Bill,
Thanks for writing an article that is heavy on straight reporting and light on the spin. I appreciate the effort.

Okay, but now what? We triple the number of trees we log on the B-D annually just to triple the amount of wood sitting unpurchased on log yards?

And since when has Trout Unlimited started shilling for the timber industry? I haven't spoken with any fish lately, but something tells me that the trout wouldn't be too keen on an organization using Trout in their name being responsible for helping to add to our cleanest streams the additional and inevitable sediment loads that come from increased road and logging activity in the 76,000 acres of BLM Wilderness Study Areas slated to be managed for timber harvest and ATV use. Timber companies wanting roads and increased harvest makes sense, but when TU, the Montana Wilderness [sic] Association and others seek legislation counter to, say, trout and Wilderness, well it reminds me of the Bush Administration's misnomered "Healthy Forests Act", Clean Skies Initiative etc.

Et tu, TU? Et tu?

The kindest thing that can be said about Montanans is that they are all living in the past.
It might be okay to cut and store dead trees; but why open up forests not yet affected by beetles..?

This is a terrible bill. I hope it dies. TU, MWS, and the like should be ashamed. Do their members truly understand the implications of this bill? 1) Wilderness as defined by this bill is just high elevation rocks and ice. 2) Huge pork to logging companies who literally don't have to work with in the LAWS of this country.

Thank you Senator Tester for introducing the Forest Jobs bill. Montanans have grown tired of the arguments over how to manage our forests and I applaud Senator Tester for finding a solid, middle ground compromise that will benefit everyone, especially our forests.

Here in Montana, we pride ourselves on common sense and working together. This bill has the timber industry, sportsmen, conservationists, atv and snowmobilers, local governments and business all willing to work together. That is the Montana way. Senator Tester—I applaud your leadership!

Redman and Nelson are absolutely correct. The map on Tester's scheme shows very little Wilderness formally designated for protection and what is formally and reliably protected is relatively not that ecologically productive in comparison to the areas that are forever released for exploitation and motorized trashing. I am not impressed and, again, my greatest worry is that the passage of this kind of bait-and-switch scheme will 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." The truth is that this scheme, announced at a sawmill, isn't very satisfying to those of us who believe that we need to protect what little we have left. We'll hear more from lots of "experts" as time goes on; but, at this point, I'll be a broken record... Having Democrats holding seats helps support majorities in the House and Senate and having Democrats in office is a good thing, but not at any cost. If these blue dogs, Max "I get paid to prevent healthcare reform" Baucus and Jon "I'm following the money that Max gets" Tester, turn too blue, and I believe they certainly have, then they need to go to the pound.

We can talk all day about the almost 700,000 acres of new wilderness that are in the bill but the whole point of this legislation is to put boots on the ground for projects. I'm not sure you can grasp the whole concept of the first wilderness in over 26 years by just looking at the map.

To everyone out there who feels this bill doesn't do enough or does too much, there will be plenty of time to talk about that as the process moves forward. Until then, let's thank Tester for doing something that is new and is a first step in the right direction to help our state.

This process has been so tainted (again, the e-mail string that Matthew Koehler posted under another article says it all) that I can't see that there can be any trust that we aren't just seeing false flag agents working to throw bones into the woods about thanking Tester and such. For all I know, these comments may be coming from paid employees of timber or motorized toy companies/outlets. I believe that the process that spawned this bill was tainted and a truly good end is seldom produced through bad means. The result seems to bear out this belief; the map shows a bad outcome for those of us who truly want to preserve what little is left. Even if we were to accept the concept of conservation by quid pro quo, this is a rip-off. We aren't that hard up.

No health care. No productive public lands protected. Privatization. Outsourcing. Deregulation. Anti-democratic "stakeholder" process posing as public participation. "Trail connectivity," which means in real english, loop trails, the worst design for wildlife habitat security.
We hoped for another Metcalf but got another Baucus. One's more than enough.

Triangulation works, or this kind of neoliberal construct would only play in banana republics. Oh, I get it, now we are Banana Montana. Thanks Clinton. Thanks Max. Thanks Schweitzer. Thanks Tester. Move over "Last Best Place." Banana Montana. Should we copyrite that, what do you think?

Global warming? Seen any monarch butterflies this year? Numbers down due to COLD weather.

Gee (no pun intended), a real troglodyte.

This reminds me of the recent "energy" bill that Matt Taibbi is Rolling Stone says is a bait and switch. Goldman Sachs is poised to make trillions, yes trillions, on playing the energy market. http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/28816321/the_great_american_bubble_machine/print#

I'm for jobs, jobs, jobs, but not if it means taxpayers paying private companies. Hire workers directly.

I just got back from the Seeley version of the dog and pony. The heat and noise and smokescreening addled my brain and I left my notepad at an undisclosed conservative location.
One thing I do remember was a whole pile of signs lauding Tester being made available...I suppose those were recycled sustainably from the Townsend event. They were gathered up at the end, again I suppose for reuse.
I asked Tester what was in the bill to avoid future goalpost-moving as well as some assurance that the jobs would happen. Pretty much got a nonanswer which I wrote down but can't remember.
So the "deal" is 100,000 acres of "stewardship" that may or may not happen in trade for 670,000 acres of designated permanent wilderness? What if implementation of the multiple-use side of the "bargain" is litigated and the jobs go away and/or the modern access disappears or never happens?
I guess that's what happens after years of mindless litigation. The little timber beasts (the only ones left, all the big timber beasts are now real estate beasts) are so beaten down, they're like Jake and Elwood in the tunnel --- Oh, please please please don't kill us! We'll do anything. Oh pleeeeeease....
This is primarily a front-loaded wilderness bill. MWA et al want ground set aside so they can re-focus on, say the RMF or the Snowies, or the Flathead NF, or Glacier. They're the incrementalists and the NREPA people make them look reasonable, even if the end result in the long run...every possible square meter closed off and burnt down, is the same.

I am embarrassed to call myself a conservationist today.

This is not conservation, this is a sell out.

I don't think I've ever encountered someone as misinformed as Dave Skinner.

I don't think skinner is so much misinformed as delusional.

I don't think it is Skinner who is delusional. The working people are tired of subsidizing the professional recreationalist environmentalists and letting them have exclusive use of the best land to boot. I think Tester knows this.

To Gee: for what all we know, the Mexicans have poached the last of the white and doug firs the monarchs winter on in Michoacan. That is a NarcoState, and about as safe as Baghdad. I don't think they really care about saving monarchs there. They do know that logging the trees will bring in a buck or two, now that tourists have to duck automatic weapons fire daily in that end of the world. I have illegals from there working where I do all the time, and they kill every snake that shows itself, plant marijuana here and there for shits and grins, and are the major players in the NW drug trade. They came here to plant trees and work in reforestation. Their drug trade is collateral damage from the NorthWest Timber Plan algore is so proud of. Thanks, Al. Pat yourself on the back when one of your kids or grandkids becomes an addict, or are you a luckier parent than the Kennedys?

As for all who wish that Tester had seen their side of the opportunity instead of the other: the old hooktender said you could shit in one hand and wish in the other, and you knew which one would fill up first.

A person who mentored me in the timber game long ago said that if you got 90% of the deal you wanted, you had better take it. On another occasion he advised that part of something is a whole lot better than all of nothing. Oppose Tester's bill, and that is exactly what you will get: all of nothing.

I don't have any knowledge of who is doing what to whom for what purpose in the deal, but 770,000 acres of Wilderness is nothing to sneeze at if you want more wilderness. Why, it will take the PissFir Willies a decade or more to burn that much landscape in the name of "fire for resource use." In the meantime, if some timber gets logged and the land grows a new crop of trees, the bugs won't be there for a century. In the meantime, the new trees will provide a nice green contrast to the black and white of the sure to come burns in the new Wilderness. Diversity to the palette of nature is nice, especially the Kodachrome kind as opposed to black and white.

Most of the criticism of Tester's bill seems to be coming from the same people who strongly backed the NREPA wilderness bill (Wildwest Institute, Alliance For The Wild Rockies, Wildlands CPR, Paul Richards, etc...).
To hear them criticize Tester's approach in drafting this bill is laughable at best. Where was the open collaboration in the NREPA bill. I don't remember any open listening sessions from the drafters looking for input from the broad spectrum of people who use our public lands. Tester might not have included everybody in the initial drafting process, but the initial partnerships and collaborations were a hell of a lot more open and representative of the public as a whole than NREPA ever was.
Groups like The Alliance For The Wild Rockies have become best known for "litigation" instead "collaboration", which is of course is well within their rights to do. Unfortunately for them they seem to have played their cards wrong. To Michael Garrity I would simply ask, did you try try to be an active collaborative member of the Blackfoot-Clearwater Stewardship that is located a close drive to away from your community?
You got your NREPA bill in Congress and it died a quick death.
Now Tester will try his bill, let's see how it does, I'm betting it will do a whole lot better than NREPA ever did.

Wow a real flashback. Worst piece of ecological junk to come down the road in years. Attempting to drag Montana's forests into the 1980s. Pretending that logging is a great bastion of Montana's economy, pretending that this cutting is ecologically feasible, pretending that wilderness advocates have no interest in wild lands unless they are alpine, etc. He actually had to spend days writing this when he could have had a timber lobbyist do this in a few hours?

I'll have some additional comments shortly, but I wanted to address "Treehugger's" comment: "I would simply ask, did you try try to be an active collaborative member of the Blackfoot-Clearwater Stewardship that is located a close drive to away from your community?"

The answer to that question, as far as the WildWest Institute is concerned, is a resounding, "Yes, we did try to be an active collaborative member of the Blackfoot-Clearwater Stewardship project"...but the Wilderness Society and the BCSP members repeatedly ignored our numerous requests, which were first made on January 29, 2009. This is despite the fact that we are active and important members of much more open and inclusive collaborative processes/projects such as the MT Forest Restoration Working Group and the Lolo Restoration Committee, which were even given a "breaking gridlock" award by Tom Tidwell and the Forest Service just last summer.

Also, since Tester's bill is really a mandated logging bill and not a wilderness bill the fact that WildWest supports NREPA has zero to do with our opposition to Tester's mandated logging bill. Thanks.

Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 11:55:50 -0600
To: "Scott Brennan"
From: Matthew Koehler
Subject: Re: Thanks again...
Cc: "George Nickas", "Tom DeLuca" "Bob Ekey", Jake Kreilick, Cameron Naficy, Bob Clark and Len Broberg, Sierra Club, Wildlands CPR

Scott, Thanks for writing up the notes. It was certainly good to sit down with you, Tom and the others to discuss the BCSP.

Over all, I think the notes do a decent job of encapsulating our conservation with the following modifications.

1) My recollection from the meeting was that the biomass proposal, as it's currently written, had no support form anyone in the room. I think that's an important point that needs to be clearly articulated in the notes below. Concerns were raised not only about using millions in taxpayer funding to give the lumber mill free energy, but Tom and others also spoke about the ecological concerns with the biomass facility. If my memory is correct, Tom even said that another TWS scientist (can't recall the name) has similar ecological concerns. Again, this needs to be in the notes and shared with the BCSP folks.

2) Something I don't see in the Summary of Comments, but something we discussed quite a bit, was the public perception that supporters of the BCSP are giving. We talked about the concern that you folks, in your press work and other public meetings, are giving the indication that this is a done deal (based on direction from MT's Congressional delegation) and that there are no concerns or issues with the BCSP as it currently stands. That's not true and I hope these notes can be amended to include this fact and also that BCSP supporters will keep this in mind as we move forward.

Other than that, the notes look good. I'd also just like to re-state something I mentioned at the meeting. WildWest is not categorically opposed to the BCSP. Rather, if the comments and concerns that all of us brought up in the meeting are addressed and incorporated an improved and revised BCSP is something we could likely offer our support towards.

Finally, on Jan 29 I wrote TWS stating, "I would like to respectfully request that WildWest be included in any and all discussions related to the Blackfoot Clearwater Stewardship Project (BCSP)." I still haven't heard back regarding this request, so I would appreciate it if someone with BCSP would get back with us about WildWest's request. We're still a little unclear how the BCSP operates.

Thanks again...Onward.

- Matthew


Matthew, Len, Bethanie and George,

On behalf of Tom DeLuca and myself, I would like to thank you once more for a great conversation about the Blackfoot Clearwater Stewardship Project last week. Tom and I both appreciated your interest in the project and the good questions and suggestions you shared during our talk and I am writing today, as promised, to follow up on your comments and questions. 

I tried to keep an accurate summary of the issues you raised so I might share them with BCSP steering committee as a way of continuing the good dialogue we initiated last week. Toward this end, I have included a summary of what I think I heard from all of you last Monday and I am asking that you let me know whether my summary below is accurate and complete. Let me know if you have any edits/additions and I will, as I promised, share them with BCSP supporters for consideration.

Best,

Scott

DRAFT Summary of Comments Received on Monday, February 9
1.      How could public funds devoted to biomass component meet diverse local energy needs (perhaps including power for local school, mill, other  businesses, non-profits, etc)?
2.      Update the website to more accurately reflect project details including biomass thinking and other project details including project acreage.
3.      How can we ensure that coal is not burned in any biomass combustion facility the project envisions?
4.      Show how the long-term demand for biomass can be sustainably met from local forests.
5.      Including additional low-elevation lands in wilderness while allowing some higher elevation lands to be designated a snowmobile play area (consistent with recent past uses) seems to be a reasonable trade-off but should be illustrated on a “before and after” map of the project proposal.
6.      Interest in seeing “before and after” map showing current land status/condition and how land would look after legislation was enacted and forest plan amended as envisioned.
7.      How can we ensure that any biomass/cogen facility uses the best available, closed loop technology and will result in no net increase in CO2 emissions?
8.      Explain what will happen if restoration monitoring shows undesired/unintended impacts/outcomes.
9.      Explain the economic viability of stewardship contracting in the current/likely future timber market and how this will impact the viability of restoration work.
10. Explore means of de-linking logging and restoration work; i.e. ensure separate funding sources for each of these activity types
11. Answer the question of why mandatory stewardship is a desirable/viable approach
12. Regarding cooperative forestry funding, how can we ensure that private land restoration is not undone later by private land management practices?
13. Is it possible to get a contractual/financial guarantee that private lands that are restored won’t be damaged later by management practices?
14. Add “road decommissioning” as specific language in the legislation.
15. Ensure the benefits (ecological and economic) of the Clearwater Stewardship Project are accurately reflected on website.

Scott Brennan, Director
Northern Rockies Forest Program
The Wilderness Society

The Great Falls Tribune's Lowdown blog has video and audio from the entire press conference for Senator Tester's Mandated Logging Bill announcement last Friday.

If you have any doubt that this bill is really an effort by self-selected special interests groups and timber corporations to mandate industrial logging and give tens of millions in US taxpayer subsidies to Montana's timber industry (during the steepest decline in lumber consumption in US history) you need to watch the press conference and listen to the Q/A between Senator Tester and reporters.

You can watch the entire press conference (in three parts) at:

http://mtlowdown.blogspot.com/2009/07/tester-drops-major-forest-bill.html

Also at that link, you can download audio of the entire Q/A between Senator Tester and the reporters. As you'll notice, Senator Tester was asked (and pretty much entirely ignored or danced around) a bunch of important questions regarding how all this mandated logging will pay for restoration work given there's no demand for lumber.

Ah, here it is in writing. Collaboration is where the agreement is between Wilderness advocates as to how much logging has to be precluded from all USFS lands outside the proposed wilderness So, it is about not logging, and not about wilderness preservation. How clear you make it. As long as Wilderness is being mandated, that is just ducky. But if logging is mandated on any of the Forests named, that is a sell out to the timber interests in a bad market.

Wilderness is a sell out to the outdoor elite in a bad recreation market. Fewer are using public lands. The need for Wilderness is less. The demographic for outdoor use is slipping away into middle and old age, and the younger set is about wheels, not boots. If the proposal were for an all mountain bike, mountain bike only use area, there would be more support than Wilderness purists can drum up. The old paradigm is dying, and Luddite Matthew is being left behind.

My wonder is when did "timber interests" become disenfranchised on public land issues? When did they NOT get a place at the table? What is so noble about "play?" When did recreation become a productive part of our economic engine? What, exactly, does recreation and play put on the table to ensure a vibrant, thriving economy? Can you eat it? Can you export it? How does it pay for government? Health care?

Recreation appears to me to be a seasonal endeavor geared to employing young people while they are getting educated, or local people who did not get educated. It is a stop-gap, poor pay, seasonal, subsidized activity for those employed in the industry, and a place to dispose of extra money by the recreating participants. With the sharp economic decline, like timber, the recreation industry has seen a sharp decline in spending, and markets. Does that market really need US Taxpayer assistance? Public lands set aside for a very small segment of the recreating public? All the wildlife seems to use the landscape without an iota of understanding of property ownership and use. Logged areas seem to teem with some kinds of wildlife, and the most isolated and roadless areas are seasonally occupied, until winter, when they either migrate to southern latitudes or move down hill to private lands or hibernate. On private land, the wildlife is heavily subsidized by private landowners who constantly get short shrift from organizations like Matthew's. And, since all funds gathered and expended by Matthew's group are tax deductible, he might visit the issue of his subsidized employment and lifestyle. The redistribution of wealth is geared to helping his advocacy and not universal health care, by the tax code. One way to pay for that would be to eliminate 501 corporations from the tax code, and have them pay taxes like the rest of American businesses do on profits. If taxpayer subsidy is to be scorned, then it ought to be scorned across its full breadth.

Tester is "gittin' 'er done" because he had a "shovel ready" plan for ObamaNation. Further obfuscation, jockeying for position, will only cheat the whole of Montana from getting another 700,000+ acres of Wilderness, which "timber interests" grudgingly are blackmailed into going along with because they are prone to keeping their word, a fault in this type of dealing. And, they have no untaxed income stream to fund lawyers to sue, sue, sue, sue, sue, sue, which is the Matthew way of collaboration.

My guess, from reading the comments, is that Tester has his most vocal and zealous adversaries in his own state, and they are looking out for their nationally funded special interests, all operating off forgiveness from the Federal tax code with advantages not available to for profit employers. Perhaps his best political path is to gain more oversight, reporting, defense of actions, from the NGOs who appear to more and more involved in government without public responsibility to the political process, without input from the electorate. This fifth column demands much, takes more, and gives little, all in secrecy.

If Henry Paulson was CEO of the Nature Conservancy, the Treasury, and GoldmanSachs, all without being elected by the public, a public which has transfered Billions and Billions of dollars to both TNC and GoldmanSachs, I have my doubts about NGOs and their legitimacy as to our governance.

Amen Bearbait. How long is it going to take to realize that environmental groups are religions and should NOT be endorsed or supported by the federal government. What makes them so special? They are good at 2 things, fund raising and filing lawsuits.

Hello, Since PDF's cannot be posted directly in the comments section, I have posted the Dr. Martin Nei's paper on our website and it can be downloaded at:
http://wildwestinstitute.org/pdf/Place_based_forest_law.pdf
----------------

Please find attached a paper that might be of some interest to you. It is focused on the emerging interest in place-based national forest legislation in Montana, Idaho, and beyond. Part of the work focuses on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge Partnership proposal, and we touch upon similar initiatives in the Northern Rockies (U.S.) Region.

The paper asks a series of questions for proponents and opponents of various place-based initiatives (e.g., Three Rivers Challenge, Blackfoot-Clearwater Landscape Stewardship Project, Clearwater Basin Collaborative, etc.). We also draw some lessons from a few existing cases of place-based legislation. It appears to us that some key factors and considerations are missing from the political debate, and we hope that the paper brings those important issues to the fore in a constructive fashion.

We welcome any comments of course, and feel free to pass along to those who might be interested.

Sincerely,
Martin Nie
Professor, Natural Resources Policy
College of Forestry & Conservation
University of Montana
Missoula, MT 59812

Just this once, Matt, thank you for the link. Nie's footnotes are actually more useful than his discussion, which I think is a little too academic. It's not so academic that I can't suss out Nie's bias for wilderness wherever possible, however possible, as well as a certain satisfaction in the complexity and impracticability of the legal framework...any modifications which he and Fiebig express concern over as being "devolvements" to "self selected stakeholders." Like litigation didn't devolve policy to a self-selected cadre already?
Shyte.

It is hard to know where these accusations of secrecy derive from. I looked at the Nie and Fiebig report which was dated May 2009 and focused a lot on the Beaverhead Deerlodge Partnership. Nie and Fiebig seemed to have no problem getting answers to their questions about what was being discussed. I'm sympathetic to not having bomb throwers in the room when sensitive negotiations are ongoing trying to resolve complex issues. People trying to find solutions that work for numerous stakeholders aren't helped by having people in the room who've already decided on what "solution" they want and will throw bombs at anything other than that solution. Negotiations require people who are open to reasonable compromise and not everyone commenting on this proposal fits into that category. The conservation groups who were involved in these negotiations have a long record of finding ways to protect the environment that works for more than just the extremists who want to impose top-down dictates based on their personal values and that ignore the values of others.

Bearbait - You have stated it perfectly!!! If logging is mandated it is a sellout to the timber industry - so therefore - if wilderness is mandated it is a sellout to the outdoor purists. I know more working foresters and loggers that do more good for the environment everyday than some 'enviros' do in six months.

sdm - you perfectly summarize why collaboration is not a fair and equal public participation process. Those who agree to a pre-determined set of conditions may sit at the table. Those who disagree, or feel the process is 'rigged' from the start, are branded as extremists and bomb throwers. In doing so, you participate in silencing of dissent.

Kboy, actually enviros do nothing for the environment themselves, they file lawsuits to force others to do the sacrificing for what they feel is good.

No matter how cynical we are, we just can't keep up.

How many of you have ever read the mission statement of the USFS? Or is that not conveniently relevant to your special interest?

I remember a FS employee telling me that if all the FS private interests were equally pissed off at the FS, then they must be doing something right.

This doesn't seem all that different, just the result of a different process.

My point is, no one will ever get everything they want from our public land management, yet many operate under that premise, and approach all solutions from that premise.

Worse far too many seem to feel they are entitled to whatever they want when ever they want and at anyone else's expense. They immediately head for court to try to force it.

Todd, you toad, did it ever occur to you that it is your side that has the entitlement mentality. The rest of us don't expect to be able to goof around in the woods, shirk our own personal responsibility to educate ourselves and develop our own job skills, and then still earn big salaries exploiting public resources on public lands that belong to the rest of us. That's a feeling of entitlement that is exclusive to your side of the debate, not ours! And, speaking of getting whatever you want at somebody else's expense, those timber sales are subsidized ...by me! I don't want to pay (my tax expense) to enable your miscreants to get what they want, which is, again, to earn big salaries running around the woods, playing with chainsaws, and exploiting my taxpayer-owned resources on my public lands. I don't want you or your kind cutting my resources; I want them left to grow. You bet I'll immediately head for court ...because that is what you're supposed to do when you're being robbed!

Todd,
It seems like you hit a sore nerve with Mike. Let me see if I can explain why, as the reason behind it I believe is one of the more interesting sub-plots resulting from Tester's bill.

By introducing this bill and putting his significant weight behind it.. (ha-ha), Tester is essentially calling out all of the obstructionist environmental groups in the area, putting the limelight and pressure on them. The mainstream press is even starting to connect the dots between those complaining the loudest, litigation, and support for NREPA. The NREPA bill looks foolish when compared to Tester's bill. It's like the kid with all the toys who not only doesn't want to share, but also bops the other kid on the head just for the hell of it. Groups like The Alliance For The Wild Rockies and The Native Ecosytem Council have made a pretty good living litigating the Beaverhead-Deerlodge over the last decade. In the past they've managed to avoid much heat but now the spotlight is shining right on them. What happens when the first project from Tester's bill comes out, or even before then how about next week or the next few months when a good sized sale comes out on one of the local forests? Tester has essentially pigeon-holed them, any more litigation will only further isolate them in the press and public-eye and further reduce if that's even possible the chances of getting a bill like NREPA passed. Groups like the Alliance For the Wild Rockies, The Wildwest Institute, and WildlandsCPR essentially blew it with their vocal support of NREPA. It's not that it wasn't their right to introduce NREPA, it's just that the bill laid out their cards and idea of the public good for everyone to see. Right now those cards are looking pretty silly.

Ahhh real mike, you do show us exactly how educated you are when you resort to name calling and threats. I would expect you to head for court, that is the enviros version of beating up the other kids and taking all of their lunches.

What do either of those whiny codependent response have to do with the fact that the extractive industry backers have an entitlement mentality when it comes to their perceived special entitled right to put big bucks in their own pockets harvesting and exploiting public resources on public lands that belong to the rest of us? Todd, you and Treehugger (two-faced moniker if there ever was one) just slimed your way past the question with a load of distractive obfuscation (euphemistic term for bull dung).

Let's make another run at the main topic. Once more… Tallies vary; but, there is “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. This Tester proposal protects a bit more than 10% of that 5 or 6 million acres while releasing two WSAs and probably a bit more roadless than we expect for exploitation and motorized mayhem. 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 worrisome. I might even be inclined to be more positive about a 70/30 split, but a 90/10 split seems skewed. 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? If this is Tester’s big push to break the wilderness logjam, why propose only a 10% solution? If this is going to be Tester’s new model for a new collaborative beginning, why did the collaboration stop at only a 10% offering to the conservation side? 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? 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 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. In fact, the intensity of the frantic "NREPA is dead, so just take what we give you" talk coming out of people who are known to be industry shills is a sure giveaway that NREPA isn't so dead and they want to use crap like this Tester distraction to sap NREPA's chances. NREPA is still out there; our side is growing stronger with time while our opponents weaken; and NREPA will protect 100% of what needs to be protected

Wow,
Nice Garrity, it took you a whole two days from my last comment to file another lawsuit (Rat Creek). And the obstructionist enviros wonder why they weren't invited to the table.

I just got back from Montana. Who the hell thinks dead trees make a forest? By proper thinning, everyone (and the ecosystem) benefits. You guys should leave management of the forests to the professionals and ensure damage to the environment is minimized by good regulations and enforcement. A good forest fire would take care of the ugly dead trees but where is the economic benefit which could have been derived from selected harvest? There are ways to safeguard against siltation of the streams and erosion but you all don't seem interested in living in harmony with the environment...only "protecting" it to its detriment.

So who thinks logging causes no end to erosion and forest fires don't? Only a person who has never spent any time in the forests. The worst blow outs and head wall failures I have every seen came from fires. I remember a whole side canyon that shit out into the upper Smith River after the Oxbow burn in Oregon. The BLM sold a salvage sale that yarded damned near a million board feet of timber out of that deal. Just to clean a channel so all the mud would go out on the first big storm the next fall.

good point, Bearbait. When the fires come (and they will) the damage to the headwaters of Montana's rivers will far exceed even the aftermath of clear cutting (which I, of course, do not advocate !!). Just look at the results of the fire on the South Platte and on the Green River. Recovery has taken years and considerable tax monies....not to discount the many manhours contributed by TU and other pro-active groups.