Using stimulus money to force obeisance to coal

Coal coercion: (0.00 / 0)

Here's Ochenski's take from this morning's Indy...

Schweitzer blackmails officials to back Otter Creek
by George Ochenski

http://missoulanews.bigskypres...

---

by: Matthew Koehler @ Thu Apr 01, 2010 at 13:54:48 PM UTC

no one listens to ochenski on the gov any more (0.00 / 0)

he has an unhealthy obsession.

---

by: Montana Cowgirl @ Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 13:56:20 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Bovine Lady: What did Ochenski say... (0.00 / 0)

That also wasn't said by the Missoulian, Bozo Chronicle, etc? Do they also have an unhealthy obsession with Gov BS?

Seems to me you have an "unhealthy obsession" with just following the Dems around no matter what they do. That makes you Montana Sheepgirl, I guess.  

---

by: Matthew Koehler @ Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 14:10:29 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

obsession implies a pattern (0.00 / 0)

it's all ochenski ever rights anymore.  sad.

---

by: Montana Cowgirl @ Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 14:48:28 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Looks like you've been served sheepgirl... (0.00 / 0)

http://4and20blackbirds.wordpr...

---

by: Matthew Koehler @ Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 15:00:32 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yep, that damn GO... (0.00 / 0)

Obsessed with things like social justice, a clean environment and good, open government.  

---

by: Matthew Koehler @ Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 15:12:26 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Using Congress to force obeisance to timber? (0.00 / 0)

I couldn't help but have a little fun with your title Jay, and apply it to Sen Tester's Forest Jobs and Recreation Act. I'm not saying this is necessarily the intent of Sen Tester and supporters of his bill; however, this would clearly be one of the results of the bill passing as currently written.

After all, as anyone can clearly see in the actual bill language, the "Secretary of Ag shall produce commercial wood products" and the federal government must  manage public lands to "maintain the infrastructure of wood products manufacturing facilities."

The bill requires this to happen by "mechanically treat[ing] timber on a minimum of 70,000 acres over a ten year period."  

Note: Key word there is "minimum." That's right, the bill sets no max on the amount of logging the federal goverment must do in order to "produce commercial wood products" and "maintain the infrastructure of the wood products manufacturing facilities."  

In other words, if this bill would have passed prior to the closing of Smurfit-Stone in Frechtown, the corporation and their lawyers, could have pointed to this section of the bill and required the federal government to "mechanically treat timber" on 20,000 acres or 50,000 acres of the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest annually (whatever Smurfit-Stone determined they needed for the federal government to "maintain the infrastructure of the wood products manufacturing facilities.")  Of course, the other requirement in the bill is that all NEPA analysis on this logging would have to be completed within 12 months, which is totally impossible, unachievable and simply undermines NEPA, our nation's bedrock environmental law.

http://tester.senate.gov/Legis...

(D) FOREST MANAGEMENT.-On the aggregate parcel of land that is the subject of the stewardship areas selected by the Secretary concerned under subsection (a), the Secretary concerned SHALL -

(i) produce commercial wood products and accomplish landscape-scale restoration objectives;

(ii) carry out activities to reduce the risk and severity of uncharacteristic wildland fire and insect infestations;

(iii) manage vegetation through timber harvest activities in a manner to ensure that the timber harvest activities are limited to stewardship areas;

(iv) use prescribed burning and other silvicultural techniques to mimic mixed se- verity, natural fires when appropriate to the forest type that is the subject of the prescribed burning or other silvicultural technique;

(v) when a commercial timber harvest activity is used to implement the vegetation management of the aggregate parcel, design the commercial timber harvest activity-

(I) to reduce the long-term risk and severity of fire and insect infestations;

(II) to maintain and restore healthy sustainable forests;

(III) to generate revenue to reinvest in fish and wildlife habitat maintenance and restoration; and

(IV) to maintain the infrastructure of wood products manufacturing facilities that provide economic stability to communities located in close proximity to the aggregate parcel; and

(vi) subject to paragraph (6)(C)(ii)(III), to produce commercial wood products and accomplish landscape-scale restoration objectives-

(I) with respect to the stewardship area located in the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest-

(aa) during the 2-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;

---

by: Matthew Koehler @ Thu Apr 01, 2010 at 14:14:46 PM UTC

yeah...that's a bit of a stretch... (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Jay Stevens @ Thu Apr 01, 2010 at 19:43:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

What part? (0.00 / 0)

Jay - what part of Matty's post is "a stretch"?  Instead of Schweitzer telling local governments they have to support coal mining if they want stimulus funds, Tester is telling the federal government it has to support the timber industry whether it can afford it or not -- ecologically or fiscally.  And in both cases, science, climate and consequences are ignored as politicians strong arm government for the benefit of very specific PRIVATE corporations.  Where's the stretch?

---

by: ochenski @ Thu Apr 01, 2010 at 19:53:40 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

uh... (0.00 / 0)

Government subsidies for private persons are as old as the government. This isn't extortion. This isn't illegal or unconstitutional. It's legislation. If you don't like it, that's cool, but to equate it to what Schweitzer's doing with the letters...? A stretch, to say the least.

---

by: Jay Stevens @ Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 02:08:16 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Jay, perhaps you missed my subject line and intro... (0.00 / 0)

Jay, I openly admitted I was "having a little fun with your title" and "I'm not saying this is necessarily the intent of Sen Tester and supporters of his bill; however, this would clearly be one of the results of the bill passing as currently written."

So, if you want to say my "having a little fun with your title" was a stretch, I have no problem with that, as that's what I was doing anyway. Geez....

However, if you are referring to the substance of my post related to specifics of the FJRA and the actual language of the bill, then we do have a problem...because nothing I've said above (minus the subject line and opening paragraph) is a stretch....

If you have a different legal interpretation of the Forest Management section of the bill, that's fine...but please share it will us and let me know where our legal interpretation is wrong. Otherwise, I'd appreciate it if you'd stop just dismissing my whole comment as "stretching," which it certainly appears to me that you are attempting to do.

One of the reasons this is a big deal is because the supporters of FJRA have told us for months now that the bill allows a maximum of 7000 acres of treatments, and those treatments could be everything from cutting brush, prescribed fire to some timber cutting. In fact, I've heard supporters say that over those 7000 acres only one tree might be cut.

That's all well and good...and an unsuspecting public can total eat that up and buy into that concept...BUT that's NOT what the actual language of the bill says. The bill clearly says the 7000 acre figure is a minimum. The bill clearly provides no maximum. The bill clearly states that the federal government must mechanically treat timber (ie logging) on a minimum of 7000 acres a year. And that the federal government must "produce commercial wood products" and must design the commercial timber sales to "maintain the infrastructure of wood products manufacturing facilities that provide economic stability to communities located in close proximity to the aggregate parcel."

These are some of the concerns that immediately pop off the page to those of us who've actually spent the better part of their adult lives working on forest policy and management issues, Forest Service exerts and managers included. Thanks.  

---

by: Matthew Koehler @ Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 13:17:06 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

no, Matt... (0.00 / 0)

I was talking with GO about the "stretch." You did acknowledge it was a stretch, and what you post is factual. My only criticism is that...well...the two things are pretty unrelated, IMHO. Seems a stretch to bring it up in this context...that said, I know you're really focused on it right now...

---

by: Jay Stevens @ Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 14:27:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thanks (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Matthew Koehler @ Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 14:29:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]