GAO: USFS Fuel Reduction Projects 98% Litigation-Free

by: Matthew Koehler

Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 09:03:20 AM MST

Report: Battling forest beetles may be counter-productive

by: Matthew Koehler

Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 08:18:07 AM MST

DENVER - Forest ecologists warned leaders today that plans to log beetle-killed trees in remote backcountry, instead of implementing fuel reduction efforts directly adjacent to communities, will not make people safe and will squander scarce tax dollars. 

A new scientific report released today suggests that bark beetle outbreaks will not lead to greater fire risk, and that tree thinning and logging is not likely to alleviate future large-scale epidemics of bark beetle. The report's findings apply to millions of acres of lodgepole pine and spruce-fir forests across North America. 

The report also indicates that tree cutting in designated roadless areas protected under the national 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule is not likely keep communities safe from wildfire, according to "Insects and Roadless Forests: A Scientific Review of Causes, Consequences and Management Alternatives." The report is based on years of field research and a comprehensive scientific literature review and is available online at http://nccsp.org.

Report authors also suggest that the limited funds available to mitigate fire risk for vulnerable communities would be most effective if used to create defensible space around homes, including using flame retardant building materials and removing brush and trees within several hundred feet of homes. 

Additionally, any building of temporary or permanent roads in roadless areas to combat beetle outbreaks could have substantial "short- and long-term ecological costs," the report's authors found. Those costs could include damage to wildlife and water, increased wildfire risk and the introduction of invasive species. 
 
The National Center for Conservation Science and Policy, an Ashland, Ore.,-based nonprofit organization, is releasing the report. Its authors include professors at Colorado State University in Fort Collins, Colo., and Clark University in Worcester, Mass., along with experts at the Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation in Portland, Ore., and the National Center for Conservation Science and Policy.

The report's release comes as the West continues to face the worst outbreak of beetles in centuries. In recent years, bark beetle outbreaks have killed millions of acres of lodgepole pines throughout the West with Colorado at the epicenter. 
 
"Drought and high temperature are likely the overriding factors behind the current bark beetle epidemic in the western United States," said Scott Hoffman Black, executive director of the Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation and lead author of the report. "Because logging and thinning cannot effectively alleviate the overriding effects of climate, it will do little or nothing to control these outbreaks."
 
Insect outbreaks and fires are a natural part of the ecology of western forests. And the report found no causal link between insect outbreaks and the incidence of wildfires. It also suggests that insect outbreaks in backcountry forests and roadless areas are unlikely to heighten fire risk in adjacent communities. 
 
"Fires in lodgepole pine and spruce-fir forests, such as those found in Colorado, are primarily determined by weather conditions," said Dominik Kulakowski, a professor of Geography and Biology at Clark University. "The best available science indicates that outbreaks of bark beetles in these forests have little or no effect on fire risk, and may actually reduce it in certain cases." 
 
The report also suggests, "tree-cutting is not likely to control ongoing bark beetle outbreaks." Nor will it be "likely to alleviate future large-scale epidemics," according to the report.

The report's findings come as Colorado officials move to finalize a plan to be considered by the U.S. Forest Service that would exempt the state from the 2001 national rule. The Colorado plan, while protecting some roadless areas, would allow new road construction and timber-cutting to battle beetles and to reduce fire-risk from insect infected trees.

Colorado is one of two states that has pursued a state-based approach to protect its roadless areas. That is an option the Bush administration created in the wake of its rollback of the 2001 roadless rule, which the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld last year. The Denver-based 10th Circuit Court of Appeals is currently reviewing a separate challenge of the 2001 rule. 

According to report authors, the 2001 national rule allows sufficient flexibility to protect roadless backcountry while allowing local land managers to address public health and safety concerns, including fire. 
 
"The science is clear. Unless preventive measures are aimed at creating defensible space around homes, the federal government will be shoveling taxpayer money down a black hole," said Dominick DellaSala, a report author and president and chief scientist for the National Center for Conservation Science and Policy. "Logging in the backcountry will do little to prevent insect infestations or reduce fire risks, and it will not solve Colorado's concerns over dying trees. 
 
"Colorado's pristine roadless areas are best protected for their clean water and unbridled fish and wildlife recreational opportunities," DellaSala said.

Is Wood Biomass Electric Generation Renewable and Carbon Neutral?

by: Matthew Koehler

Tue Mar 02, 2010 at 13:42:15 PM MST

---------

The development of renewable energy resources has become an increasingly important part of our nation's and states' current energy strategies. Most states have mandated that electric utilities obtain an increasing share of their electric supply from renewable sources. Federal and state governments have provided significant subsidies to those who develop new renewable energy resources, and energy firms are enthusiastically responding to those subsidies.

Former MWA Board and Council Members on Tester Logging Bill

by: Matthew Koehler

Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 07:19:06 AM MST

"It is with a heavy heart we are compelled to oppose the organization we once served as Council members and officers."

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
Loren Kreck (past vice-president) - Columbia Falls
Larry Campbell - Darby
Susan Colvin - Great Falls  
Paul Edwards - Helena
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

USFS Retiree on Tester Bill: Gutting the Forest Service is not the Solution

by: Matthew Koehler

Fri Feb 12, 2010 at 08:24:12 AM MST

Worf joined the Forest Service in 1950 and spent 12 years in Utah on the Uinta, Ashley and Fishlake National Forests. Mr. Worf then became the Supervisor of the Bridger National Forest in Wyoming.  When the Wilderness Act passed in 1964, Worf was sent to the Forest Service National Office to head the development of Regulations and Policy for implementation of the Wilderness Act.  In 1969, he was assigned to the Regional Office in Missoula as Director for Wilderness, Recreation and Lands, a position he retired from in 1981. He lives in Missoula. Click here for a short video featuring Worf. - mk

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

Gutting the Forest Service is not the Solution
By Bill Worf

I am a Montana native who graduated with a degree in Forestry from the University of Montana in 1950, when I started a career in the U.S. Forest Service.  When the Wilderness Act passed in 1964, I was serving as Supervisor of the Bridger National Forest in Wyoming.

Forest Service Chief Ed Cliff and Secretary of Agriculture Orville Freeman immediately tapped me to serve in the National Office to oversee implementation of the Wilderness Act.  I moved from Wyoming to Washington DC to administer the National Wilderness Preservation System established by the Act.  I served in that position until 1969, when  I was appointed Deputy Regional Forester for Wilderness, Recreation and Lands in Missoula, Mt.

Although I retired in 1983, I have remained involved in National Forest issues.  In this capacity, I have strong feelings about the Jobs and Recreation Bill (S 1470) introduced by Senator John Tester. I share the Senator's concern about growing fire and insect problems in our National Forests.  The Senator's heart may be in the right place, but his proposed solution would result in severe long-term damage to the Forest Service as an institution.

The Forest Service is one of the most respected agencies in government.  It contains the finest collection of natural resource professionals in the world.  I spent my professional career as a proud member.

With his logging bill, Tester is saying he knows more about how forests ought to be managed than professionals who work for the Forest Service.  Tester is telling us what to do and how to do it, even though what Tester wants may violate federal laws.  If Tester gets away with dictating forest management in Montana, every Senator and every Representative in Congress will try to do the same. Instead of being managed by one professional agency that considers all the views of public stakeholders from throughout the country, our National Forests would be managed by local interests primarily geared towards resource extraction.

By effectively dissolving the Forest Service, Tester would create 535 fiefdoms, all with different management mandates dictated by different members of Congress.  This would take away Americans' rights concerning our public lands.

What Tester may not know is that the National Forest System was established in 1897 by Congress.  Congress also established the Forest Service to administer these National Forests for the benefit of all Americans of present and future generations.  Subsequent laws provided additional guidance, including the Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960, the National Forest and Range Land Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974, and the National Forest Management Act of 1976.  Congress passed these laws to ensure our National Forests are administered in a planned and sustainable way - in perpetuity.

Because Tester is a Hi-Line farmer, I figured he may not know much about Forest Service history.  So, I attended an open house on Monday, October 26, 2009, concerning his logging bill.  I shared with the senator that  heavy corporate and political pressure had caused the violation of the 1960 Act mandating "Sustained Yield".  This unwise overcutting of our National Forests resulted in the closure of mills in Montana and elsewhere.

I followed up my conversation with Tester by sending him a detailed letter on Thursday, November 12, 2009.  I included a 20-page comprehensive  analysis of Forest Service reports which clearly shows the failure to maintain a "Sustained Yield" throughout the National Forest System.

I strongly disagree with Tester that the answer to overcutting in the past is to overcut in the future.  Congressionally mandating logging quotas and legislatively dictating management would convert our National Forest into "Private-Local Forests."  This is directly contrary to 113 years of precedence.  When Congress passed the Organic Act in 1897, lawmakers were assured that National Forests would remain open to the public and not restricted to private companies or privileged groups.

The Tester bill effectively says that a handful of local extractive interests have greater knowledge than the professionals of our Forest Service.  This dangerous precedent would be viewed with glee by special interest groups of all kinds!   For that reason, I must oppose the Tester bill.

Bill Worf served with the Forest Service for 33 years.  Worf reports he has not yet received any reply to the detailed analysis he sent Tester on November 12, 2009.

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

USFS Chief Emeritus: Tester bill "flawed, inappropriate, less than fully informed"

by: Matthew Koehler

Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 11:07:27 AM MST

Specifically, Mr. Thomas, stated that the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act "approach is flawed, inappropriate, less than fully informed, and has implications for the management of the entire national forest system. It should be debated in that context."

Mr. Thomas clearly expresses many of the same exact concerns about Sen. Tester's bill that have been expressed for months by members of the Last Best Place Wildlands Campaign.

At what point will Senator Tester, and supporters of his flawed logging bill, begin addressing these serious concerns?

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.

Dr. Power: Mandating Logging Will Not Stabilize Industry

by: Matthew Koehler

Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 08:41:57 AM MST

Senator Tester's "Forest Jobs and Recreation Act," which seeks to both boost timber harvests and add hundreds of thousands of acres of wilderness in Montana, had its first hearing before a congressional committee late last week. It was not surprising that Montana timber interests testified in favor of the bill.

What was interesting was that wilderness advocates from Montana and national environmental organizations were strongly divided over the merits of Tester's bill. Tester is attempting to "split the baby" and end the multi-decade paralysis that has both blocked any new wilderness protection for Montana's six million acres of unprotected wildlands and shrunk timber harvests on federal lands in Montana down to a small fraction of what they were two decades ago.

The Obama Administration, through the Undersecretary in charge of the U.S. Forest Service, weighed in on the side of the critics of Tester's bill, strongly recommending that key elements of the bill be modified.

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

# # #

Dr. Power: Two Views of the Tester Forest Jobs and Recreation Bill

by: Matthew Koehler

Tue Dec 08, 2009 at 13:03:33 PM MST

(Dr. Thomas Michael Power is the former Chair of the Economics Department at the University of Montana, where he currently serves as a Research Professor)

The controversy over Senator Tester's Forest Jobs and Recreation Bill is likely to get some national attention in a week or so as the bill receives its first hearing before the Senate Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests in the our nation's capitol. That bill has been called both Tester's "logging bill" as well as Tester's "wilderness bill."  Critics point out that the title of the bill mentions "forest jobs" but does not mention "wilderness" at all, leaving some suspicion as to what the main purpose of the bill is.

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.

Dr. Power: Key Assumptions behind Senator Tester's "Forest Jobs and Restoration Act"

by: Matthew Koehler

Tue Nov 24, 2009 at 10:26:17 AM MST

"What I want to do here is simply outline the conventional wisdom from which Senator Tester appears to be operating. That will sound familiar, and, to many, convincing, but those assumptions are, in fact, highly debatable.  In commentaries over the next two months, I will then seek to critically explore each of those assumptions ....As common and familiar as all of these underlying assumptions are, they are far from being factual assumptions. They are a mix of folk wisdom, economic nostalgia, wishful thinking, and barely disguised commercial and bureaucratic government special interests. Before jumping onboard with Tester's proposal, each has to be critically analyzed."
- Dr. Thomas Power

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!

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.

Senator Tester Betrays Montana Wilderness

by: Matthew Koehler

Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 09:39:00 AM MST

More than 70 years ago Aldo Leopold, one of the founders of modern ecological principles had the following to say about Wilderness:

"Wilderness is a resource which can shrink, but not grow. Invasions can be arrested or modified in a manner to keep an area useable for recreation, or for science, or for wildlife, but the creation of new wilderness in the full sense of the word is impossible. It follows, then, that any wilderness program is a rearguard action, through which retreats are reduced to a minimum...

Examine each question in terms of what is ethically and aesthetically right... A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise."

Unfortunately, these foundational ecological principles have either been forgotten or ignored by Senator Tester and those who support his ill-advised and destructive S. 1470, the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act of 2009. This dangerous anti-conservation measure is misguided both for the immediate damage it would do, and for the damaging precedents it would set for the future.

Specific Concerns & Comments:

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?