Event Calendar
May 2012
(view month)
S M T W R F S
* * 01 02 03 04 05
06 07 08 09 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31 * *
<< (add event) >>


User Blox 4
- Put stuff here

Barack Obama
"Lincoln Sells Out Slaves"
by: Rob Kailey - Sep 13
1 Comments
If You Haven't Seen This
by: Rob Kailey - Apr 28
5 Comments
Impeach the President?
by: Rob Kailey - Mar 16
15 Comments
It's the system, stupid!
by: Jay Stevens - Oct 25
7 Comments

Search




Advanced Search


Rob Kailey is a working schmuck with no ties or affiliations to any governmental or political organizations, save those of sympathy.

Tester releases revised Forest Jobs and Recreation Act

by: The Office of Sen. Jon Tester

Thu Jun 17, 2010 at 16:51:12 PM MST


(And the latest draft is out... - promoted by Matt Singer)

In a move thought to be unprecedented in the U.S. Senate, Senator Jon Tester has posted online his newest draft of the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act.  He also pledged to post online any of his own future drafts of the bill.

You can read the new draft at: http://tester.senate.gov/Legis...

The draft is a revision of Title I of the legislation, written in response to a discussion draft recently put forward by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, where the bill awaits a vote.

The bottom line is that under the new, made-in-Montana draft, the outcome on the ground would be the same as it would have been in the original Forest Jobs and Recreation Act.  The only thing different is the process involved.

Unlike the Committee's document, Tester's new draft retains the timber and restoration certainties that were proposed by the original bill, which was introduced in July of 2009.  He has said he will only support a bill that contains the four carefully balanced provisions (timber, wilderness, recreation and restoration) that resulted from years of Montanans working together.

Tester's most recent proposal also creates a new national forest initiative that can apply to other forests in the country.  This national framework directs the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture to select several forests on which to conduct forest restoration work aimed at creating timber jobs and restoring watersheds.  But through this bill, the first forests to be considered for this work will be the three Montana forests it was originally designed for: the Beaverhead-Deerlodge, the Three Rivers District of the Kootenai, and the Seeley District of the Lolo.

This discussion draft also contains new ideas Tester heard from many Montanans over the past year-from emails, phone calls, meetings and seven public, well attended and well advised listening sessions.  Ideas included in the new discussion draft include:

  • Prioritizing Wildland Urban Interface land (land near communities at high risk of wildfire) when selecting areas for the stewardship contracts.
  • Expanding the area eligible for stewardship contracting in Three Rivers District of the Kootenai National Forest in order to protect grizzly bear habitat.
  • Adding language for "Best Value" stewardship contracting, which requires contracts to be awarded on the basis of achieving best value to the government. A variety of criteria, including weighted local preference, would be used in making the award determination.

From here, we can expect several more drafts of the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act until Tester and the Committee find enough common ground to move the bill forward.

Finally, it's worth noting that the Forest Service has indicated support for the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act since its hearing last December.  During a March visit to Montana, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said: "We're going to continue to work with Sen. Tester to accomplish what the bill is supposed to do... There's a tremendous opportunity here." [Montana Standard, 4-7-10] http://www.mtstandard.com/news...

The Office of Sen. Jon Tester :: Tester releases revised Forest Jobs and Recreation Act
Tags: , , (All Tags)
Bookmark and Share
Print Friendly View Send As Email

the first link goes nowhere near any text of any forest bill (0.00 / 0)
the second link to mt standard is not even linkable in your post matt.

i mean to say in the post put out by sen. tester's office......sigh (0.00 / 0)
is there no end to their fail?

http://goddamnindependents.fil...


[ Parent ]
while we are at it though (0.00 / 0)
how about losing the primary poll and replacing it with a poll on tester's forest bill?

hello? anyone there? (0.00 / 0)
neither link works in this post.
anyone know where i can get a working link to see this latest version of tester's bill?

anyone else getting the irony of the fact that tester's staff can't even provide working links to their own bill?  


since there is no response from anyone here.... (0.00 / 0)
i just did my own post.

http://4and20blackbirds.wordpr...

thanks for the irony.


both links work... (0.00 / 0)
you might check the settings on your computer or sumpin...

Sort of ironic you assume it's Tester's office's fault...


the links were checked out by bob brigham and many others also (0.00 / 0)
nice try. and nice job of fixing them for tester's staff.

[ Parent ]
yeah, problembear is right (0.00 / 0)
The links were busted and were redirected to the senate's error page.

TWITTER: @BobBrigham

[ Parent ]
If the links redirected (0.00 / 0)
... then it is entirely possible (probable even) that problem was with the Senate's servers and services.  It might also have been error on the part of one of tester's staffers.  It's remarkably odd how that leads to accusations of chicanery or "fail".  This is the Interwebs.  Stuff happens.

[ Parent ]
I'm guessing operator error (0.00 / 0)
That's the problem of trumpeting process more than outcome, process failure can quickly become a metaphor for the entire bill.

TWITTER: @BobBrigham

[ Parent ]
I didn't touch a thing (0.00 / 0)
I was off doing stuff and nowhere near my computer. Sorry, from where I'm sitting, everything looks fine.

[ Parent ]
the links worked on my computer (0.00 / 0)
but who cares! i am furious! time to blog about it!

what it comes down to (0.00 / 0)
for me is that the Montana Wilderness Association are in favor of Tester's proposal.  This is a widely respected group.  How bad can it be?  I understand some folks are miffed because they weren't at the table, but you can't have every single group in the world, and MWA is certainly at the top in terms of credibility.

you are kidding right? (0.00 / 0)
MWA has been in the pocket of timber company and resource extraction based foundation grants for years to keep their cushy salaries over there nice and well paid for....

or are you really that naive about how things really work MC?

they did good work about 30 years ago, but everyone in the wilderness community knows that they went over to the dark side a long time ago. do you really think that a few hundred members support that huge staff of mercenaries over there?


[ Parent ]
now this is funny. (0.00 / 0)
the dark side?  huge staff of mercenaries?  give me a break.

[ Parent ]
it is not funny to those who care about the fate of our last wild lands MC (0.00 / 0)


[ Parent ]
i care about them. (0.00 / 0)
and I am glad MWA is at the table.

[ Parent ]
Letter from former MWA board and council members (0.00 / 0)
February 16, 2010

We, the undersigned former council members and officers of the Montana Wilderness Association, respectfully urge Senator Tester to modify the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act of 2009 to rectify the problems outlined by the Undersecretary of Agriculture as well as the Last Best Chance Wildlands Campaign. We cannot support the legislation as now written. We diverge from MWA here because we believe that the bill degrades both the quantity and quality of some of America's most cherished wildlands in Montana. We encourage consideration of the issues we have outlined below that would be necessary in order for us to support it.

We endorse the 10-point position paper, Keeping It Wild! In Defense of America's Public Wildlands, which has been submitted by the Last Best Place Wildlands Campaign.
The bill legislates the net loss of hundreds of thousands of roadless area acres, including S-393 Wilderness Study Areas designated in 1977 by the late Senator Lee Metcalf.

This will create widespread environmental damage and the loss of an irreplaceable legacy for which future generations will, quite correctly, hold ours accountable. Also, the bills' Congressional mandate for timber cut levels sets a dangerous precedent. Resulting below-cost timber sales will cost taxpayers over $100 million. And proposed new Wilderness Areas are small, often disjointed, primarily "rock and ice" parcels that would fail to protect fragile wildland and wildlife ecosystems and corridors.

To make matters worse, the bill includes special provisions for new "Wilderness" units that defy both the intent and letter of the Wilderness Act, and the spirit of Wilderness that so many Americans believe is a vital and wondrous part of this great nation's heritage. Motor Vehicles, including helicopters, simply have no place in designated Wilderness. Yes, we need more Wilderness - lots of it - but we want it to be real Wilderness!

The bill also codifies secretive negotiated agreements - such as the Beaverhead-Deerlodge - that excluded many individuals and groups who've long been involved in the public process. This, and similar agreements, have been sealed by MWA and others over the objections of excluded organizations and individuals, of whom most live and work close to the land and know the compromised areas intimately.

It is with a heavy heart that we are compelled to oppose the organization that we once served as council members and officers. Most of Montana's undeveloped wilds are long gone, and we cannot afford to lose big chunks of what remains. We believe that in recent years, the Montana Wilderness Association [MWA] has clearly compromised its long-held wildland protection mission and vigilant advocacy. We know many current and former MWA members who agree. In fact, many conservationists in the region are convinced that, quite simply, MWA has lost its way. We are among those people.

In summary, this bill will irreparably damage Montana's dwindling public wildland legacy. It will salt the gaping social wounds created by MWA's recent actions. It degrades the Wilderness Act of 1964 with provisions that damage both Wilderness and the Wilderness Idea. And it's a bad deal for future generations of Montanans who will need wild country more than ever in an increasingly crowded and uncertain future.

Lou Bruno (past President) - East Glacier
Joan Montagne (past President) - Bozeman
Elaine Snyder (past President) - Kalispell
Dan Heinz (past Vice-President) - Reno, NV
Loren Kreck (past Vice-President) - Columbia Falls
Paul Edwards (past Chairman, Wilderness Committee) - Helena
Larry Campbell - Darby
Susan Colvin - Great Falls
Randall Gloege - Billings
Keith Hammer - Kalispell
Steve Kelly - Bozeman
Lance Olsen - Missoula
Bob Oset - Hamilton
Paul Richards - Boulder
Ross Titus - Big Fork
George Wuerthner - Helena/Livingston
Janet Zimmerman - Pony


[ Parent ]
i am certain you do care about wilderness MC.... (0.00 / 0)
but, like MWA.... just not as much as you care about serving power.

[ Parent ]
MWA's paid anonymous commenters... (0.00 / 0)
Hello: The following three on-line comments are exactly the same. The first one is from a regular anonymous commenter who goes by "Zahnie Bunyan." The second one is just from "anonymous." While the third comment is from Gabe Furshong, the Montana Wilderness Association's Forest Jobs and Recreation Act Campaign Director. In the past, Mr. Furshong has also posted on this topic as "wolf creek."

MWA's paid staffers resorting to anonymous comments to pimp the FJRA is a nice touch don't you think?

@ http://billingsgazette.com/new...

Zahnie Bunyan said on: June 18, 2010, 12:14 pm
   What public land managers and public land advocates have failed to understand for so many years is that public land is about partnership. Senator Tester gets it. He doesn't take the myopic view that our forests are just about wilderness, or timber harvest, or recreation. He is working hard to reward partnerships that take a more integrated view of the forest - a forest where you can get a paycheck, ride your snowmobile, and hunt world class elk across vast tracks of roadless land.

--------------

@ http://mtlowdown.blogspot.com/...

Anonymous said...

   What public land managers and public land advocates have failed to understand for so many years is that public land is about partnership. Senator Tester gets it. He doesn't take the myopic view that our forests are just about wilderness, or timber harvest, or recreation. He is working hard to reward partnerships that take a more integrated view of the forest - a forest where you can get a paycheck, ride your snowmobile, and hunt world class elk across vast tracks of roadless land.
   June 18, 2010 12:17 PM

---------------
@ http://missoulian.com/news/sta...

   gfurshong said on: June 18, 2010, 1:12 pm
   What public land managers and public land advocates have failed to understand for so many years is that public land is about partnership. Senator Tester gets it. He doesn't take the myopic view that our forests are just about wilderness, or timber harvest, or recreation. He is working hard to reward partnerships that take a more integrated view of the forest - a forest where you can get a paycheck, ride your snowmobile, and hunt world class elk across vast tracks of roadless land.


[ Parent ]
Do you have one bit of evidence to support this? (0.00 / 0)
Seriously.  

[ Parent ]
Statement RE: Senator Tester's New FJRA Draft (0.00 / 0)
If the goal is protecting some Wilderness in Montana and getting some restoration and fuel reduction work accomplished,  the ENR Committee's draft, while not perfect, is a step in the right direction and superior to both Senator Tester's original bill and his new proposal.  As we move forward, let's hope Senator Tester and the collaborators give the ENR Committee's draft significantly more consideration than just proclaiming it "Dead On Arrival."

Fact is, the ENR Committee's draft would protect over 660,000 acres in Montana as Wilderness. However, the Committee's draft doesn't undermine Wilderness by allowing military helicopters to land in Wilderness or ranchers to ride their ATV's in Wilderness, as Senator Tester's draft allows.  By any objective measure, when it comes to Wilderness, the ENR Committee draft is better.

While the ENR Committee's draft dropped the controversial mandated logging provisions - which the Forest Service called unachievable, unsustainable and not reasonable - Senator Tester's new draft, unfortunately, re-inserts the logging mandates. Based on the ENR Committee's draft, it seems pretty clear that the Committee and Chairman Bingaman will not allow this bill out of Committee if it includes logging mandates.  So it seems as if right now Wilderness designation for 660,000 acres of Montana's wildlands is being held captive by the timber industry and Senator Tester's insistence on the U.S. Congress mandating logging, which would be an unprecedented and unwise step.

Harris Sherman, Under Secretary of Natural Resources and Environment, in official testimony before the US Senate's Energy and Natural Resources Committee:

"The levels of mechanical treatment that are called for in S1470 are likely unachievable and perhaps unsustainable...If the Committee decides to go forward with a bill, we would urge you to first, alter or remove the highly specific timber supply requirements, which in our view are not reasonable or achievable."

The Wilderness Society, an official supporter of the FJRA, had this to say specifically regarding the logging mandates in their official testimony submitted to the US Senate's Energy and Natural Resources Committee:

"We oppose Congressionally mandated treatment levels in the bill because they, a) neglect the root causes of the problems this bill is intended to address, b) set an adverse national precedent, c) create unreasonably high expectations, d) fail to provide the agency the resources it needs to do its job, and e) most important, we do not believe this approach will work on the ground."

The Last Best Place Wildlands Campaign (LBPWC) is a coalition dedicated to wildlands protection, Wilderness preservation and the sound long-term management of our federal public lands legacy.  The coalition includes 5th generation Montanans, small-business owners, veterans, retired Forest Service supervisors and district rangers, hikers and backpackers, hunters and anglers, outfitters and guides, scientists and community leaders.


I thought the goal was transparency? (0.00 / 0)
Are we there yet? Or does the senator need to let you hear his every phone call from his office and provide you access to every email?  

[ Parent ]
Roscoe, interesting how you (0.00 / 0)
...really have nothing to offer here. No comments directly related to the substance of the ENR Committee's draft. No comments related to the substance of Tester's original FJRA or his new draft. Nothing to offer regarding a side-by-side comparison of the two drafts. Nope....

Once again, I will paste below the press release our Last Best Place Wildlands Campaign sent out a few weeks ago.  As anyone can clearly see, this was a pretty milk-toast release. We didn't accuse Senator Tester or any of hte collaborators of anything. We simply called on Senator Tester make public the ENR Committee's discussion draft for review and input.

However, once the media made inquires to Senator Tester's office they got the complete run-around, including the Senator's office at first denying that an ENR draft even existed.  Hence John S. Adams blog post "Tester's forest bill, transparency, and the legislative process" (http://mtlowdown.blogspot.com/2010/06/testers-forest-bill-transparency-and.html). Therefore the Missoulian's editorial about "Tester's Transparency Problem" (http://missoulian.com/news/opinion/editorial/article_04a9a34e-7582-11df-973d-001cc4c002e0.html).

Any issues related to transparency and process, while important, are completely secondary to members of our LBPWC.  The real focus of our LBPWC all along has been on the substance of Tester's FJRA, the substance of the ENR Committee draft and how these proposal mesh with our nation's existing environmental laws such as NEPA and NFMA (which require an open, inclusive process) and existing public lands and Wilderness policy and regulations. Just because some of you folks actually understand very little about these substantive issues doesn't mean our concerns aren't valid. Plus, the last time I checked, this was the United States of America and federal public lands belong equally to all American's...not just to a junior senator and some self-selected collaborators. Thanks.

For Release: June 3, 2010

Coalition Calls on Senator Tester to Release New Draft of FJRA for Public Review and Input

Missoula, MT - Today, members of the Last Best Place Wildlands Campaign called on Senator Tester to make public a new "Discussion Draft" version of the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act (FJRA) that was put together by the US Senate's Energy and Natural Resources Committee and given to Senator Tester last month.

"Our coalition calls on Senator Tester to share with all Montanans the Committee's draft rewrite of his bill," stated Matthew Koehler of the Last Best Place Wildlands Campaign. "Since the Committee's draft includes significant new language, we believe it's in the best interest of all Montanans and Americans for Senator Tester to make a copy of the Committee's draft available for public review and input.  This step will ensure transparency and give all members of the public an equal opportunity to review the new draft language."

The Committee's new draft drops the controversial mandated logging levels on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge and Kootenai National Forests and drops Senator Tester's 12-month timeline for environmental analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act, which the head of the Forest Service called "flawed and are legally vulnerable" during last December's Senate hearing.

The Committee's new draft also adds language requiring that any project carried out under the bill must fully maintain old growth forests and retain large trees, while focus any hazardous fuel reduction efforts on small diameter trees.

The Committee's draft drops several of the controversial Wilderness provisions, including those allowing helicopter landings for military training exercises and herding livestock with ATVs in Wilderness, but other provisions that compromise the integrity of the proposed Wildernesses remain in the new draft.

The Last Best Place Wildlands Campaign (LBPWC) is a coalition dedicated to wildlands protection, Wilderness preservation and the sound long-term management of our federal public lands legacy.  The coalition includes 5th generation Montanans, small-business owners, veterans, retired Forest Service supervisors and district rangers, hikers and backpackers, hunters and anglers, outfitters and guides, scientists and community leaders.


[ Parent ]
So is Tester being transparent? (0.00 / 0)
I just thought we could find common ground.  

[ Parent ]
you mean like tester saying in the 11th hour...... (0.00 / 0)
can you hear me now?

not by a long shot. he knows hiding behind the curtain and pulling levers was the wrong thing to do now after john, oschenski and matt pulled the curtain back....

he is going to have to dig deep into his bag of hearts and courage now to take this bill home. it is springing more leaks than the titanic.


[ Parent ]
transparency is not the goal (0.00 / 0)
The goal is a good wilderness bill for Montana.

Over enough bills and enough time, the process of transparency will likely create better bills, but there is nothing inherent in transparency that will result in one bill being better written.

This process trap is the same pitfall that Baucus fell into when he arbitrarily decided that it was more important for senate finance to pass a HCR bill with GOP support than to write the best bill for Americans. When he put process over outcome all it did unnecessarily expose Democrats to attacks during the August recess while resulting in a worse bill (key example was the public option, which was both good policy and very popular, yet it failed by Baucus' vote because he wouldn't support something that didn't have the veneer of support he wanted).

While I value transparency far more than bipartisanship, neither are nearly as important as passing a good bill.  

TWITTER: @BobBrigham


[ Parent ]
cutting away all the complicated arguments bob (0.00 / 0)
what it comes down to for the collaborators and their supporters is you gotta serve somebody....

http://4and20blackbirds.wordpr...


[ Parent ]
MT Lowdown on New Draft (0.00 / 0)
Tester unveils new draft of forest jobs bill
By John S. Adams, Great Falls Tribune
http://mtlowdown.blogspot.com/...

Today Sen. Jon Tester unveiled the latest draft version of his Forest Jobs and Recreation Act.

You can download a copy of Tester's latest draft here http://tester.senate.gov/Legis...

In a conference call with reporters on Thursday, Tester said his new discussion draft is the next step in a "long and complicated process."

(Visit here http://mtlowdown.blogspot.com/... and click the play button on the player below to hear the entire conference call. Tester spokesman Aaron Murphy introduces the conference call.)

The bill comes in response to a Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee discussion draft that surfaced earlier this month. You can read the text of the committee's draft here http://www.archive.org/downloa... and here http://ia360701.us.archive.org... .

As originally proposed, Tester's forest measure would add 660,000 acres of new wilderness in Montana while mandating logging on 100,000 acres on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge and Kootenai National Forests.

The ENRC draft, which was circulated among members of the Beaverhead-Deerlodge Partnership collaborate group approximately three weeks ago, removed those mandates.

The committee draft also stripped controversial language from the original bill that allowed military helicopter landings and the use of motorized vehicles for livestock and wildlife management within wilderness boundaries.

Tester said his latest draft would result in the "same outcome" laid out in his original proposal while including some of the ideas contained in the committee's draft.

"It, too, is a discussion draft," Tester acknowledged Thursday in a telephone call with reporters. "It very likely will not be the final version that the committee votes on."

Tester said his staff is in daily negotiations with the committee staff in an attempt to hammer out a bill that can reach a vote before Congress wraps up work later this year.

However, Tester warned that if the final committee bill does not contain mandated logging levels aimed at sustaining the state's dwindling wood products industry then it will be "dead on arrival."

"I have said from the beginning that I will only support a bill that contains the four carefully balanced provisions that have resulted from years of folks working together, those being timber, wilderness, recreation and restoration," Tester said. "The committee's bill stripped out the timber and restoration certainties in my bill. All four components are critically important to this bill."

Tester acknowledged that the Forest Service was critical of the mandated logging quotas contained in the original proposal.

Harris Sherman, Under Secretary of Natural Resources and the Environment at the U.S. Department of Agriculture, testified at a committee hearing in December that the mandated logging levels outlined in Tester's bill "are likely unachievable and perhaps unsustainable."

Tester said Thursday that the agency now supports the bill.

"We were able to work with the Forest Service and get them on board," Tester said. "They support this bill." (Tester quote begins at 11:37 in the recording above).

However, Joe Walsh, a spokesman in the Forest Service's Washington, D.C. office declined to comment on the agency's position on Tester's latest proposal.

"We have not received a copy of the senator's latest draft, but we will review it when we get a copy," Walsh said. "Right now this is a work in progress between the senator and the committee."

In a follow-up e-mail, Tester spokesman Aaron Murphy said the agency is "fine with" the "sustainability of the mechanical treatment levels prescribed by the bill."

"It's our understanding that the Forest Service believes the work Jon is trying to achieve is ecologically sustainable (through mechanical treatment)," Murphy wrote.

Tester said members of the collaborative group that helped draft the original bill-which includes a handful of wilderness, conservation and timber groups-support his proposed changes to the measure.

"They're enthusiastic," Tester said. "They have the same information that you have in front of you and they're fired up about it. They like it."

But some environmental and conservation groups, many of whom have been critical of Tester's bill from the start, remained miffed by his latest proposal.

"If the goal is protecting some wilderness in Montana and getting some restoration and fuel reduction work accomplished, then the Energy and Natural Resource Committee's draft, while not perfect, is a step in the right direction and superior to both Senator Tester's original bill and his new proposal," said Matthew Koehler of the Last Best Place Wildlands Campaign.

Koehler also testified at the energy and committee's December 17 hearing.

"As we move forward, let's hope Senator Tester and the collaborators give the committee's draft significantly more consideration than just proclaiming it dead on arrival," Koehler added.

George Nickas, executive director of Wilderness Watch, said Tester's latest proposal attempts to re-write longstanding forest management policy, including the Wilderness Act, by allowing previously banned activities in federally designated wilderness areas.

"I would hope that the senator would honor the Wilderness Act and not even try to put that language back in that bill," Nickas said.

Like Koehler, Nickas said if the bill is to have a chance of passing, then the committee draft would be better starting point for negotiations.

"I think it's too bad if Sen. Tester is drawing a line in the sand by saying, 'mandated logging or nothing.' I think by doing that he's saying 'nothing.'" Nickas said. "Mandated logging is not where a lot of folks in the conservation community, nor do I think a lot of members of Congress, are willing to go."

For his part, Tester said he's committed to sticking to the goals of the partnership that helped create the forest jobs bill.

"I can tell you I've got plenty of fight left in me and so do thousands of Montanans who support this bill, but more importantly support the ideas and principles that this bill contains," Tester said.


Senate ENR Committee approved 26 bills this week, but not Sen Tester's (0.00 / 0)
I had to chuckle a little when I read the comments from Mr. Furshong, MWA's FJRA organizer over at George Wuerthner's excellent perspective piece on Tester's bill over at NewWest.net titled "Tester's Response Poor Strategy"  http://www.newwest.net/topic/a...

Mr. Furshong stated:

"Wilderness philosophers from other states can postulate all they want about Montana politics - such chatter will never result in actual legislation to protect 500,000 acres of ground in the largest National Forest in the lower 48 states and create new jobs at Montana mills that have a record of stewardship best practices.

You know what? Mr. Furshong's dismissive comment is striking when compared with the fact that just this week the Senate's Energy and Natural Resources Committee approved 26 bills establishing new Wilderness areas and dealing with other public lands issues. Those 26 bills were approved by the ENR Committee en bloc, by unanimous consent.

Reader's will recall that Senator Tester's FJRA is currently before this same Senate ENR Committee. Sometime in May, the ENR Committee sent Senator Tester a draft revision of this bill, which his office shared with the collaborators. Once the media questioned Senator Tester about the ENR's draft he proclaimed it "Dead on arrival."

So now, on June 20, the Senate ENR Committee approved 26 bills dealing with Wilderness and public lands issues

Something I'd encourage Wilderness supporters to consider is the very likely fact that if Senator Tester and the collaborators (Mr. Furshong and MWA included) would have accepted the ENR Committee's draft revisions when they were shared about a month ago, it too would have been approved by the Committee this week.

So despite Mr. Furshong's claim that "such chatter will never result in actual legislation" it sure seems to me that MWA and the other collaborator's insistence on mandated logging and motors in Wilderness might have cost all of us the opportunity to designate over 660,000 acres as Wilderness and get some good restoration and fuel reduction work accomplished as proposed in the ENR Committee's draft.

Some details of the ENR Committee's draft:

• It would protect over 660,000 acres in Montana as Wilderness. However, it doesn't undermine Wilderness by allowing military helicopters to land in Wilderness or ranchers to ride their ATV's in Wilderness, as Senator Tester's draft allows.

• It drops the controversial and unprecedented mandated logging levels on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge and Kootenai National Forests. It adds language requiring that any project carried out under the bill must fully maintain old growth forests and retain large trees, while focus any hazardous fuel reduction efforts on small diameter trees.

• It would also establish a "National Forest Jobs and Restoration Initiative" that would "preserve and create local jobs in rural communities...to sustain the local logging and restoration infrastructure and community capacity...to promote cooperation and collaboration...to restore or improve the ecological function of priority watersheds...to carry out collaborative projects to restore watersheds and reduce the risk of wildfires to communities." Much of this work would be carried out through stewardship contracting.


Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


Bookmark and Share

Poll
Voting. Useful or not?
Yes!
No!
Maybe, but only if you vote my way.
There are theories that ...
Meh ...

Results

Blog Roll
  • A Secular Franciscan Life
  • Big Sky Blog
  • David Crisp's Billings Blog
  • Discovering Urbanism
  • Ecorover
  • Great Falls Firefly
  • Intelligent Discontent
  • Intermountain Energy
  • Lesley's Podcast
  • Livingston, I Presume
  • Great Falls Firefly
  • Montana Cowgirl
  • Montana Main St.
  • Montana Maven
  • Montana With kids
  • Patia Stephens
  • Prairie Mary
  • Speedkill
  • Sporky
  • The Alberton Papers
  • The Fighting Liberal
  • The Montana Capitol Blog
  • The Montana Misanthrope
  • Thoughts From the Middle of Nowhere
  • Treasure State Judaism
  • Writing and the West
  • Wrong Dog's Life Chest
  • Wulfgar!

  • Powered by: SoapBlox