| George Ochenski has an interesting column in this week's Indy on the state's hiring of a former timber industry lobbyist for the position of "Forest Policy Specialist." Check out his column here: http://www.missoulanews.com/in...
What in the heck is going on here? I mean, seriously? All this talk from the Schweitzer Administration about "a new day", "Clean and green" and the "restoration economy" and they go and hire a former logging industry lobbyist and former Burns staffer (who claims to have written the Bush Administration's Orwellian Healthy Forest Restoration Act) to be the State's Forest Policy Specialist?
What type of "forest policy" do we think this "specialist" will be providing? You can bet that Altemus will be pushing a plan (already circulating behind the public's back) to give the State of Montana management responsibility for 10% of the National Forest lands in Montana. You can also bet that Altemus will be looking to limit meaningful public participation and environmental analysis to support her buddies in the timber industry.
We've even heard that the Montana Logging Association has no plans to fill Altemus' now-vacant position, since they will be getting the same services from the inside and on the taxpayers dime.
For more background on Altemus, I suggest folks check out this link: http://www.newwest.net/index.p...
You'll notice that a few years ago when I read a commentary on Montana Public Radio explaining our organization's "restoration vision" for public lands and promoting the next 100 years of national forest management as the "Restoration Century," Altemus wrote to logging officials and the supervisors of the Bitterroot and Lolo National Forests, "This is not a commentary....it's an add [sic] and solicitation for money!! The U of M has stooped to a new low to allow them this media to fundraise! .....We must not allow fringe anti-management groups to dictate management of public lands! This is very dangerous stuff we are playing with here."
Sounds like just the person the Schweitzer Administration should hire as the DNRC's "forest policy specialist," right?
Or how about back in 2006 when Altemus tried to sabotage a bona-fide watershed restoration project in the Lolo Creek watershed because the project didn't happen to include industrial logging.
Altemus wrote in the Montana Logging Association's newsletter, "the Forest Service had the audacity to propose a 45,700 acre watershed restoration project completely void of any commercial, pre-commercial or even non-commercial treatments! Nada! Nothing! ....This project proposes anything but sustainable forest stewardship."
Apparently, every single project the Forest Service puts together needs to include industrial logging...didn't you know that? Furthermore, watershed restoration projects that put local people to work improving fish habitat and water quality don't qualify as "sustainable forest stewardship" in Altemus' world.
And let's not forget the examples Mr. Ochenski gives of Altemus' lack of support for protecting our remaining roadless wildlands, her lack of support for critical habitat for lynx and her support for circumventing environmental analysis and opportunities for public review and comment.
Again, how these types of actions fit into the Schweitzer Administration's "Clean and green," "new day" "restoration economy" is a mystery. The citizens of Montana should demand an answer and, as Ochenski points out, "The best we can do now is keep a close eye on [Altemus'] plans for our forest resources." |
