Tester Forest Bill Open House in Troy

UM public lands policy expert on Tester's logging bill (4.00 / 1)

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/...

Here are some snips taken directly from Dr. Nie's article:

Complying with the National Environmental Protection Act is one big unanswered question in the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act (FJRA).

Non-timber related restoration goals are also set in the bill, though compared to the treatment mandate, they are not quantified nor prescribed in as much detail. Nor is there any guarantee that the restoration work will be done once the mechanical treatments are accomplished.

Forest-specific laws already on the books, like the Tongass Timber Reform Act and the Herger-Feinstein (Quincy Library) Act, have engendered more conflict than consensus partly because of how these laws sometimes fail to fit into the preexisting legal/planning framework.

Before proceeding with a legislated timber mandate, however modest it might be, it makes sense to learn from this and other initiatives and possibly adapt them elsewhere.

But trading wilderness for a timber harvest mandate is a different beast altogether. The real question here is not whether it is reasonable to require two national forests to mechanically treat 100,000 acres over the next ten years; but rather what those numbers will look like in other states if all of a sudden harvest mandates are politically palatable.

It would certainly be nice if Sen. Tester and his staff and supporters of his bill would stray from the talking points for little bit and address these types of important questions, which have actually been asked (yet ignored) for months...and years in the case of the Beaverhead Partnership.

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 @ Thu Oct 08, 2009 at 20:33:35 PM UTC

this is a dangerous precedent (0.00 / 0)

professor nie is correct in cautioning us as to it's long-range implications for engendering similar legislation.

the behind-the-scenes secret meetings between select groups that was originally used by senator conrad burns to forge this bill was very badly handled from a constitutional standpoint and most likely would fail the test of public involvement by any judge that reviewed it.

holding open houses and serving up this leftover after the bill is essentially done is a cynical and hypocritical attempt to pretend to offer public involvement in our remaining roadless heritage lands. i voted for jon tester, who promised to run an open government with honesty. who is this imposter and what has max baucus done with the real jon?

---

by: problembear @ Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 00:16:16 AM UTC

Matt, how about a serious attempt to answer some of these serious public lands policy questions? (0.00 / 0)

Matt: I hope you're not addressing your sophomoric "update" in any way to my comment and the posting of Dr. Martin Nie's well-researched, well-reasoned article.

"I've been notified in comments that this is all a sham and that no one listens, so we're taking a different tact: REVOLUTIO!N!@N!!!!"

LiTW readers should know that since July I have contacted Matt directly a handful of times and have offered to sit down and talk with him directly about many of the same forest policy issues, questions and concerns that Dr. Martin Nie presents in his article.  LiTW readers should know that up to now all of these requests have fallen on deaf ears.

So I will ask once again. Matt: Can you please take some time and make a serious attempt to answer or address the serious public lands policy concerns and questions raised by Dr. Martin Nie in his article?

Thank you.  I look forward to your response and perspective.

---

by: Matthew Koehler @ Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 14:19:29 PM UTC

Thank you for your engagement. It's hard for me to focus (0.00 / 0)

on all the shenanigans going on behind the scenes in Washington so I appreciate informative posts and not just announcements of town meetings. I've been to these "town meetings" All this managed democracy like the president's photo ops with docs on Monday is making me weary.  

---

by: Feral Cat @ Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 15:07:38 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

"managed democracy" (0.00 / 0)

I like that.

Nothing like a new oxymoron to get at the heart of crony capitalism the new democratic party's tack.

---

by: JC @ Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 16:16:15 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It's Sheldon Wolin's term in his scary book "Democracy Inc: (0.00 / 0)

Managed Democracy and Inverted Totalitarianism".  I highly recommend it.  He was Chalmers Johnson's professor at Princeton.  Chris Hedges did a brilliant piece on Wolin called "It's Not Going to be OK".
http://www.truthdig.com/report...

---

by: Feral Cat @ Sat Oct 10, 2009 at 14:47:59 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Shouldn't you be direction your energy into providing feedback like this to Sen. Tester's office? (0.00 / 0)

You seem to be barking up the wrong tree.  

---

by: Montana Cowgirl @ Sat Oct 10, 2009 at 15:39:37 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Why do you seem to always assume... (0.00 / 0)

that if people share their views, comments and concerns about Tester's logging bill here...that they aren't also sharing their views, comments and concerns with Sen Tester's office? That just seems like a rather strange assumption, MT Cowgirl.

---

by: Matthew Koehler @ Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 13:51:11 PM UTC