Tester Wilderness Bill
Montana Writer Rick Bass Gives Views on Tester Bill
Author Rick Bass has written more than 20 books and now, an essay about Tester's Forest-Jobs bill -- and why he likes it.By Amy Linn, 8-20-09
 |
|
 | |
| The Yaak. Photo by Rick Bass. | |
|
Acclaimed writer Rick Bass, author of The Wild Marsh and Why I Came West—a 2008 finalist for a National Book Critics Circle Award for autobiography—has published an interesting essay about the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act proposed by Sen. Jon Tester, D-Mont.
The essay in Yale Environment360, a publication of the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, gives Bass’s perspective as a longtime conservationist, Yaak Valley resident and member of the Yaak Valley Forest Council. Bass describes the legislation this way:
“Tester’s bill is notable because it might provide a template, as well as motivation, for communities facing other issues—whether social, environmental, or economic—in the fractious rural West. ... It would be a good dramatic story if this bill was a sellout, but it’s not,” Bass writes. “It’s just a map of common ground—places where longtime opponents have agreed to agree.”
The fact that it’s championed by ATV riders, snowmobilers and “millworkers and woodsworkers trying desperately to stay employed, doesn’t make it a bad bill,” Bass continues. “This bill increases wildness, protects endangered species, and detoxifies—once and for all—the word ‘wilderness’.”
To read the essay in its entirety, click here.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
That statement might make for a good on-liner in an essay (even if it just seems to foster the type of polarization that Bass wants to end). But in reality that statement is just really a sophomoric cheap-shot and far from the real reasons why many conservation groups and dedicated wilderness supporters throughout Montana have concerns with not only Tester's bill, but also the exclusive nature of some of these so-called "collaborations," most notably the Beaverhead Partnership.
For a look at some of these issues and concerns, I'd suggest this recent essay at NewWest.net from ecologist and author George Wuerthner: http://www.newwest.net/topic/article/perspective_analysis_on_the_tester_forest_bill/
Thanks.
Montanans have demonstrated a desire and willingness to work together from the Yaak to the Beaverhead-Deerlodge on proposals that will benefit Montana.
This took some grit and I applaud their efforts. Thank you Senator Tester for introducing the Forest Jobs bill and looking out for Montana's future.
This is a mirror image of the ongoing debate for public health care. Democrats are more worried about appeasing Republicans than standing on principle. So, they reflexively blame progressives. It's time progressives learn the lessons being taught here, Democrats are the problem.
The exchange is between Jack de Golia, the recently retired public affairs officer for the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest and Ray Ring of High Country News. Many of Mr. de Golia's concerns expressed about the Beaverhead Partnership and Tester's Logging Bill are also shared by others in leadership positions on the Beaverhead Deerlodge National Forest, based on their personal communications with us. Thanks.
Is total denial of federal environmental laws, biological sciences and sustainable economics a prerequisite for "being a voice for reasonable sanity?" Extreme denial raises questions about soundness of mind. Or, perhaps you have another way of explaining away the obvious conflicts between T&E;species recovery and mandated roadbuilding and logging. Please consider these are much higher logging targets than the law and science currently allows. It will require a new biological opinion, more subsidies, and a tighter legal squeeze than anything we've experienced recently. Conservation of what? Please do tell.
The only denial of federal law is a requirement to provide substitute acres for those you and your litigator cronies might sue off the table. What are you upset about? It's going to burn down soon anyway, denying it to the capitalists (and the other associated species, of course) for the foreseeable future.
"ATV riders looking for a legally designated route near communities that already possess roads, as well as by snowmobilers trying to hold on to some of the areas that they have left and millworkers and woods-workers trying desperately to stay employed,"
In short, the "partners" here are under a form of coercion. "Give us the dregs we need to save a part of what little is left for us, and we'll throw everything else under the bus."
That's a perfect fit for the NREPA mentality of throwing the whole thing under the bus for ecotopia, and it's also perfect for Rick's long-term intent of remaking the Yaak in his image. Like attracts like, I suppose.
But what I'm really tired of (and I think many others are too) is all the acrimony and tired rhetoric that basically represents a "we want it all our way" mentality, regardless of which side of the fence you're on. That mentality, in my opinion, is counter-productive and a waste of time and resources. Will this bill make everyone happy? Of course not. Can you name a forest mgmt. plan that ever has?
We need to figure out how to balance user interests and how to manage our forests better than we have been, and I believe (yes, as a conservationist) that that should include a limited amount of sustainably executed logging (and despite the dramatic claims, the Beaverhead-Deerlodge plan does not add up to a huge amount of new logging, nor has it historically). Let's face it - in many areas, the Forest Service has done a less than idea job of managing our forests. We need new ideas, new collaborative approaches. And while this bill isn't perfect (and none ever are), and there are many details still to be figured out in accordance with federal law and other issues, I do think it represents a new way of approaching forest mgmt. and I think that's a good thing.
Thanks for the thoughts. Mandating logging targets is not a new idea. The Shelton Sustained-Yield Unit on the Olympic Peninsula, Washington, failed miserably. The Quincy Library collaboration, and one in New Mexico (forgot the name) also failed. The Lolo-Kootenai Accord in Montana was a flop. Various riders mandating logging on the Kootenai and Flathead National Forests by Williams, Baucus, and Burns have all failed to substantially change the number of jobs or measurably elevate community prosperity. The principle purpose of all these effots has been to sidestep legal requirements that protect species and their habitats. Another common practice in these examples is a deliberate avoidance of scientific knowledge by collaborators. What you call "[my] our way," is simply the integration of scientific principles, law, and economics. The Forest Service is required to approach planning in
an "integrated, multi-disciplined" manner, but has become more political as pressure from Governors, and Congress, damands more stumpage, less science. Downward trends in funding for fish and wildlife bear this out. Many talented biologists left the agency a long time ago. I advocate for what has been basically on the books for decades, but never implemented. To me, that, plus climate change, is what's new. That's what Congress and local collaborations avoid like the plague. Marginalize our efforts to integrate science, economcs and the law if you wish, but it just might be what's needed to sort out the proper "balance." You are certainly not wrong to want this time will be the first, but I don't rely on local politics because of it's very poor track record.
And Hammer, I agree that collaboration needs to work. But the language in the Tester bull (oops, maybe that's not a typo) is so vague and does so little to change the factors that have given certain radicals with poor "track records" veto power, it simply won't work.
For 90 percent of the "partners" -- and I say that based on a percentage of people who support each aspect of the "partnership" -- there is no assurance that what they seek will ever happen. So the Tester bill is unsupportable by anyone seeking any form of objective balance.
Why are any old growth areas still being considered for logging? Timber is a re-newable resource and by now, isn't there enough land that has been logged, both public and private that can be very sustainable tree farms?
In addition, construction methods are changing...new products such as structural insulated panels (SIPs), OSB board, micro-lam beams...are all more cost effective and replacing the need for large tree logging.
I agree with George's past article on areas of Wilderness and "wilderness-lite"...both are very important, but the Wilderness can't just be mountain tops...there needs to be protection of special ecosystems in their entirety...and places for people to continue to hunt and recreate so they appreciate and stay good stewards of the outdoors.
How does a bill that destroys roadless areas that the vast majority of americans and montanans have voted to protect seem fair?
Your "trying to get things done on the ground" mentaility is really just another waying saying your a spineless supporter of wild country.
Regardless, I'm curious - how exactly are you defining, "10% of the available wilderness?" And do you mean "wilderness" with a small "w" or a capital? And how much of that country have you personally spent time in and have a firsthand knowledge of? Are you, for example talking about the massive swaths of beetle-ravaged forest to the east of Anaconda as areas that should receive "Wilderness" designation, which would eliminate any of the forest management that badly needs to take place there if it that entire areas isn't going to be a total wasteland in just a few years?
"the massive swaths of beetle-ravaged forest to the east of Anaconda as areas that should receive "Wilderness" designation, which would eliminate any of the forest management that badly needs to take place there if it that entire areas isn't going to be a total wasteland in just a few years?"
That's a pretty bold prediction there Smithhammer. But I guess bold predications are easier to make when one remains anonymous, eh?
Anyway, as the MT DNRC reports in a new beetle slideshow (available at http://beetles.mt.gov/Documents/FlashPresentations/MTNPineBeetleFinal.html):
"Mountain pine beetle outbreaks in Western forests are not new – infestations have been documented as far back as 1894. The last major outbreak in Montana occurred in the 1970s and early 1980s, when some four million acres were affected, including large forested areas in Glacier and Yellowstone national parks. Montana's current outbreak has not yet reached the levels seen in the early 1980s."
Pretty interesting statements of fact there, don't you think? Is Glacier National Park currently a "total wasteland" as a result of the major beetle outbreak 25 years ago? If so, I must have missed that.
Also, the "last major outbreak in Montana occurred in the 1970s and early 1980s." Well, isn't that interesting? Let's see, wasn't that during the middle of the same period in which all forests in Montana (federal, state and private/industrial) were being heavily logged? You'd think all that logging during the 60s, 70s and early 80s would have prevented the beetle outbreak. I mean, isn't that what some people are trying to claim today?
Thanks for chiming in. And thanks as well for making your typically huge assumptive leaps in what I'm saying.
I'm not "predicting" anything. Take a look at the FS's own "Insect and Disease Progression" overlay maps for the Beaverhead-Deerlodge. I'm talking about what already exists - not predictions of the future.
And nowhere have I said that logging "prevents" beetle infestation, did I? What I'm saying is that huge tracts of already infested, dead (or soon to be dead) forests can, and in my opinion, should be harvested, if it can be done in ways that don't have larger impacts on surrounding watersheds and other essential ecosystem components. I believe - in fact I know - that this is possible. If it doesn't happen, those areas will soon amount to powder kegs of flammable debris, creating far more devastating fires than need be. Tell me, if your house sat in the middle of a dying, heavily infested forest, would you still be so staunch in your "no logging" stance?
The other reason I think it should happen is because, apparently unlike you, I don't think that all logging is inherently evil, and also apparently unlike you, because I recognize the products I consume in my own life that are dependent on the forest industry. It can be done well and sustainably - why not let that happen in places where the trees are going to be dead in a few years anyway?
And thanks as well for your snarky assertion that I'm somehow hiding in "anonymity." That's the funniest (and most ignorant) thing I've heard yet today. But the day is still young...
Also, last time I checked, America wasn't really in a wood or paper product shortage. Haven't I been reading a little something about a global economic crisis caused by over-consumption and over-development? Maybe that was just a mid-summer's day dream.
Oh, by the way, I'm sorry that I didn't realize "Smithhammer" was your given name. Is that a last name or a first name?
P.S. I'm not stupid enough to build a home in the middle of a forest...and even if I was, I certainly wouldn't complain when, at some point, the trees in the forest fall down, die and/or burn. Thanks.
So people who live in or near forests are "stupid?" The cozy suburbs of Missoula must feel like a safe place from which to throw jabs, eh?