Oh, so Republican Sales wants to pull a fast one and cut off debate before the Democrats can have any say ...my, my, my, another cheap and tawdry GOP stunt. So, who mentored this little rightwing woodpecker? ...Larry Craig?

I didn't see any of the statewide coverage mention much, if anything, about the establishment of a "fire suppression study committee," which has the real potential of being a political circus.

According to a letter Rep. Gordon Hendrick (who represents House District 14, which includes Frenchtown and Mineral County and has long advocated for more logging on national forests) wrote in the Clark Fork Chronicle, "The study committee will have 12 members, six from the Senate and six from the House, equally divided between the majority and minority parties, and will hold meetings in Miles City, Libby, Thompson Falls, Lewistown, and Hamilton."

The exact language of House bill 1 says the study must include: "An investigation of firefighting operations in Montana, including operations on tribal land and private land, by the state and federal governments and the management policies affecting the success of those operations; an investigation of the efficient use of fire suppression resources, including equipment and firefighters; an investigation of impacts of operations on private land and on the effective use of private resources to fight fires; and an investigation of state and federal forest management policies and how those policies may contribute to an increased number of wildfires, greater safety risk to firefighters, or compromised effectiveness of fire suppression efforts."

According to the bill, the fire suppression committee shall complete its study by September 15, 2008, and "report to the 61st legislature on its findings and recommendations, including any recommendations for legislation."

For those that don't know, "an investigation of state and federal forest management policies and how those policies may contribute to an increased number of wildfires, greater safety risk to firefighters, or compromised effectiveness of fire suppression efforts" is code for "blaming the environmentalists and lawsuits for the 2007 wildfires in an attempt to make it easier to log state and federal forest lands."

This, despite the fact that a fair number of the fires this year (Jocko Lakes, Chippy Creek, Black Cat) have ripped through some of the most heavily logged and roaded landscapes in western Montana.

Also, while it seems we read the daily letter(s) to the editor in the Missoulian blaming the wildfires on environmentalists and lawsuits the fact remains that only one timber sale in the entire state is currently stopped by litigation (a smallish timber sale on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest) and not one single acre that has burned in Montana in 2007 has been either under litigation or appeal by environmentalists.

In fact, having paid pretty close attention to these issues for some time now, I cannot think of one single wildfire that has burned in Montana in the last decade in a forest that was slatted to be logged but wasn't logged because of a lawsuit.

Good to know that the first thing to go up in smoke during fire season are the facts...followed closely by reality.

Matt - didn't the State get sued up in the Swan this year? And they had been sued before up there too.

Filing litigation is filing litigation.

Also, sales have been halted in the Bitterroot too, no?

Cathie: People often confuse litigation being filed with a timber sale being stopped. That's not the case. Often times those filing suit don't ask for a court-order injunction to stop the logging sale or the court refuses to issue an injunction. In these cases, the land management agency is free to go forward with the logging.

Currently there is only one timber sale on the Bitterroot National Forest in litigation - the Middle East Fork timber sale. True, the sale was under a court-ordered injunction that prevented the cutting of trees over 8", however, that injunction lasted only 30 days and hasn't been in place for nearly a year. The Forest Service has been actively logging that timber sale for almost 12 months now. Are you inferring that somehow this litigation was responsible the Rombo Mountain Fire or other fire on the Bitterroot NF?

I'm not too familiar with state land issues up in the Swan, but I don't believe any lawsuit filed this year stopped a state land timber sale up there. Are you inferring that somehow this litigation was responsible for the Jocko Lakes fire? If so, I'd be curious to know how that works.

My point is that people are blaming environmental group lawsuits (which try to ensure that land management agencies use the best science and follow the law when managing public lands) for the wildfires. However, I'm not familiar with one single example of a wildfire this year, or in year's past, that burned through an area that was planned to be logged but wasn't due to a lawsuit. That would certainly be one way to measure if, in fact, the fires are to be blamed on environmental lawsuits.

You'd sure think if environmental lawsuits are to blame for all the wildfires that people could actually point to some facts and examples of where this is proven.

Also, perhaps people should write to Plum Creek Timber Co and tell them what you think of their poorly managed (heavily logged/roaded) timber lands near Seeley Lake and north of Plains that burned so intensely, After all, land management abuse is land management abuse.

Isn't the goal of filing litigation to stop the sale? Again - litigation is litigation. Isn't there some law that requires the files of the lawsuit to produce some bond to stop the sale? To help prevent frivolous lawsuits?

God figures out where the fires start and where they will go. I doubt he checks his little book to figure out where (or where not) logging sales are planned or where environmentalists have filed lawsuits. Your logic there is seriously flawed.

Believe it not Matt - I'm more on your side then I'm not.

But putting forth less-than-truths doesn't help. It makes you sound radical.

Cathie,

I've been honest here and don't know what "less-than-truths" I've put forward.

You ask, "Isn't the goal of filing litigation to stop the sale?" Sometimes, yes. However, often no. The WildWest Institute is more interested in getting the Forest Service to protect species, soils, old-growth and improve their management than in stopping all logging. Many of the court battles have to do with the Forest Service's failure (in our view) to follow their own forest plans as mandated by the National Forest Management Act. We view these forest plans as the Forest Service's contract with the public. In such cases, we rarely seek a court-ordered injunction to stop a timber sale.

You also asked, "Isn't there some law that requires the [sic] files of the lawsuit to produce some bond to stop the sale? To help prevent frivolous lawsuits? " I'm not aware of any type of law requiring such a bond. We don't work on state land issues very much, so there may be a bond requirement there, but I'm not aware of one.

Regarding "frivolous lawsuit" you should know that it's illegal to file "frivolous lawsuits" and any attorney that is found to file "frivolous lawsuits" can be disbarred. This is a term that's often used to describe our lawsuits by those who don't like them or agree with them. However, it's important to note that over the past 5 years I'd estimate that we've won over 80% of the lawsuits our organization has filed. We've won cases in front of federal district court judge's in Montana and Idaho and we've won cases in front of different federal appeals courts. We even were successful in front of the US Supreme Court earlier this year. We've won in front of Clinton judges and Reagan Judges, Carter Judges and Bush I and II judges. ...ie basically judges from all sorts of backgrounds and perspectives of the law.

If you want more detailed info about our recent and on-going court cases please contact me and I'd be happy to speak with you about them or put you in contact with our attorneys.