oh my god.

so now after having been told that this thing's totally unlawful and unimplementable by damn near everybody from that usda honcho to forest bulldog matt koehler, the committee's concluded that tester's bill was fatally flawed and floated at the wrong time?

somehow, everybody already saw this. well almost everybody, everybody but the single-noted "Thank You Senator Testers", too busy they were parroting talking points ad nauseum and conducting biased surveys to show that "real montanans support" "historic atv sheep herding" in the snowcrest wilderness, or want to see the army conduct helicopter games at remote wilderness lakes. it was ridiculous, of course, but in their zeal to "collaborate" they could no longer see the forest for the trees.

i hope the tester team can provide us with an itemized report of how much they spent on this dead end campaign.

No one I know here in Montana supports ATV sheepherding in
wilderness areas,that should be a matter of common sense,they tear out plants, cut ruts in the soil, leading to erosion,and who wants to see or hear a bunch of ATV's in a wilderness area?

Mandated logging makes sense only in some areas,if we are going to put out all the forest fires,then we need to remove the fuel for the fires,and that does include some logging,not clear-cuts,selective harvest logging,done in a sustainable manner,with as little damage done by creating logging roads as possible.
The USFS is in charge of the forests,and responsible logging is part of managing the forests. Forests need to have trees removed at times to remain healthy,which fires used to do.
In some areas,a few clear-cuts actually help the overall health of the forest. Not the massive clear-cuts of the past,a few select smaller cuts,to take the place of doing what fires used to do,
get rid of all the debris on the forest floor,thin out the trees,and let new growth of smaller plants and grasses occur. Which is good for the wildlife.

The military has to practice somewhere,if it is a wilderness lake once in a while,so be it,just not constant use. These are public lands we are talking about,and the USFS,and the US military are entitled to use the lands,the USFS to manage them,the military to conduct neccessary training exercises.

Some logging is a good thing,helps the health of the forest, creates a few jobs,and if and when the mills are buying timber,it provides lumber and mill jobs.

I couldn't possibly improve on what elkamino has already said... Although I would like to amend the rote mantra "Thank you, Senator Tester" to read, Thank you, Last Best Place Wildlands Campaign for keeping both the pressure on and the public informed.

In Soviet America, laws and projects must meet "Party Rules", above all. Preserve the partisan politics!!!

In other words, the ENR draft changes nothing from pre-S-1470 conditions except it implements new wilderness. Typical of the extremist party running the committee. Back to square one....let's get another summer of fire stupidity and a crummy economy to work on people's attitudes.

Much as we'd all like to know what's going through the minds of the MWA et al. people (well, sort of), there's really no reason for them to say anything about this because it would require that they at least tacitly acknowledge the Senate Committee and staff hold the forest's interests more to heart than they do. They can't really condemn the changes, because they're called wilderness activists--yet of they applaud them, they are also owning up to their error.

Rest assured, however, that they will find their voices if the bill, better or worse than it is now, gets close to passage. Then they'll declare victory. This is what happened when the drastically-altered (by Senate Committee) Owyhee bill passed, and what's happening around the drastically-altered (by House and Senate Committees) CIEDRA bill.

Due to an apparent techno difficulty, the original article here has been erased. Until NewWest is able to fix the problem, I just wanted to re-post the entire article in the comments section. Thanks.

New Draft of Tester Bill Put Together by Senate Committee
By Matthew Koehler, New West Unfiltered 6-04-10

Yesterday, members of the Last Best Place Wildlands Campaign called on Senator Tester to make public a new "Discussion Draft" version of the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act (FJRA) that was put together by the US Senate's Energy and Natural Resources Committee and given to Senator Tester last month.

Since the Committee's draft includes significant new language, we believe it's in the best interest of all Montanans and Americans for Senator Tester to make a copy of the Committee's draft available for public review and input. This step will ensure transparency and give all members of the public an equal opportunity to review the new draft language.

The Committee's new draft drops the controversial mandated logging levels on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge and Kootenai National Forests and drops Senator Tester's 12-month timeline for environmental analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act, which the head of the Forest Service called "flawed and are legally vulnerable" during last December's Senate hearing.

The Committee's new draft also adds language requiring that any project carried out under the bill must maintain old growth forests and retain large trees, while focus any hazardous fuel reduction efforts on small diameter trees.

The Committee's draft drops several of the controversial Wilderness provisions, including those allowing helicopter landings for military training exercises and herding livestock with ATVs in Wilderness, but other provisions that compromise the integrity of the proposed Wildernesses remain in the new draft.

Today's Great Falls Tribune <http://www.greatfallstribune.com/article/20100604/NEWS01/6040332/Forest+bill+backers+rap+panel+s+changes>contains an article , which makes it clear that Senator Tester and the Montana timber industry won't support any Wilderness bill that doesn't include logging mandates.

The article also indicates that Senator Tester has not decided to release the Energy and Natural Resources Committee's new draft re-write to the public, only to the timber industry and political insiders. Why? And how does this action jive with Senator Tester's pledge to support transparency in government?

However, what about the Montana Wilderness Association, Montana Trout Unlimited and the National Wildlife Federation - the conservation groups that have been among the loudest cheerleaders in support of Senator Tester's current, original bill?

Are these conservation groups seriously not in support of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee's draft re-write?

After all, the ENR Committee's draft still would protect over 600,000 acres in Montana as Wilderness. Isn't that one of the big goals these groups touted over the past few years? We have to break the Montana Wilderness drought?

The ENR Committee's draft would also establish a "National Forest Jobs and Restoration Initiative" that would still "preserve and create local jobs in rural communities...to sustain the local logging and restoration infrastructure and community capacity...to promote cooperation and collaboration...to restore or improve the ecological function of priority watersheds...to carry out collaborative projects to restore watersheds and reduce the risk of wildfires to communities."

Again, aren't these the types of goals and restoration and fuel reduction projects to create local jobs that these groups touted over the past few years?

The ENR Committee's draft also eliminates many of the most controversial (and anti-environmental) aspects of Tester's current bill, which you can bet was done at the behest of the US Forest Service, Obama Administration and the Committee Chairman. So much for all those talking-points inspired letters to the editor and blog comments we've all seen over the past six months telling us that the Obama Administration, Secretary Vilsack and the US Forest Service now support or are "warming up" to Sen Tester's bill, eh?

As I mentioned previously, the Committee draft drops the mandated logging, drops the arbitrary 12-month NEPA timeline, drops military helicopters landing in Wilderness, drops motorized sheep herding in Wilderness, removes the budgetary problems currently in Tester's bill and adds some language about maintaining old-growth and retaining large trees.

Shouldn't these changes in the Committee's draft be viewed as positive steps in the right direction by the Montana Wilderness Association, Montana Trout Unlimited and the National Wildlife Federation? If not, why?

Finally, I'd be remiss if I didn't clearly point out that many in the conservation community - including members of our Last Best Place Wildlands Campaign - have been calling on just these types of changes to be made in the bill for almost a year now. The response from many of the most die-hard supporters of Tester's bill has been, at best, to ignore these concerns, or, at worst, to even go so far as to say that we were lying and making stuff up. The NewWest site is full of commentaries and comments along these lines that anyone can review for themselves. Well, apparently, if the ENR Committee's draft drops many of these concerning provisions we must have been justified and correct to bring these concerns to the public's attention, right?

If you'd like to get some answers, and if you think you should have a stake in the future of public lands management and should be able to see the ENR Committee's draft re-write of Senator Tester's bill so you can review it and provide input, please contact Senator Tester's office directly.

Send your emails at: http://tester.senate.gov/Contact/index.cfm

Or contact Senator Tester at his DC or Missoula office.

Washington, D.C.
724 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510-2604
Phone: (202) 224-2644
Fax: (202) 224-8594

Missoula
130 W Front Street
Missoula, MT 59802
Phone: (406) 728-3003
Fax: (406) 728-2193

You may also wish to share your views and get your questions answered by contacting these organizations:

Montana Wilderness Association: 406-443-7350
Montana Trout Unlimited: 406-543-0054
National Wildlife Federation: 406-721-6705

have funny feeling may be new commitee chairman come November.

Yep, that would be a real funny feeling. You ought to get that checked out at the free clinic you use.

{The following is from the chariman of the above commitee. sounds like a guy whose ideology is a little closer to the MWA than the "alliance of wild rockies". sounds like the commitee threw Mathew and Garrity a bone, and Mathew proclaims it as a policy coup. It's only a matter of time and wildfire before NEPA is overhauled. It may take 10 years, but it's inevitable.}

Bingaman: Collaboration Appears to Be Leading to Healthier Forests

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Jeff Bingaman today said he is heartened by a report released today indicating that appeals over forest thinning work in national forests has fallen dramatically in recent years. The report also indicated that the Forest Service in New Mexico and Arizona approved treating more acres during the 2006-2008 timeframe (more than 3 million acres) than any other region of the National Forest System.{sounds like they're logging more-not less}

According to a U.S. Government Accountability Office report, between the years 2006-2008, none of the Forest Service projects in New Mexico involving hazardous fuels reduction were taken to court, and 87 percent proceeded without any objection, administrative appeal, or litigation.{ too bad Montana has had every hazardous fuel reduction project litigated}

"The Forest Service and public in New Mexico generally have embraced a collaborative approach to responsible forest thinning and wildfire-risk reduction projects. The willingness of the public and the Forest Service to work together is paying off," Bingaman said. "I hope this trend continues."

Bingaman, who chairs the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee which has jurisdiction over the Forest Service, asked GAO to review recent progress in our national forests. He is the author of the Collaborative Forest Restoration Program in New Mexico and the national Forest Landscape Restoration Act, which authorizes $40 million annually for landscape-scale forest restoration projects that cover 50,000 acres or more. Competitive grants are to be awarded to restoration projects that are developed in collaboration with local communities.

"During the past few years, we've had very serious wildfire seasons in the West. Clearly, there is more forest restoration work to be done. As we move toward these larger restoration initiatives, it's my hope we can continue to make progress through collaboration."

Tester's forest bill, transparency, and the legislative process
By John S. Adams, Great Falls Tribune Capitol Bureau Chief

Available at: http://mtlowdown.blogspot.com/2010/06/testers-forest-bill-transparency-and.html

I'd also just like to point out that Logger/Derek wrote "too bad Montana has had every hazardous fuel reduction project litigated" in reference to the GAO's report of Forest Service fuel reduction projects from 2006 through 2008.

In truth, that GAO report showed that 92% of all fuel reduction projects in the US Forest Service's Northern Region (MT, N. ID and Dakotas) went forward without litigation. Nationally, that figure was 98%. Interested members of the public may view the entire GAO report at: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d10337.pdf .

So basically they're only removing the most scathingly obviuos anti-wilderness/roadless provisions. This bill is still terrible and it's disgraceful the way MWA and ASUM at U of M missoula have endorsed it. I love the way they proclaim "well we have'nt had any new wilderness in MT for over 27 years"

Right! That's becuase we were'nt willing to accept bills that destroy 3/4's of a roadless area and make about a 1/4 of the high elevation country wilderness!

Your right Mathew, it was quite a generalization of me to state that 100% of fuel reduction projects were litigated in Montana. But I can think of 7 or 8 that the "Alliance" has litigated in the past few years. Let's see, Lonesome Wood, Elliston face, Rat Creek, one on the Custer, three on the Kootenai. Garrity just appealed the "Bozeman" watershed project, and hopefully will litigate it (I love it when the moderate greens in Bozeman will be stymied by radical greens-such actions only alienate the radicals further away from their onetime supporters). Curiously, most all of these are projects are "healthy forest timber sales" near homes. Seems like a public relations disaster to me. Perhaps one of his "foundation grants" stipulates that he takes on these HFA projects because they're only "excuses for industrial logging" or some such tired blather. In fairness, I can also think of many "projects" that haven't been litigated like the Summit and Debaugen.

The fact remains that the Alliance is about the only group I can think of that still litigates in the inland west. Colorado has stopped all timber sale litigation. Sante Fe, the beautifull hippie vortex city in Senator Binghams state has "mechanically" thinned (logged) 5200 acres in it's watershed over the last decade(Bozeman proposes 2500). I would still like your take on the Center for Biological diversities "memoradum of understanding" not to oppose logging 25,000 acres/year in Arizona and New Mexico in support wildfire thinning and a proposed 200 million dollar OSB plant. It seems the only place you can log anymore is in places that are dominated by old hippies. Guess it's harder to stick it to your friends than a bunch of percieved redneck Montanans. Perhaps its more the adversarial relationship and less the ecosystem. Perhaps it's time for you to sign an MOU.

You're looking at a future where fires are followed by public demand for more thinning followed by public frustration because theirs no infrastructure to do it followed by refom of NEPA to attract such infrastructure. It's unfortunate for you that the USFS is focusing logging treatments in the Wild Urban Interface because the future public is gonna see these "green islands" and wonder why they didn't do more of them. It used to be that the USFS "hid" the logging out of view, now it's coming right down to the city limits.

anyway.

dead.....D...E...A...D.....dead. good riddance to arrogance and closed door meetings. once this thing was taken out of the air-tight container and exposed to the light of day, everyone realizes it stinks to high heaven.

the board of Montana Wilderness Alliance should resign and a new board of directors should fire every one of those wilderness pretenders on that equally stench filled staff of theirs so that this once proud organization can renew its committment to wilderness protection instead of corporate foundation grant groveling.

i am sure there are plenty of corporate lobby positions that will be available for these traitors to apply for.

Historians will look back on this era of "faith-based" forest mismanagement as barbaric and short-sighted as the clearcutting that had gone on before. "BURN, baby, BURN....NOW, baby, NOW!!" Gaia, save us from your followers!!!

fanned Problembear comments FANEED 100%


Fotoware your retired, bitter old bigot comments are growing 100& tiresome!

and logger of south dakota coninues his delsuinoal, right wing ravings on and into the night and whos that on his coat tails Fotoworn!

MWA should be abolished and replaced with real wilderness advocates. Don't forget all the supporters like ASUM of U of M Missoula and Pat Williams etc.

they should be tarred and feathered for the pond scum they are!

To all you purists out there who revile Senator Tester's bill because it's supposedly a sell-out to the timber industry:

This effort has never been just about how much wilderness we can get. It's about how much wilderness we can get without polarizing Montanans. Because if Montanans are polarized on the proposal, no member of Montana's congressional delegation will support it. And if no one from Montana's congressional delegation supports a wilderness proposal, it ain't gonna happen.

Do you really think Montanans are going to elect a senator who is more progressive than Jon Tester in your lifetimes? By publicly attacking him for making a good faith effort to bring Montanans together, you're killing the wilderness movement in Montana. Y'all need to grow up.

mthunter. you give all of us too much credit. i don't think we wilderness supporters had any effect in killing this bill. i think the people who participated in a bogus closed room deal to ram this through congress were just a little bit naive about the process.

but thanks for making us feel better anyway.

seems like tester, gatchell et al are the ones who need to do a little growing up.

by the way, i am pretty sure i was protecting and helping to pass wilderness through congress when you were eating fruit loops and watching sesame street. it is washington dc son. they don't call it the swamp for nothing. now run along and pass out kleenex to everyone on tester's staff for me will ya?

Ha - I wish I was as young as you think I am!

How much do you want to bet that Tester's bill passes within the next year (with the logging provisions) and NREPA continues to gather dust? To paraphrase from Monty Python, the FJRA "ain't dead yet."

I don't joke around with industry/development collaborators/grant whores when it comes to wilderness sir.

You would sell your mother for a pat on the head from those in power. Your words mean nothing to real wilderness supporters, pup. Go piddle and fawn at tester's ankles. I kick you away.

Mtn Hunter you obviously dont know a damn thing about roadless areas or why people have problems with tester's fjra. Do we have to post the hundreds of problems with this bill, do we really have to post all those points you dance around like a politician?

Your an absolute fool do you owrk for MWA?

Mtn Hunter.

Actually your the one killing the wilderness movement in MT with your support of back room, corporate meetings that merely suggest what should be wildernes, but ultimately Tester the politician drew the final lines. Sorry I don't want politicians making seriuos decisions about public lands in MT apparently you do.

Tester's FJRA deals with about 3.3 million acres of roadless wildlands. Out of this 3.3 million acres around 600,000 acres of new high elevation, dsiconnected wilderness would be added. Much of this new wilderness would be bisected by aTV roads etc.

Basically your saying this is the best we can do in MT becuase it's such a red state. Sorry MT is not that red, the people don't want this roadless land grab. You'd probally claim NREPA will never pass here becuase it's so polarizing (I don't think it is, scientists nationally support it as the best plan to preserve our ecosystems and economy), but Tester's FJRA is just as polarizing and is really the timber industry's project to get into million of acres of roadless lands. You expect us to support this corrupt, close door attack on wilderness, roadless lands, the forest service, public involvment and our way of life.

GROW UP!

By mthunter, 6-07-10

Ha - I wish I was as young as you think I am!

How much do you want to bet that Tester's bill passes within the next year (with the logging provisions) and NREPA continues to gather dust? To paraphrase from Monty Python, the FJRA "ain't dead yet."


How childish you really sound

do you wanna bet?

what a foolish child, I hope your bill is DOA!

A few short years ago groups now pushing roadless area logging were firmly behind the 58 million-acre Clinton Roadless Rule. The Rule included all 6.4 million roadless acres in Montana. That's what the funders wanted. These same funders now demand quid-pro-quo mini-bills focused on "low-hanging fruit" with long established public constituencies. Victory is redefined according to the dictates of grant-makers. Obedience is money. Politics and money is consuming, not growing, the wilderness pie.

the only way to protect wilderness is with passioniate and devoted pressure endlessly and courageously applied....

craven collaboration with industry and developers only serves their ends.

mthunter:
by now you are probably becoming aware of the passion that fires real wilderness supporters and are curled up in a little puppy ball right now. be aware that we mean you personally no harm. you are simply irrelevant to our cause.

no one can really hurt the wilderness movement. it is a primordial thing within all of us that cannot be stopped. you either have it or you do not. if you do not you are simply in the way of an irrestistable force.

the bill is dead. my wager is one pabst blue ribbon to be purchased by the loser at Harold's club milltown mt. jan 1, 2011.

Irrelevantbear:

You need to take medication for that enlarged ego of yours.

I'm thankful there are people like you to defend Montana's last remaining wild country from those who seek to despoil it, but if you want any more Congressionally-designated wilderness in this state, there are more constructive ways to go about it other than publicly attacking your fellow conservationists and elected leaders like Senators Tester and Baucus. That's just plain stupid and incredibly unstrategic.

Or perhaps you'd rather file appeals and lawsuits than do the hard work that's required to designate new wilderness?

koehler's question is spot on:

will the Montana Wilderness Association, Montana Trout Unlimited, National Wildlife Federation support this less controversial rewrite of the bill, now that it won't violate the wilderness act or mandate unprecedented levels of logging?

it'll be interesting to see if any of the "thank you senator tester" group are second-guessing their effort at selling out big-W and are ready to jump ship and support this rewrite as a way to escape the dark side and again get to the serious work of protecting montana's wilds.

mtpuppy: i will take your non response toward my wager of one pabst blue ribbon at Harold's Club in Milltown as a cowardly decline....

regarding your assessment of my ego; it is not my ego that takes sugar coated bribes from corporate foundation grants and has the audacity to cheat future generations of montanans out of their birthright and call it reasonable politics.

it might be well to recall that it was you who threw down the gauntlet by telling those of us with courage to grow up....

as far as you thanking me for our genuine support of wilderness while you stick the knife in our backs, i reject your right to thank me or any other real wilderness warrior for anything. in fact, that BS you spout about reasonable politics while you cash the checks of our enemies is washing back at you like a mudslide in high water.

i am enjoying this mudslide with a cold pabst blue ribbon by the way as i watch your precious collaboration bill swirl into the sewers of washington where it belongs. cheers!

Ah ha hah ha ha hah ha ha.....
Way to go, Matt. I'll just HAVE to do a little more google fu thanks to you.
Any word on when the actual draft will leak? THAT's what I want to see.

skinner:

great falls tribune reporter john adams has the draft posted on his blog here:

http://mtlowdown.blogspot.com/

he's also got a remarkably blunt commentary on the jr. senator's failed attempt to keep these plans for public lands private - again.

while tester and his staff have been naive and have shown all of the shortcomings of a freshman senator stumbling on his way out of the blocks on this bill, i do not revile him or his staff.

i save my revulstion for the so called wilderness groups and their leaders (boards and executive directors) who collaborated on this charade of a bill. to attempt to hide what you are doing usually means you are guilty of something.

in this case all the parties who kept this process in their back pockets and away from the people in the creation of this back room deal should hang their heads in shame and resign, but most especially those who colluded with industry and have the timerity to call themselves wilderness supporters.

Thanks for the link, EK.
Now I have more dreck to wade through to find the meat. Painful. But you knew that.

The Minority on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee did not participate in anyway in the development of the "Committee" draft this article is based on. Thus, it would be both wrong and short-sighted to suggest it is a "Committee" product.

It is the tradition on this Committee to work out the differences that all members might have and a discussion draft written by only the Majority or only the Minority does not represent a "Committee" product.

Nor does a draft written and agreed to by the staffs (both majority and minority) until the folks with the election certificates vote yea during a Committee business meeting.

Thus, I would hope both Matthew and everone else will keep in mind whatever was released represents only the work of the majority staff at this point.

I'm not young; I'd thought my level of disillusionment and cynicism topped off years ago. But Jon Tester singlehandedly ended my decade long involvement in politics by being by far the most disappointing politician of my lifetime. Proof positive that I could not make a difference.

Thanks for all the new-found free time, Senator Tester.

Just got my Tester fundraising letter in the mail today. On the envelope it says "Let's teach Washington a lesson..."

On the inside it outlines what Tester calls the "decidedly and clearly battles of good vs. bad...right vs. wrong."

And of course, it ends with a plea for Montanans to send Tester money...just like every other politician with their hand out.

Seems to me like Jon isn't teaching Washington a lesson, but the other way around. He puts legislation together in secret, backdoor meetings, doesn't release it to the press, refuses to answer questions about how much it will cost or how many fictional jobs it will create and then, when a committee draft is released, refuses to allow the public, friends or foes, to see it.

Maybe Tester has taught Montanans a lesson -- the promised change didn't happen and Jon Tester has turned into what he tells us we should despise -- a backroom deal-cutting DC politico.

Needless to say, the envelope, it's bogus contents and the return envelope for my contribution all went right where Tester's bill should go -- in the garbage.

today tester declared the committee's rewrite of his bill is dead on arrival. that is the best decision jon has made yet.

Gee big surprise there.Does any body really truly expect Tester to embrace a new version that is devoid of any mandatory logging and essentially sounds like a modification of NREPA?I am confused as to why the hardline pro -Wilderness folks actually think the bill could be rewritten to such a drastic degree-and still be embraced by him and his staff who have already made it abundantly clear that the bill was more about logging than wilderness from the get go?But then again I dont undrstand politics in general.

Can a bill just go ahead and be completely modified to turn in to a piece of legislation that does not even focus on the issues and concerns that were the key points of the originally written bills conception through the jostling or tweaking of poitical commitee connections and players?
If its possible that through Tester not being an energy Commitee member any longer,whoever holds the power to now steer the bill through this rewite process AND completely tweak it to no longer even resemble the original version of FJRA,yet still call it just a "rewritten" model of the same bill actually now holds the key power rather than Tester ,the man who put his name on the bill-then I suppose all of this would make a little more sense-but as usual only a LITTLE!

Gawrshalmighty, this is fun to read.
Bottom line is, it's not only the conservatives who are able to muster a circular militia.
I read the "drafts" and it is clear that E and NR on the Demo side is totally in the "wilderness only" and "no legal reform to keep our lawyer buddies busy" camp. I guess that's what happens when an institution is lined out by seniority instead of merit -- the result is always tied to the lowest and oldest common denominator.
I hope the timber "partners" in this fiasco learned their lesson.

Lovely to see the Democratic "apparatchiks" making sure that all legislation meets partyline requirements. Yep, preserve the partisan politics regardless of the environmental and economic impacts. However, Tester was warned about including mandated forestry, as the partyline now favors eliminating ALL forestry on public lands. The fights between conservationists and preservationists will rage on until science is mandated. Obama's Katrina marches on! (Yes, I coined that term right after his election....heh heh)

Good grief, look what pot is calling the kettles black, a lifelong bureaucratic machine man with a political streak that goes all the way to the core. Science my rear, there was never any science behind anything you ever did. You were a paid agent in a public service suit, fake through and through.

My political affiliation is "Neither". You know nothing about me and my thoughts, other than what I reveal in this forum. Could you get a wider brush, or even a huge roller, mikey? I refuse to meet someone else's stereotype and the science I recommend is MUCH better than what the preservationists spew.

Soooo, I guess we're back to the original default position of the government of "Wilderness" designation, road obliteration and Let-Burn programs to "re-wild" National Forests, at ANY cost, eh? Close more mills, put more people out of work and, of course, no re-planting of forests. The most "unnatural" forest of all is one without humans in it.

and fotoware continues his lunatic right wing ravings that anyone opposed to tester's FJRA is opposed to all forestry.

just get a life you retired bitter old cook!

You forget that I was also opposed to Tester's Bill...heh heh

You're the one that needs a life that doesn't include insults instead of reality and fact. It's sad that people sacrifice our old growth forests in exchange for partisan politics. I'm also seeing yet another "end run" around science that will turn sickly, dying forests into "protected" wildlife corridors, although they clearly aren't suitable or effective, as such.

Sooooo, what's it gonna be?!? Charred wastelands, endless snag patches or "park-like managed forests" that support endangered wildlife. Remember, this new bill is being proposed by urban liberal lawmakers from both coasts.

Tester to unveil new forest bill draft details Thursday
By John S. Adams
@ http://mtlowdown.blogspot.com/2010/06/tester-to-unveil-new-forest-bill-draft.html

and fotoware continues to cry.......and claim only "managed forests" are healthy.

hmmm might have something to do with all that fire suppresion.....hmmmmm

fotoware no matter the topic you cry cry cry about charred wastelands

get a life you bitter old cook!

"Why restoration as a driving principle in forest policy? There is no doubt that we are facing a health crisis in our forests. Climate change places them under increasing stress that exacerbates the threats of fire, disease, and insects. Throughout the West – but in other parts of the country as well – a legacy of fire suppression has resulted in forests that are over-stocked and much more susceptible to catastrophic fire and disease. Restoring forest ecosystems, particularly in fire-adapted forests, will make forests more resilient to climate-induced stresses and will ensure that our forests continue to supply abundant, clean water."

If you won't believe me, maybe you'll believe Obama's hand-picked Secretary of Agriculture??.... Or maybe you'll believe 100 million dead trees in the Rockies??.... Or maybe you'll believe it when a fall mega-firestorm is bearing down on your residence??!!??

We'll see if Tester's new shade of lipstick will make that pig look more attractive.

blah blah this is about testers fjra stfu with your endless rantings

"NewWest.Net encourages robust and lively, but civil participation from our readers. By posting here, you agree to the NewWest.Net terms of service. You agree to keep your comments on topic, respectful and free of gratuitous profanity. Contributions that engage in personal attacks, racism, sexism, bigotry, hatred or are otherwise patently offensive will be subject to removal."

This never seems to be enforced here with some of these posters.

Let's see....

"hatred"....check
"gratuitous profanity"....check
"personal attacks"...check
"on topic"....no
"respectful"....no
"civil"....NO!

I formally request that management warn such people that they are abusing this forum and driving people away.

FW. you are not wrong. I just got back from a swing through Dillon and the Big Hole and the amount of mortality, of wonderful trees, is off the scale. THere are lots of deadfall stands that are most definitely firetraps and not exactly wildlife attractants either, not when the energy budget comes into play. And the dead standing will soon be deadfall. It's a dirty rotten shame, and FJRA does nothing significant for the vast areas that reasonable people would say need management.
Apparently, the discussion draft does even less, not surprising since so many senior Dems on these committees take their clue from clueless yet wealthy "environmentalist" groups and donors.