GUEST COMMENTARY
Tester’s Forest Bill Should Represent All Interests
Local elected official has different perspective on Tester's Forest Jobs and Recreation Act.By Jeff Welborn, Guest Writer, 12-29-09
 |
|
 | |
| Representative Jeff Welborn | |
|
On behalf of the vast majority of my constituents here in Beaverhead County, the largest land mass affected by the outcome of Senator Tester’s Forest Jobs and Recreation Act. (S.1470), I ask you to consider a different perspective, before supporting this legislation being moved forward. Simply put, there are many unanswered questions in the language of this bill, now before Congress.
We live in a time that it’s possible to manage our public lands, while keeping the natural values in place and also being able to harvest the natural resources for the good of agriculture, timber, mining, energy, and recreation interests. Wilderness is a very one-sided approach, taking away our ability to properly manage these lands, game populations, fuel loads etc. Local agencies and resource users have more knowledge and can act more responsively when they have the ability to manage these lands differently as different needs arise. If we keep this flexible, we can respond to the needs of our forests in a timely manner, sustaining the natural values for future generations.
By allowing the proper use of these natural resources, we can create and maintain local jobs, address the needs of disabled citizens that enjoy the outdoors, provide a place for both motorized and mechanized travel, and continue to maintain a healthy and sustainable timber supply and wildlife population. We need the ability to harvest all beetle killed and fire damaged trees as well as selective cutting for a healthy and sustainable forest. When fuel loads become too great, fire is inevitable, only adding to carbon emissions and creating air quality issues, ruining wildlife habitat, and having an overall population sapping effect on our rural communities
Grazing of livestock is also very important for reducing fuel loads and creating healthy vegetation for our wildlife populations. We must all remember that these lands remain an important component of a safe, reliable source of food and fiber as well as raw materials. The economic viability of Montana depends on it, food safety, security, and affordability depends on it, and the national security of our country also depends on it.
Furthermore, over 70 percent of our wildlife habitat is found on private land, largely due to the wise environmental stewardship of family farms and ranches that maintain the open space necessary for healthy wildlife populations. I will go on record as saying, “if these producers lose their economic viability, we will lose our open landscapes in the West, because the only option at this point is to sell open land, which would most likely be for development.” Please understand Wilderness has very real and unintended consequences.
I ask you to support a plan that addresses everyone’s interests. Especially those of us that are most affected.
Editor’s note: Jeff Welborn (R-Dillon) serves the constituents of 72th district in the Montana House of Representatives.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
Quit kidding yourslef rscott.
Could someone fill me in on how ADA has anything to do with this bill?
Here's a couple other odd comments that I don't understand the relevance of..."Grazing of livestock is also very important for reducing fuel loads and creating healthy vegetation for our wildlife populations. We must all remember that these lands remain an important component of a safe, reliable source of food and fiber as well as raw materials."...just how does competetion for food create healthy vegetation for wildlife? If I'm missing the point someone please fill me in.
Here's another one...in talking about family farms and ranches..." “if these producers lose their economic viability, we will lose our open landscapes in the West, because the only option at this point is to sell open land, which would most likely be for development.” ...what does this have to do with this bill?
I am not saying I disagree with everything Mr. Welborn is expressing, I just don't see the linkage with this particular bill.
Designation would in turn free the environmental "partners" to walk away and re-focus concentrated energy on new areas such as the Front, the North Fork, other parts of the Yaak, and so on.
Want to fix the bill?
1. Designation is conditional. The jobs and recreation have to come off, too.
2. Language that gives an abbreviated NEPA review legal sufficiency in order to keep Molloy et al out of this.
3. This-and-no-more. Permanent multiple use as well as permanent wilderness upon final conditional designation.
4. Wilderness designation only for agency recommended wilderness as outlined in the official planning process. All others that failed to pass muster after study must be released permanently.
Then maybe we'd have a "jobs and recreation act" that actually DID something to encourage either...instead of neither.
if you beleive this a victory for the few env. groups left in MT that want tester to live up to his promise of protecting ALL remaining roadless areas in MT it shows how delusional you are. Similar to Kerry White's opposition to this bill cuz it gives the greens too much. Dont you get the roadless/wilderness areas in MT and the wilderness groups LOOSE big time if tester's logging bill. The only people it benefits are a few, local mills by throwing them one last bone. You RWC's dont even know when your getting what you want. Skinner and the like are opposed to any and all new wilderness even if it's only gesture to quell the opposition from opposing destroying roadless areas. Your outright opposition to any new wilderness in MT despite the fact that MT forests are only 3.5% wilderness places you once again in the category of Right Wing Crazy.
1.Yes, there are citizens in Beaverhead County, and yes, this bill proposes wilderness will be in Beaverhead County. But your citizenry represents only a drop of the 300 million citizens of the USA who own our public land. And I doubt that the vast majority of our nation's citizens want you or your Beaverhead locals clearcutting and mining for short-term local gain in these few remaining potential wilderness areas.
2. “Wilderness is a very one-sided approach, taking away our ability to properly manage these lands, etc.” Wrong, wrong, wrong. It’s the destruction of wilderness, mindless clear cutting, and rampant development that lead to one-sided approaches, often permanently damaging the land for other uses. Wilderness is usually the best way to "sustain the natural values” for future generations.
3. Ah, the old canard about our disabled being “locked out” of wilderness lands if we don’t pave them (and perhaps install elevators at every waterfall?). Give me a break. This access for the disabled argument has been trotted out for over 30 years, and disproven time and again. Plenty of accessible motorized areas already in Montana where the disabled can experience nature--so let's not destroy the last small bit of untrammeled land, shall we?
4. "When fuel loads become too great, fire is inevitable, only adding to carbon emissions." Wrong again, Jeff. Forest fires don’t add to carbon emissions—forest fires are carbon neutral, since forests sequester carbon during photosynthesis, and release it during fires.
6. Wilderness has been shown time and again to contribute more to local economies than almost any other use, including timber, mining, and agriculture. The watershed preservation values and the tourism industry that depends on wilderness combined represent immense income streams.
So do you really want what's best for your Beaverhead constituents and their future? Then support more wilderness. It's by far the most sustainable and highest economic return in the long run.
-Jon Cheever
Representative Welborn is exactly right on the S1470 issue and his perception about Senator Tester not representing the people. Senator Tester collected over 70 percent of his campaign money from out of state interests and S1470 is only a way for the Senator to pay these people back.
Would the residents of New York city destroy Central Park? I sincerely doubt it so why would the citizens that live, work and play in and on the federally managed public lands of the Beaverhead Deerlodge National Forest want to destroy it. They don't but the radical environmental groups portray the good people in Montana as clear cutting, strip mining, motorhead recreationalist because it all revolves around money.
Being good stewards of the land takes more than listening to false propaganda to become educated on the issue at hand. A few facts that Representative Welborn missed are that S1470 violates both Federal Law and our U.S. Constitution. S1470 was written behind closed doors by Trout Unlimited which dedicates its time and energy to removing cattle from the landscape and reducing an important world food source to ultimately reduce the human population through starvation.
As for those folks that continue to proclaim these lands as roadless, nothing could be further from the truth. Much of the land proposed to be designated as wilderness in Tester's bill has permanent structures. These include fences, corrals, ditches, water containment facilities, campgounds, roads and trails. All of these aminities will be at risk with S1470. Some may disagree with this notion but I ask that you look at the history of other wilderness designations that promised to protect and preserve these things only to find that as time went on the environmental groups forced them to be abandoned or removed.
The bottom line is environmental groups lie. They deceive the public by deception and false information for the sole purpose of creating a crisis to raise money. They litigate not in the name of fairness or doing the right thing for the environment but only for being paid by the government under the Equal Justice Act. Environmental groups have collected billions of dollars from this Act with the liberal courts supporting their efforts.
Wilderness is a land of no use with less than 3 percent of the public using these areas. Educate yourselves on the real issue and threat to our public land which is a small minority of greedy people interested only in monetary gain and the destruction of the human race.
I never heard so much lies and propoganda from one Right Wing Crazy before. That's impressive goat.
Another RWC who thinks tester's logging bill is a win for wilderness advocates. Again it demonstrates how delusional these RWC really are.
Someone has to work to keep you in the style you believe you deserve, and that means places to work. You want no grazing, no timbering, no mining, no drilling, no industry. That equals no money. You'd be wise to settle for playing on all of the land you have and let the rest of the country use the rest to support your lifestyle.
your simplistic world view is hysterical.
Thanks Jeff for defending my "RIGHTS" to enjoy "OUR" lands the way our Founding Fathers created those "RIGHTS!" I am proud of your postition on this matter, and would be honored to have you as a represenative in Silver Bow County!
your statements speak for themsleves. Public lands are PUBLIC and belong to everyone despite right wing crazies opposition.
I beleive in freedom for all not a select few.
I find it interesting that when the words "Right Wing" and "Conspiracy Theorists" are used it always is used by the people who disregard the constitution and it's content. Then again I will be going to Aghanistan in March and suppose I will be on a Democrat watch list somewhere.
Eric Ford
Please give an example of post here that was of an "environmental extremist wackos" status.
I believe your the only terrorist here and you "terrorize" the truth.
keep pouting cuz no one wanted to vote for a whacko like you.
Right wingers favorite attack is you dont beleive in the constitution...laughable.
You people are unbelievable, hypocritical and dont represent most americans.
and mickey your anything but normal.
oh theyre locking us out whah whah suckle
3.5% of MT forests are wilderness and there will probally never be any more cuz of you right wing crazies, yet you will still cry and pout and call people terrorists or anti american who disagree with you and claim they're trying to kick all the people out and stop all development. Do you know howw bat sh*t crazy you guys sound?
96.5% of MT forests is not enough for my trickey and I
pathetic..
please give an example of a law that is "strangling" your freedom to use public lands.
As a young bright eyed idealistic easterner, I like many people, thought that a revolution against the resource extraction industrial complex was the only way to save the extraordinarily powerful magnificence of the most spectacular ecosystems found on the planet. I mingled with these strange zealots - which I admired at the time and thought the Earth Firsters! had a reasonable vendetta-still do think they have a place in history as a needed counterbalance to the irresponsible resource extraction that was so prevalent during the steep slope clearcut bonanzas that eventually led to public outcry and the NFMA a la Bolle et al. I did a miniscule amount of volunteer work for AWR during the time period that NREPA was being conceptualized.
My point being when I was younger and more foolish and did not care as much about innovative ways to bring home a decent paycheck with regularity and security I thought locking up every last acre of RARE roadless acreage just so it would be pretty and stay that way sounded really reasonable and even honorable. My how my perspective has changed!
I think most rational reasonable people reach a point in life where they realize how grey rather than black and white life actually is and that the truth usually lies in the middle, between extremes .It is the same with ecological issues regarding public land management. Multiple Use Sustained Yield is really the only reasonable rational unnarcissistic mode of democratic management operation that can and should be employed, even in terms of what to do with remaining roadless acreage. Yes we need some more capital W wilderness designation but locking up 16 million acres in Mt. and Id as NREPA calls for is a little extreme.
The rights and opportunities we would lose through so much more land being locked up through wilderness designation can be subtle and hard for some to conceptualize, but they lie at the heart of concerns through which the conservative right is accurate in criticizing such developments as contrary to the basic principles of the freedom and democracy upon which this country and its constitution were founded!
Squelching or restricting the potential possible opportunities for profitable capitalism to be derived and organized through pursuits like reasonable well balanced sustainable natural resource extraction is NOT what this country needs right now and while its true that within the framework of the current economic situation, some of the traditional resource extraction pursuits like large scale industrial logging do not seem particularly viable any time within the foreseeable future it does not mean that we should be limit the possibility of deriving innovative new ways to capitalize upon potential job creation through our natural resource base. And I realize that pristine, capital W wilderness is of paramount importance for maintaining Montana’s reputation as a word class recreation and tourism destination and we do need SOME more.
But in doing so we need to be careful to not exclude the possibility of developing variations of such traditional resource extraction as small-diameter wood use and biomass fuel harvest as well as road maintenance and special forest product harvest with general access to various traditional pursuits and locking up too much land as Wilderness would indeed prevent certain possibilities.
.I have been involved with the harvest of special forest products such as conifer cones and boughs, native species seed, mushrooms, floral accents and medicinals for over a decade now and the disturbing trend I have witnessed over the past few years has threatened my business and my ability to promote it enough to generate employment for others as well as myself. It has gotten to the point where the Forest Service does not want to allow hardly any opportunity to harvest such products mainly because they are so afraid of being sued by so called “obstructionists” over some misguided and inaccurate claims that we are somehow harming the environment. First it was mushrooms, then boxwood and now they are trying to restrict the harvest of subalpine fir boughs since lets face it everywhere that tree grows is technically potential lynx habitat .
What’s so disturbing is these decisions are being made by people that do not even know what boxwood is and are too ecologically inept to realize that pruning subalpine fir boughs will actually enhance rather than harm lynx habitat, in the long run. Now I know how loggers feel when they are locked, out of the woods to continue working the way they have for generations. Now you can be hassled right and left for harvesting firewood or even removing a freakin rock! Next on the list are mountain bikers and horse/mule packers. Where in the world does it ever end?
So Tedham I really take issue with your implication that some how the woods are not being over regulated as I am someone who, by the grace of GOD does not sit on my ass whining and not enjoying the woods, in my own way –through 500 miles of hiking each season, that generates critical income for myself and family and any body else I can provide employment for!
This situation exemplifies the warning I am trying to verbalize through this post-that locking up too much land in to a restrictive mode of management endangers the very constitutional principles of life ,liberty and the pursuit of happiness under which this country was founded upon! I do not trust the government and to me this trend of land use parameters being derived by uneducated bureaucrats in D.C., rather than us local rural westerners is foolish and disturbing not to mention the fact that it reeks of Marxist socialism.
The claim that the average American citizen is even educated enough within the realm of ecological sciences to know whether or not they even support NREPA or Testers bill is utterly ludicrous. Most American citizens don’t really truly know what they do or don’t support in regards to wilderness designation and public lands management because they don’t understand the technicalities or implications. So the claim by NREPA supporters that the overwhelming majority of American citizens want “their” roadless RARE land managed as capital W wilderness is utter bullshit. These decisions need to be more localized and steered by the true stakeholders –the people that live in, and in some cases make their living from the potential possibilities of the lands in question. So to some of us, who incidentally are not even close to being “right wing wackos” you are the one who sounds “batshit crazy”! Thus some laws are indeed “strangling” our freedom to use public lands!
Even if ALL the roadless areas in MT were protected it would only equal 11% of the MT forests. It would add six million acres that are moslty rugged and inaccesible and have would be better left alone. I work and live in the wild country and know a lot of these areas first hand. They are not harvestable areas becuase it's not economically feasible to do so considering the remoteness and rugged terrain. Your rant is long on excuses to log roadless areas and short explanantions how or why this the best course of action for these lands. We have SOOOO much land that has been logged and guess what those trees may be harvested again. We dont need to penetrate every last wild corner of the country in the name of reource extraction when we have soooo much land that has been logged and is in desperaste need of management. How about we deal with the issues we've created such as the multi-million dollar backlog on forest service road maintainance, thinning and restoration work. No restoration is required in testers logging bill. Before we cut our way into another mess how about we deal with the mess at hand. Apparently it's ok with you that these right wing crazies call people who disagree with them terrrorists and worse. These are the people your defending and their policies. When I look at their outlandish cliams I certainly dont respect their view on public lands management.
No where johnny do you name a specific law that is restrixcting so much freedom on public lands. Your allowed to cut firewood, graze, mine, harvest timber etc all over the forest an i'm ok with that but Not in the last roadless areas. Your arguemtn does'nt change the fact that these roadless areas represent a very small % of MT forests yey these right wing crazy cant get off my ass fat losers want every last acre logged and mined.
But hey you guys wont listen to me or the nationa's leading ecological scientists. If you want MT and Idaho to become colorado go ahead and chop up your last wild areas. I'm not trying to shut down resource extraction rather restrict in an overall small percentage of the forests. Timber demand is at an all time low due to the housing market decline and poor economy Not becuase of enviros another common scapegoat. The mills closed becuase the market crashed not the evil greens. Enviros are used as a scapegoat for all these right wing crazies problems. They hate the feds yet expect a handout when their industry fails, the same goes for a lot of public lands ranchers (read Wellfare Ranching) their some of the largest wellfare recipients in the USA yet claim to hate the feds and handouts more than anyone. Hypocrites and liars and propogandists. In Minnesota it takes about an acre of grass to feed one cow in the arid wes it can be hundereds of acres per cows. It's time we ask oursleves do we really need cattle and sheep in every last corner of wild country in the rockies when we dedicate soo much land elsewhere to raising cattle in environments that are able to support them. It's 2010 and heritage alone is not enough reason to keep bailing out folks who hurt our public lands and continually vote against their own and everyones best interests by insisting we log, mine and graze the 7.5% of MT forests that are still relativley pristine.
I'm not against logging and grazing on public lands even if it does'nt make economic or ecological sense to do it in the northern rockies but hey we all gotta eat. What gall these folks have insisting that They control all the decisions about the forests and have greater entitlement to them when it's a fuc*ing privelage that they get such cheap grazing allotments and log the hell out of areas while breaking laws.
The fact that you defend the likes of Mickey Garcia and the like cuases me to loose all respect for your opinion. These right wing crazies have no low and call people every name in the book and spew more lies and prop than w bush. I mean they really are pond scum, alarmist liars and paranoids.
If MT is going to allowed these batsh*t crazy right wingers to destroy the last roadless areas then go ahead MT I have said my piece your fuc*ing screwed.
i've never heard any kind of restrictions for Mtn, bikes and horse/mule packers. Especially considering that horse/mule packing is one of the most popular ways to navigate around wilderness/roadless. The only place mtn. bikes are'nt allowed is designated wilderness. Firewood can be cut at a low cost and it's aboslutley free to acess these land son any given day. Logging, grazing and mining are all allowed and will continue to be allowed.
Perhaps your not used to seeing an actual mutiple use perspective where logging/mining is'nt dominant but rather a part of the multiple use spectrum.
You really sound a lot like these right wing crazy alarmist, propogandists. I challenge you to produce any kind of proof that the forest servie is planning on restricting horse/mule packing or restricting mtn. bikes anywhere except designated wilderness or where they have caused signifigant damage to trail systems.
http://www.hcn.org/wotr/setting-the-record-straight-on-wilderness?src=rc#1262485580
Horses are allowed in wildernss. Get your facts straight before you spout off again and waste my time.
Suffice it to say that when it comes to special forest product harvest you are wrong. The Beaver head -Deerlodge, Clearwater and Nez Perce have essentially banned all mushroom harvest - will not allow the harvest of Pacific Yew for cancer medicine (we don’t even want to extract the bark any more which can harm the plant) rather just want to prune new growth tips which does NOT harm the plant (the FS is so ignorant they actually think Pacific Yew is rare -they don’t even know what Pachistima is so they think its rare and endangered which is NOT true. We are not even asking to harvest in roadless areas or Wilderness, although really there is no good reason we shouldn’t be able to harvest a mushroom where you can also harvest elk and trout! It is not true that you can harvest firewood any where and the harvest of commercial boughs and cones is restricted to pathetically miniscule areas that do not provide the volume or species mix to make it viable.
As for mountain biking -it appears that they would also be banned from some of these roadless areas where they have ridden for years and of course when they are singled out for erosion problems then the finger is pointed at horse packers and on and on. Then who determines what an acceptable amount of erosion is? I am simply saying that it looks like more trail closures and mountain biking restrictions appear to be imminent within this rather grey area of interpretation regarding places where both mountain biking and stock packing have been in use now for a while. The same goes for trapping and hound hunting which I am not real fond of personally yet I defend it as a traditional right. It needs to be managed differently – it is pretty simple- stop trapping along popular hiking areas where people take their dogs and make people aware that the danger exists within certain management zones. Yet the banning of trapping and hound hunting seems imminent since it is demonized by the left. I feel that is a dangerous precedent to start banning historical uses in such areas. I never once stated that we do not need to protect SOME of these roadless areas with capital W designation. The real key corridor areas like Great Burn, Kootenai -Yaak Roadless areas, Lima Peaks etc. should get capital W protection but its people like you demanding that every last RARE II area be protected that keeps this issue in gridlock.
The far right is also WRONG to blame environmentalists entirely for the decline of the timber industry -I agree with you about how ludicrous it is for right wing crazies to scapegoat environmentalists for the decline of the timber industry and I never said we should do a lot of extensive new logging and road building within these RARE II areas. In an earlier post within a different article I criticized the Tester Bill for exactly the same reason that you do and that it is way short on mandating innovative new proposals such as eco-restoration, road obliteration, noxious weed control and special forest product harvest and I suggested that if there be any mandated logging it be focused on the much more viable, productive habitat types of the Kootenai, where climate is much more favorable to a sustainable harvest rotation than the slower growing, dime a dozen Lodgepole habitat types of the Beaverhead – Deerlodge. What I do have a problem with in regards to logging is litigating and appealing every last timber sale in that region? I totally understood why a few years ago Matthew K and Co. rallied against the middle East Fork B-Root timber sale, because scientifically speaking it was a scam that wasn’t ecologically sound and that it didn’t provide the fuel production and urban interface protection Dave Bull was touting. But more recently the fact that the “obstructionists” had a problem with the Rat Creek salvage sale aggravated me – yes I know its grayling habitat but let’s face it, it’s already roaded, hammered ground and grayling in the BigHole are probably done at this point no matter what. I walked almost every square inch of that burned ground so I know it intimately and am well aware that salvage logging can be harmful to the environment. But again, where do you draw the line? It just seems to me, after being familiar with that particular site sale that it’s over the top to have a problem with logging whatever is left there.
This is when people like you and Matthew, who incidentally I respect greatly and understand is usually ecologically accurate in his claims, do your whole movement a disservice by having an all or nothing attitude that insures there is no progress within the wilderness stalemate and this old gridlock is perpetuated indefinitely with no solutions. Both sides need to back down and compromise – but you who represent the left don’t accomplish anything by calling people like Mickey Garcia, Dave Skinner, and Bearbait names, or hurling insults at them. Just as Tester did not accomplish any thing besides making himself look like a lying asshole to treat Matthew the way he did. Yes his bill sucks because it is short sited on new wave innovation –it could and should be so much better, but it should include SOME logging but not MUCH in roadless areas
By the same token people on the right like Jeff Wellborne, Rehberg etc. need to realize that SOME more wilderness is valuable and desirable. I don’t profess to have all of the answers, not even close, but I do know this constant volleying of vitriol between the extreme sides of each spectrum gets us nowhere and that would be one of my biggest problems with NREPA passing (which incidentally I don’t think ever will-but any thing is possible at this point) is that it is not enough of a compromise and would continue to breed an immense amount of ill will and us vs. them disenfranchisement.
Just picture the Deliverance or Hills Have Eyes implications kind of kidding but really these rural communities are already polarized enough. Most of the post you are referring to was just a warning about the trend that I and a few other s have lately experienced and the disturbing trends of increased, scientifically invalid overregulation that is occurring within our neck of the woods. Please remember that even the passion and zeal you feel towards protecting these areas just might change your black and white attitude to grey some day- I never thought I would defend anything remotely right and still don’t like Rush or Sarah P –but I am beginning to see that people like them and even O’reilly some. times make a good point.In the end its all about rational ,reasonable middle ground.I do believe that is the key!
who's the one hurling insults here? Garcia goes way over the line as does skinner.
By Mickey Garcia, 1-03-10
A lot of these environmental extremist wackos are actually CAVE BANANA NIMBY's (Citizens Against Virtually Everything, Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anybody, Never In My Back Yard) masquerading as protectors of the Earth. They nail themselves to the cross of "Wilderness" and fancy that they are martyrs for the Earth, but most normal folks see them as Bossy, Goofy, Hypocritical and sometimes dangerous nuisances, kinda of like Al Qaeda.
If you have a specific problem with the nez perce national forest regarding mushroom and pacific yew harvest the nthat's an issue with one specific forest in Idaho. Otherwise most national forests allow prospecting, grazing, wood cutting etc at reasonable or free acess.I have personally seen trails closed due to excessive mtn biking use; now no one enjoys these areas. Mtn bikes are fine but when they dominate area (groups riding by every three minutes) they can cause severe erosion and have the area closed for all.
As far as the all W or nothing mentality; this is a result of the fact that so little is left that even if if ALL the roadless wre protected it would only equal 11% of the national forest acreage in MT. This is still an almost 90-10 split against wilderness. Tester's bill protects about 10% of the roadless acre left. It's obviuos that wilderness advocates are royally getting screwed yet the far right still claims that tester bill is a victory ofr the enviros.'thuoruoghly demonstrating how delusional they are.
Even if tester protected ALL the roadless it would only equal about 10% of the forest in MT if that's too radical and unreasonable then i'd have to say the right wingers are'nt being reasonable.
BTW johnny if your begininig to side with o'reiley and palin i'd have to the right wing prop. is taking hold of your mind.
you contribute nothing and only add nonsensical, talking points.
Are these areas not roadless right now. Are we in any way short on fuel or electricity. How would logging these last roadless areas contribute electricity or heat. Biomass burnining of small diameter trees generates energy but these trees would be massive old growth. How would cutting old grwoth fuel my car. Perhaps you should think through your comments before you yet again spout off with another thoughtless smear. Leave the adults to have the conversation todd, your absolutely pathetic.
What fossil fuels are located in these last roadless areas in MT todd?
You make absolutely NO sense.
1) I think that's impossible.
2) Careful what you wish for.
3) Good land management isn't necessarily about making sure that every interest is represented, and that's actually a good thing.
4) With all due respect, Mr. Welborn, you're a politician. Populist sentiments, such as "this bill should represent everyone's interests," come with your territory, and will likely serve you well come re-election time. But they don't reflect reality.
Go ahead and petition those forests they are more open than these poiticnas that are making the decisions. I'm not here to argue with you about special forest product harvests. I agree you should have a right to harvest special products at a reasonalbe, responsible rate. You have diverted from the issue however which is the protection of the last 7.5% of MT forests which are roadless. I'm not talking about NREPA or special products but rather the tester bill, the consequences and why it's not a good bill. My mind is made up that the last 7.5% of MT forests that are roadless should remain that way be it by wilderness designation or some other route. Perhaps you should lay off the doeses of Palin and O'riley and all the local MT right wingers who have obviuosly convinced you of things which hurt both the local economy and environment.
Regarding roadless
Regarding wilderness
http://www.hcn.org/wotr/setting-the-record-straight-on-wilderness?src=rc#1262485580
As for special forest products...have you seen the lifestyles of the people who actually do this stuff for a living? We're talking itinerant migrants doing the gypsy.
Not that I have anything against those who move about harvesting our crops, but "special products" are NOT the sort of thing upon which a real, stable, long-term economy, culture, or even family life can be built upon. I'm okay with a niche, and would be happy to see USFS facilitate predictable programs in same, but the end-all be-all of SFP is just as unrealistic as that of wilderness.
I hear tell that Rehberg plans 21, yes, TWENTY ONE hearings on S-1470...and I bet you he will introduce legislation that would be far more balanced and honest than either S-1470 or NREPA will ever be.
Every time the environmental organizations sat down in the 70s and 80s they told us that if we supported their wilderness proposals they would be satisfied and not ask for more and we went along with their promise in hopes that the fighting would stop and we could focus on what Montana was really about which was recreation and balance of opportunity. In Montana a handshake is a contract and the environmental organizations that negociated the early wilderness lied because it was not more than a year later they came back demanding more. I believe this was not their intention at the time but because the environmental movement has become something far different from protecting the environment and turned itself into a business of raising money for a self proclaimed crisis that the need to continue spreading their propaganda of humans somehow destroying the last best place was all about raising money to support their organizations.
Think about it for a moment and realize that to these organizations there can never be enough wilderness. We are all environmentalist but some are just blinded by greed and the preservation of their organization and paycheck. When we ask how many wolves are enough, there can be no answer by the organizations that support reintroduction. When the greens tell us they support logging and mining and grazing in certain areas they will never allow themselves to tell us where or how much.
How is that global warming working for you this year Mr Gore? (on track to be the coldest winter on record) The EPA has just announced (federal register) they will be incorporating climate change regulation into land management rules. An unproven science based on speculation, deception and manipulation of data will now be used as a tool to even further regulate mans existence on the planet. Google the Wildlands Project and see the ultimate goal of the earth worshipers with reduction of world population and removal of the human race from the environment. So much for the old saying "go forth and populate the land".
What does a Wilderness designation get us? Are we protecting our pristine Montana’s landscapes from new roads, mining, logging, expanded motorized use, BICYCLES and new structures or are we protecting cushy Montana based conservation jobs complete with health care and impressive offices in the hip and trendy towns? The Montana National Protection Area Association just doesn’t have same urgent holier-than-thou ring to it.
Heck, I’d ALMOST vote for NREPA that would designate all Montana lands with (and most without) Wilderness qualities so there would be no more landscapes eligible to become Wilderness just to pink slip the ‘professional’ Wilderness advocates because their services are no longer needed. Would the ultimate Wilderness success be that they have made themselves redundant?
The Wilderness machine requires an endless supply of potential Wilderness and associated drama to raise money and justify its existence.
It will be interesting to watch as the Rocky Mountain Front Heritage Act with its Conservation Management Area gains support for its non-Wilderness protections.
look at all the right wingers and and their endless hate filled propoganda.
7.5% of MT forests are roadless. Protecting them ALL in combination with current 3.5% wildernss lands would equal 11% of MT forests. You right wing crazies can spew lies and bs all you want but when it comes to the numbers and science you have no argument.
Multiple use should have at least 10% of the forests as wilderness.
Right wing crazies love talking about balanced use but clearly want it all and dont listen to rational arguments but rather spew whatever nonsense they please with toal disregard for economic and ecological facts.
Bat sh*t crazy right winger.
Nice…The only 2 differences I see between National Protection Area and Wilderness are that bikes and mechanized trail maintenance would be allowed. So, instead of everyone trampling vegetation to go around a down tree, it could more easily be moved so people could stay on the trail.
WTF are u talking about toad? I propbally work harder and longer than you.
Dont act like you have a point or can even maintain an argument here. Your just an afterthought simpleton. You did'nt even know horses are allowed in wilderness. Shows how much time you spend out there.
Idiot.
As part of the total state land base, Montana (3.44 million acres) is 4 percent wilderness. In terms of public and agency base, Alaska leads with 57 million acres, fully 16 percent of the state designated as wilderness.
There are 109 million acres of wilderness in the USA, more than Montana's 93 million acres total area. Seems like a lot already, eh? Montana has 3 percent of total wilderness nationwide, Alaska has 52 percent of America's total.
But it's more honest to talk about percentages of the land base that actually can legally become wilderness. There's a neat little chart here: http://www.propertyrightsresearch.org/2004/articles6/state_by_state_government_land_o.htm
31 percent, or about 29 million acres, of Montana is federally administered. So a bit less than 12 percent of federal land is already wilderness -- not some puny 3.5 or 4 percent.. We aren't counting the "roadless" acres (6.3 million acres according to "roadlessland.org", which in turn uses a 50 acre cutoff instead of the legal 5000 acre criteria) or the WSA areas that are in a limbo that is all but wilderness, nor are we counting the areas of the Flathead and Kootenai that are pretty much wilderness because of bears. And never mind what is being burnt or bugged into a howling wilderness because of the sum effect of litigation and bad law.
So....counting the, um, MWA "unprotected wilderness acres" in Montana with designated ground sums up to about 9.8 million acres. That means that over a third of Montana's federal land would be wilderness if MWA's Board was God.
If the NREPA people were God, they would decree 7 million acres, not that much more radical than MWA. Hmmm.
your full of bs yet again. MT national forests are only 3.5% wilderness and even if we protected all remaining roadless areas it would only equal 11% of the national forests of MT. I think MT should have more than 3% of the national wildernes system.
You can call areas with bears wilderness but thats becuase your afraid of nature skinner...we all know that. I never let bears keep me out. You can post right winger private propery rights links but the fact remins 3.5% of MT national forests are wilderness and with protection of ALL remaining roadless would equal only 11% of the forests in MT. 10% out of 90 is hardly blalanced or multiple use but we're striving to protect what little is left. If 90% of the forest is toom uch for skinner and the RWC's then they are just slefish people who clearly "want it all"
Your inlfated wilderness acres are clearly due to AK being considered. Your scared of wilderness skinner like a lot of right wing crazies who huddle next to their gun and pee their pants everytime a barred howl hoots. I laugh at you and you bs "facts" and "statistics"
The facts, numbers and science are plain to see. Your
What utter dribble skinner go back to Kalihell.
The question becomes how do we protect our roadless lands? It's past time for a viable Wilderness Lite option to become a solution for permanent protection for SOME of these areas.
the problem with getting any wilderness passed in MT is all the right wing crazies.
They think 3.5% of MT forests as wilderness is way too much land out of proportion. This demonstrates how out of touch with reality they are.
They are the obstructionists to forest health.
They oppose any and all road closures espite the damage they do.
Demand more roads yet the FS has a multi million dollar backlog in maintaining existing roads.
They hate wilderness yet expect vast herds of game to hunt every fall.
Etc Etc Etc
I don't know about that. I think most are starting to realize there are other ways to protect the land.
Wilderness designation is the best and strongest method for protecting public lands, if you come up with a way that affords the same protections via a different route then go for it.
What are your ideas Ray?
They think 3.5% is too much so i dont have much faith in the RWC'ers creating any new progressive developments. Especially when they consider testers logging bill to be progressive....if lying politicians are considered progressive in MT then your already screwed.
we should let the frantic, screaming, lying, propogandist right wing crazies make all the decisions cuz thats the way it is.
Simpleton toad hahahaha
My facts are true and irrefutable
tester is liar yet hes touted as progressive
Your facts are incorrect. Combining the government and private land bases in order to deem a percentage is not a proper comparison of like to like. Par for the progressive course, I guess, but that doesn't hack it in the real world.
You don't even understand that the comparison you make is also on a land base that is not all forest. Yet you claim only 3.5 of "MT forests" is wilderness. Go ahead, go find the numbers yourself for total, ownership breakdowns, use classifications, put them in a post with your calculated percentages, and we'll see.
But for now, your little factoid is wrong. If that's the only "fact" you are capable of remembering, my sympathy.
There is an undecided 7.3% of the land base that qualifies as wilderness totaling around 11% of the total land in the state.
This land should remain roadless or be designated wilderness for a state wide mutiple/balanced use program in action.
yee ha.
Look at a map of roads and roadless/wilderness lands in MT.
Nuff said.
That particular map, produced by MWA's GIS hacks, is a classic of deception...right up there with Sierra Club's "clearcut" that is actually a RESERVOIR BOTTOM.
When you take every mapped road, and code it so that it's a couple hundred yards wide, it makes for quite the sight.
But if you take Google Earth and scale Montana out to the same size, you can't see ANY roads at all. Again, I guess the propaganda worked on you -- and as it does on most everyone who doesn't know any better.
Look at a map of roads in MT.
Now look at a map of roadless areas.
Now STFU.
It occurred to me this morning that if China wanted to invest it's money wisely in the USA, it would only need to support American environmental groups. With enough money and lawsuits, nothing will ever come from American forests, mines, farms, ranches, or factories. Montana will be totally reliant on tourism, casinos, and wilderness groups to support itself. I once read that if you put alcohol on the back of a scorpion, it will sting itself to death. I've never tried that, but it looks like wilderness groups might.
Products should comes from US forests and do but not from the few natural forests we have left.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/234674?tid=relatedcl
http://blog.heritage.org/2008/06/16/environmental-hypocrisy/
The vast majority of our national forests and other woooded areas have been harvested and roaded. We have more than enough second growth to supply our timber needs without needing to cut the litle bit of old gorwth left. If you could see beyond your absolutely glaring partisanship and prejudices you'dknow it makes absolutely on economic sense to harvest the last old growth in MT.
Stop all resource use, ban the public from public lands?
What are you ranting about and to whom
Yeah your vehicles is banned all over public lands.
What an bsolute nutter your not worth it you'll look beyond your blind hatred towards who you think is the enemy.
Wow...what a nut.
Why is this so hard to accept
why do you make all these broad assumptions about people/lifestyle.
You obviuosly did'nt read or understand my rpeviuos comments and that's becuase you dont want to understand. Your opinions and pointo f view are engrianed deep into your psyche and unofortuately you'll continue to spread your false, right ing extremist propoganda.
By Brandon Stodden, 3-11-10
"So, is that the reason to sue and stop ALL timber management and harvest projects, block the PUBLIC from using motorized vehicles on PUBLIC lands in the name of saving PUBLIC lands from the PUBLIC? But, why not? I'll bet China and Russia are already planning timber harvests from Siberia to supply us rich Americans with endless trust funds and no need to work with wood products so that we can just let our forests burn, and make no attemt at rational salvaging of our own resources."
What the heck r u ranting and raving about?
Sueing people what?
Dude you know nothing about me, who I work for or my views on public resource extraction and your absolute nutter for making these broad assumptions/prejudices about anyone that disagrees with you. Obviuosly you don't know the history of tax-payer subsidized, UNSUSTAINABLE old growth logging and it's realitonship to Asia. Do you not understand that we're not even using the old gorwth we harvested in the US. We're harvesting it at the public's expense only to be sold back ot us later at a loss.
Protesting beetle killed fires...honestly you nutters need to stop with the sterotypes that anyone who cares about our roadless areas is some sue-happy, foreign resource consuming, hypocritical trust funder.
I mean my gosh I workd damn hard for aliving in the woods and I know about smart resource extraction and industrial liquiadation of resources.
An old sticker from the PNW summed it up well
Logging Yes, Maxam NO!
If you dont know what that means brandon perhaps you should look it up before you spout of again and make an utter fool of yourself.
I apologize for being harsh with you and name calling pardner,
but when you start posting some extremly prejudiced, judgmental, uncalled for statements about large segments the population of MT who want more wilderness in MT ( in the 70th % pro wilderness) it tends to get a rise out of people.
Imagine this: "You leave your log home near Lolo made from trees that were grown in British Columbia, in your Lexus SUV made in Japan, that is running on gasoline from Saudi Arabia and arrive at a beetle kill timber harvest near Butte to protest the slaughtering of nature."
First of all if it's any log home built more than a few decades ago it's probally old growth Larch from MT.
To be perfectly honest with you sir,
the fact that you think the tester is bill is a win for wilderness supporters demonstrates how far ot the right you truly are.
Tester's bill might give you guys what you want, it increases the amonut of unsustainalbe, tax payer subsidized old growth logging in roadless areas and allows you run rampant in a new "recreation area" up in the high country of the west pioneers roadless area; despite the small, dening population of wolverines up there that you might disturb and kill, but hey you get a thrill on your snow go kart..
The wise/balanced use movement is as far to the right as earth firsters, tree sitters on college campuses and enviros who want all public lands designated wilderness are tp the left.
Until your kind of groups stop advocating more roads at a time when existing forest service roads in MT have been in need of repair for decades and remaons so extreme you wont be taken seriuosly.
I'm wise because I know we need to protect what little roadless country we have elft in MT for future generations to enjoy hunting and harvesting what the land provides for us. In the end that is more important . You've already won long ago your crowd. Our national forests are logged, roaded and grow unaturally dense and haggard due to decaes of fire suppression. You can hunt about anywhere from your truck an bag a big game species. To claim your locked out is ludicrous.
I sir merely support what little wilderness/roadless lan we have left. Even if all the remaining roadless areas in MT were designated wilderness it would only equal 11% of the total land base on the state. Roughly 33% of our national forests would be wilderness for all the creatures that we enjoy seeing there and in the remaining 67% of MT national forests that are roaded and SHOULD be logged sustainably.
if you want to continue to have the lengthy, liberal hunting seasons Montana is renowned for; you'd be wise to conserve all the roadless and wildlife habitat you could becuase the more roads there are the less wildlife, the loss of entire hunting seasons on a wide variety of species could result becuase it all based on estimated total population numbers and that will only decrease with more roads and intrusions into roadless areas.
I'm talking about roadless areas not hunting dont try to muddy up the issue at hand. Try looking a little furthur than the wiseuse website for info about roads and widlife. Theres mounds of evidence that have prooven loss of wildlife with roads it's an irrefutable FACT.
By Brandon Stodden, 3-13-10
"Just for clarity, the animals on one side of the road would not be able breed with their partners on the other side. I should have stated that above."
Obviously you don't understand the whole range of threats roads present to wildlife.
The fact is people in MT want more wilderness and our last roadless forests are worth infinetely more standing, I guess your just being emotional that you don't represent the majority but your rather a minority due to your extremist views that you refuse to abandon.
Montana Fish and Game has not supported tester's bill to this date. I bet you dont understand how riding your snowmobile in the high cirque country will harm denning wolverines either?
You gotta research and leanning to do,
No roads in the mountains what are you talking about Montana has some of the most roaded forests in the country like the Kootenai. We have a multi-million dollar backlog in maintaining public lands roads. They're getting shut down becuase there's not enough money and here comes the atv corw d screaming for more more roads when we can't maintain what we got or even decomission a single road without you folks screaming your being locked out. You do the very thing you accuse the enviros of doing; your OBSTRUCTIONISTS to any progress made with the backlog. Theres plenty of acess for you to ride your ATV.
Every single Wilderness area in MT has a high volume of people riding and hiking and they treasure these places as much if not more than national parks. Your just being prejudiced and ignorant when you say all people who support wilderness will never see it and are city folk, and even if some of them dont at least them possess more foresight than you.
I am a fifth generation Montanan, 35 years old. My Grandfather told me when I was in highschool that the USA thinks Montana is an amusement park for their attraction only, and people just show up here with this righteous attitude that they have arrived to save it from the people that actually USE the land they have for generations.
As the Atlantic Coasters move here, they bring this "we gotta save this place" mentality with them (not forgetting their money and law degrees) to try and tame the Wild Wild West through these visions of glorious, off limits to cars, trucks, motorcycles, ATVs, snowmobiles, unpowered game carts, (gosh does that mean I can't bring my Trek mountain bike?). And with the internet and television, this money can also twist the truth about what happens in our National Parks and Forests all the way back in a Manhattan, NY apartment to make even MORE MONEY to get snowmobiles banned from YNP, and my Kawasaki 250 nowhere near the Beaverhead National Forest.
Could you imagine (if we had the money) Citizens for Balanced Use running national ads for support of keeping lands open to ALL types of recreation? It would be like bulldozing money off a barge into the ocean. But, you show some rich people in New Hampshire some shining peaks and a pine marten with a tear in his eye that they can "protect", watch out, here comes the cargo planes flying over Missoula dropping parachute loads of cash on Broadway. So, as with anything in life, money gets what money wants. My modest salary won't be able to contribute enough to counteract the tsunami of Franklins coming to a pro-wilderness club near 59801.
In conclusion, we used to live free, I mean FREE here in Montana, and now anybody from Maine to California with a college degree, shows up, loves it here, buys 20 acres,then thinks these natives here are stupid to live like free people. "Let's teach them a lesson about putting rubber marks on a rock in a creek on a trail in a National Forest!"
Green Groups are Banks and Law Offices in the same building who have found a way to keep their glutinous, Al Gore lifestyles afloat through the use of advertising, they are business people, and MONEY IS WHAT THEY LOVE, THEY DON'T LOVE FREEDOM OR PUBLIC LANDS!
you never respond to my points about raod maintainance or any other points and turn into another ants against the outsiders taking away your freedom to ride your atv into every mountain park and dark canyon. You respond as usual with prejudism and ideaoligy rather than accepting the reality of the situation.
Actually most native MT's despise the atv/wise use crowd and see them for the motorhead extremist clowns that they are.
You never espond to points or facts and always turn it into a "they're taking away our freedoms tantrum"
Balanced use actaully has alof money but no one wants to hear your endless dishonest whining about being banned from public lands. Most people in MT don't like you atvers breaking the law by riding illegally and trashing public lands.
Look at what I write
By Bert Stanton, 3-13-10
Branon you don't even respond to my points about wolverines and snowmobiles or roadless areas and make another lame pitch at claiming your rubber tires are banned all over public lands.
No roads in the mountains what are you talking about Montana has some of the most roaded forests in the country like the Kootenai. We have a multi-million dollar backlog in maintaining public lands roads. They're getting shut down becuase there's not enough money and here comes the atv corw d screaming for more more roads when we can't maintain what we got or even decomission a single road without you folks screaming your being locked out. You do the very thing you accuse the enviros of doing; your OBSTRUCTIONISTS to any progress made with the backlog. Theres plenty of acess for you to ride your ATV.
Every single Wilderness area in MT has a high volume of people riding and hiking and they treasure these places as much if not more than national parks. Your just being prejudiced and ignorant when you say all people who support wilderness will never see it and are city folk, and even if some of them dont at least them possess more foresight than you."
now look at your response
By Brandon Stodden, 3-14-10
Call me ignorant, call me an obstructionist, call me filthy names if you want. The fact of the matter is, environmental groups are made of money and lawyers. And with those tools in the current administration these groups will have minimal trouble shutting down public lands to this wilderness fantasy.
I am a fifth generation Montanan, 35 years old. My Grandfather told me when I was in highschool that the USA thinks Montana is an amusement park for their attraction only, and people just show up here with this righteous attitude that they have arrived to save it from the people that actually USE the land they have for generations.
As the Atlantic Coasters move here, they bring this "we gotta save this place" mentality with them (not forgetting their money and law degrees) to try and tame the Wild Wild West through these visions of glorious, off limits to cars, trucks, motorcycles, ATVs, snowmobiles, unpowered game carts, (gosh does that mean I can't bring my Trek mountain bike?). And with the internet and television, this money can also twist the truth about what happens in our National Parks and Forests all the way back in a Manhattan, NY apartment to make even MORE MONEY to get snowmobiles banned from YNP, and my Kawasaki 250 nowhere near the Beaverhead National Forest.
Could you imagine (if we had the money) Citizens for Balanced Use running national ads for support of keeping lands open to ALL types of recreation? It would be like bulldozing money off a barge into the ocean. But, you show some rich people in New Hampshire some shining peaks and a pine marten with a tear in his eye that they can "protect", watch out, here comes the cargo planes flying over Missoula dropping parachute loads of cash on Broadway. So, as with anything in life, money gets what money wants. My modest salary won't be able to contribute enough to counteract the tsunami of Franklins coming to a pro-wilderness club near 59801.
In conclusion, we used to live free, I mean FREE here in Montana, and now anybody from Maine to California with a college degree, shows up, loves it here, buys 20 acres,then thinks these natives here are stupid to live like free people. "Let's teach them a lesson about putting rubber marks on a rock in a creek on a trail in a National Forest!"
Green Groups are Banks and Law Offices in the same building who have found a way to keep their glutinous, Al Gore lifestyles afloat through the use of advertising, they are business people, and MONEY IS WHAT THEY LOVE, THEY DON'T LOVE FREEDOM OR PUBLIC LANDS!"
another shrieking right wing nutter whining anout something to do with al gore and never facing reality that the peole of MT and the USA dont want our public lands to beocme atv playground for lazy motorhead right wing nutters!
"
All you do is rant and rave about enviors an outsiders and never respond to or state any real facts. To claim you ATV is locked out of the beaverhea nf of all ofrest si just a lie.
Np one is trying to make it all wilderness like the wise use crowd try to portray.
The fact the frothing beligerent atv crowd is'nt accpeted has nothing to do with money and everything to do with your extremist viewpoint and endless right wing propoganda.
People see through you nutters.
screw those critters I want a have a thrill on my snow go kart
Im free cuz I can ride my ATV over the greaty divide. I'm a real outdoorersman on my atv
I should be able to ride in the creeks and make illegal trails through thousand year old forests
CUZ THAT"S FREEDOM!
"As a matter of fact, the hypocritical, clueless people you are bitching about are are called CAVE BANANA NIMBY's (Citizens Against Virtually Everything-Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anybody-Never In My Back Yard)."
actually his has nothing to do with backyards and everything to with riding snowmobiles in high cirques in wolverine denning habitat
cuz thats FREEDOM!
take off your tin foil conspiracy hat and quit your chilish cussing LOL. No, I actually don't want to see that population of wolverines go extinct cuz of snowmobile intrusions in denning sites, I care about their survival. I know your not capapble of any compasion towards creatures beyond humans but most people are. I want lots of people to enjoy the west pioneers and they do and even in winter. Just cuz you old wise use nuts are too lazy to get into the backcountry w out your atv or snowmobile it does'nt mean others are'nt enjoying thmeselves.
Todd- The few roads being "obliterated" or decomissioned as it's known are hardly limiting your acess.
This is why you three are'nt taken seriuosly. Even in OBVIUOSLY sensitive wildlife habitat in roadless areas (a small population of wolverine's denning area) you can't see why it is'nt a good idea to permit high country snowmobiling there. When scientists and others try to explain this to you with FACTS you scoff at them call them nitwits and grumble about some vast conspiracy involivng al gore to keep your snowmobile or atv off public lands.
and all of this at a time when tester is stripping away over a hundred years of env. laws and regulations and abolishing public involvment as well.
hey mick...lay off the lead paint.
If we sue the crap out of the Forest Service for logging beetle killed trees (that we could make wood products with here in Montana), we could use that money to buy wood products from China! That way, we don't have to clean up any sawdust that may cause some unforseen environmental hazard! WE REALLY ARE DUMB SOBs!!!
I am a Union Man myself, I have done some checking up on you on you by the way, i may even want to send you a contribution. I appreciate the fact that you are a hard worker, but why in the world would any self respecting Union Brick layer, run as a Republican? The Republicans are for the rich guys and the Democrats are for the working man?? Your thoughts?
what the heck are you crazy right wing nuts whining about now
oh I can't ride my snow go kart and high mark in the pioneer range cuz sum dum critter called a wolverine is barely surviving and needs a denning space.
Waah they hate freedom,,the enviros waaahhh
Johnny-
Even if ALL the roadless areas in MT were protected it would only equal 11% of the MT forests. It would add six million acres that are moslty rugged and inaccesible and have would be better left alone. I work and live in the wild country and know a lot of these areas first hand. They are not harvestable areas becuase it's not economically feasible to do so considering the remoteness and rugged terrain. Your rant is long on excuses to log roadless areas and short explanantions how or why this the best course of action for these lands. We have SOOOO much land that has been logged and guess what those trees may be harvested again. We dont need to penetrate every last wild corner of the country in the name of reource extraction when we have soooo much land that has been logged and is in desperaste need of management. How about we deal with the issues we've created such as the multi-million dollar backlog on forest service road maintainance, thinning and restoration work. No restoration is required in testers logging bill. Before we cut our way into another mess how about we deal with the mess at hand. Apparently it's ok with you that these right wing crazies call people who disagree with them terrrorists and worse. These are the people your defending and their policies. When I look at their outlandish cliams I certainly dont respect their view on public lands management.
No where johnny do you name a specific law that is restrixcting so much freedom on public lands. Your allowed to cut firewood, graze, mine, harvest timber etc all over the forest an i'm ok with that but Not in the last roadless areas. Your arguemtn does'nt change the fact that these roadless areas represent a very small % of MT forests yey these right wing crazy cant get off my ass fat losers want every last acre logged and mined.
But hey you guys wont listen to me or the nationa's leading ecological scientists. If you want MT and Idaho to become colorado go ahead and chop up your last wild areas. I'm not trying to shut down resource extraction rather restrict in an overall small percentage of the forests. Timber demand is at an all time low due to the housing market decline and poor economy Not becuase of enviros another common scapegoat. The mills closed becuase the market crashed not the evil greens. Enviros are used as a scapegoat for all these right wing crazies problems. They hate the feds yet expect a handout when their industry fails, the same goes for a lot of public lands ranchers (read Wellfare Ranching) their some of the largest wellfare recipients in the USA yet claim to hate the feds and handouts more than anyone. Hypocrites and liars and propogandists. In Minnesota it takes about an acre of grass to feed one cow in the arid wes it can be hundereds of acres per cows. It's time we ask oursleves do we really need cattle and sheep in every last corner of wild country in the rockies when we dedicate soo much land elsewhere to raising cattle in environments that are able to support them. It's 2010 and heritage alone is not enough reason to keep bailing out folks who hurt our public lands and continually vote against their own and everyones best interests by insisting we log, mine and graze the 7.5% of MT forests that are still relativley pristine.
I'm not against logging and grazing on public lands even if it does'nt make economic or ecological sense to do it in the northern rockies but hey we all gotta eat. What gall these folks have insisting that They control all the decisions about the forests and have greater entitlement to them when it's a fuc*ing privelage that they get such cheap grazing allotments and log the hell out of areas while breaking laws.
The fact that you defend the likes of Mickey Garcia and the like cuases me to loose all respect for your opinion. These right wing crazies have no low and call people every name in the book and spew more lies and prop than w bush. I mean they really are pond scum, alarmist liars and paranoids.
If MT is going to allowed these batsh*t crazy right wingers to destroy the last roadless areas then go ahead MT I have said my piece your fuc*ing screwed.
I am a Union Man myself, I have done some checking up on you on you by the way, I like what you stand for, and I may even want to send you a contribution. I appreciate the fact that you are a hard worker, but why in the world would any self respecting Union Brick layer, run as a Republican? The Republicans are for the rich guys and the Democrats are for the working man?? Please explain..
First of all, thanks for your answer, it seems as though you are very new to this process, and that can be a disadvantage when running against some as well liked as Welborn in a Republican primary. I wish you would have consulted with someone in the know before you filed, I am pretty sure you could have ran an an Independant.
Who told you that you were too late to run as an Independent? I didn't realize there was a cutoff date. Who are your supporters? Who encouraged you to run? How are you doing on fundraising and who is sending you checks so far? The reason I ask these questions, before I send any candidates money, I want to know who they are aligned with. Standard procedure for me.
Remain honest in your answers, and I will see what I can do to help.
I understand who has encouraged you to run, sounds like all hard working, good people.
You still haven't answered my question as to who told you you couldn't run as an Independent and if you really were 3 days late to file as an Independent why you chose to run as a Republican instead of a Democrat.????
What is your stance on this Wilderness? Can you do anything about as a State Representative? Your stance on lowering taxes in Montana, and your stance on Medical Marijuanna and legalizing marijuana in general, isn't it about time? Seems to be in news lately, just asking, I have some back pain I deal with.
Just asking as anyone wanting to vote for you would. I have asked these same questions of Welborn and he answered them. He has a format available to ask and answer, you don't. When I saw you were campaigning from this blog, I took the opportunity to ask.
I like your answers,by the way. To run for public office, you have to be public with your answers, just the way it is.
How do we take care of the working man?
I am looking for solutions to the issues you just mentioned above.
Thanks
I won't allow people to tell me what I should believe in. In the wilderness, I'm not free to go to the hills no more. Why does the working man pay for all the taxes? If your back hurts and you use Vodka to help the pain, is that my choice or is it yours? If you get cancer from chewing tobacco, or from smoking, is that my choice or yours? I believe that if a boy is a man at 18, and can go get shot in Iraq, then he should be able to drink. If you spend all your money at a casino, is that the casino's fault? If there isn't money in the state, don't spend no more, don't create a sales-tax. Montana should and could take Montana back from the Government. If marijuana is legal in the State, does that mean everyone uses it. Booze is legal, does everyone drive drunk. My back hurts also, should someone tell me that I can or can't use Percaset? If I marry the wrong woman, is it the preachers fault? I don't like "blamers", I don't like "phonies". I don't like sex-offenders of children. I don't like people "faking injuries", to get workman's comp. I don't like people in Washington telling me where to fish, where to get firewood. IF YOU DON'T WORK, DON'T EAT! Are you asking Welborn ????'s Are you a spy??
Your running for public office?.....Wow.
A state's rights secessionist,
how is washington telling you where to cut firewood and fish. That's up to the local fish and wildlife and the local national forest. No one in washington makes those decisions.
Be careful of the Tea Party movement. Your Facebook shows you speaking in Virginia City. How could you support such a thing?
These people are the first that want to outlaw any medical marijuana, which you support, in fact I understand you are a care giver??? Is that correct? They want to make Montana a right to work state, and you are a union man, isn't that right? Be careful who you align yourself with, they will get you in trouble, they hate unions and their workers, what do you really want? No way to get or sell medical marijuana and no more labor unions??? Think about this.
are you a medical marijuana care giver, yes or no?
Thanks for your response. Like I said last week, I have back pain and I have a hard time sleeping. Perhaps something other than hydrocodone would be best for me. Are there Doctors that write prescriptions for medical marijuana or how does an old, wore out Rail Roader like myself get in touch with medical community on this? What are the names of some Doctors that a person can visit, that will understand my needs.
Saw your ad in Dillonite...nice job. You seem to know something the voters don't. Keep up the good work.
OSL