Sen Tester: "extremists are extremists and I don't really care"

Tester is just taking his cues (4.00 / 1)

from Obama and the others who are going to resort to triangulation to get their way.

This is all so predictable, and really is nothing we haven't heard since the wilderness battles began back in the 80's. Beat the same old drum: marginalize the various interests groups that don't support the insider political position, and create a bunch of media around it. It's self preservation. It's easier for Tester to dig into his position by further marginalizing his opposition.

Of course, it works in reverse. All of the "collaborators" have their constituencies and funders that they rely on. For instance, how does the Montana "Wilderness" Association justify being a party to legislation that mandates the destruction of wilderness by logging, roading, and motorized access?

It is ludicrous. Those fighting Tester's bill on the enviro side might do well to move their efforts to an attack on the mission of the groups "collaborating" with Tester and loggers. It might serve them well to try and splinter off support for those groups and attack their funders like Pew for pursuing a failed strategy.

And the point that needs to be driven home is that the coupling of resource extraction and wilderness designation is a failed strategy. Each needs to be considered on its own merits in separate legislation. Want to push some logging or restoration? Let's talk about just that--but not in the same room as the wilderness debate is going on. We got some uncontroversial areas that could immediately be designated wilderness (WSA's i.e.), let's just get that designation out of the way.

There will be plenty of time coming up to shift the story out of Tester and his "collaborator's" hands, to one of how Montana's legacy wilderness and wildland "protection" nonprofits have sold out to corporate interests. And have sold out because that is how they are able to get funding from corporate-sponsored foundations like Pew. Make no mistake. The actions of a few nonprofits are as motivated by the need to access funding from corporate sponsors, as they desire the self-aggranidizement of having accomplished something (anything, really) politically. They have been seduced by money and politics, and have lost their way within their missions.

If Tester want's to triangulate between extremists on the left and right, then us extremists on the left need to fight back at the corruption that has taken control of our legacy nonprofit once-defenders of the wilds. Tester is not the real enemy. Without his "collaborators" on the faux-enviro side, he is nothing.

Call these faux-enviros what they are: corrupt sellouts. Inform their base, and they will retreat. Attack their funders, and they will wither. Expose their corruption, and they will lose.

---

by: JC @ Tue Jan 04, 2011 at 17:10:31 PM UTC

Oh, and I should add (0.00 / 0)

that Tester, by labeling all of his left wing critics "extremists" has most decidedly assured that: 1) they will not vote for his reelection and 2) many of them will actively work against his reelection.

After all, why should those who have just been labeled "extremists" offer any political support to a politician that just lumped them in the same boat as terrorists? Even if most of them did vote for him, donated to him, and worked for his election in the first place?

Tester has just made enemies with a very dangerous constituency. Has he forgotten the lesson of JOhn Melcher, whose defeat was greatly assisted by the same left wing "extremists" that he has just lambasted?

Sayonara Senator Tester.

Ye shall reap what ye sow, and all that sort of rot... Once an extremist, always an extremist. So don't come a callin' when it's election time. Way too many strikes against you for you and other moderate dems to play the "lesser of two evils" game on the "extremist" left. Ain't gonna work. You're shedding voters fast, and you ain't gonna get them back. Good thing you still got the farm back in Big Sandy, because you'll be retiring from the Senate to there soon enough.

---

by: JC @ Tue Jan 04, 2011 at 18:01:43 PM UTC

"Tester is not the real enemy?" (4.00 / 1)

J.C., Please explain. I, for one, believe our public forests have many enemies.  Tester has proven to be no friend to our forested public landscapes, or the fish and wildlife populations that depend upon them for survival.  More and more, he fits the stereotype of a senator of the 19th Century robber baron era - more concerned with unethical bankers and industrialists - that only sees forests as a commodity source. I think this is an obsolete, and narrow, view which requires adding more and more federal subsidies to keep the crap game afloat.

Senator Tester is responsible for his actions. Right? The neoliberal groups he associates with need him to claim relevance, just as he needs them to hoodwink voters. The funders behind the curtain funding sycophant groups have always played the same roll: marginalize public outrage (dissent), grassroots action and activists. Quislings get paid the big bucks, grassroots activists get squat, or more recently, jailtime.  It's no different in battles for social justice, ending wars, or trying to end hunger and poverty.  The NGOs with the most money are in it for access, and to protect weak people like Tester from their weak policy positions, and from challenges (real or imagined) from his left flank. He's left a huge vacant space to his left.  The real question remains:  Will that space vacated by Tester be siezed by working Montanans tired of lies, and the endless game of "bait and switch?"  Can an organized working-class opposition materialize in time to end the denial, and failed neoliberal economic policies, in time to compete in the next election?  Hope sure so.  

---

by: steve kelly @ Tue Jan 04, 2011 at 18:15:34 PM UTC

Oh geez Steve (0.00 / 0)

I got into a bit of hyperbole there, didn't I? I'm just suggesting shift in the focus of our ire to include the "collaborators." Tester just declared war, and we can either choose to fight him, or we can fight those who are carrying his water, too. There's been too much Mr. Nice Guy on behalf of LBPWC supporters in regards to publicly calling out collaborators for their participation.

But yeah, he is an enemy. In a lot of different ways than just the public forest issues. His actions during the FinReg markup and hearing process and amendments has me convinced he's already been heavily corrupted. His opposition to DADT was revealing. HIs opposition to the DREAM Act, while not unexpected, is just piling on more undesirable positions.

Any ideas on how to motivate and organize opposition to Tester? Want to run for Senator?

---

by: JC @ Tue Jan 04, 2011 at 21:28:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Who knew (0.00 / 0)

Divide and conquer seems to work pretty damned well.  Jon Tester is now the 'enemy'.

I've asked the 'primary' question multiple times now, so let me join JC in being more specific.  Are you willing to promote someone or run yourself for the Senate, Steve?

---

by: Rob Kailey @ Wed Jan 05, 2011 at 01:13:01 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Forest mangement from the corporocrats (4.00 / 1)

This whole thing i.e. selling out your base supporters... sounds so very familiar. If we replaced "forest management' with "education" or perhaps "labor" or even "the poorest among us" the dialog would be essentially the same.

The bottom line is that Democratic politicians en mass are following a herd mentality where they have become enslaved to the polls and their large corporate contributors. Obama sold out his base and our Senators are following his lead. All this is pursuit of "moderates" in hope that the "TEA partiers" will vote for them. They're dreaming. This is a huge political miscalculation.....throwing their base overboard for a lark.

I can attest to this as a member of the "professional left" as the White House put it. At least they haven't told you to go F-yourself. I don't consider myself to be an extremest. But the reality is that Obamacare was written by the insurance industry under Max and the forest bill was written by the forest products and recreation industries under Tester. QED...we live in a corporotocracy. That's not an extremist statement...it's a reality.  

Doug Coffin

---

by: Doug Coffin @ Tue Jan 04, 2011 at 18:46:36 PM UTC

Don't necessarily agree. (0.00 / 0)

1.  Tester will have the fight of his life to hang on to his seat.  He is a Democrat in Montana.  Montana is a conservative state, by and large.  Not giving support to Tester = Senator Rehberg, and everyone knows it.  Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good (although in the case of the forest bill, I concede that it may not even be "good").  The good is Montana having two Dem Senators.  A Dem Senator in Montana will be on the conservative side.  Yeah, I agree, I wish Montana was (way) more progressive.  It isn't.  And that's not Tester's fault.

2.  An all but necessary component of appealing to the center is to criticize what is perceived as the "far left" view in public.  Duh.  I put absolutely no stock in Tester (or Obama) doing so.  If anything, it shows me that they are politically astute.  Good politicians are more likely to 1) stay in office and 2) secure the best deal possible while in office.  They are NOT the ones in the position to legitimize positions that are not (yet) held by center.

3.  I also put no stock in the idea that nonprofits have "lost their way" when it comes to standing up to imperfect bills and cooperating with special interests.  That's what being involved in the legislative process is.  I'm sure the bill was very much the better for MWA's input.  Bills must obtain the support of a majority (and thus, the center) to pass.  Working to represent progressive interests in this context does NOT consist solely of getting progressive legislation passed.  That is plainly logically indefensible.

4.  Thus, there is indisputably a role for progressives (whether via nonprofits, as individuals, etc.) to strive mightily on behalf of political action that ends up being imperfect, disappointing, and largely un-progressive.  No one can seriously contend that those pieces of legislation would be worse without progressive effort.

5.  The one sentence summary of #1-4 above is: it is wrong to argue that political action which does not achieve progressive results is not worthwhile for progressives to participate in and even support.  It constitutes our necessary participation in a democracy which, by and large, does not share our point of view, however unfortunate the consequences.  Walking away from the table obtains exactly nothing.

6.  Of course, this is but one necessary role that progressives must play.  The other, more important role is to try and influence public opinion so that the center supports progressive causes.  What we can and must do is thus to attempt to persuade the general public that our point of view is the right one, through good old-fashioned grassroots activism and however else it can be accomplished.  Change minds, one at a time.  Become respected voices on the issues, such that our opinions win the argument and are adopted by enough of the majority that the politicians who are sympathetic to our point of view have the political cover to act.  It isn't Tester's fault that the majority is currently under the impression that rampant development of natural resources is a good idea, especially in this economy.

7.  The only point open for debate is what proportion of our effort should be spent on each of these two roles.  As I state above, I agree that the more important role is to steadfastly hold to our positions, and attempt to convince the general public of the same (or further solidify their tentative support).  Demonizing those who play the other role, like Tester and the MWA, in my opinion, isn't the right way to look at it.

---

by: envirolutionary @ Tue Jan 04, 2011 at 20:20:07 PM UTC

HIt a raw nerve, did we? (0.00 / 0)

"Demonizing those who play the other role, like Tester and the MWA, in my opinion, isn't the right way to look at it."

Politics is rough. If Tester and his minions can lambast the left, then they can take getting blasted right back.

To reiterate:

1) Once labeled an "extremist" any political support is not going to happen
2) Progressive goals are often accomplished by killing bad legislation, which the FJRA is
3) Moderate dems playing the "lesser of two evils" game isn't going to work to guilt the left into coming back into supporting bad politicians and bad candidates
4) Taking votes on the left for granted is a sure way to lose an election

---

by: JC @ Tue Jan 04, 2011 at 21:37:08 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Ok (0.00 / 0)

I actually don't think we disagree on much here.  I guess I'd just say that we "extremists" (heh) shouldn't resent being labeled as such in the context of political theater.  Nor should we assume that those who do criticize us do so for any other reason than political gain.  If the argument is that we're more effective at obtaining progressive goals by demanding more for our cooperation and support, that's certainly a (logical) viewpoint that I can understand.  Should we criticize them right back, and work to defeat especially bad pieces of legislation?  Of course.  But that shouldn't mean not supporting them, or nonprofits who do make some repulsive compromises now and again.

---

by: envirolutionary @ Tue Jan 04, 2011 at 21:55:15 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Resentments? (4.00 / 1)

Not at all. Tester and his allies just picked a fight and took sides. Happens all the time. This isn't the first, by a long shot for most of us, and won't be the last.

But "the context of political theater?" Labeling someone an "extremist" is tantamount to declaring open season on the left. And their are many whacko right wing crazies who don't understand "context." They hear "extremist" and the next time they see an "extremist" it's a knuckle sandwich. Or a firebomb. Or endangering the life of an activist at a peaceful demonstration.

It is utterly irresponsible for a politician to label a group of former supports and Montanans as "extremists." It will lead to nothing but bad endings for individuals if he continues to do so. He could end up with blood on his hands, if that is what he wants.

"nonprofits who do make some repulsive compromises"

If you want to call the legacy wilderness protection nonprofit in the state signing on to legislation that will destroy wilderness as repulsive, I guess that is an accurate description. But it means that I do not, and have not ever supported MWA, repulsive legislation or not. It is a pattern of behavior of theirs. It is part of their modus operandi that I don't support.

MWA being a sell-out organization is one of the reasons that AWR came to be, and that NREPA was envisioned as an alternative to the tepid wilderness legislation that they put forth and supported. And if they want to be part of a legislative agenda that includes labeling their neighbors and friends as "extremists" so be it.

They have the choice of coming out and distancing themselves from Tester's "political theater" if they want. If they don't, the next time I see any one of my many friends who work for or supports those organizations, I'm going to ask them why they are unwilling to call out Tester for his dangerously bad behavior; if they believe me to be an "extremist". And if not, then why do they want to participate in such a farce, because that is what political theater is: a farce.

---

by: JC @ Tue Jan 04, 2011 at 22:41:15 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I agree. if Tester can't debate the facts and has to resort (4.00 / 1)

to dangerous and irresponsible name calling, he's already in deep trouble, both politically and as a human being.

---

by: Steve W. @ Thu Jan 06, 2011 at 19:47:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I don't think so JC (0.00 / 0)

Like you're going to vote for a Republican - no matter what Tester does, or does not do.

And maybe Elvis is going to release a new album -

---

by: Eric Coobs @ Tue Jan 04, 2011 at 22:22:51 PM UTC

Organize for...... the common good. (0.00 / 0)

The point of organizing, I have always thought, is to accomplish something positive.  Make progress.  Improve our lot.  Organizing against Tester is a fools' errand.  If Tester wants to represent people organized around progress, and people organized around that, he'll be rewarded.  That's not what he's about these days. However, none of the banter and chatter matter a whit if working-class people, and that's most of Montana, don't organize.  Ready and willing; set; go!.

---

by: steve kelly @ Tue Jan 04, 2011 at 22:23:23 PM UTC

Matthew (0.00 / 0)

I'm asking with all sincerity and good will.  I know many many folks in the Beaverhead and in Madison county.  They are almost universally pissed off about the USFS rules concerning designated roadless areas.  At the same time, they are almost universally pissed off at Jon Tester for wanting the South Pioneers designated as Wilderness up above the kilns and Kelly reservoir, and yet establishing recreational areas in the Centennial and parts of the Madison and Pioneer ranges.  These two things are not congruent, especially in your exposition.  You decry federal influence as being unfavorable compared to other federal influence.  Some of those you rely on for at least token support hardly share your enthusiasm for the goal.

So, I'm asking you to put aside the advocate hat for a moment and explain how these people's disfavor with Jon Tester supports your goals of wilderness without compromise.  It is argued by some that Jon Tester is "triangulating" which seems odd given that triangulation plays one side against the other until a broad middle can be reached.  Tester is either incredibly poor at it, or that isn't what he's doing at all. He appears to be attempting to save some grounds from development while allowing Montanans the recreation they favor, and it's unpopular with both sides of the great divide for the same reason. What I would really like to know is how you would resolve the local anger at being denied access to the woods (which is how they see Wilderness designation) with the urge to develop and log some forests, which is what will surely happen should we achieve our goal of Republican forest control again.

---

by: Rob Kailey @ Wed Jan 05, 2011 at 01:31:52 AM UTC

I'll try to respond (0.00 / 0)

Rob, thanks for the question, but to be honest, I'm having a hard time following some of what you've said. I'll try my best to respond, but if I miss the mark please just let me know and I'll try and take another stab. Yes, I agree with you in your first paragraph that some people who live in Beaverhead and Madison Counties are opposed to new Wilderness designation or are opposed to the USFS managing Wilderness Study Areas to "preserve the wilderness character" of these areas, which they are required to do by law and regulation.  Some people who live in these counties would obviously like to have more Wilderness too, so it's not just a monolithic anti-Wilderness viewpoint.

I admit this statement has me confused, you wrote: "You decry federal influence as being unfavorable compared to other federal influence.  Some of those you rely on for at least token support hardly share your enthusiasm for the goal."  What I think you're referring to in the first part of that is the federal influence of Senator Tester (or other members of Congress...ie the Legislative Branch) vs the influence of the US Forest Service under the Department of Agriculture and the federal Executive branch.  Is that right? If so, you must remember the difference between these two branches of government and also remember that the management of America's National Forest falls under the US Forest Service/Dept of Ag, not under Congress and the legislative branch, for good reason. I would posit that opening up the doors for more political interference/influence from Congress as to how our national forests are managed would severely compromise America's entire public lands legacy.

While most folks might have some issues with how national forests are managed - some might like more logging, less logging, more wilderness, less wilderness, etc - the great equalizer is the fact that we have professional agencies (USFS, USFWS, BLM, etc) staffed with researchers, scientists, etc that must follow the public participation, science and legal requirements of laws and regulations such as the National Environmental Policy Act, National Forest Management Act, Endangered Species Act, Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, etc.  Yes, sometimes I look, for example, at a proposed Forest Service logging project and am disappointed in the decision made by the Forest Service. However, people need to understand that America's public lands legacy is much better served by the current, established system of public participation and decisions guided by science and law, than by simply letting a US Senator decide where and how much logging should take place or decide which Wilderness Study Areas should be released and opened for development.

Regarding the second paragraph of your question, again I'm not completely following you, so I'll try my best. Yes, I understand that some people out there don't support Wilderness and oppose the FJRA or even Senator Tester because of this. I'm not sure how that's going to change.  I also understand that some people have the urge to log some forests, but I also realize that 95% of Montanans actually have no idea what's actually already taking place on our national forests in terms of logging. I'm not saying that to be offensive to anyone, I'm just saying it based on my experience working everyday on these issues for quite some time. So, in one sense, the promotion of FJRA capitalizes on this lack of knowledge.

For example, how often have you heard Senator Tester or his "collaborators" cheer the fact that the BHDL National Forest had more timber volume under contract last year that at any point in recent memory?  Nope, they continue to tell people the Forest Service can't do any logging because they lack the "tools" (ie Congressional mandate) of Tester's FJRA. Really? The Forest Service has been logging the be-jesus out of our national forests for a good 60 years but they lack the "tools" to do logging?

The truth of the matter is that the Forest Service currently is doing logging projects through an EIS process, or an EA process, or through the Healthy Forest Restoration Act process, or through a categorical exclusion (CE) to log 1000 acres for fuel reduction, or a CE to log 250 acres for post-fire or post-insect "salvage," or through a CE to log 70 acres of green timber.  I should point out that all the CE's (established through executive order by George W. Bush) are expedited processes that involve very little environmental review or analysis and provide no public appeals process.

How often has Senator Tester or supporters of FJRA celebrated the fact that, in addition to the BHDL NF, the Forest Service in Montana and our region ended 2009 with more timber volume already under contract to loggers and mills in our region than any point in the last decade?  Nope, they tell people instead that "nothing's happening" on national forests. Or how about the fact that  the Forest Service in Montana also has more logging, thinning, fuel reduction and restoration projects in the pipeline than at any point in recent memory? Is Sen Tester sending out a press release trumpeting this fact? Nope, not at all.

My point is that the vast majority of people around here actually have no idea how Forest Service management actually works and has no idea that appeals and litigation are actually on a significant downward trend and the volume of timber under contract (and in the pipeline) is significantly more than at any point in recent memory.  The problem the logging industry is facing, as I must continue to point out, is a 70% reduction in new home construction and over-all a 50% reduction in over US wood consumption. These are not insignificant numbers.  But again, none of this information is presented by Sen Tester or supporters of his bill. Why do you suppose that is? Could it be that the truth of the matter actually doesn't fit so neatly into the frame they've created for their FJRA talking points?

Finally, I'm honestly not sure, Rob, how one goes about to resolve the anger some people feel when they are denied motorized to some parts of our public lands. As much as anything, this might be illustrative of a cultural divide, perhaps even the same divide we see being playing out nationally on some many other issues. Regardless, I'm pretty sure the solution to all these problems isn't just to have members of Congress set aside Forest Plans, or NEPA, NFMA, etc or ignore science-based management and the latest research in favor of politicians just dictating what the management of America's public lands should look like.

---

by: Matthew Koehler @ Wed Jan 05, 2011 at 15:51:18 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

In truth (0.00 / 0)

My point is that the vast majority of people around here actually have no idea how Forest Service management actually works

That was part of my curiosity, and something I agree with completely.  I have never had a doubt that you understand these issues.  But it strikes me that many in the environmental community are relying on that ignorance to garner allies against a bill that otherwise might be favored by the public outside of the environmental community.

And just to clarify, most of the people I know in the southwest of the state are not Republicans or conservatives, per se. They are old-school union Democrats.  Most of them favor (or would given understanding) most of what Jon Tester has accomplished in the Senate or has attempted to.  But misinformation is turning these people against the politician without instructing them as to the facts of policy.  In short, I find people agreeing with what they disagree with, and never seeing the difference.  That is my point of concern.

It's probably a small matter anyway, given that it seems to be part and parcel of our modern political climate.

---

by: Rob Kailey @ Wed Jan 05, 2011 at 16:48:49 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Just who's relying on ignorance? (0.00 / 0)

But it strikes me that many in the environmental community are relying on that ignorance to garner allies against a bill that otherwise might be favored by the public outside of the environmental community.

Rob, I hear what you are saying, except for this quote above. Honestly, what are you referring to? Can you provide an example?

Seems like everyone I know who's part of our LBPWC, or who has offered substantive concerns with the FJRA, are, in fact, attempting to educate the general public about the various aspects of forest/wilderness management, science, ecology, etc.

From my perspective if anyone is "relying on that ignorance to garner allies" it is Senator Tester and his handful of "collaborators."  Seriously, how much actual substance do you really see coming from them? How often have they actually addressed substantive concerns?

---

by: Matthew Koehler @ Wed Jan 05, 2011 at 17:06:34 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

No accusation intended, Matthew (0.00 / 0)

The most glaring example I can think of are those who tout poll numbers, "X% are against this bill", without ever clarifying why those people are against said bill.  That is a gross appeal to authority, and as I indicated, it appears to be part and parcel of our modern political climate.

---

by: Rob Kailey @ Thu Jan 06, 2011 at 00:43:53 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

the bill is too flawed legally to pass and if it did the supremes would shut mandates down (0.00 / 0)

 congress - just like the supreme court - hates setting precedents, so i think jon is just secretly going through the motions here (although doing a good job of looking earnest)

if he is smart jon will continue to pander to the ignorant here and stick to his guns.  let it be slaughtered in committee so he can blame the sahara club and all the big environmental organizations for its demise. that is my take on this. that is his best move at this stage of the game.

2012 is very close and i would like to see jon grow a little more into this job. he is capable of some good things for montana in the future.

---

by: problembear @ Thu Jan 06, 2011 at 06:41:18 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

No offense taken (0.00 / 0)

Rob, Yes, I understand there was no accusation intended, I was just actually curious as to what you were referring to.

Regarding the example of the poll you mention, I actually know of no example of where opponents of the FJRA have touted poll numbers that say "X% are against this bill."

The reason?

As I pointed out in a previous post here at LiTW (http://leftinthewest.com/diary/4521/fact-checking-the-fjra-poll-numbers) there hasn't been one single, independent public opinion poll about the FJRA...ever. Not one. As the link above demonstrates, the "collaborators" continue to release the results of an 16-month old internal messaging survey they conducted to test their talking points and messaging, but that hardly qualifies as an updated independent poll.

Interesting enough, there have been a number of on-line reader polls or "questions of the week" related to the FJRA over the past year or so. The Flathead Beacon had one, the MT Standard in Butte and the Helena IR. All of those on-line polls should about 60-65% against FJRA and 30-35% for FJRA. Yes, I understand these are not scientific polls, I'm just passing along the results. And yes, I understand that not everyone who opposes the bill, opposes it for the same reasons.

In fact, the Helena IR has another on-line question of the week up right now (See: http://helenair.com/question):

"Question Of The Week: Poll -  Do you support U.S. Sen. Jon Tester's plan to reintroduce his Forest Jobs and Recreation Act in the upcoming session of Congress?"

Ironically, that un-scientific "poll" current shows 65% against and 35% for.

I would welcome the inclusion of the FJRA in any of the official state-wide polls that are conducted by the Montana media and/or MSU-Billings. It would be nice to at least have updated, current independent poll numbers regarding FJRA so that the FJRA "collaborators" stop telling the public "over 70% of Montanans support FJRA." Again, that's just not true or accurate, as this post clearly illustrates (http://leftinthewest.com/diary/4521/fact-checking-the-fjra-poll-numbers). Thanks.

---

by: Matthew Koehler @ Thu Jan 06, 2011 at 15:21:23 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Ignorance (4.00 / 1)

is pretty well distributed across the political spectrum. It seems to me that many dems who are not really engaged on these issues support this bill because of Tester and the "D" next to his name.  That and the desire to end MT's 'Wilderness drought'.  

In my opinion that is extremely shortsighted.  If this bill passes and is indeed the new model for forest planning, we can only imagine what the logging, mining and livestock interests in Wyoming will come up with when they decide to write their own 'collaborative' bill.

What will our national forests look like when a congressman from every state sits down with extractive industries to mandate logging, mining, gas fracking, grazing and who knows what else?

Do we really want to give up our say in how we manage public lands? This model only allows for some locals to decide. If you have a favorite national forest outside of your locality, you're out of luck.    

I don't doubt the good intentions behind this bill, but in reality it is a train wreck waiting to happen.

---

by: Josh @ Thu Jan 06, 2011 at 00:38:09 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

These battles are historic. (0.00 / 0)

In 1992, Montana just lost a seat in the U.S. House, and our two senators, Burns and Baucus at the time, introduced the "final (wilderness) solution."  It was "unstoppable."  This was also the year the Northern Rockies Ecosystem Act was introduced for the first time by Rep. Peter Kostmayer (D-PA).  The Burns-Baucus Bill designated roughly 1/6 (16.7%) of the 6.4 million acres of inventoried roadless areas in Montana, and included "hard release" language for the sawmills. The mills wanted "certainty."

Long story, short, the Pioneers was the perhaps the most controversial part of that bill.  It was "in," it was "out," lots of horse-trading, and in the end, the bill never passed.  Burns' supporters, and I believe they have never forgotten, claim Baucus pulled a fast one late in the game - in the Pioneers, especially the West Pioneers. I forget the details, but this was a really big deal at the time, one that will not be papered over by Tester, or his collaborators.  

The other factor, I believe, is the more recent obsession by some Pew groups claiming that ORV use is the #1 threat to wilderness.  These are recreational "club" groups that never made the transition from age old "use" battles, to the reality that biodiversity is threatened, and the best way to maintain remaining species, especially T&E and "sensitive" species, is to protect all roadless areas, not just the favorite hiking haunts - ie. "rocks and ice."  This strategy of blaming ORVs for everything, and letting the industrial polluters off the hook is the "wedge" issue, created by big funders, to cut the same deal proposed in the Burns-Baucus bill in 1992. No Montana congressman since Sen. Lee Metcalf ever protected more than 5%-6% of areas declared "suitable" for logging by the FS inside inventoried roadless area boundaries.  

The more things change, the more they stay the same.    

---

by: steve kelly @ Wed Jan 05, 2011 at 16:21:46 PM UTC

A dull-witted contribution (0.00 / 0)

The preceding arguments are well worth having I'm sure.  I'm not educated sufficiently on the environmental and economical issues to comment on them.

One thing really bothers me though: If we don't re-elect Tester in 2012, and if a couple of other blue-dog Democratic senators lose to Republicans, the Senate will become Republican.

I'm not merely making the "lesser of two evils" (Tester v. Rehberg) argument -- or maybe I'm making it at the national level.  

A Republican house and senate in 2013 would, I'm afraid, totally disenfranchize everyone but the large corporations and the military.  That's even if Obama wins re-election. He can't veto everything.

The claim that large corporations already run everything is closer to being true than I wish it were, but it's not yet entirely true.  To work against Tester's re-election could very well bring about, indirectly, our worst national nightmare: the handing over of our country to the most greedy, immoral, and regressive among us.

If this happens, attacks will begin immediately against social security, Medicare, unemployment insurance (all of the New Deal legislation that has made life livable for most Americans).  Jobs will be sent overseas in greater numbers.  Schools will become Dickensian.

So I'll support Tester for re-election even though I despise his hippie-kicking and many of his votes.

---

by: Turner @ Wed Jan 05, 2011 at 17:55:16 PM UTC

Oops. (0.00 / 0)

I meant "repressive" not "regressive."

---

by: Turner @ Wed Jan 05, 2011 at 18:04:15 PM UTC

Turner (0.00 / 0)

Regressive works, too.

---

by: pete talbot @ Sat Jan 08, 2011 at 17:25:15 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

What should be done with this bill? (0.00 / 0)

Given the fact that there are many objectionable aspects included in Senator Tester's bill, and the fact that losing the Democratic majority in the U.S. Senate is also a foreboding prospect, it seems to me that every effort to modify the bill needs to be made.  It may be true that Senator Tester is merely being 'political', and hoping for approval of the 'center', but we who have concerns about the bill need to mount a movement to influence a change in his legislation.

Let's work together to protect our Montana Heritage.

---

by: Blacksandedd @ Wed Jan 05, 2011 at 20:39:14 PM UTC

Good luck with this, we'd certainly welcome any help (0.00 / 0)

"Given the fact that there are many objectionable aspects included in Senator Tester's bill...it seems to me that every effort to modify the bill needs to be made.  It may be true that Senator Tester is merely being 'political', and hoping for approval of the 'center', but we who have concerns about the bill need to mount a movement to influence a change in his legislation."

I appreciate your willingness, blacksandedd, to help in the effort to improve/modify the many objectionable aspects of the FJRA. For almost two years now, countless people from all different walks of life have been attempting to work directly with Senator Tester and his staff to improve the bill. For about 2 years prior to that, from about 2006 to 2008, many of these same folks tried to work with the "Beaverhead Partnership" (MWA, MT TU, NWF and some timber mill owners) to improve/modify their proposal, which still constitutes the majority (and major heartburn) of Tester's FJRA.

For example, Senator Tester and his staff have heard directly and repeatedly (via emails, phone calls, face-to-face meetings) from various constituents, including Montana small-business owners, scientists, educators and teachers, 5th generation Montanans, hikers and backpackers, hunters and anglers, wildlife viewers, Montana outfitters and guides, military veterans, retired Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management officials (including former district rangers and supervisors), former loggers and mill workers, health care practitioners, craftspersons, and community leaders who have concerns with various aspects of the bill. These folks have brought up very specific, substantive concerns based on their skills, knowledge and views of public lands management.

By and large, unless one agrees with the bill and with mandated logging, you and your very real, substantive concerns are ignored and your labeled an "extremest" by Tester or the "collaborators."  Just look what Senator Tester said in the Missoulian article yesterday about those who have substantive concerns with the bill: "extremists are extremists and I don't really care."

That pretty much neatly sums up the experience all kinds of different people have had in dealing with the concerning aspects of this bill. The simple fact is the such a wide cross-section of all different kinds of Montanans and Americans have expressed concerns and yet have experienced practically the same treatment from Senator Tester, his staff and the handful of "collaborators."

However, having said that, we certainly welcome everyone's help to try and modify and improve the many objectionable aspects of the FJRA. Blacksandedd, if you haven't already shared your substantive concerns with Senator Tester and his staff, I hope you do so. I'd be curious to learn about your specific experience.

You can email Senator Tester directly (remember, he claims to read all the email send to him via his website) here: http://tester.senate.gov/Contact/

Also, you may want to contact Tester's Missoula office and speak directly with his lead staffer for FJRA, Tracy Stone-Manning. The Senator's Missoula office phone number is (406) 728-3003.

Thanks and good luck!

---

by: Matthew Koehler @ Wed Jan 05, 2011 at 21:20:02 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

1988 might also inform Tester and his supporters. (0.00 / 0)

In 1988, Senator Melcher's bill passed the House and Senate, and was pocket-vetoed by President Reagan. Melcher was unusually pig-headed, pandered to the timber industry, and believed in the political calculus spun out by the same middle-of-the-roaders hugging the yellow stripe today.  Melcher refused to amend his bill, jammed through "hard release" (another form of mandated logging targets) language, and suffered a humiliating loss to Conrad Burns. We'll never know if it was Reagan's veto, or his unstatesmanlike conduct toward former base support that did him in. One thing is for sure, no Senator should volunteer to be "Melcherized" without carefully studying what happened, and learning from Melcher's mistakes. Deja vu has a way of sneaking up on people with extreme confidence, poor judgememt and no reverse.  

---

by: steve kelly @ Wed Jan 05, 2011 at 21:14:45 PM UTC

not to worry. (0.00 / 0)

i think tester can be reelected and i think the bill will fail. best of both worlds.  

---

by: problembear @ Wed Jan 05, 2011 at 23:43:21 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

i don't care either. jon. good luck in 2012. (0.00 / 0)

---

by: problembear @ Wed Jan 05, 2011 at 23:58:34 PM UTC