| I've caught a lot of flack from some for not immediately rushing to judgment on Tester's new wilderness bill, the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act. But I have to admit, there's a lot of criticism that's hard to deny from a lot of good and smart people against certain provisions in the bill, especially from LiTW friend, Matt Koehler, who spent quite a bit of time dropping information on the bill in our comments.
(Check out his response to Rick Bass' claim that the bill process wasn't secretive; how money generated from "stewardship logging" won't help restoration, as put forth by the bill (more); blaming the decline in the wood products market for the poorly performing timber industry, not a lack of wood to cut; and an excellent comment how to battle the bark beetle infestation - which has left plenty of wood laying around for timber companies to harvest, by the way.)
The only defense of the bill I've seen - other than from Tester's office - was from Rick Bass, which essentially calls out "that we represent ourselves honestly and discuss the facts of the proposed legislation, rather than manufacturing untruths to suit political purposes." Fair enough, and I'm willing to listen to the rebuttal of bill proponents over specific points in the bill - but I haven't seen any yet, not even in Bass' op-ed, which neglects to mention the giveaway of wilderness study areas to logging, and certainly not in Tester's press releases, which are as vague as you'd expect from a Senator's office.
I'd love to hear from, say, Trout Unlimited, as to how the bill was formed, and why they essentially put their name on a bill with so many apparent flaws.
Anyway...more links on the bill. First, a report from Testa on the process of writing the bill:
The bill is centered on three areas in Western Montana: the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest, the Three Rivers District of the Kootenai National Forest and the Seeley Lake District of the Lolo National Forest. The bill draws heavily on the community partnerships and tentative land use proposals already formed by communities in and around these forests, negotiations and debates that have been going on for years - that's part of the reason Tester is able to argue that the writing of his bill was a highly collaborative process, despite the secrecy by him and his staff in the weeks preceding its introduction.
"We pretty much took their recommendations and we tweaked them a bit and we moved forward," Tester said.
Fair enough. And the bill does feel like it encapsulates every player. Maybe throwing everything into the pot is a good way to make a stew, but it may not be the best way to preserve wilderness.
And then, of course, there's Jesse Froehling's front-page story about the bill in the Missoula Independent, which I egregiously overlooked when compiling the bill's links in an earlier post and which is includes some excellent comments on the bill from a variety of sources.
And then there's Daniel Person's report that appeared in the Bozeman Chronicle, which highlights the bill's support of the state's ailing timber industry.
And here's Paul Richards' op-ed in New West, in which he savages the bill and claims it negates the promise Tester made Richards on the eve of the primary election, causing Richards to drop out of the election and endorse the Big Sandy farmer. |
