“We have a number of board members and their spouses who are associated with the timber industry..." Yes, well, there you go. You got your Harper Valley PTA moving right on it.

“We have a number of board members and their spouses who are associated with the timber industry, so there is a little personal stake in trying to help resolve the impasse." - Eric Feaver

Mr. Feaver, what "impasse" is there for the timber industry right now?

Do you mean the fact that lumber demand has plummeted to the lowest levels since the Great Depression? The fact that prices mills can expect to receive for finished products have fallen nearly 65% in 4 years? The fact that right now on national forest lands in Montana there are easily 20,000 to 30,000 acres worth of commercial timber sales that could be logged TODAY, IF the timber industry would actually bid on the timber sales or get out in the woods and do some logging? Oh yeah, that's right...there's no demand for lumber.

The "impasse" is the fact that our nation's insatiable appetite for over-consumption and over-development has caught up to us and caused our economy to crash. "More of the same" by virtue of mandating a minimum of 156 square miles of commercial logging on a few national forests in Montana doesn't constitute sane economic or environmental policy and certainly doesn't fit any common sense definition of " sustainable."

By the way, I'm a history and English teacher by training, and I support Wilderness, as well as sustainable local and regional economies. Thanks.

I am one those 'employees' mentioned and nobody asked me!!!

Just goes to show MEA MFT is a little short in the brains department. And these people "educate" the next generation. Scary.
40 million feet a year, 10,000 acres of subsidized stewardship, is pathetic in the face of 600,000 acres of fire and bug morts each year since 2000 in Montana. And ya know what? 600,000 acres of logging on that same ground would probably look a lot better and be much healthier in an objective sense, and bring in LOTS of money for the teacher unions.
That is, if the market was there. I suppose the question is, when the market comes back what happens then?

P.S. Really, considering the comments from Mr. Feaver, the title to this piece should be "Teachers for Timber."

I don't feel like the endorsement by the MEA-MFT constitutes "strange bed fellows" at all.

I think it makes sense they would endorse the Sen. Tester's Jobs and Recreation bill as a common-sense approach with great promise for the future of Montana, our people and places.

While some left-of-green people find it helpful to continue a simplistic war with the timber industry, others... and I see here our educators thankfully among them, think finding common solutions which makes progress for jobs, wilderness, wildlife values, and communities is a real and worthy accomplishment.

It has always been harder to make peace than to make war. I thank Sen. Tester again for taking the high road here.

Climber, There's a pretty good chance that you are resorting to anonymous posts because you work for (or are associated with) one of the groups who helped craft Tester's logging bill.

You guys just seem unable to address any concerns or critiques...or any statements of economic fact that might contradict Tester's approach. Rather, you just rather anonymously attack the messengers.

Please explain to all of us how bringing up facts about lumber demand plummeting to the lowest levels since the Great Depression...or the fact that right now on national forest lands in Montana there are easily 20,000 to 30,000 acres worth of commercial timber sales that could be logged TODAY, IF the timber industry would actually bid on the timber sales or get out in the woods and do some logging, constitutes (in your mind) "a simplistic war with the timber industry?"

This is about sensible, sustainable and progressive economic and environmental policy. Nothing less and nothing more. The fact that supporters of Tester's logging bill can't understand this and can't address simple questions, concerns and critiques speaks volumes.

This is especially true because Senator Tester's office and the self-selected groups and timber mills that were part of the "collaboration" insist that introducing a bill in Congress was only "the start of the process" and that they want to hear from Montanans about the bill.

Well, every time anyone comes up with concerns about the bill you folks just hop on-line hiding behind your anonymous names and shot the messengers...all the while completely ignoring any of the concerns or critiques. Yep, this sure sounds like an open, honest and inclusive "collaborative" process involving public lands management! What a joke!

Thank you Eric Feaver and MEA-MFT for supporting Senator Tester and his Forest Jobs bill.

Senator Tester's common-sense approach to tackling the tough issues surrounding public land management is obviously resonating with Montanans across the state.

The latest endorsement coming from MEA-MFT is another indication of the broad support he has behind his Forest Jobs bill.

Clarification of previous blogs: There are not 20,000 or 30,000 acres of national forest land in Montana available to commercial timber harvesting but going without bids by timber purchasers. One sale in Idaho, part of Region One but not in Montana, for 4.5 million board feet did go no bid because of the requirement of helicopter logging probably attempting to satisfy the serial litigators who make unrealistic demands on sales set forth by the Forest Service. The sale was repackaged but by then the fiber was worth nothing and therefore did go no bid. To say the lumber demand and market is "the worst since the Great Depression" is completely out of touch with reality and I sincerely wish those who know nothing about the timber community, employees, and markets would quit making statements about us. Disclosure: I represent the MT Wood Products Association with our 15 member companies and employees still working in Montana and proud of our contribution to the health of the national forests in spite of the detractors and roadblocks.

Thank you, Ms Simpson, for that valuable clarification; however, the new information that you provide still does not resolve the major problems with the Tester bill, with the manner in which it seems to have evolved, or with Mr. Feaver's perhaps unintentional confession about the inappropriate influences that seem to have driven this endorsement.

Let's go over it again. The Tester bill is poorly written in the sense that it is not precise, downright vague in fact, about what it allows where and what happens to the rules governing these lands after the bill takes effect and allows certain uses that may disqualify these areas for future protection. Tester's office insists this and Tester's office insists that; but, the fact is that the map of the bill's coverage pretty clearly shows the apparent release of a lot of roadless. And, frankly, all this confusion and all of these questions, about what is or isn't in the bill, pretty clearly suggest that this bill was ghostwritten by outsiders to enable a freshman politician to make a big splash and seduce him in the process, rather than actually being written by him or any veteran staff, which is probably one reason for all the initial secrecy about the bill; somebody else was writing it and neither Tester nor his staff knew much about it. Now, the whole mess is being left to the inexperienced office of that freshman politician to explain how it got this way. This is not any way to craft national legislation. If we're going to debate a bad piece of legislation, then it ought to at least be written well enough to be clear about what is being debated.

Your information, welcome as it is, also still doesn't answer Tim Border's very good point from another posting. Tester's bill, undoubtedly ghostwritten by timber mill operators, mandates "7000 acres of timber harvest a year in a forest that even its own foresters state is excessive, but more than that by subsidizing the mills with public owned timber the private landowners who are battling the loss of their own forest will be paid pennies on the dollar due to the market being saturated with public logs..." This situation seems like a recipe for creating artificially subsidized public competition for private wood lots. Now, why would timber mill operators want a subsidized market for logs, saturated with public logs, a market in which they would get to pay a minimal price for incoming logs due to market saturation for the raw timber and then be able to artificially pump the lumber and fiber markets with predatorily low prices and still make a profit?

But, I digress from the real problems that conservationists have with this bill. Tallies vary; but, there are "about" 5 or 6 million acres of candidate Wilderness in Montana, primarily in the form of WSAs and other roadless areas. Right now, all of these areas are under Vilsack's direct control and may or may not be touched in the foreseeable future, especially since Vilsack has recently gone out of his way to make it clear that he wants a single national resolution to the roadless question and not a potentially inconsistent and spoiling piecemeal approach like this Tester bill. This Tester proposal protects a bit more than 10% of that 5 or 6 million acres while releasing two WSAs and probably a lot more roadless than we expect. I understand that this is supposed to be a compromise, with both sides giving a bit; but, protecting 10% of the areas that should be protected still leaves those of us on the conservation side a long way from our goal and opening a "collaborative compromise" relationship with a 90/10 split seems, well, just a bit of a condescending insult. I might have been more inclined to be more positive about a 70/30 split, but a 90/10 split seems insultingly skewed, as well as frankly foolish for the timber industry to squander a collaborative opening with such a skewed and insulting outreach to the conservationist side. What happens to that other 90%, that other maybe 4 million or more acres? Will it be another 25 years before the conservation side gets any more of it protected? Are we supposed to be happy with a 10% bone to gnaw on? If this is Tester's (and the timber industry's) big push to break the wilderness logjam, why propose only a 10% solution, especially if you truly intend to see more than 10% protected later anyway? In fact, this charade of a compromise only protects a bit more than 600,000 of Montana's roadless acres; Colorado is working to protect over 4 million; and that's frigging Colorado! If this is going to be Tester's (and the timber industry's) new model for a new collaborative beginning, why did the collaboration stop at only a 10% offering to the conservation side? What kind of conservationist outreach is it, especially when it isn't even crafted in a clear bill? What faith can we have that this kind of a lopsided beginning is only the beginning and that we should be happy with this start, especially when its advocates can't even craft a clear bill?

As I have said before, I worry that the passage of this bill might be used as a political ploy to poison the well for further Wilderness protection. I can hear it now, "Tester gave them some wilderness; but, the enviros are never satisfied." I've heard that before.

Again, essentially all of the roadless in Montana is under Vilsack's control right now and there aren't any big cracks in that armor, at least not right now. I don't see any reason to panic, at least not yet; but, I fear that this bill could be exactly the kind of political ploy that could open that first crack in roadless protection. Why should the conservation community get spooked and chance it for a 10% proposal that, as far as I'm concerned, is rather insulting.

Speaking of getting spooked into taking the bait on a bad deal, lot's of people seem desperate to convince the conservation side that NREPA is dead, will never be anything but dead, that we need to cut a deal while we can, and that we're so hard up that even a 10% charity share is the best we're ever going to get. I've played that game myself before; it's nasty and I, for one, won't fall for it ...and it really is too bad, because the timber industry had an opportunity to participate in a genuine good faith compromise; but, a 90/10 split with "Tricky Dicky" maps and wording isn't it. Frankly, this bill reminds me of how the NWF and GYC and other collaborators got snookered into letting CUT grift the conservation movement out of, what was the final total, $ millions for a thirty year lease on twenty or thirty AUs worth of bison range that CUT is making sure the bison never get to use anyway. Now, we have to put up with this charade that isn't even a decently crafted clear bill?

Ellen Simpson of the MT Wood Products Association offers more misinformation than "clarification."

For example, Ellen states, "To say the lumber demand and market is 'the worst since the Great Depression' is completely out of touch with reality and I sincerely wish those who know nothing about the timber community, employees, and markets would quit making statements about us."

Ellen, go right ahead and continue thinking I know nothing about the timber industry or markets. I could care less. But everyone should know that I'm getting my information directly from the Western Wood Products Association (http://www2.wwpa.org/). Below are snips from a report they sent out earlier this year. It contains some pretty interesting facts and figures that back up my statement (and should cause readers to questions Ellen's handle on reality).

SNIPS:

"Demand for lumber in the U.S. in 2009 will slide to the lowest level in modern history..."

"The poor economy and a housing market that has plummeted to historic lows are the chief reasons for the remarkable decline in lumber demand. WWPA predicts U.S. lumber demand will slide this year to just 28.9 billion board feet, down almost 30 percent from 2008 totals."

"Since reaching an all-time high of 64.3 billion board feet in 2005, U.S. demand for lumber has dropped by more than 55 percent - the steepest decline in the history of the industry."

"The volume of lumber used in new home construction is expected total 5.3 billion board feet this year, compared to the 27.6 billion board feet consumed in home building in 2005. [an 80% decline]"

"The unprecedented decline in demand has taken its toll on lumber producers. Western lumber production is forecast to decrease nearly 26 percent to 9.7 billion board feet. That volume is the lowest since the 1930s [ie Great Depression] and represents a little more than half the volume Western mills produced five years earlier."

Also Ellen, no surprise here, but you have missed an important part of what I have said. I stated that there are easily 20,000 to 30,000 acres worth of commercial timber sales that could be logged if the timber industry would bid on the sales OR get out in the woods and do some logging [on timber sales they already have under contract].

I 100% stand behind that statement. Here are some examples from off the top of my head. About 3,000 acres of logging on the Middle East Fork HFRA project on the Bitterroot just sat there waiting to be logged while under contract for the past two years. The contractor didn't want to start logging because the lumber markets were so poor and the mills really aren't looking for more lumber right now. Of course, a few weeks ago US taxpayers handed out $1 million in stimulus money to pay for a helicopter logging outfit to start some of this unfinished logging.

Also on the Bitterroot the 5,000 acres of logging and fuel reduction work that's part of the Trapper Bunkhouse project is just sitting there with no appeals and litigation waiting for someone in the timber industry to make a bid. Last month the Darby District Ranger wrote me and had this to say about the Trapper Bunkhouse project: "Markets have not improved, in fact have gotten worse so sales in the Bitterroot are not very appealing at this time.  We had a pre-bid trip for prospective bidders and did not generate much optimism.  There was much interest but current market conditions were prohibitive for them being able to make successful bids."

These examples (totaling 8,000 acres) are just from two of the larger timber sales on the Bitterroot National Forest. If you'd include smaller sales on this forest or take a look at the Lolo, Flathead, Kootenai and all the other national forests in Montana you'd find the similar situation. The timber markets are in the toilet, demand for lumber is incredibly weak and therefore there simply isn't much logging happening right now (even though it could be if the timber industry would bid on these sales OR log the Forest Service sales they already have under contract.)

This is important information for the public to understand because we are constantly given the impression by Tester's office and supporters of Tester's bill that the 10,000 acres of mandated logging in his bill is needed to get by an "impasse" or "get people working in the woods again." The "impasse" keeping loggers from "working in the woods again" is NOT a lack of Forest Service timber sales, but a lack of lumber demand and poor market conditions caused by the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. Ignore this information if you will Ellen, but you can bet that I'll continue to make it available to the public so we all can make more informed decisions about public lands management. Thanks.

Teachers supporting logging isn't that far off. Think of how much funding used to come from timber sales.
Come on people relax. No need to go blathering on about 'board' subject matter. Have you noticed how no other lawmakers are speaking out about this bill? Do you really think this bill is going to go anywhere?

That's the whole point, Kitty. To make sure it does not "go anywhere."
As for Matt's criticisms about the no bids and sitting on timber, the bitter fact is the Middle East Fork HFRA was beaten into inviability by litigation and threats of litigation by groups including Matt's. I went up on the ground in 2004 or 5, after the state had done its thing in the Sula state forest and the feds were still being dithered to bits.
A whacking huge amount of scorched-yet-quality wood was held up in the process long enough to ruin it all, to render it completely uneconomic.
While arguments are made in "environmental" terms, those are canards. Forests are pretty resilient systems...they'll come back after just about anything, whether it be fire or logging. The difference is how long they take to recover...and the science on recovery pathways is pretty well established. The USFS had a pretty good idea in "desired future condition," in short, what do we want and when, and how do we make it so?
So the "environmental" issues are not driving the situation. The real point of all the smoke and mirrors over old growth or species du jour is to rendering forestry completely uneconomic...to deny evil capitalism its lifeblood. "For Nature" is just the cover story.
The economics are the problem, and I find it hilarious when Matt tries to blame market economics when his entire professional life has been directed toward destroying the market.
What we are learning is that leaving things to nature isn't necessarily the best thing, certainly not for human society and oftentimes not for "nature."
Had the management regime been allowed to progress in the Bitterroot rather than have it all come to a smoking halt, trust me, there'd be a lot more environmental "good stuff" still on the landscape than there is today. And that's a shame.
So, I'm madder than anything at the timber folks for kowtowing to this Tester thing, throwing everyone else under the bus to save their own fannies. But I understand why they would. They are on the edge, and by golly, we cannot lose our forestry sector.
It is in the best interest of Montana and the United States for Congress to pull their heads out, throw the kooks out of court, and get sanity back in the forests. This Tester bill changes nothing substantial, it just lets the forestry side linger a little longer, just long enough to pay off their mortgages and THEN die.
Ten thousand acres a year when the past decade has seen an average of 600,000 acres per year of combined bug and fire kill, is like taking a leak on a burning refinery.

Dave, I believe you are confusing the Middle East Fork timber sale with the Bitterroot Burned Area Recovery plan, which followed the wildfires of 2000.

The Bitterroot Burned Area Recovery Plan (which was one of the largest timber sales ever proposed by the US Forest Service) had a court-ordered injunction on it for only a month or two during the winter of 2002. In February 2002 a court-approved settlement agreement was reached between the Forest Service, a few logging companies and conservation groups that filed suit. That settlement agreement called for 60 million board feet of logging, all of which was completed long ago. I should also point out that my organization wasn't a party to that lawsuit and therefore wasn't a part of the settlement agreement.

The Middle East Fork HFRA project only had a court-ordered injunction on it for 30 days, and that was back in September 2006 - 3 years ago. The truth of the matter is that the logging companies have been free and clear to log the Middle East Fork project for the past 3 years. They did a bunch of logging in the fall of 2006 and winter of 2007, but then the logging pretty much came to a halt because the market for timber dried up, along with lumber demand. Therefore, your statement that the Middle East Fork timber sale was "beaten into inviability by litigation and threats of litigation" doesn't apply and doesn't really make any sense. Thanks.


I'm not sure what you mean by stating that

The fact is, IF there is a market, and there usually is most of the time, state, private and tribal forests get salvaged right away, literally while the ground is still smoking.
Sorry if I lost track of who sues where -- Bitt BAER, MEF HFRA, Basin Creek, Elkhorns. The reality is there is litigation and delay everywhere, no matter the specific plaintiffs,and the end result is the same. Shameful waste.
Dang if I could remember what was actually burned in the Bitt fires of 2000, but 60 million feet was no more than a tenth of what was salvageable, I'm sure, in a concentrated effort.
That's also a shame, because a real salvage effort would return funding to pay for seeding of new stock, road stabilization, stream protection and a whole bunch of paychecks that would have taxes paid on them, too. Instead, the firefighting is funded by taking money from other programs, and the restoration is funded by taking money from other worthy causes, and less restoration is done meaning less of a forest for future generations. Again, a shame.
More specifically, even tho it wasn't "your" fault, Matt, the MEF project was at least partially a result of the bugs going crazy on the 2000 burn areas. The mortality along the Middle East Fork was unbelievable, a gunbarrel firetrap of the first order, a complete no-brainer to jump on. So, will the wood be dealt with ever? Probably not, we'll have that shotgun fire even if obviously not THIS year. Shame on us all over again. Well, not on ME.

Fact Check to last two posts... having nothing to do with Senator Tester's bill, but needing clarification none the less. I know both Matthew and Dave and know one does not use facts but rather tries to twist them and the other does not intentionally mislead, but sometimes does not remember. Matthew is wrong in saying 60 million board feet of timber from the Bitterroot agreement was "logged long ago" because about 20 mmbf was logged - one third of the total promised. Matthew's organization in 2002 was the Native Forest Network and although he showed up for the first part of the court ordered negotiations, he left in a huff and did not sign the agreement on behalf of the NFN. I on the other hand was present for the entire time and did sign the agreement on behalf of my organization because we honestly thought it would be honored. Of course, the WildWest Institute was not involved because WWI only started to exist when the NFN and the Ecology Center merged a couple of years ago to form the WildWest Institute. A reminder of how many lawsuits the Ecology Center filed for a number of years and then became part of WWI. Second point re: Matthew's statements... the Middle East Fork projects are under the same sad dead wood burned in the 2000 fires and not offered for sale until 2005 but then offered under the Healthy Forest Restoration Act. The WildWest Institute had merged by 2006 and did file a lawsuit against the projects that was rejected by both Judge Molloy and then lost againt at the 9th Circuit. Sorry Matthew, you and WWI lost. On to Dave... his memory like most folks cannot simply keep all of the lawsuits and garbage spewed by some straight... he is the one I cut the slack. The bottom line is the market right now is weak but the industry is hanging on because there are slight glimmers of hope on the horizon and we in the timber community are a resilient bunch in spite of the rock throwers like Matthew and his ilk and we know the future shows improvement as it always has and will again. Thank you to those reading... this is too long, but lies need to be exposed.

Ellen, First I'd like to point out how interesting it is that you have apparently decided to abandon your earlier claim that I know nothing about the timber industry or markets after I posted all that factual information from the Western Wood Products Association, as well as detailed information about specific logging projects in Montana from a USFS ranger. Anyway, I guess on that topic you figured it got too hot for you in the kitchen so you simply left.

Moving on to your last post. One must be pretty careful when they claim they are the Fact Checker (or the "lie-exposer") especially if they are going to offer up more non-sense and fact-less claims of their own.

The Bitterroot Burned Area Recovery Plan settlement agreement allowed for 60 million board feet of trees to be cut on about 14,000 acres. If less volume or less acres were cut it is because the Forest Service over-estimated or was overly optimistic, which is a very common occurrence we've witnessed on many of these big timber sales over the years. Sometimes, over the years, it seemed to us that the Forest Service would intentionally over-inflate the volume of timber available in a sale to get everyone from the logging industry to the conservation groups all fired up. The fact that to date 27 million board feet of trees were logged from this Burned Area Recovery Plan over nearly 12,000 acres of the Bitteroot NF is certainly not peanuts ,especially considering that Tester's bill (which some are lauding as the saving grace for Montana's timber mills) mandates 10,000 acres of logging per year.

Ellen, the Native Forest Network never filed a lawsuit on the Bitterroot Burned Area Recovery Plan. Anyone can check court records to verify this fact. Yes, I did personally attend the court-ordered negotiations, but not representing NFN, as you falsely claim. I attended as a representative of the Center for Biological Diversity. Again, anyone interested can check court records to verify this fact. I also never left the court ordered negotiations in a huff, as you claim. Not sure what this really matters 7 years later, but I figure anyone reading this deserves to know the whole story.

The fact is that the negotiations lasted from about 9 am to 3 am -ish on the first day (yes, that's about 18 hours straight) and then picked up a few hours later at 9am and lasted until the early morning hours of the next day (about another 15 or 16 hours). Since I was only a representative of CBD (there to over advice and on-the-ground knowledge of the project area) and wouldn't be signing any settlement agreement anyway I decided to walk home around midnight of the second day (after attending about 30 hours of the negotiations) when it was clear the negotiations were coming to an end and all that was needed was a few details to be worked out.

So that's what happened with the Burned Area Recovery Plan settlement talks about 7 years ago. Big surprise, but Ellen didn't have her story or her facts straight. But, then again, those of us who are treated to Ellen's monthly commentaries on MT Public Radio, already knew this about her.

And again Ellen, you can cry all you want and claim that I don't know anything about the timber industry...or that I'm just a "rock thrower" or "garbage spewer"...I honestly care less what you think about me. And before you start tossing out those juvenile names, perhaps you should take a look in the mirror and make a commitment to elevate the debate beyond simplistic rhetoric and 3rd grade name calling.

Hello,

Just figured I'd point out to everyone that in addition to the 8,000 acres of logging/thinning currently available to logging companies as part of just two projects on the Bitterroot National Forest (mentioned in previous comments above) that the BNF has just signed a decision notion for another 7,000 acres of thinning/fuel reduction.

So, in just these three projects on the Bitterroot NF that brings the total current acres available for logging/thinning/fuel reduction to 15,000 acres. No appeals or lawsuits pending to slow anyone down even! Of course, you could look at some of the smaller projects on the forest and the total for just this one national forest would likely approach or exceed 20,000 acres.

That's an interesting fact given that Senator Tester's and supporters of his mandated logging bill give the impression that we need to have an exclusive, self-selecting process to mandate logging of 7,000 acres of the Beaverhead-Deerlodge and give away Wilderness Study Areas set aside by Montana's late Senator Metcalf in order to "save the timber industry" or "get people workin' in the woods."

Perhaps instead of going the route of Tester's logging bill, we should just focus on the numerous logging/thinning/fuel reduction projects already available.