GUEST COMMENTARY: PUBLIC NOT INVITED TO THE PARTY
Tester’s Jobs Bill Not Serious About Jobs
By Dave Skinner, Guest Writer, 8-10-09
 |
|
 | |
| Dave Skinner | |
|
Introducing his first major legislative attempt (S-1470, the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act), Senator Jon Tester declared, “It’s time to get Montanans back to work in the woods.” All Montanans should agree with that. So, is Senator Tester’s 84-page bill serious about putting Montana back to work in the woods?
Consider what Montana state forester Bob Harrington recently wrote: “[Since] 2000, the mountain pine beetle has killed an estimated 3 million acres of Montana forests,” 300,000 acres a year and counting. Never mind Montana’s wildfire totals since 2000.at least another three million?
In the face of ten years of 600,000 acres burning and dying, ten thousand acres per year of “stewardship” projects offered by S-1470 is almost irrelevant. Worse, what work goes on also emphasizes removing existing roads. What happens when the next forest is ready for harvest, or to burn, or gets sick?
One must conclude despite all the blather about collaboration and compromise, the bill is egregiously one-sided and short-sighted. It is also very undemocratic, inasmuch as the Bozeman Chronicle calls S-1470 a deal “between the timber industry and wilderness advocates.”
Yep. the public, and their elected officials, simply weren’t invited.
Why did the timber “partners” go along? Well, they’ve already been kicked to their knees by the usual litigation from the usual radicals. The economy has the knife to their throats, and they’re desperate. From the other side, the “moderate” environmental groups are finally understanding what the rest of us figured out a long time ago: Killing Montana’s forestry sector is a lousy way to “save” the environment.
If Senator Tester is truly serious about reaching a forest policy and wilderness compromise that leaves Montanans better off, here’s some suggestions:
First, open the process: Secret deals between wilderniks and timber beasts leave everyone else out. Citizens and groups willing to draft a bill in good faith should be at the table, as must be all affected elected officials or their delegated representatives. However, blatant obstructionists may, and should, be dismissed by formal vote of all at the table.
Next, stay away from court: Parties to the open process above must be enjoined from litigating if they are around for final approval. If they resign or are dismissed as above, they and other non-participants may sue. But litigants must first post bond and will pay costs and damages if they lose a majority of the counts in their case.
Next, equal protection: Any “compromise” between wilderness and multiple-use must have equal protection under the law. Wilderness already gets permanent “protection” when Congress designates it. But multiple uses clearly do not under current law. Language declaring an honestly-arrived-at collaborative plan “legally sufficient” is an absolute must.
Next, git’er done: The wilderness issue needs final settlement. Congress never intended it to drag along for 45 years. A clear deadline of no longer than two years from talk start to implementation should be set. If no agreement is reached, no wilderness.
Next, no more moving goalposts: Wilderness legislation for Montana or any National Forest unit in Montana must contain binding this-and-no-more provisions that honor Congress’s intent when it passed the 1964 Wilderness Act.
Finally, wilderness after, not before: Wilderness management may be implemented immediately, but formal “Wilderness” designation must be contingent on “trigger” points. Both sides must wind up better in the end.
Goals for forestry in terms of acreage, harvest, and reduced wildfire risk should be set; goals for trail, camp and road infrastructure should be enumerated. After a set period of no less than ten or fifteen years, after the non-wilderness objectives have been clearly met and satisfied non-wilderness users have signed off, only then may Congress move forward with formal wilderness designation.
Not before.
Dave Skinner of Whitefish is a freelance writer emphasizing natural resource policies. He is a member of Montanans for Multiple Use.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
"Finally, we are going to do something about the Wilderness Act".
It's goal was to remove congressionally mandated wilderness protections across the west. The BRC is funded heavily by industry and opposes any kind of preservation. They are the true radicals and have zero crediblity of any kind.
The fact that Dave's article was published here is an embarrassment and makes me question the credibility of this site.
Second, why does he decide to support just this one industry? The timber industry is in no worst shape than many other industries in the state. Other industries such as construction and manufacturing have lost thousands of jobs in recent years, with the former workers leaving the state in droves, facing foreclosure, or trying to make living in an underemployed environment. Do these people not deserve the same free handout that is being extended to the loggers?
But, I also want to press home my original point. If Skinner is essentially a paid lobbyist for the Blue Ribbon Coalition, a motorized mayhem industry group; then he has a conflict of interest in this matter and should make his conflict of interest known so that the reader can properly assess the credibility of his position. The same goes for the Blue Ribbon Coalition. They have an obligation to inform the public when one of their paid mouthpieces is representing them. The whole thing is unethical, clownishly unethical, but still unethical in my opinion.
Not to mention, what kind of credible authority, on any topic, has to resort to being a paid shill for a childish toy group in order to pay their bills? What kind of education and expertise do you need to be a paid shill for this kind of group? The whole thing raises credibility issues that taint the article.
I wish your accusations were true and I was raking down the paid shill money, but in this case I haven't seen a dime and don't expect to. In fact, I have not said one word to any member or staffer of BlueRibbon about the Tester wilderness bill, except for two friends who are BRC members anyway.
I wrote this on my own time, with no recompense. I will state, however, that the suggested changes to the bill came not only from my fertile and highly qualified, expert and educated mind, but from consulting with other people who have "credentials" not only clearly superior to mine, but orders of magnitude past yours.
It is your perfect right, as it is for all trolls, to keep right on slagging me from under your rock of anonymity. I mean, trolls are people, too.