New Report Debunks Myth of "Catastrophic Wildfire"

by: Matthew Koehler

Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 09:08:18 AM MST

The report, "The Myth of Catastrophic Wildfire: A New Ecological Paradigm of Forest Health", is a comprehensive synthesis of the scientific evidence regarding wildland fire and its relationship to biodiversity and climate change in western U.S. forests.  It stands many previously held assumptions on their heads, including the assumptions that forest fires burn mostly at high intensity (where most trees are killed), and that fires are getting more intense, as well as the assumption that high-intensity fire areas are ecologically damaged or harmed.  The report finds that the scientific evidence contradicts these popular notions.

"We do not need to be afraid of the effects of wildland fire in our forests.  Fire is doing important and beneficial ecological work," said the report's author, Dr. Chad Hanson, a forest and fire ecologist who is the Director of the John Muir Project, as well as a researcher at the University of California at Davis.  "It may seem counterintuitive, but the scientific evidence is telling us that some of the very best and richest wildlife habitat in western U.S. forests occurs where fire kills most or all of the trees.  These areas are relatively rare on the landscape, and the many wildlife species that depend upon the habitat created by high-intensity fire are threatened by fire suppression and post-fire logging."

The report notes that hundreds of millions of dollars are being needlessly spent each year suppressing fires in remote forests and implementing widespread "forest thinning" logging projects.  This puts firefighters at unnecessary risk in remote wild areas, puts homes at greater risk by diverting scarce resources away from efforts to create defensible space around structures, and further threatens the many rare and imperiled wildlife species that depend upon post-fire habitat.

Specifically, the report finds:

• There is far less fire now in western U.S. forests than there was historically.

• Current fires are burning mostly at low intensities, and fires are not getting more intense, contrary to many assumptions about the effects of climate change.  Forested areas in which fire has been excluded for decades by fire suppression are also not burning more intensely.

• Contrary to popular assumptions, high-intensity fire (commonly mislabeled as "catastrophic wildfire") is a natural and necessary part of western U.S. forest ecosystems, and there is less high-intensity fire now than there was historically, due to fire suppression.

• Patches of high-intensity fire (where most or all trees are killed) support among the highest levels of wildlife diversity of any forest type in the western U.S., and many wildlife species depend upon such habitat.  Post-fire logging and ongoing fire suppression policies are threatening these species.

• Conifer forests naturally regenerate vigorously after high-intensity fire.

• Our forests are functioning as carbon sinks (net sequestration) where logging has been reduced or halted, and wildland fire helps maintain high productivity and carbon storage.

• Even large, intense fires consume less than 3% of the biomass in live trees, and carbon emissions from forest fires is only tiny fraction of the amount resulting from fossil fuel consumption (even these emissions are balanced by carbon uptake from forest growth and regeneration).

• "Thinning" operations for lumber or biofuels do not increase carbon storage but, rather, reduce it, and thinning designed to curb fires further threatens imperiled wildlife species that depend upon post-fire habitat.

• The only effective way to protect homes from wildland fire is to use non-combustible roofing and other materials, and reduce brush within 100-200 feet of structures.

Sen Tester: Request for Jobs Figures for FJRA

by: Matthew Koehler

Mon Feb 01, 2010 at 09:17:37 AM MST

Senator Tester:

I caught your guest column on the FJRA here:
http://missoulian.com/news/opi...

Are you aware that we're in the middle of the biggest economic crisis/recession that our country has seen in 70 years?

Are you aware, Senator Tester, that demand for lumber in America is down 55% and housing starts in America are down 70%? Do you know that because of the economic crisis, lumber mills in places like Main, North Carolina, New York, etc, - where nearly all the timberlands are privately owned - have also closed?

I ask these questions in all sincerity because your guest column here makes no mention of these profound economic realities facing the logging industry and our nation.

Rather, it seems obvious that in order to garner more support for your bill that you're willing to just blame the timber industry's tough times on national forest policy.

Doesn't this seem pretty disingenuous to you, especially considering the hard to ignore economic realities? I mean, seriously, how can you lament the timber industry's tough times with zero mention that lumber demand is down 55% and housing starts are down 70%? Are these not important factors?

Has anyone in your office figured out just how many jobs your logging bill will "create or save?" Seems like that figure should made public, especially if you are going around making these general/generic jobs claims.

Fact is, right now the Forest Service has more timber volume under contract in Montana and our region (300 million board feet) than at any point in the past decade.

That's right, while some people claim we need the FJRA because no logging is able to happen on Forest Service lands, the fact of the matter is that right now the logging industry has enough national forest timber volume under contract to fill 60,000 log trucks lined up end-to-end for 500 miles. All this national forest timber (already under contract to logging outfits) could be logged today or tomorrow or next week.

But with little demand for lumber, the logging companies aren't cutting much of what they already have under contract.

Given this reality Senator Tester, just how will mandating even more logging help? Please honestly answer these questions Senator Tester.

Thanks.
 
Sincerely,
Matthew Koehler
WildWest Institute
Missoula, MT

Dr. Power: Important Questions about Cutting Down Forests for Biomass Energy

by: Matthew Koehler

Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 08:36:26 AM MST

----------

In the trauma associated with the closing of the Missoula paper mill, business and political leaders have been frantically searching for a way to put that industrial mill site back into production, replacing at least some of the lost jobs. One possibility that many have suggested is to use the site for a large wood-fired electric generating facility. The idea is to use the same wood fiber that the mill had been converting into paper as biomass fuel to generate electricity. This would keep loggers busy in the woods and some of the same skilled blue collar workers busy at the mill site firing and tending high pressure boilers and associated machinery.

This is not at all far fetched. The paper mill has been generating electricity for a long time, providing for its own electric needs, providing heat needed in the paper-making process, as well as selling a lot of electricity into the grid. The total electric production has been relatively modest, 17.5 megawatts, only about one percent of NorthWestern Energy's peak demand. Those enthusiastic about this possibility envision a much larger electric generating operation that would burn a lot more wood.

NorthWestern Energy has indicated an interest in exploring that possibility but has pointed out that the U.S. Forest Service would have to allow a lot more logging in federal forests to fuel such expanded electric generation. That does not worry advocates since they see the beetle-killed trees in many of Montana's forests as an obvious source of supply. In fact, before the closure of the Missoula paper mill, there was already a buzz within the forest products industry about using forest biomass, that is, trees, to fuel electric generation. That idea is actually built into Senator Tester's proposed Forest Jobs and Recreation Act and has also been promoted by Governor Schweitzer.

Before getting too enthusiastic about putting a large wood-fired electric generator in the Missoula Valley, there are a lot of problems to puzzle through.

First, wood-fired generation tends to produce considerable air pollution because the wood has less heat value than coal and the conversion of the intrinsic heat value of the wood to electricity is less efficient than when using coal. The complex mix of organic compounds in the wood produces a complex mix of pollutants. Missoula has been struggling to clean up its air for a long time. Assumedly we want be careful not to slide backwards in that.

Second, wood-fired generation is expensive because of the large volume of low-energy wood that has to be hauled considerable distances to the electric generation site. The further it is hauled, the more costly that fuel becomes and the more it embodies diesel fuel rather than biomass. Such electric generation is often economic at lumber and paper mills because waste wood that had already been hauled to the mill or waste materials such as the black liquor produced by paper mills can be used as the fuel. In addition, the waste heat from the electric generation can be used to dry the lumber and paper. Large stand-alone wood-fired electric generators often are very high cost sources of electricity that are used only when no cheaper source is available. Avista Utilities' Kettle Falls wood-fired generator in eastern Washington is a good example. Wood-fired generation often is not economic. That is especially true if there are no government subsidies available.

Third, for a half-century or more to come, the impact of burning trees to generate electricity means increasing the release of carbon into the atmosphere. While it is true that if new forests grow up to replace the burned trees, carbon will slowly be removed from the atmosphere, in Montana's slow growing forests, that will take many, many decades. Meanwhile we will be making the greenhouse gas problem worse, not better.

Fourth, as NorthWestern Energy has pointed out, this could require a substantial increase in logging on public lands. Logging and the roads required to support it have significant impacts on water quality, soil erosion, and wildlife. This fundamental fact has been recently obscured by the increasingly shrill claims that our forests are in desperate need a lot more logging to make them "healthy," to fight bark beetle infestations, and to reduce wildfire danger that threatens our homes and our towns.

These scary stories of what will happen if we do not log our forests are largely based on "rural myth," supported by timber interests, and built around the fantasy of natural forests as a open, park-like areas, full of very large, towering trees. In comparison, our contemporary forests are degenerative dense thickets of relatively thin trees that, we are told, are the result of some combination of the failure to log and thin the forests or misguided fire suppression. For most of our forests, this simply is not true.

It is far cheaper to protect our homes and communities by managing the vegetation within a few dozen feet of our homes and by maintaining our homes so as to reduce the likelihood of fire ignition. That is much less costly and much more likely to work that trying to fire-proof millions of acres of forestland.

As important, all of those trees out there, whether healthy, dying, or dead, are not, in and of themselves, dangerous fuels. Recall all the pictures you have seen of forests that have burned. Those lands are characterized by the standing trunks of the trees. In addition, all of the trees do not burn. Wildfires create a mosaic of heavily burned, lightly burned, and unburned lands that lay the basis for natural regeneration of our forests. Fires and insects may kill a lot of trees, but they do not kill forests. If they did, we would not have the forests that surround us now.

We need to look carefully and critically at any proposal to turn our forests into wood mines for electric generation and our river valleys into sewers into which to dump large quantities of air pollution. Maybe the problems can be worked out; maybe not. Whatever we do, we should not simply assume that wood-fired generation is "green." That would be the worst sort of "green-washing."

Tester Bill Comments from Members of Last Best Place Wildlands Campaign

by: Matthew Koehler

Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 10:15:30 AM MST

The Last Best Place Wildlands Campaign is a coalition of conservation organizations and citizens dedicated to wildlands protection, forest restoration and the sound long-term management of America's public lands legacy.   Our coalition includes 4th and 5th generation Montanans, hikers and backpackers, hunters and anglers,  wildlife viewers, outfitters and guides, veterans, retired Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management  officials, small-business owners, scientists, educators, craftspersons, and community leaders.

Keeping It Wild! In Defense of America's Public Wildlands

by: Matthew Koehler

Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 10:32:23 AM MST

And, that once degraded or impaired, this wild country can never be restored or replaced;

And, cognizant of Thoreau's belief that "In wildness is the preservation of the world;"

And, schooled by Aldo Leopold who long ago warned that wilderness can only shrink and not grow;

And, keenly aware of the definition of wilderness in the Wilderness Act of 1964 as being "untrammeled by man," where "man himself is a visitor who does not remain;"

And, fully recognizing that the Northern Rockies ecosystem is the only functioning ecosystem in the lower 48 states where all native species still reside;

And, being of one mind in our desire and determination to protect and preserve what remains of our public wildlands to the greatest extent possible;

We hereby state our intention to work together to achieve the most inclusive and comprehensive protection under the law for all remaining publicly-owned de facto wilderness in Montana.

In full affirmation of the above and, after having been unsuccessful in our earnest efforts to improve Sen. Tester's so-called "Forest Jobs and Recreation Act," or "S. 1470," we must now unanimously oppose this bill.

The bases for our opposition are exhaustively catalogued in separate analyses and papers, but we submit this foundational document to concisely articulate our chief objections.  They are as follows:

[JS: below the fold...]

Coalition Launches New Website: Clear Look at Sen. Tester's Forest Jobs and Recreation Act

by: Matthew Koehler

Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 11:15:45 AM MST

MISSOULA, MT - Today, a coalition of conservation organizations and citizens dedicated to wildlands protection, Wilderness preservation, and the sound long-term management of our federal public lands legacy, launched a new website dedicated to a detailed examination of Senator Jon Tester's S. 1470, the "Forest Jobs and Recreation Act."

The growing coalition includes conservation groups from Montana and throughout the country, as well as citizens who are small-business owners, scientists, educators and teachers, health care practitioners, hikers and backpackers, hunters and anglers, wildlife viewers, outfitters and guides, veterans, retired Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management officials, ranchers and farmers, craftspersons, and community leaders  - all stakeholders committed to America's public wildlands legacy.

At http://testerloggingbilltruths.wordpress.com you will find:

* Detailed, Line-By-Line Analysis of S. 1470
* Keeping it Wild! In Defense of America's Public Wildlands
* Contact info for citizens to send testimony to the US Senate's Natural Resources Committee, which will be holding a Dec 17th hearing on S. 1470.
* A citizen petition
* Commentary and perspective on S.1470 from experts

# # #

By the Numbers: Tester's Mandated Logging vs. Historical Logging

by: Matthew Koehler

Mon Dec 07, 2009 at 11:52:50 AM MST

The info will clearly demonstrate how Sen. Tester's S.1470, which would Congressionally mandate a minimum of 7,000 acres of logging per year for ten years on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest, would compare with historical logging on these same forests.

All of the following information was obtained directly from the US Forest Service (pdf). Details below the fold.

Protecting America's Public Lands a National Concern

by: Matthew Koehler

Mon Nov 23, 2009 at 11:45:49 AM MST

Protecting America's Public Lands a National Concern!
By Keith Hammer, Swan View Coalition

We can take much inspiration from Ken Burns' film "The National Parks: America's Best Idea" and readily extend its premise to the remainder of America's public lands. Key take-home messages in Burns' film are that threats to America's wildlands never cease and that their protection is brought about through national concern and legislation, often over the objections of local politicians.

Indeed, as elk and bison were being slaughtered by commercial hunting in the West in the late 1800s, it was not the new states of Montana and Wyoming that put an end to it. It was Representative John Lacey of Iowa who prohibited the interstate transport of illegally killed wildlife when his "Lacey Act" was signed into law by President William McKinley in 1900.

Montana Senator Thomas Long objected to what is now Glacier National Park being designated a Forest Preserve in 1900, followed by the Kalispell Chamber of Commerce objecting to its designation as a National Park in 1910. Thank goodness for the persistence of Americans George Bird Grinnell and others, who had the foresight to see that the area needed better protection than that afforded the Forest Preserves (later known as National Forests) and convinced President Taft to designate Glacier as America's 10th National Park!

Today, local communities thrive on tourists visiting Glacier National Park and the families and businesses choosing to locate near it! More recently, the town of Seward, Alaska was so dead-set against the designation of Kenai Fjords National Park that it passed two resolutions denouncing the idea. After the Park was designated in 1980 and Seward began to reap the rewards, however, it rescinded its previous resolutions and asked that the Park be expanded! President Carter, once burned in effigy in Alaska for his conservation initiatives there, nonetheless tripled the size of Denali National Park and designated most of it Wilderness for added protection.

For these reasons and more, we helped write and support the Northern Rockies Ecosystem Protection Act knowing it may not initially garner support from Congressional delegations in Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, Washington, and Oregon. It builds upon President Clinton's - and now Obama's - intention to protect roadless lands from development, sequestering carbon in roadless forests also serving as wildlife migration corridors. It also creates high-paying jobs restoring watersheds through road reclamation .

In contrast, Senator Tester's (D-MT) wildlands logging bill (Links: here, here and here) would set dangerous precedent by mandating logging levels on two National Forests and subsidizing the burning of public forests as "biomass." It would also release from protection numerous roadless lands and Wilderness Study Areas granted protection by the far-sighted Senator Lee Metcalf in 1977!

Sen Tester and His Logging Bill "Rack"-Up Major Endorsement...or Not

by: Matthew Koehler

Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 10:51:26 AM MST

Senator Tester and his mandated logging bill have "racked" up a major and important endorsement from the fine folks at  "Outdoor Life," who have named Senator Tester part of "The Outdoor Life 25."

These are the same "Outdoor Life" folks that bring you:

"Rack Girls 2009"

"Fish N Chix 2010"

"Shed Hunting Babes"

Yep, those "Outdoor Life" folks are all about big rack collaboration. Clearly their support of Senator Tester's logging bill means something...but what that is isn't exactly clear.

Just read the entire "Outdoor Life" entry about Senator Tester and his logging bill and it's very clear that "Outdoor Life" has a better handle on big racks than they do on public lands and wilderness policy.

From Outdoor Life:

"For more than 25 years, some 600,000 acres of Montana backcountry have been lost in bureaucratic limbo, legal leftovers from pitched battles between wilderness zealots and timber barons. Described on maps as "wilderness study areas," these alpine peaks, timbered slopes and foothills grasslands have been off-limits to logging and mining, but have also been a sort of no-man's land for hunters, anglers and landscape preservationists [Totally not true as every single Wilderness Study Area is currently open to hunting and fishing. - MK]

Are "study areas" open to resource development, or are they locked up in wilderness? Every Montana politician for a generation has tried to untangle the land-use stalemate before being cowed by one interest group or another. Now, thanks to a U.S. senator with a flat-top haircut and a butcher's build, hunters will be able to access these lands, watersheds will be preserved and unemployed loggers and mill workers will go back to work. Jon Tester crafted his landmark "Forest Jobs and Recreation Act" to preserve the majority of land as wilderness, but require sustainable timber harvest on much of the rest.

There's something for everyone, but not enough for a single group to claim victory. The collaborative agreement is being eyed by conservationists across the nation as a model for resolving similarly intractable issues." [Not true...but it sure sounds nice!  Fact is "conservationists across the nation" are pretty much in agreement about their opposition to Senator Tester's Mandated Logging Bill and the sloppy, bad-precedent-setting Wilderness language contained in the bill. - MK]

Strategic Weaknesses of Sen. Tester's Wildlands Logging Bill

by: Matthew Koehler

Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 09:56:34 AM MST

http://cleangreensustainable.w...

The perspective is from Paul Richards, a Boulder, Montana area businessman and a former member of the Montana House of Representatives and of the Deerlodge National Forest's Technical Advisory Committee.  In 2006, he was a candidate for the U.S. Senate.

Put Bluntly and Country, Tester's Logging Bill is a Dog that Won't Hunt

by: Matthew Koehler

Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 12:23:17 PM MST

However, since Edwards is willing to stand up for Wilderness, public lands, sane economic policy and open and transparent public processes, he's more likely to be labeled an extremist by supporters of Tester's Logging Bill. Go figure...

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

Tester Forest Jobs, Recreation Act is a dog that won't hunt
By PAUL EDWARDS

Well, finally ... Sen. Tester and a few strange bedfellows have floated a logging bill that everyone who works, has worked, or hopes to work, for one of four struggling lumber mills or one bankrupt cardboard box maker can wholeheartedly endorse.

Letters to the papers from such folks, including owners and employees of the mills and their "environmental partners," express boundless joy we've all agreed to this federal welfare proposal to bail them out before they perish by the Invisible Hand of the Market.

You know, The Hand that regulates commerce in our American Free Market system and separates businesses that can compete from those can't and will fail. That's private enterprise: Some got to win, some got to lose. Tough noogies - the Hand has no pity.

But our big-hearted feds do. Because even though the Greenspans, Bernankes and Geithners who manipulate our money are sworn hardcore believers in free market capitalism, they think some outfits - doggone it - are ... well, to big to fail.

Evidently, Tester feels the same about these mills. It's not that they're too big, though; it's that they're too important to Montana, so he has to bail 'em out with our money. Like the feds did AIG and Goldman Sachs, B of A and Chase, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It's the new thing in Free Market Economics: The Invisible Hand's been replaced by The Visible Handout. That's what Tester's Logging Welfare Bill is all about.

What makes these mills so important? Will a bailout create thousands of jobs, pump millions into our economy?

Well, no, its effect would be negligible even in boom times and lumber demand is down 55 percent with prices at modern historic lows. So what, then? Why is Tester pushing this deal?

It's symbolism. There's this weird perception rooted deep in our mythology that because extractive industries like mining and logging were once drivers of our economy that they still are; or ought to be; or will be again. The reality is that they can't hack it in the world market even with the huge subsidies the U. S. industrial welfare program hands them.

But let's say it was worth giving them a fat pork-barrel deal. What will it look like?

At an estimated taxpayer hit of $100 million from Forest Service losses on these below-cost sales, they get a mandated cut of 100,000 acres over 10 years: 30K in the brutally overcut Yaak and a staggering70K in the bone-dry Beaverhead/Deer Lodge where the Forest Service never allowed more than 2,800 acres cut, even in boom lumbering years.

In addition, more than 1 million acres of inventoried roadless wildland, including most of several of Lee Metcalf's Wilderness Study Areas, will lose their protection and be opened to "management."

And what's the payoff for us Americans who own the forests for keeping these icons of yesteryear on life support? 600,000 acres of rocks and ice wilderness in scattered, widely separated patches with no connectivity, including one tiny island in the hammered Yaak.

For outdoor folks, hunters, anglers, horsemen and seekers after peace and solitude, any wilderness is good wilderness, and after decades without any preservation of Montana wildlands - as fine and whole as any left anywhere - the yearning for it that all of us feel who love and use the outdoors without smog-machines is tremendous.

That said, this bill is a visionless, wholly inadequate wildlands proposal - a fact made obvious by the absence of the word wilderness in its title - that simply gives away far too much to protect far too little. It shows very clearly how little regard Tester and Max Come-Lately have for our irreplaceable wilderness, in spite of phony chin music.

This plan - secretly concocted by its "partners" - is not only a terrible wilderness bill (which it unquestionably is) it's also a terrible logging bill for everyone but the little mill owners. Since they don't represent 1 percent of Montana's working people, you have to wonder how such a sorry, deformed, ugly hash could ever have been sold to Tester.

It will be interesting to watch it in Congress. Word is the "partners" think they have the skids greased. Maybe so, but they may find that in the big federal meat grinder this particular batch of raw pork will be judged too gamy to make acceptable sausage.

Over half a century ago the wise and visionary Aldo Leopold, speaking of a public Land Ethic, said, "A thing is right when it preserves the integrity, beauty and stability of the biotic community. It is wrong when it does otherwise." No one has ever said it better.

There is just no way to craft a national welfare bill for a few small, desperate lumber mills at the price of so much irreplaceable wild country and sell it to Congress as a grand boon to Montana and America. To put it bluntly and country, Tester's dog won't hunt.

Missoulian: Recession rattles timber industry to its core

by: Matthew Koehler

Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 08:27:03 AM MST

Here are some quick snips (emphasis mine):

"The Western Wood Products Association estimates that 45 percent of all lumber goes to new home construction. But new home starts have been more than halved since reaching a high of more than 2 million in 2005. Since that year, the nation's demand for lumber has dropped 55 percent, the steepest decline in industry history"...

"National demand for lumber, which pegged 64.3 billion board feet in 2005, is predicted to fall below 30 billion board feet this year, with the amount of lumber used to build new homes dropping from 28 billion board feet to about 5 billion board feet. Making matters worse is the fact that log prices have not fallen at the same rate, meaning mills are paying more for raw materials while selling product for less."

It's interesting to note that all the economic reality contained in this article has been systematically ignored by Senator Jon Tester, his staff and those three or four conservation groups who actually support Tester's Mandated Logging Bill.

Just imagine, after decades and decades of over-consumption and over-development (which have caused a host of environmental and social problems in our country) we've come to a point in the public lands forest/wilderness movement where groups such as Montana Wilderness Association, National Wildlife Federation and Montana Trout Unlimited are actually looking to use their political connections to mandate more logging on public lands, despite the steepest decline in demand for lumber in our nation's history.

With demand for lumber, excess packaging and disposable paper products (thankfully) in such a steep decline (and not expected to rebound anytime soon) wouldn't sensible conservationists and progressives, if anything, advocate for less public lands logging at this very important point in our nation's history?

Tester's Logging Bill "Picking Up Steam?"

by: Matthew Koehler

Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 09:04:24 AM MST

Really?   See http://missoulanews.bigskypres... and http://www.hcn.org/issues/41.1... and http://www.newwest.net/topic/a... and http://www.newwest.net/topic/a... .

Apparently, because .1% of Montanans have signed up as "citizen cosponsors" of Tester's Logging Bill that constitutes the bill really "picking up steam?"

Of course, one can safely assume that most of those 1,000 "citizen cosponsors" are associated in some way with the "Beaverhead Partners," (ie MT Wilderness Association, MT Trout Unlimited, National Wildfire Federation and five timber mills) who back in the winter of 2006 started a self-selective, exclusive process producing what now forms the meat of Tester's mandated logging bill.

Oh, and it's worth point out that Tester's bill, which was introduced in the Senate last July, currently has a whopping total of zero congressional co-sponsors.

Yep, it's sure "picking up steam."  Apparently members of Congress, especially the Dems in control of both houses, aren't real keen on the idea of Congress mandating logging...or for the first time ever allowing military aircraft to land in Wilderness areas...or undoing the legacy of Montana Sen. Metcalf by releasing previously protected Wilderness Study Areas.

Also, this statement from Senator Tester is worth a closer look:

"Folks in Montana understand that our forest communities are in crisis, and the old ways of making decisions about our forests have failed," Tester said.  "This bill is a made-in-Montana plan.  It's a new way of moving forward to protect our communities from wildfire, put folks back to work in the woods, and preserve our hunting and fishing heritage for our kids and grandkids."

Well Senator Tester, at least the "old way of making decisions" was open and inclusive and certainly didn't purposefully exclude interested citizens or organizations, as the Beaverhead Partnership and the Blackfoot-Clearwater proposal certainly did.

At one point - not that long ago - the entire forest and wilderness movement would have rallied around these concepts of openness, inclusiveness and transparency. What's happened?

Also, if Senator Tester really wants to "put folks back to work in the woods" (anyone else sick of cheap cliche from politicians?) he should look at the Bitterroot National Forest, which sits right next to Beaverhead-Deerlodge.

Right now the Bitterroot National Forest has over 20,000 acres of logging/fuel reduction/thinning projects ready for implementation through the "old way of making decisions" coupled with an open and inclusive collaborative process.

And look, we didn't even need a law mandating the logging! But, of course, the timber industry isn't much interested in these projects because there is very little demand for lumber...something else which Tester's approach completely ignores. I guess it's more politically safe to just say, "Let's put folks back to work in the woods!"

The Wilderness Bill, revisited

by: Jay Stevens

Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 14:07:44 PM MST

(Check out his response to Rick Bass' claim that the bill process wasn't secretive; how money generated from "stewardship logging" won't help restoration, as put forth by the bill (more); blaming the decline in the wood products market for the poorly performing timber industry, not a lack of wood to cut; and an excellent comment how to battle the bark beetle infestation - which has left plenty of wood laying around for timber companies to harvest, by the way.)

The only defense of the bill I've seen - other than from Tester's office - was from Rick Bass, which essentially calls out "that we represent ourselves honestly and discuss the facts of the proposed legislation, rather than manufacturing untruths to suit political purposes." Fair enough, and I'm willing to listen to the rebuttal of bill proponents over specific points in the bill - but I haven't seen any yet, not even in Bass' op-ed, which neglects to mention the giveaway of wilderness study areas to logging, and certainly not in Tester's press releases, which are as vague as you'd expect from a Senator's office.

I'd love to hear from, say, Trout Unlimited, as to how the bill was formed, and why they essentially put their name on a bill with so many apparent flaws.

Anyway...more links on the bill. First, a report from Testa on the process of writing the bill:

The bill is centered on three areas in Western Montana: the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest, the Three Rivers District of the Kootenai National Forest and the Seeley Lake District of the Lolo National Forest. The bill draws heavily on the community partnerships and tentative land use proposals already formed by communities in and around these forests, negotiations and debates that have been going on for years - that's part of the reason Tester is able to argue that the writing of his bill was a highly collaborative process, despite the secrecy by him and his staff in the weeks preceding its introduction.

"We pretty much took their recommendations and we tweaked them a bit and we moved forward," Tester said.

Fair enough. And the bill does feel like it encapsulates every player. Maybe throwing everything into the pot is a good way to make a stew, but it may not be the best way to preserve wilderness.

And then, of course, there's Jesse Froehling's front-page story about the bill in the Missoula Independent, which I egregiously overlooked when compiling the bill's links in an earlier post and which is includes some excellent comments on the bill from a variety of sources.

And then there's Daniel Person's report that appeared in the Bozeman Chronicle, which highlights the bill's support of the state's ailing timber industry.

And here's Paul Richards' op-ed in New West, in which he savages the bill and claims it negates the promise Tester made Richards on the eve of the primary election, causing Richards to drop out of the election and endorse the Big Sandy farmer.