems obvious that in order to garner more support for your bill that you're willing to just blame the timber industry's tough times on national forest policy.
Doesn't this seem pretty disingenuous to you, especially considering the hard to ignore economic realities? I mean, seriously, how can you lament the timber industry's tough times with zero mention that lumber demand is down 55% and housing starts are down 70%? Are these not important factors?
Has anyone in your office figured out just how many jobs your logging bill will "create or save?" Seems like that figure should made public, especially if you are going around making these general/generic jobs claims.
Fact is, right now the Forest Service has more timber volume under contract in Montana and our region (300 million board feet) than at any point in the past decade.
That's right, while some people claim we need the FJRA because no logging is able to happen on Forest Service lands, the fact of the matter is that right now the logging industry has enough national forest timber volume under contract to fill 60,000 log trucks lined up end-to-end for 500 miles. All this national forest timber (already under contract to logging outfits) could be logged today or tomorrow or next week.
But with little demand for lumber, the logging companies aren't cutting much of what they already have under contract.
Given this reality Senator Tester, just how will mandating even more logging help? Please honestly answer these questions Senator Tester.
Thanks.
Sincerely,
Matthew Koehler
WildWest Institute
Missoula, MT
The PDF document above contains a sampling of the types of comments submitted to the US Senate Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests regarding S1470, the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act, by members of the Last Best Place Wildlands Campaign. These comments were officially entered into the record for the Subcommittee's Dec 17, 2009 hearing.
The Last Best Place Wildlands Campaign is a coalition of conservation organizations and citizens dedicated to wildlands protection, forest restoration and the sound long-term management of America's public lands legacy. Our coalition includes 4th and 5th generation Montanans, hikers and backpackers, hunters and anglers, wildlife viewers, outfitters and guides, veterans, retired Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management officials, small-business owners, scientists, educators, craftspersons, and community leaders.
Last week, former Forest Service Chief Jack Ward Thomas (who lives in Montana's Bitterroot Valley) had this to say about Senator Tester's bill (See http://missoulian.com/news/opinion/columnists/article_f85f0050-09c2-11df-baa0-001cc4c03286.html):
"the approach is flawed, inappropriate, less than fully informed, and has implications for the management of the entire national forest system. It should be debated in that context."
Also, what follows is the perspective on the FJRA from Under Secretary Harris Sherman, the top US Forest Service official in America, as delivered during the Dec 17 Senate Hearing regarding FJRA:
"If the Committee decides to go forward with a bill, we would urge you to first, alter or remove the highly specific timber supply requirements, which in our view are not reasonable or achievable.
Secondly, we like to urge you to amend the National Environmental Policy Act related provisions, which in our view are flawed and are legally vulnerable.
Thirdly, we would urge you to consider the budgetary implications to meet the bill's requirements. If we were to go forward with S1470 it would require far greater resources to do that and it will require us to draw these monies from forests within Region One or from other Regions."
"The levels of mechanical treatment that are called for in S1470 are likely unachievable and perhaps unsustainable."
"There is the likelihood that if Congress were to move forward and pass legislation such as we are talking about today, that other regions will want to do so similarly. Now, if that happens, my concern is that there will be somewhat of a balkanization that occurs between the different regions in the country. Those who are first in may get funded and those who come later may find there are less funds available. There will be certain 'haves' and 'have nots' that result from this process. Then in someways there is no longer a true national review, an effort to sift out what priorities ought to exist across the country."
Section 706 J
(j) PROCESS- Due to the extraordinary circumstances present here, actions authorized by this section shall proceed immediately and to completion notwithstanding any other provision of law including, but not limited to, NEPA and the National Forest Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.). Such actions shall also not be subject to the notice, comment, and appeal requirements of the Appeals Reform Act, (16 U.S.C. 1612 (note), Pub. Law No. 102-381 sec. 322). Any action authorized by this section shall not be subject to judicial review by any court of the United States. Except as provided by this section the Settlement remains in full force and effect.
Now, legislators can introduce, and Congress can pass, anything they want that passes constitutional muster. Daschle managed to get THIS little sweetie passed, right? So why, in 84 pages, isn't there a similar paragraph? Because the current legislators and current Congress don't want to put it in. There's an election coming -- and I'd say 2.7 million acres of new bug infestation in 2008 and 2009 on top of several million acres of fire/bugs since 2001 in Montana is pretty dang EXTRAORDINARY.
When and if the markets return, it would be nice to return to common sense on the national forests, would it not?
Are you aware that the U.S. is a net importer of 29% of the softwood lumber consumed?
The end.
Does this mean if the economy was going gangbusters for the timber industry, you'd be supporting the Tester bill?
That is what we have been doing since Europeans first came into these parts; so that must be the best way to do things until there is nothing left to exploit.
Saws, hydraulics, hoses, electrical components, fabrication companies, all the stuff that is needed to keep a sawmill running, has to now be ordered in from somewhere far away. Worse, the mills have not run enough to accumulate enough capital to keep up with technology. The goose is dead and the golden eggs for the economy are gone.
Shoot the industry now. And forget about it. Plum Creek, et al, will sell their land to millionaires from Wall Street, and all will be well again.
Matt -
You continue to adamantly oppose this bill, primarily because of the logging provisions it contains. And you've abundantly made the case for why you feel that way. Fair enough. But again - what level of timber harvest would be acceptable to you? Specifics, please.
And while we're at it, what is the track record of the "Wild West Institute" in supporting ANY timber harvest on public lands (small-scale fire management efforts where the suburbs have encroached in the forest aside)?
It's all well and good to set yourself up as the vocal opposition, but what are the specific, realistic alternatives that you are proposing? If you are going to continue to attack this bill based on the timber provisions, then you can't hide behind the "all I want is a consensus process" defense - I want to hear what level of harvest would be acceptable to you. For the record, please.
Or, if we are to be literal: Timber Baronesses. The great grand daughters of the original investors, living out their lives in the Mansions of St. Paul, Minneapolis, Chicago, San Francisco.
The largest non public land owner in the US is The Nature Conservancy. Ted Turner is right in there. Timber Barons is a misnomer. The Land Barons were the Rail Road Moguls. It was they who sold land to timber speculators, many of whom went broke before a tree was ever cut. Taxes and over sold speculation did them in. Private timber never really had great value except in the period between WWI and the Great Depression. It was WWII that made money for private timber. And the promise was that they were to cut theirs at an unsustainable rate to fuel the war effort, and after the War, the gaps in production will be made up by the US Forest Reserves managed by the USFS. The Indians were not the only ones who bought into promises from Washington DC that were never kept.
The Congress, and the USFS, in conjunction, set up working circles with 50 year timber contracts from public land, just to employ people, and take the heat off the Lake States and the South for lumber production. Hines Lumber in South Dakota, Wyoming, and Oregon was one such operation. The two pulp mills in SE Alaska were two more of those deals. If you build a pulp mill of X capacity, we will furnish you the timber for a price for 25 years with a renewable contract. Lucy pulled that football back for the Sierra Club.
And all that land once logged was planted to trees, and the USFS land has grown back all that was logged, ever, back and then some. There is more standing timber on the USFS than ever. Even with all the fire of late. Those incompetent arsonists cannot even manage to burn the annual growth, let alone put a dent in the standing inventory.
Trees grow every year, even in droughts and under stress of over stocked stands. Every year wood is added. On 195 million acres, it does not take much to add up to tens of billions of board feet. There are West Coast USFS forests that do not log 2% of the annual growth. And if they try, the litigants line up to stop them. I used to care. Now I don't. But I am getting damned tired of smoke all summer.
It occurs to me how odd it must seem that change has always been the way America has kept itself alive; yet the patriopaths are still screaming that we must keep making the same mistakes overa and over and over again...
"...those same types of extraction industries which have been anachronistic since 1892"
Thanks for my morning laugh. I hope someday to travel to your planet.
For starters, the mission of our organization is to protect and restore forests, wildlands, watersheds and wildlife in the Northern Rockies. The WildWest Institute supports the US Forest Service using science-based planning and the latest scientific research and understanding to manage our public lands. We support the use of an open, inclusive and transparent planning process for each National Forest through the National Forest Management Act (NFMA).
Through NFMA and the planning process, each national forest develops a forest plan, which guides the management of that specific national forest for approximately a ten to fifteen year period. Again, the forest planning process is open, inclusive and transparent.
Once forest plans are established or revised we support the Forest Service following their current forest plan when it comes to a host of management issues. Forest plans include a lot more than just guidance about where the Forest Service should do some logging. Forest Plans establish standards for soil quality, wildlife habitat, water quality, old-growth, old-growth dependent species, management indicator species, roadless areas, weed management, recreation management, etc.
When the Forest Service proposes a specific project, such as a timber sale or grazing allotment or weed management project within the context of their existing forest plan, we again expect the Forest Service to follow the best science/research and the law when implementing these specific projects. We expect the Forest Service to follow NEPA and to follow the necessary steps to conduct a complete environmental analysis to ensure that the public's land is managed properly.
Our organization doesn't have a problem with people getting together to try and work together or solve problems related to public lands management. Far from it. After all, we were a founding member of the Montana Forest Restoration Committee, helped established statewide and national restoration principles, helped established FireSafe Montana and are active members of collaborative groups on the Lolo, Bitterroot and Salmon-Chalis National Forests. However, these collaborative processes just mentioned are open, inclusive and transparent. We're not mandating anything. We're not undermining NEPA or the ESA or other regulations. We're not excluding those who disagree with us. We're just working together, learning from each other, moving forward and getting result.
The proof is in the pudding. On the Bitterroot National Forest, where an open, inclusive and transparent collaborative process exists, there has been only one timber sale lawsuit over the past 9 years! And I'd estimate that currently the Bitterroot National Forest has upwards of 10,000 to 15,000 acres of logging, fuel reduction, thinning and prescribed burning projects ready to implement.
On the Lolo National Forest, again with that open, inclusive collaborative process, there hasn't been a timber sale lawsuit in over two years and, again, I'd estimate that upwards of 10,000 acres of logging, fuel reduction, thinning and prescribed burning projects are ready to implement today or in the near future.
Heck, today's Missoulian has an article about a restoration project for just north of Missoula in the Woods Gulch, Marshall Mountain and Rattlesnake area (see: http://missoulian.com/news/state-and-regional/article_0f24c4ea-0fc3-11df-bad3-001cc4c03286.html). The Forest Service would tell you that the WildWest Institute has been as involved as anyone with this project.
As I mentioned above, the fact is that right now the Forest Service has more timber volume under contract in Montana and our region than at any point in the past decade. The total is 300 million board feet that could be logged today, tomorrow or next week. 300 million board feet of logs would be enough to fill 60,000 log trucks, which if lined up end-to-end would stretch for 500 miles!
These facts are certainly different than Senator Tester standing up before a Bozeman crowd this past September and saying, "Lawsuits have stopped forest management cold in Montana." I understand that Senator Tester was just repeating a common sentiment in these parts, but the facts just don't back it up.
In this context, which, yes, does include the fact that we're in the middle of a huge economic crisis with lumber demand down 55% and home construction down 70%, I fail to see just why in the world we should throw our public lands legacy out the window...or under the bus.
The economy has changed folks, and the sooner we all realize that the better we'll be. Sure, the economy might "rebound" or "improve" but if anyone thinks that this "rebound" is going to include just waltzing right back to the levels of gluttonous and irresponsible over-consumption, over-development and maxed out credit cards of the past 30 years they are mistaken.
As I told the Senate Committee during the December hearing, "our coalition supports forest and watershed restoration, protecting our roadless wildlands and sustainable jobs in the woods. Therefore, the issue before this committee today is not what the drafters of this bill intended to do; rather the issue before you is what this bill, as written, actually would do." Let's see if this discussion can stay focused on the bill. In that vein, hopefully Senator Tester's office will be providing the public with detailed jobs figures for his bill. It just seems to me that any piece of legislation claiming to be a "jobs bill" should have some specific information about jobs. Thanks.
Public land resources made the US. Period. An unavoidable conclusion. And when way too many people got rich, and the poor are now distinguished by obesity, there is a prominent idea that we don't need natural resources. We can buy them at ResourcesMart. And food at FoodMart. And the people that keep telling us that do it over cell phones, in the electronic media, in glossy paper magazines. Like, did that shit just appear out of the ether? Does it come in from outer space at night?
Or, is this the most arrogant of racist economic practices? We just go offshore and get the clay, the fiber, the minerals, from places without land protections, and that is just fine?
Have you ever tried to estimate the environmental damages of making batteries? Where does plastic come from? Does any manufacturer make wind turbines in the US? And what is a solar panel constructed of? How do you transport electrical power? What are railroad ties made from? Or a Toyota? Wow!! Anyone who is proclaiming the end to natural resource use is talking from the interior of his colon.
The question is not whether we use natural resources, but how? And how do we best acquire them. What is responsible manufacturing? Just how do we live without stuff to make stuff out of? Does Matt have a hemp computer design? are there hemp power lines? How does that hemp car run?
Importing our lifestyle and livelihoods from Asia is not a long term plan for "the pursuit of happiness" in these United States. And working for government is not an economy. Nor is working for an NGO. Those jobs depend on someone else creating wealth for them to spend. Just think about the Pew Trust. The heirs to Sun Oil avoid taxes to do "good" in the world. And here I thought that having petroleum finance a venture was an evil thing in its very being. Or the Rockefeller dough. Or all that money made in Detroit long ago. There is a degree of intellectual prostitution involved in the war against using natural resources. And a lot of ideological artful dodging by Congress in as it has used NGOs as surrogate policy institution vehicles. NGOs as parallel government action and litigants against public policy and law.
But, as money has now been defined as free speech for those individuals known as corporations, we will see the NGOs finding out how money can ruin their party, as they are so inclined to do to others. Perhaps the recent decision by the Supremes will provide needed balance.
But you didn't answer my question. If the timber industry had an ongoing demand for logs would you be supporting this bill?
(which may also lead to answering the question of why you feel "excluded")
But you want to have it both ways - you want to have your soapbox, and then when anyone is critical of your point of view, you want to hide behind "let's talk about the bill, not about me." We ARE talking about the bill, Matt - and as long as you continue to be such a loquacious, self-appointed leader of the opposition, you should expect that some people are going to take issue with your point of view on it. As they say, "if you can't stand the heat..."
He promised to protect ALL reminnig roadless areas in MT in order to get Paul Richards to drop out of teh race and seal the win for himslef. Now he comes out with a bill that destroys raodless areas and expects us to applaud him. Wanting to protect ALL remninig roadless was'nt a (fringe left) idea when tester campigned under it. Suddenly since tester wants to pass his bill it's a fringe left idea.
How about we hold tester accountable for LYING to the people of MT. How about we demand tester come up with a new bill that protects more than 10% of the available roadless.
Everyone can agree this bill stinks ecept for hammerdsmith who worshiped it from day one.
Jon Tester is a LIAR and you people applaud him for it
pathetic sheeple.
Senator Tester your bill is nothing more than a "wilderness bill" admit it stop dazzling us it's something else.Your "wilderness bill" will result in job loss,loss of hunting opportunity,loss of public land access, less wildlife management not more,less forest management not more, more pressure on the use of other public lands and private lands ,excessive government regulations and rules,more bureaucrats and the list goes on. Maybe the "wildernes bill" will cost you the next election you only won by a mere less than 3500 votes. The 'environmental partners' you call them have already lined up to oppose every timber sale in your "wilderness bill".Your "wilderness bill" assures "wilderness" but not forest management. Read the laws Senator Tester it will be edcucational. Look at http://testerloggingbilltruths.wordpress.com/about/ for all the radical "environmental partners" many anti-hunting organizations.Your "wilderness bill" should go nowhere and your wasting our time like the health care bill of Senator Baucus.Multiple-use land management of public lands is the best process in place under existing laws no new ones neccessary or wanted.
For a more detailed account of our concerns or questions about the FJRA, I'd encourage you to check out our Senate Testimony here: http://energy.senate.gov/public/_files/KoehlerTestimonyonS14701217090.pdf .
Also, the Under Secretary of Agriculture, Harris Sherman, the top US Forest Service official in America, did a decent job of concisely laying out the agency's concerns at the Dec 17 Senate Hearing when he made the following statements:
"If the Committee decides to go forward with a bill, we would urge you to first, alter or remove the highly specific timber supply requirements, which in our view are not reasonable or achievable.
Secondly, we like to urge you to amend the National Environmental Policy Act related provisions, which in our view are flawed and are legally vulnerable.
Thirdly, we would urge you to consider the budgetary implications to meet the bill's requirements. If we were to go forward with S1470 it would require far greater resources to do that and it will require us to draw these monies from forests within Region One or from other Regions."
"The levels of mechanical treatment that are called for in S1470 are likely unachievable and perhaps unsustainable."
"There is the likelihood that if Congress were to move forward and pass legislation such as we are talking about today, that other regions will want to do so similarly. Now, if that happens, my concern is that there will be somewhat of a balkanization that occurs between the different regions in the country. Those who are first in may get funded and those who come later may find there are less funds available. There will be certain 'haves' and 'have nots' that result from this process. Then in someways there is no longer a true national review, an effort to sift out what priorities ought to exist across the country."
Finally, Bruce Smithhammer, I have come to realize that I just can't satisfy you. Let's review what's happened here: You asked me a question. I answered your question to the best of my ability. You respond by ignoring all the points I raised in the answer to your question and accusing me of talking too much. Does that make any sense to you? Once again, if you ever want to talk one-on-one about these issues, please just pick up your phone and give me a call. You have my number and I'm happy to speak with you or anyone else about these issues. Thanks.
and he hates health care
how comapsionate you are towards the earth and the thousands of americans who are dying due to lack of health insurance.
You conservatives are so compasionate.
how is anyone supposed to make a hemp computer/car/clothes/fuel when hemp is outlawed in the US still.
I wonder who funds the anti-hemp legistlation?
could it be the petroleum and timber corporations?
Funny how we are the only industrialized nation that still outlaws the growing of industrial hemp.
bearbait you are a blubbering right wing crazy
"You know why this bill works? because neither Skinner (fringe right) or Koehler (fringe left) can stand it"
Exactly. Best comment in this thread.
And on second thought, Matt, you have answered my question. Thanks.
Now Tester comes out with a bill that destroys roadless and only protects 10% of the available roadless acres in MT.
Now it's considerd a fringe left idea to protect ALL remning roaldess areas in MT becuase Tester came out with a bill that destroys roadless areas.
These are glaring realities that smithishammerd and the like continue to ignore and never respond to.
Come on people of MT wake the f*ck up.
Jon Tester lied to you in order to get elected then stabs the people in the bakc that campigned for him becuase they though he stood for the principals he campigned under.
Keep aplauding LYING, CROOKED politicians and see where it gets you.
because neither Skinner nor Matt K. are fringe extresmists.
This bill stinks because it is all based on disception, lies and broken campaign promises.
A bill that destroys roadless areas and protects only 10% of the available roadless is a slap in the face to the thuosands of montanan's that worked to get Tester elected under the promises he campigned under.
Tester thinks he can lie to the people of MT and we will continue to applaud him and forget about what he campigned under and promised.
Apparently he can.
How sad.
It's common sense to hang food and hang elk high in a tree to avoid attracting a whole long list of creatures.
Shooting from trails? probally not a good idea.
Your claim that wilderness discourages hunting is pure BS!
Any real hunter knows the best hunting is located in wilderness/roadless areas.
Your dont know jackshit jack about wild country...obviuosly.
All BS!
This will create "jobs" in the "woods" Senator Tester and we sure don't need or want more "government jobs".
Forget about your "wilderness bill" Senator Tester how painful it maybe. Most people don't want your bill. Lets have a public meeting and 'not' in Missoula and 'no' closed door meetings where you can answer specific questions and see how much support there is for your "wilderness bill".... ok? Have the current multiple-use laws with you, we will. Lets have a 'public forum' the location can be arranged for plenty of people.....say OK!... Perhaps Representative Rehberg and Senator Baucus could join us all.
I've run the numbers, compared to aggregation and mortality this bill is simply too small even if it came off. The only reason the timber partners are in on this is because private ground is unlikely to produce enough volume in the future to allow at least two mills to pay off a mortgage. That's why THOSE guys are at the table (look at former LP facilities for a clue). But because they are in front of a moving fiscal bus, they agreed to toss everyone else under the bus for the hope of enough wood to pay up and get out.
The reason Matt wants S-1470 to fail is because the wildlands faction wants there to be absolutely no commercial, self sustaining economic activity on public land. Once the economic sector is eliminated, they think, or hope, or believe, there will be no significant resistance to the passage of NREPA. They'll get Carole Whatzername to sing songs at a Carolyn Moloney fundraiser in Manhattan and magic will happen, grizzlies will dance and wolves will smile.
One cute irony I also want to point out, while the Last Best Whatever Coalition (which seems to be Matt) grumbles about subsidies to evil logging, the fact is, NREPA would require huge subsidies in order to destroy infrastructure for "rewilding" -- but that's OKAY, because that's a GOOD subsidy.
My opposition to S-1470 is that the condition of the larger Montana landscape is beyond my worst nightmares. Tester's bill gives away too much for pathetically too little. It's a baby step backwards where a giant leap forward is needed.
I am repeatedly stunned by the sweeps of dead forest that weren't there back when the loggers were pillaging the country and Montana's average wage was competitive nationally. The fires of the past few years have not "stabilized" Nature back to "equilibrium" but have instead destroyed important habitat that shouldn't have been lost until replacement habitat grew in elsewhere on the related landscape.
Never mind we destroyed an economy in the bargain while the replacement economy turned out to be less than the promises. So forgive me if I'd like to go back -- or FORWARD -- to something Montana has always been good at -- or at least good enough for Montana.
I went back and re-read your posting at the top of the comments and the whole statement was about the demise of the timber industry and how poor the economics are for them right now.
I mean, you don't need put up a whole litany of words to answer but if the market was better for the timber industry would you support this bill because of the other components?
Wow you've hunted in Alaska jack I must worship you LMFAO!
That area of alaska has the most well fed bears in the state.
Try hunting up in interior with barren ground grizlies and then you can thump your chest a little.
If we dont kill all the prdators all the game will dun be gone
LMFAO! Right wing crazy idiot.
Funny how no one even responds to the fact that Jon Tester lied to the people of MT in order to get elected. He promised to protect ALL remninig roadless areas in MT to get Paul Richards to drop out of the race. Funny how protecting ALL remaining roadless areas was'nt a fringe left idea when Tester was campniging for it, yet now suddenly it's considerd a fringe left idea when tester creates bill that destroys roadless areas.
A bill that destroys roadless areas and protects only 10% of the available roadless is a slap in the face to the thuosands of montanan's that worked to get Tester elected under the promises he campigned under.
Tester thinks he can lie to the people of MT and we will continue to applaud him and forget about what he campigned under and promised.
Apparently he can.
How sad.
Jack you sound such a partisan hack it's hysterical.
Dems and govt are bad.
Did you ever question why there are so few jobs? Can you remember back more than a year jack?
Your obviuosly a blue ribbon, motorhead right wing crazy who trumps multiple use but only beleives in a certain part of the multiple use which is motoroized and involves resource extraction.
Multiple use should include wilderness/roadless and if it was fair it would be a 50/50 split. Two thrids of MT forests have already been logged, miner or roaded. Tester's bill protects only about 10% of the available roadless and yet you right wing crazies hysterically shriek that it's too much.
How about you actually think about what multiple use really means you blabbering hack.
you might be morally mature but your as naive as they come if you think this is the right solution.
You can't take lands that have been impacted and call them wilderness Hemlock.
Once they're logged, mined or roaded there is no going back to wilderness or roadless.
BTW your smarmy, holier than attitude is what has alienated a lot of montanan's from the wilderness movement.
Just a thought
thanks.
i'm pro wilderness to the bone but it's whacko left wing crazies like hemlock who give us all a bad name.
Dont claim you speak for others when you post absolute rubbish!
"Our national forests were not established for timber purposes, multiple use is a myth continued by capitalist interests."
Have you ever actually read the mission statement of the USFS?
Multiple use would be good if thats how it was actually mananged but it's more like multiple abuse.
Wilderness and roadless are lands that have'nt been impacted greatly by humans.
They are primitve areas that deserve to stay that way.
If only hemlock or bird knew that they're hurting their cause by acting like pompous, intellectual pricks that dont have a clue about impacted lands and their current state.
the Lee Metcalf wilderness
you gotta be f*cking kiddin me right?
that wilderness is so damn small and NO ONE IS RESTRICTING WALKING ACESS ANYWHERE ON ANY USFS LANDS
if any wilderness deserves to be expanded it's the Lee Metcalf which has thousands of roadless acres surrounding it that are as primitve as they come in the lower 48.
There certainly is not enough protected wilderness/roadless/primitve areas in MT.
Nor did I ever say it was.
I only said that I think familiarizing yourself with the actual mission statement of the USFS would be a good thing for a lot of people who seem to have some idea that FS lands are (or should be) the equivalent of some sort of wilderness designation. They aren't. Most people don't seem to realize that, like it or not, FS lands ARE intended for multiple use, which includes both recreational and some commercial uses. We can debate the good and the bad of that, but it currently is what it is.
It's not however and multiple use is nothing more than another way of saying working forest.
If you want to see what working forests become look at northern Maine.
Huh? How do you arrive at that? Though FS lands may include places that are more or less wild, it's NOT Wilderness - that's exactly my point. It's national forest. They're not the same thing.
Half working forest and half wilderness,
thats fair and offers multiple uses.
Wilderness is a part of national forests and should be recognized as that not some arm of the forest service.
With all due respect, the notion that, our FS lands should be "half wilderness and half commercial use" is an incredibly simplistic way of looking at it.
And I think you are using the terms "wilderness" (a concept) and "Wilderness" (a designation) interchangeably, which is clouding the issue.
Im from MT where in the hell are you from cuz thats all that matters!
and you claim i'm looney...LMFAO!
The Lee Metcalf deserves more acres and if there aint a trail find another way.
I've never heard of any kind of the restrictions like you describe but i'll take your word for it however it's certainly isolated becuase most wilderness areas in MT and beyond have multiple trailheads that even a guy in his coupe mini could drive to.
Grover dont you have a point to make or do you just make ambiguous, nonsensical insults.
This school boy could school you any day now go back to seasame street.
excuse me big bird.
The Organic Act of 1897 reads, in part "No national forest shall be established except to improve and protect the forests…or for the purpose of securing favorable conditions of water flows, and to furnish a continuous supply of timber…”
Improve? That's an active phrase. Protect? Active again. Favorable water flows? Securing same? Active. Continuous supply? Kind of hard to do that when you burn it down or let bugs eat it.
However, I do agree with Burnout on one thing. Let's turn the wildernesses over to another agency. I'd be okay with the Park Service, but the purist "hunters and anglers" wouldn't -- so maybe a Wilderness Service? Let the rest revert back to the people of America through a resuscitated FOREST Service.
I said technically this is what multiple use should look like NOT that I think all USFS should be managed that way.
If one third of USFS lands being wilderness/roadless is not multiple use then it's not multiple use.
There were wholesale tribal migrations across the Rockies from the West to access bison for needed materials and preserved food. I have seen a livestock census for the Nez Perce tribe that went along at about 25,000 head of horses, mules and cattle annually, and then suddenly one year it is half of what it was. Evidently the Crow Nation managed to arrange a nocturnal change of horse ownership, and the NP went back to the Clearwater with far fewer head than went east in the spring. How in the hell can you travel with those kinds of herds and not have more than a single animal track? You can't, and the West was traversed by many, many major trails and tracks, many through what is now called Wilderness. And every night they camped and maybe for more than a day. Don't you suppose in the same places for generations? This was where they lived in a moving life of use of the land. Many tribes, groups, language families of the West cultivated species by providing irrigation or transplants, pruning, seed and bulb planting, and nominal ownership of nut producing trees which were protected and valued. And it all took place in what Johnnie-come-lately NGO followers want to designate as a special place never used by man for commerce or cultivation. Just by purposeful burn management those peoples changed and directed which species lived where, and what ones were allowed to prosper, and what ones were to be discouraged. They did that for over 10,000 years. Not with livestock. They managed the landscape for wildlife, which was their livestock. How you took care of the land determined what there was to be used. There was species determination by direct action. And all that is denied by the pure Wilderness people. But, so were Blacks at the lunch counters. That we have been able to change. This deal of the denial of Native American landscape management is a lot tougher nut to crack. Old mindsets are hard to change. Old prejudices are hard to kill.
your just as extreme and partisan as pseudo.
Lefties want all USFS lands as wilderness and right wingers want no wilderness.
Spinless enviros like testers ideas while enviros with a backbone want to protect whats left.
Earth first you could learn a thing or two from them skinner if you ever come down from the skinhead valley that is.
and skinhead I am against turing over wilderness to another agency if you knew how to read.
But it's the "whacko left wing crazies like hemlock who give us all a bad name."
bahaha.....
Spinless enviros like testers ideas because they're desperate for the big W at any costs, while enviros with a backbone want to protect whats left of MT's raodless lands as was promised by Tester during his campign."
broad but true stereotypes
my words are true
yours are just empty insults
bahahaha
mickey= RWC
Grover= RWC
smithhammer= spinless enviro.
BTW mickey your the definition of an aspiring cult leader with your continual, failed political and env. leader aspirations.
Also - hats off to Tester for putting a non-motorized bicycle corridor through the proposed Cowboy Heaven addition and the Sapphire Divide in the FJRA. Any future protection of our landscapes needs to address traditional bicycle trails in the same manner. Montana's rural communities are surrounded by world-class backcountry bicycle trails on public lands , and if these singletrack opportunities are protected and promoted, bicyclists can provide a sustainable, low impact and green revenue stream for these towns - forest jobs if you will.
Wilderness Lite anyone?
I'm interested in why you talk about "traditional" bike trails when that's a tradition that pretty much didn't exist before 1976 and Gary Sprunger's buddies at Crested Butte. Kind of makes me wonder how you would treat longer-standing traditions such as sleds, dirt bikes, and contemporaneous ATVS, never mind Jeeps and the family sedan.
Trust me, it won't be Wilderness Lite for long, just long enough for the "secretary concerned" to invoke closure.
After the loggers, ranchers, miners and motorfolks have all been thrown under the bus and departed the arena, who's going to be left alone for when the saints of Gaia decide it's your turn?
Moab may have had a good go, but the real economy is pretty much nonexistent and times are hard there.
Regarding Roadless Areas... Generally, Designated Roadless Areas don't have much timber worth extracting, as roads would have been already installed to exploit such lucrative areas. That being said, I'm not at all a big fan of new road construction. Actually, some Roadless Areas don't have much timber in them at all!
One last point.... Dead and dying forests do NOT make good Wilderness Areas or "Wildlife Corridors". Those forests need options and not "strict preservation".