Another Open House on the Forest Bill Tomorrow

"no more wilderness will be protected"??? (0.00 / 0)

Wilderness is designated by Congress and protected under the Wilderness Act. Are you saying that current wilderness will lose its protection?

Or are you saying that some currently protected roadless lands will lose their protection under their Wilderness Study Area protections?

Or that roadless lands will lose their protection under the Roadless Rule?

Or that lands currently protected will not lose their protection if Tester's bill fails?

Or that if Tester's bill doesn't fail, that currently protected lands will lose their protection?

I'm really not sure what you are saying at all here, Matt. Or why you would accuse stakeholders that were shut out of the horse trading that created the Tester bill of "conspiracy theories"? It doesn't take a conspiracy to write legislation to the exclusion of many interest groups--just like Baucus did to the single payer crowd.

And if your analogy holds true--that because anti-wilderness voices are louder than wilderness supporters (at least here in Montana), therefore wilderness is not politically defensible--I guess that because tea baggers' voices are louder than single payers' voices, then if Baucus' bill fails, health care reform is no longer politically feasible.

Tester's bill destroys existing potential wilderness--roadless lands. It does not create, or protect wilderness. An allocation only preserves the status quo. Releasing lands from wilderness consideration is where the destructive process occurs.

Most true wilderness supporters like the status quo. And voices of local Montanans are not the only stakeholder. These lands belong to all Americans. And those voices will be heard in Congress, where they will carry equal weight to Tester and his supporters' voices.

Tester's public meetings are not designed, or intended to provide any input into changing his designations. They are intended to be a rubber stamp on his already predetermined legislative stance.

Matt, your logic is riddled with a lack of knowledge about wilderness, its protection, and the allocation process. It also misses the historical nature of wilderness debate. Better to just state your personal opinion than attempt to reason with those of us here at LitW who have devoted whole careers, or large portions of careers to defending wilderness and Wilderness. Accusing us of conspiracy theories is really condescending.

I for one would welcome the killing of this bill by anti wilderness forces. Let them have the bloody hands, here. Existing unallocated wilderness will be better for it. Maybe in 10 or 20 years' time, there will be the political will to pass a true wilderness protection bill like NREPA.

---

by: JC @ Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 04:51:30 AM UTC

OK, better wording would be (0.00 / 0)

"no additional wilderness..."

---

by: Matt Singer @ Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 04:53:55 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well put, JC (0.00 / 0)

It must be abundantly clear that Matt doesn't understand this issue very well -- if at all.  He doesn't get it that Wilderness Study Areas are protected as wilderness unless removed from that status -- which will take a bill.  He doesn't understand that roadless areas are currently protected from development unless the administration decides to remove protection for a very limited number of reasons.  He doesn't understand that allowing military landings in wilderness areas, as Tester's bill does, undercuts the very core of what wilderness is all about.  

Given his wildly optimistic arguments for Baucus' health care bill -- and the horrendous outcome that has basically put Democrats back on an even footing with Republicans in public opinion -- the real question is why anyone would listen to Matt Singer's political analysis for a second longer.  His perspective is incredibly short and over and over again we get his "if we don't do it now, we won't be able to do it ever again -- so settle for whatever we can get now" baloney.

This isn't an ad hominem attack on Matt, it's a review of his off-base and horrifically inaccurate predictions from the last 10 months since Obama took office.  This is just more of the same -- and equally worthless.

---

by: ochenski @ Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 13:39:14 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Singer the Wilderness/Forest Policy expert? (0.00 / 0)

Ahhhh...another post from Matt Singer the Wilderness/Logging/Restoration/Forest Policy expert!

Just for the record Matt Singer, how many timber sale EIS's have you read in your life? How many times in your life have you gotten on-the-ground pre- or post- timber sale to conduct monitoring? How much of the latest science and research concerning logging, soils, wildlife, wildfire, restoration, etc have you read? How many public field trips into the forests or Wilderness have you lead? How much post-fire monitoring have you conducted?  How many scientists and researchers have you worked closely with? How many times have you educated members of congress, media or general public on forest/wilderness policy? How many times have you submitted testimony for congressional hearings on these issues? How many truly open and transparent collaborative meetings have you attended on forest issues? How much research have you conducted on the current state of the timber industry? Wood products demand? Did you help develop the Montana Restoration Principles? Or the National Restoration Principles? Did you help organize, or even attend, the 2006 National Meeting on Collaboration? Were you one of the 75 participants from a broad cross-section of the movement that helped develop the "Collaboration Best Practices for the Conservation Community?"

Oh yeah, that's right...you haven't done any of this...you're a forest/wilderness policy expert because you're good friends with some of Senator Tester's staffers.

It's an indisputable fact that the origins of the Beaverhead Partnership and their proposal were the self-selective, secret, exclusive meetings held between MWA, MT TU, National Wildlife Federal and the timber industry during the winter and early spring of 2006. Board members and lead staffers of MWA and TU didn't even know about these meetings.  Everyone in the forest/wilderness movement in Montana and the country seems to acknowledge these facts about the Beaverhead Partnership, so it really doesn't concern me too much if Matt Signer fails to do so, as he has no experience or knowledge about these issues.

Fact of the matter is that the Dillion "town hall" meeting was announced to the public only two days ahead of schedule.   I'm sure the Beaverhead Partnership folks knew about these meetings weeks ago. After all, they needed time to make all those "Thank You Sen Tester" signs and get their members to these manufactured "town hall" meetings.

These meetings are all about PR, not about some serious attempt to be open and inclusive or engage in "collaboration" or to change portions of Tester's logging bill for the better.

After all, a few weeks ago Senator Tester's Missoula staffer told a delegation of Forest Service district rangers, wildlife biologists and dedicated Bitteroot Valley conservationists (lead by 83 year old Stewart Brandborg, who was head of The Wilderness Society in 1964 when the Wilderness Act was passed) that no changes or amendments will be made to Tester's logging bill until after a congressional hearing (which likely won't even happen this year). This fact is in direct contradiction to Tester's spokesman's (Aaron Murphy) repeated statements that "introducing this bill in Congress is just the start of the process."

Serious questions still remain:  Will Senator Tester's office ever respond to the serious concerns and critiques that have been raised in many quarters about his mandated logging bill? Will Senator Tester ever let us know why he would allow military landings in Wilderness Areas for the first time in the history of the Wilderness Act? Will Senator Tester ever let us know why his bill would release Wilderness Study Areas protected by Montanans who worked together with former Sen. Lee Metcalf? Will Senator Tester ever acknowledge that with little demand for lumber there is no way that logging will pay for all the restoration work he's touting? Or will we just get more campaign-style rhetoric?

---

by: Matthew Koehler @ Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 15:50:53 PM UTC

Then why don't you guys ask this stuff of Sen Tester instead of Matt? (0.00 / 0)

If you want answers to these questions, go to the town meetings and ask these questions of Senator Tester himself.  You can't expect Matt to be an expert on everything.  He isn't claiming to be one, he's letting you know about the town meeting so that you can ask your questions where they can actually be answered.

If you just want to complain, however, just go ahead and voice your concerns right here.

---

by: Montana Cowgirl @ Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 03:14:47 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Um, Matt's the one (0.00 / 0)

who threw out some potshots at long time wilderness advocates here. That's why he got some pushback.

Most of us already participate heavily through regular processes in public land issues, and have for decades. And we see Tester's dog and pony show for what it is.

Town halls are just venting sessions more recently popularized by the tea bagger movement. They are designed to be political posturing and venting arenas moreso than places to debate policy intelligently.

---

by: JC @ Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 17:17:03 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

We have asked this "stuff" of Sen Tester's office... (0.00 / 0)

...as have many other concerned citizens and conservation organizations who were excluded from the Beaverhead Partnership when it formed in the winter/spring of 2006.

It appears to many of us (including a growing number of frustrated reporters) as if the only "response" Sen Tester's office is capable of mustering when confronted with concerns, critiques or hard questions is to repeat generic talking points about "we need to get loggers workin' the the woods." (Even though right now on the Bitterroot and Lolo National Forest's there are almost 40,000 acres worth of logging/thinning/fuel reduction projects that could go forward within the coming months, but there is no demand for lumber right now, so the timber industry isn't much interested in these projects...except they keep pressuring the Forest Service to reduce bid prices and eliminate certain environmental requirements so that these timber sales lose even more and more money. Does this sound like "progressive" public policy dealing with public lands?)

I should also point out that since late July I have written Matt Singer three times letting him know that I would be happy to sit down and speak with him about wilderness and forest policy issues (including how stewardship contracting plays out on-the-ground).  To date, Matt Singer hasn't taken me up on my offer.

Instead, Singer has become a sort of champion for Senator Tester's bill, based not on any real-world experience with these complicated issues involving forest policy, ecology, FS budgets, lumber demand, wilderness policy, restoration, etc....nope. Rather, it appears, based on his personal connection with a few Tester staffers and perhaps a desire to see Sen Tester score some political points.  Wow! Isn't this eerily similar to what we see happening with him and the health care debate? I guess when you spend 4th of July weekend up at Barrett Kaiser's lake shore pad with the rest of Team Baucus that's bound to happen.

Don't you think that those of us (such as the 83 year old Stewart Brandborg I referenced above or JC or Ochenski) who have devoted our lives and careers to protecting the public's forests, wilderness, wildlife and watersheds (as well as the critically important and hard-fought democratic public processes that have been established to govern the management of these public lands) might know something about these issues?  

---

by: Matthew Koehler @ Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 14:19:42 PM UTC

First hand account of Dillion "Town Hall" meeting (0.00 / 0)

Montana Standard - Letter to the Editor

Tester should have made time Saturday to listen to public
By Betty Staley - 09/29/2009

There is an insidious trend in this country; the people in power are using their power to stifle public discourse and dissent with our government. I witnessed it firsthand, at Saturday's Dillon meeting where Sen. Jon Tester presented the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act, a bill Tester is sponsoring before Congress. Aside from my opinion of the bill itself (I support the public's right to use public land and multiple use), I was shocked by how Tester treated the public.

Before a crowded auditorium, the senator made it clear that he would not take any questions or comments from the audience. His idea of public input was to have each audience member present their thoughts on a card in writing (as if we couldn't do this anytime). I thought, I can't be hearing what he just said. But preventing public input is exactly what he meant.

At the end of his presentation, Tester again stopped any interaction with the audience. A courageous, young man stood up and said, "All these people came here to participate and you're not going to let them speak?" Tester insisted he would take written comment only. Tester looked like the cat that swallowed the canary, as the audience silently filed out. This Forest Jobs and Recreation Act is a hotly debated bill, with many detractors. Tester's blatant action was meant to prevent any adverse comments from being publicly presented. Tester's mind is made up. You can send him your comments, but I believe he will ignore any opinion that differs from his own.

That behavior was appalling and it doesn't make any difference which side of this issue I stand on. Personally, I attend public meetings to hear what the public has to say. That's the interesting and worthy part of public meetings; people can raise points I hadn't thought of; they can even change my mind.

For his effort to stifle public comment, Tester deserves to be voted out of office.

Betty Staley 55 Bell Horse Trail Sheridan  

---

by: Matthew Koehler @ Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 17:03:38 PM UTC

Natural Resource Policy Expert on Tester's Bill (0.00 / 0)

For those readers interested in a detailed analysis of Sen. Tester's bill from one of the nation's leading experts on natural resource policy and law, I'd highly recommend they check out Dr. Martin Nie's piece at Headwaters News titled, "Questions, opportunities presented by Montana  Sen. Jon Tester's Forest Jobs and Recreation Act."

It's available at: http://www.headwatersnews.org/...

It would certainly be nice if Sen. Tester and supporters of his bill would address these important questions, which have actually been asked (yet ignored) for months.

As Dr. Nie says in his conclusion, "The above questions are not driven by politics. Nor are they asked with the purpose of trying to defeat the Senator's bill or to criticize his courageous entry into Montana wilderness politics. They are meant instead to get the public thinking about the big picture and how the parts are going to fit or not fit together. The stakes are high. If the FJRA becomes law, place-based proposals throughout the West will take a big step forward. The FJRA would be the first one out of the gate, setting precedent for others, and this is reason enough why it must be scrutinized so carefully."

---

by: Matthew Koehler @ Wed Oct 07, 2009 at 14:59:57 PM UTC