DOES THE END JUSTIFY THE MEANS?
Why Should I Support Tester’s Wilderness Bill?
Does this bizarre, piecemeal approach to protecting roadless lands have more upside than downside?By Bill Schneider, 11-26-09
 |
|
 | |
| Upper Twin Lake, Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest. Photo by Bill Schneider. | |
|
On July 17, I went to R-Y Timber Company in Townsend, Montana, to stand in the sweltering heat and watch sweat pour off Senator Jon Tester (D-MT). On such a day you’d think Montana’s Junior Senator would be talking about global warming, but no, he was talking about an equally hot subject, Wilderness, as he officially announced the introduction of his Montana Jobs and Recreation Act (S. 1470).
Since then, I’ve read the whole thing and written extensively about it, as well as posting several guest commentaries, pro and con, including one from the Senator himself. (You can read it all here.)
Now, I’m trying to decide if this bizarre, piecemeal approach to protecting roadless lands has more upside than downside and if I should support it.
But first, let’s talk nomenclature. Tester and the coalition pulling the strings in the background decided to call it a “jobs bill,” which is almost insulting. Perhaps 5 percent of the bill indirectly deals about jobs and the rest with roadless land.
Conservationists opposing the legislation call it a “logging bill,” which is equally insane. The true impact of the logging provisions are minute compared to the 668,000 acres of roadless land that becomes Wilderness and the 337,000 acres gets a lesser degree of protection such as National Recreation Area status.
So, just say it, Senator Tester. It’s a Wilderness bill. It’s okay to use the word. How sad is it that politicians have to use lame cover stories to title important legislation to hide what it really does.
Anybody who has followed the controversy over the bill knows wildernuts are split on it--some favoring it, but some bitterly opposing it. One of the most contested points is the process employed to create the bill. Tester and the coalition of greens and timber companies insist it was the most open process ever. Detractors from both the left and right call it was a secret, closed-door deal.
I say, yes, the coalition met with people, had meetings open to the public, but then, they sequestered themselves with Tester staffers and wrote the bill with no outside input and refused to distribute drafts of the bill prior to July 17. After the bill was a done deal and introduced, they had more open meetings and met with more people, but so far have refused to change anything regardless of what people said in the meetings.
That’s where we are today. Keeping the coalition together, steadfastly honoring the backroom compromise between about a dozen puppet masters, has become more important than listening and responding to what other Montanans want to see in this bill. And I predict that’s where we’ll be at the bitter end when the bill finally fails or passes--precisely the language we now have.
I, for one, would like to see more Wilderness in the bill. A lot more, in fact, especially areas that are politically ready like the Great Burn and Rocky Mountain Front. I also prefer one grand bill to get it all behind us, but obviously, our political delegation won’t consider this approach, so we’re stuck with this one-step-at-a-time strategy, which is certainly better than no progress at all.
I’ve been criticized for “wanting it all” and being unable to compromise on the roadless land issue. And it’s true. I want all that’s left because we’ve already compromised too much. You can play with the numbers and come up with a different percentage, but the fact is the vast majority--I say at least 90 percent--of federal land managed by the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management has already been compromised. That’s enough giving. The 90/10 split is as close to “balance” as we’ can possibly get.
I don’t--surprise!--think all roadless lands need to be designated Wilderness, but I certainly could live with that outcome. All roadless lands do, however, need to be protected--congressionally protected! I’ve written about this several times, i.e. the so-called Wilderness Lite option, but no major green group has even touched the idea.
Much to the chagrin of my left-handed friends, I have no problem with the logging provisos in S. 1470 that don’t sacrifice roadless land, which is mostly the case. I actually don’t think the bill goes far enough. I’d like to see Congress do something to really help the wood products industry, but a few mandatory cuts like those in this bill won’t do much. Let’s do something--preferably in a true logging bill not a thinly veiled Wilderness bill-- that really could turn the tide for the logging industry. A good place to start would be a government push to create a viable market for the zillions of bug-killed lodgepoles along permanent roads. The biomass study called for in the bill is a good example of moving in the right direction.
Having said all that, the following two amendments would make S. 1470 a clear winner for me.
Wilderness Study Areas. This is the game changer for me. In their bill, the green groups including the Montana Wilderness Association actually advocate giving up about 85 percent of the congressionally mandated (thanks to legendary Senator Lee Metcalf himself) West Pioneers WSA. Only the 25,000-acre core of the West Pioneers would become Wilderness, and the rest would become a National Recreation Area, which is a concession to continue to allow motorized recreation that should not have been allowed in the first place in an area where wilderness qualities were supposed to be maintained. This simply can’t happen. So, if the coalition is unable or unwilling to designate all or most of the 151,000-acre WSA as Wilderness, then I say remove the West Pioneers from the bill, so it can continue as a WSA.
Ditto for the Sapphire WSA. Only a 43,500-acre section in the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest, not the 51,000 acres of WSA in the Bitterroot National Forest, becomes Wilderness. Who cares if it’s in the Bitterroot National Forest wasn’t included in the backroom compromise or that the Ravaili County Commission hasn’t endorsed it. These are federal lands we all own, and the Sapphires WSA, all of it, has essentially been managed as Wilderness since 1977, if not before, so why split it in half now? I say put the whole WSA in the bill or omit it. (Click here for more details on the WSA issue.)
Same goes for the seven WSAs on land managed by the Bureau of Land Management, all “released” by the bill. Please, no backtracking; make them Wilderness or leave them as WSAs.
Adding more Wilderness probably would violate the hallowed compromise with the timber mills, but reducing the amount of Wilderness designated by the bill shouldn’t, so remove the WSAs instead of releasing them. As WSAs they stand a decent chance of future Wilderness designation, and the agencies can continue to manage them like wilderness until then.
Roadless lands. After long discussions with Tester’s staff, I’m confident that even if the bill passes as currently written, hardly any, if any, roadless land will be compromised. Regrettably, though, the bill doesn’t say this, so let’s say it. Minor re-wording to say no logging allowed in inventoried roadless areas won’t, in practice, change anything except calm criticism for the bill. (Click here for an article on the roadless lands section of the bill.)
So, back to the original question: Should I support it?
The answer is: Yes, I should, albeit reluctantly, and I hope you do, too. We have to start somewhere or we’ll continue going nowhere.
Politics sucks, something I’m sure a lot of us can agree on, and it’s embarrassing to watch the process we have to endure to designate Wilderness nowadays, but the bill itself, even without two key amendments I recommend above, is a start. Even if it passes exactly as written, I’ll join the coalition in welcoming the end of Montana’s 27-year Wilderness Drought, but I won’t be dancing in the streets because I’ll be busy trying to swallow this bitter political pill.
Footnote: For a chronology of four years of NewWest.Net’s extensive coverage of this issue, click here.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
http://www.newwest.net/topic/article/senator_tester_betrays_montana_wilderne/C37/L37/
It's great to finally see this being said, Bill, and thanks for bringing some well-reasoned balance to the discussion. Of course this bill isn't going to be viewed as perfect from every, vested perspective, and there is no way that it could be. But while people sit around arguing and waiting for perfection that isn't going to happen (NREPA, for example), areas that should be protected are being degraded and forests that need to be better managed are dying on a scale few would think imaginable without first-hand knowledge. Montana's wild lands, forests, and small town economies need action, and need it now.
http://cleangreensustainable.wordpress.com/2009/11/17/strategic-weaknesses-of-sen-tester’s-wildlands-logging-bill/
why arent you fighting for NREPA anymore?
You should be ashamed Bill Shneider and you know it.
if you support testers bill then you support the destruction of wsa's and roadless lands. This does make NREPA weaker at least considering there will be less roadless/wsa's protected.
Come on Bill if you support tester's logging bill your abandoning NREPA and this article just made your sell out official.
Why dont you expose this bill for what it truly is
An assault on public roadless/wsa lands as well as the wilderness act itself as well as a way for timber companies and politicians to bypass public input/decisions and log without laws at the taxpayers expense.
This is precisely the kind of logic by which the woods products industry has labeled environmentalists responsible for the downturn in the industry...
Have you actually read any of the reports on lumber and wood products demand recently. You probally did'nt read the links I provided either becuase they explain the extreemly low/non-existent demand.
Your logic which is a lackthereof is the kind that backs a bill to increase logging to unprecendeted levels while demand is at an all time low. Also to remove any laws and restoration commitments as well. Could it be the woods product industry is responsible for it's own downfall due to it's insistence on unsustainable logging. Not gonna let you use the enviro scapegoat once again horsty.
One important tidbit that's being forgotten is that in 1988, we had 6.4 million acres of roadless land. It's pretty much the same 6.4 million acres we have today. This no time to panic.
When pure politics trumps forest ecology, fish and wildlife biology, economics and common sense, this is what it looks like. Ecological services, including water, and almost everything living on the lands being politicized have been devalued to zero (0). Industrial logging in Montana always costs more than the value of the commodity being extracted, which further devalues our forests to a net negative value some would argue is permanent. Switching from subsidized building materials to biofuels is a fools game that increases the per acre subsidy and adds greater risk to larger and larger areas unsuitable for construction grade materials.
Clinton gave us the "Salvage Rider," Tester and Baucus want a deregulated market for wood products, privatized national forests, and some way to bar citizens from enforcing environmental laws in federal courts. Sen. Burns dreamed of a similar free-market forest "solution." Lately, Democrats have demonstrated they are a greater threat to Montana's forest legacy and the environment than any previous administration. Tester is forcing people to choose between Democrats and our national forests and everything they provide. Sorry Bill, but this one's a no brainer, dump the timber Democrats.
As far as the fact that, "we had 6.4 million acres of roadless land. It's pretty much the same 6.4 million acres we have today" goes, one could also interpret that as a telling figure that the conservation community in Montana has had little to no significant progress in over 20 years.
But tell me, as far as the staunch opposition to logging goes - have you (and I don't just mean you, Steve) spent much time in the Beaverhead-Deerlodge to see the extent of the beetle damage?!? Large swaths of the forest in the BHDL are already infested past the critical level and are doomed. Logging won't cure that, but why not let logging operations harvest that doomed wood within the window of time where that wood is still usable, before it just becomes dead forest?
I consider myself a conservationist as well, but this total opposition to logging, even when the writing is clearly on the wall for an infested forest, makes no sense to me.
The end of the Wilderness Drought would be spectacular, but the undemocratic and often unscientific process (values compromised) is only the visible pre-swallowing collateral damage of this thing. It is what that "bitter political pill" contains, what future damage it may cause - the unintended (by you) consequences for which you will thus be partly responsible - that you need to put more thought and action toward. The wilderness hope (not guaranteed, genuine, assured) is
"lipstick on a pig".
Oh, and they haven't handed you the special cool-aid to gulp it down with yet, have they?
Have you already given up on getting this right? Or are you just trying to urge the rest of us to take the pills and cool-aid, also?
Get back into the fray, man!
smithishammerd those groups dont represent what they claim. They are pew trust recipients which have close ties to the timber industry.
smithishammerd when did any1 here claim to be against all logging? It seems people here are just agaisnt logging in roadless/wsa's etc. I have spent a fair amount of time in the BHDL, and no it all wont just end up "dead forest" as you claim. Thining is one thing, lndustrial logging under the guise of forest health "thining" is another thing completely. Industrial logging in public roadless/wsa's under the guise of wilderness designation is what you have here with tester's logging bill.
2) I never said "all" of the BHDL would end up as dead forest. You're taking what I actually did say and stretching it to the extreme in an attempt to fit your point. But very large tracts of it are going to be dead, and soon. If you don't want to take my word for it, request the beetle damage overlay maps, with a time-line, from the FS to see how much it has spread, and over what period of time.
3) I like the way you use the term, "Industrial" logging. As opposed to what? Billy Bob out there with a handsaw? Get real. Lumping all logging together under an intimidating moniker like "industrial" probably has the desired propagandist effect on thos those who have no idea, but it also inaccurately lumps together a whole spectrum of techniques and practices - some of which are actually not as horrible as you would like to paint them. Regardless, it wouldn't be happening under the "guise of wilderness designation."
But you clearly already have a fixed opinion on this, and I'm not going to try to change your mind. That's fine.
(Unless the Bill contains required heli-logging - if it does, show me). And therefore, roads = no more wilderness, no more study area, no roadless area - by definition.
Congratulations, you get your new "wilderness" and then someone logs the wilderness right out of it? Is "old" wilderness safe?
Yep, "We had to destroy the forest in order to save it", they'll say.
I take Forest Service timber sales one at a time. When a proposal is fiscally sound, ecologically sustainable, and doesn't require new road construction, there's a good chance no appeal will be filed. When reviewing proposals, roadless areas, old-growth habitat, streamside and other riparian buffers, ungulate winter range, T&E;species habitat, and other unique features sensitive to industrial development receive highest priority. Each sale proposal receives detailed comments, an appeal if necessary, and additional warnings before a legal complaint is filed. The Forest Service has a hard time meeting this criteria, but this should not be confused with "total opposition to logging."
"Progress" is measured in rate of loss in the roadless area business. We're just not making any more of this scarce and highly valuable forest "type." Compare Montana to other states, and you may appreciate what we have, rather than try to marginalize those who defend forest ecosystems. Forests need dead trees as much as any other stage. There is no waste, no cost to taxpayers, no good reason to interrupt the natural processes at work. Have a little faith in nature, it gave us everything.
Want to create some jobs? Grab a tree bag, a couple hundred seedlings, and start planting those old skid trails, overgrown roads and clearcuts that just never recovered from the industrial logging from past decades. When that mess is cleaned up, then let's talk more logging.
funny how you claim people are stretching what you say in regards to dead forest in the BHDL. So smithishammerd when did anyone here say they had "a staunch opposition to all logging" I never anyone here even say anything remotely close to that. I commented about it all ending up dead forest in regards to the beetle kill on the BHDL not the entire BHDL, I thought that was obvious but you've clearly demonstrated a desire to make others appear as thuough they're misrepresenting you. Smithishammerd you are doing the misrepresenting and your also the propogandist here, with your fear mongering of "we have to log now before it's too late" Trout unlimited and the montana wilderness association have obviuosly been corrupted to support this LOGGING bill, do you know anything about the pew trust recipients?. Perhaps you should look at yourself before you accuse others of offenses your clearly commting.
http://cleangreensustainable.wordpress.com/2009/11/17/strategic-weaknesses-of-sen-tester’s-wildlands-logging-bill/
Read it and weap Montana or in smithishammerd's case pout and whine and accuse everyone of being a propogandist.
I'm not "predicting doom." I'm talking about the extent of it, which I've seen first-hand. If you haven't seen it, I'd have to question where in the BHDL you've been. It's certainly not everywhere, but it is very widespread. That's not "predicting doom" - it's reality. And like I said, if you doubt me, take a look at the FS's own beetle kill maps of the extent, and growth overtime in the BHDL.
Nor did I ever say that, "we have to log before it's too late." Instead, what I said is, why the opposition to logging in places that are clearly going to die anyway? On average, a beetle infested tree will produce enough beetles to kill 7 more trees. So in places where you're seeing approx. one in 7 trees already turning red due to beetle kill, you're looking at a forest that, in a few years, unless we suddenly have some very dramatic winters, will be dead. That's not "doom and gloom," that's fact.
So again, I ask in areas that are already seriously infested, why not let some logging take place, particularly under stewardship contracts that won't allow for permanent road construction? What's the problem with it? And just as importantly, what is the alternative? Just leave it all to die, and create a nightmare fire situation? I'd love to hear what you advocate instead.
this is about the tester logging bill not thinning in the BHDL. The logging bill adresses it somewhat, but it should not be a reason to pass this terrible bill. So smithishammerd "Logging won't cure that, but why not let logging operations harvest that doomed wood within the window of time where that wood is still usable, before it just becomes dead forest?" = log before it's too late. I believe thats a fair interpetation of what you said. No one here said they had a staunch opposition to logging your just making things up. Stewardship contracts; are'nt there millions of dollars in MT of unfulfilled stewardship contracts. In tester's LOGGING bill there is absolutley no requirement for stewardship/restoration after timber slaes and road construction. I never claimed I was against all thinning in the BHDL i'm against the tester LOGGING bill. Did you even read the articles which I linked? Why dont you read them smithishammerd or do you relish wallowing in your stubborn ignorance. You've gone from calling it insane to refer to tester's bill as a logging bill, to a completely seperate issue in the BHDL. Why is every other post besides yours smithhammerd against this terrible bill? Just face it your wrong, it's a bad deal and buck up and stop whining and diverting to seperate issues.
At least I still stand for something.
Served
Problem #1. A road is a road. It's destructive to soils, watersheds, wildlife and so on. It costs money to build roads. I don't want to pay to destroy thin soils, neither with taxes, nor with (usually perfectly healthy, green) old growth. No no sound rationale for new roads.
Problem #2. Stewardship is "outsourcing", a form of privatization, which produces less accountability than we now have. It's hard enough trying to watchdog Forest Service bureaucrats without adding another bureaucratic layer. It (per acre) adds cost to "management."
The alternative: Let the forest be a forest. Not all of it will die, or burn. As with all forests, nature bats last with remarkable resilience. Have a little faith, give nature a chance by showing a little restraint.
"Problem #1. A road is a road. It's destructive to soils, watersheds, wildlife and so on."
Steve - a road is not, simply "a road." There are many different types of roads constructed by different means, and with different lasting impacts. The minimal amount of new dirt roads that would be allowed if the Tester bill passes would be non-permanent roads, with culverts and other erosion control methods. And the stewardship contracts would require those roads to be rehabilitated after use.
"Problem #2. Stewardship is "outsourcing", a form of privatization, which produces less accountability than we now have."
Stewardship contracts are no more "outsourcing" than any other timber harvest on public lands has been since inception, and these types of require a fair bit more responsibility done than clear-cut, zero responsibility logging of old.
All of the accountability, whether you're talking about a public agency or a private industry, is built into the bill. The bill specifically mandates, 1) what timber companies can and can't do, 2) where they can do it and where they can't, and 3) the maximum they are allowed to harvest. It's pretty simple - if they violate any of those things, they are accountable.
As I've said before, I'm not a huge proponent of logging, and have frequently in the past found myself on the other side of the fence, decrying the damage done by the timber industry in many places in the northwest. But at the same time, this unequivocal opposition to any and all logging, even when it is being done on a comparatively small scale, much of it in areas with extensive existing beetle damage, and with a far improved level of required responsible conduct on the part of timber companies, strikes me as unreasonable, and precisely why some people felt "left out" of the process.
putting words in peole's mouths again smithey.
No one here is against all logging, thats not the issue the issue is the tester bill.
Dude your not gonna sugar coat this one,
you can just shove this one up your a$%.
By the way smithishammerd it's been proven that the most destructive thing you can do for any habitats is build roads. There are no temporary roads.
Protect ALL remaining MT roadless areas
We need them, they're worth more standing than clear cut.
Below is some info from the US Forest Service. The info will clearly demonstrate how Tester's bill, which would Congressionally mandate 7,000 acres of logging per year for ten years on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest, would compare with historical logging on these same forests.
All of the following information was obtained directly from the US Forest Service at:
http://www.fs.fed.us/r1/forest_range/timber_reports/silviculture_reports/2008_nharv_rpt.pdf
From 1959-1996 the Beaverhead NF averaged 1621 acres of logging per year. The greatest acreage logged on the Beaverhead NF in that time period was 4168 acres in 1987. The Reagan years average on the Beaverhead NF was 2697 acres of logging per year.
From 1954-1996 the Deerlodge NF averaged 1592 acres of logging per year. The greatest acreage logged on the Deerlodge NF in that time period was 4332 acres in 1971. The Reagan years average on the Deerlodge NF was 1916 acres of logging per year.
The average acres logged per year for the Beaverhead and Deerlodge forests combined from 1954-1996 was 3213 acres/year. The average acres logged per year on these same forests during the Reagan years was 4,613 acres/year.
The most acreage ever logged in a single year since 1954 on both forests combined was in 1971, when 7013 acres were logged. The next highest total was in 1966 at 5813 acres.
Remember, the Tester Logging Bill would Congressionally mandate 7,000 acres of logging per year for ten years on the BHDL NF. That amount of logging per year is not only more than double the historical average on these forests, but it's the most amount of logging ever, except for 1971 (which is before we even had laws such as NEPA, NFMA, etc).
Given these facts Bill, I think we are well within our right to call Tester's bill a "Logging" bill...wouldn't you agree?
Thanks,
Matthew
And ultimately, you are talking about 70,000 acres over 10 years, in a 3.3 million acre forest system. It is also worth noting that the Forest wants to recommend 1.5 million acres be eligible for future harvest, and the Partnership instead recommended less than half that - 700,000 acres in total (but still with only 70,000 maximum be harvested in the next 10 years). And unlike the agency plan, the Partnership recommends stewardship contracts. Further, the Partnership proposes that harvest also reduce road densities, protect riparian areas and not include new permanent roads.
Second, calling it a "logging" bill is inaccurate and self-serving, which I believe is what Bill is getting at. Logging is only one part of the bill - the bill also adds almost 600,000 acres to the wilderness system - the most additional wilderness, in fact the only additional wilderness, created in Montana in decades.
So choosing to call it exclusively a "logging" bill overlooks the totality of the bill in favor of slapping a label on it to deliberately create inaccurate assumptions on the minds of people who may not be totally familiar with the bill, with the intention of fostering opposition, rather than a good understanding of everything that the bill includes. THAT'S why calling it a "logging" bill is a misnomer and not productive to the discussion, except by those who are seeking to use it to build opposition.
I'd suggest you consult the actual bill language again, specifically Sec 102...and even more specifically Sec 102 (D), which clearly reads:
(I) with respect to the stewardship area located in the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest--
(aa) during the two-year period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, mechanically treat timber on not less than 14,000 acres of the stewardship area, during, which, to the maximum extent practicable, the Secretary concerned shall mechanically treat timber on approximately 7,000 acres of the stewardship area during each year of the period;
(bb) not later than 5 years after the date of enactment of this Act, mechanically treat timber on not less than 35,000 acres of the stewardship area; and
(cc) not later than 10 years after the date of enactment of this Act, mechanically treat timber on a minimum of 70,000 acres of the stewardship area.
How you manage to see "Up to" in words that clearly read, "not less than" or "on a minimum" is kinda interesting.
However, even if you disregard the first paragraph of my last post, I believe the rest of it is accurate in terms of the numbers I cite, and the larger points I make still stand.
http://tester.senate.gov/Legislation/upload/forest_jobs_and_recreation_act.pdf
Given the facts of what's actually in the bill, I'm also not sure that "the larger points [you] make still stand."
Remember as I stated above, the Tester bill (whatever you want to call it) would Congressionally mandate a minimum of 7,000 acres of logging per year for ten years on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge NF.
That minimum amount of Congressionally-mandated logging per year is not only more than double the historical logging average on these forests from 1955 to 1995 (which was 3,213 acres/year) but it's the most amount of logging ever on these forests, except for one single year (1971...which is before we even had laws such as NEPA, NFMA, etc).
There is near universal agreement between the timber industry, Forest Service, conservationists, economists, scientists and the general public that the logging levels on National Forests during the logging hayday of the 1960s, 70 and 80s were completely unsustainable and misguided.
However, despite the current and on-going economic crises and resulting "Lumber Depression" (lumber demand down 55% and new home construction down 70%) Sen. Tester's bill would have Congress step in and mandate a minimum level of logging on the BHDL NF that far exceeds anything this forest has ever seen...at an estimated taxpayer cost of $100 million.
Furthermore, it's quite clear that because Tester's bill contains a number of "unfunded mandates" money would be taken from other national forests in Montana and the region and given to the BHDL NF to conduct this mandated logging and complete NEPA requirements for these large logging projects within the arbitrary
12 month timeline, which Tester's bill imposes. (Note: NEPA typically takes the Forest Service 2 to 4 years to complete, and often even at that pace the NEPA assessment isn't as complete as it should be).
This is just yet another concrete example of a serious concern many of us have that's based on the actual language contained within the bill. Thanks.
I hear what you're saying, but I don't see anything in your post that negates the points I made. You're instead extrapolating from the nationwide logging situation of 30 years ago to make a point about this specific situation, and while I agree that in a number of areas nationwide, the amount of logging that went on in decades past was unsustainable, we're not talking about the Olympic Peninsula, or the Tongass, or anywhere other than these specific lands in Montana, and specific situations vary greatly. Again, we're talking about 70,000 potential acres in a 3.3 million acre system, in the case of the BHDL.
In a perfect world (or your perfect world, anyway), it would be great if we didn't log any forest at all, but that's simply not reality, and it's not going to be part of any real forest plan, whether that plan is developed by the FS or by other vested interests. And, as pointed out, in this case, the BHDL Partnership is actually recommending far LESS than what the agency sought, and with the additional responsibilities required under the stewardship contracts.
Curious - where are you getting the "estimated taxpayer cost of $100 million" from?
The $100 million figure came from Bob Wolf a retired staff member of Congress who helped write NFMA. Bob came up with the figure by looking at the F.S. budget. Bob is now deceased. I was also told by a Congressional staffer the other day that approximately $100 million in taxpayer money would be needed for the Forest Service to achieve the minimum mandated logging acres in Tester's bill. If you want more specific information on Bob Wolf's research, I'd suggest contacting the Alliance for the Wild Rockies.
Smithhammer, I also don't recall myself, or anyone on this list for that matter, claiming, "it would be great if we didn't log any forest at all," so I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't attribute that statement to me...because I never said it and don't believe it. Thanks.
And I don't recall ever claiming that that was a direct quote of yours either, but it is certainly the impression that I get, and not just from you, but from many people on the far left opposed to the Tester Bill. People pay lip service to "not being opposed to all logging" but when it comes down to it, they oppose it whenever it comes up.
Tell me, has the Wildwest Institute ever supported any logging? You have been very vocal in your opposition to this bill, and cited all sorts of info as to why this bill is so bad for the BHDL, but tell me - what would your ideal logging plan for the BHDL look like? What alternative do you propose that still accomodates some timber harvest in the BHDL?
you calim people gaainst this bill are against all logging. It's really slanderous to paint anyone against the tester LOGGING bill as some far left enviro whacko.
Look at the facts this is a far right timber grab by self selected special interests. It's not in the best interest of the forests or the citizens of MT.
Once again smtihy dont make this a thinning on the BHDL issue, this is about the tester LOGGING bill.
You loose.
Served.
"You loose" and "served?" What are you, 15 years old?
Regardless, I know a number of people involved in the development of this bill that would think that being characterized as "far right" is pretty damn funny.
And "whacko" is your word, not mine.
I'm might get worked up on these blogs, but i'm really not that extreme. Whats truly extreme is this bill and the spineless, lying cowards who promote it and dont reveal the full extent of it's destruction and waste.
If I were a partisan democrat horst would'nt I be for this bill considering tester is a dem.
Montana politics and natural resource issues are swung so far to the right that anything remotley conservation based is viewed as far left.
Get a sense of humor.
Your a dishonest person for supporting this madness. Your buddies who work on this bill should be ashamed.
You guys are gonna destroy some of the last wild country in the lower 48 if your logging bill goes through.
What about testers campaign promises to portect all remaining mt roadless. Just more lies..
If you want to applaud liars, destruction of inventoried roadless that the vast majority of MT residents(80%) and the american public support (90%) and an end to scietific based managment of our forests and resources then follow this "pied piper" off the cliff.
Coalition Launches New Website: "A Clear Look at Sen. Tester's 'Forest Jobs and Recreation Act,' S. 1470"
MISSOULA, MT – Today, a coalition of conservation organizations and citizens dedicated to wildlands protection, Wilderness preservation, and the sound long-term management of our federal public lands legacy, launched a new website dedicated to a detailed examination of Senator Jon Tester's S. 1470, the "Forest Jobs and Recreation Act."
http://testerloggingbilltruths.wordpress.com
The growing coalition includes conservation groups from Montana and throughout the country, as well as citizens who are small-business owners, scientists, educators and teachers, health care practitioners, hikers and backpackers, hunters and anglers, wildlife viewers, outfitters and guides, veterans, retired Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management officials, ranchers and farmers, craftspersons, and community leaders – all stakeholders committed to America’s public wildlands legacy.
At http://testerloggingbilltruths.wordpress.com you will find:
• Detailed, Line-By-Line Analysis of S. 1470
• Keeping it Wild! In Defense of America’s Public Wildlands
• Contact info for citizens to send testimony to the US Senate's Natural Resources Committee, which will be holding a Dec 17th hearing on S. 1470.
• A citizen petition
• Commentary and perspective on S.1470 from experts