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!

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.

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?

Another Open House on the Forest Bill Tomorrow

by: Matt Singer

Sun Sep 27, 2009 at 21:11:05 PM MST

DATE/TIME: Monday, September 28, from 9:30-11 a.m.
LOCATION: 3rd Floor Community Room of the Gallatin County Courthouse
311 West Main Street, Bozeman

This is all part of a complicated strategy to ram the bill down people's throats in a smoky backroom while pretending to have an open process where they go out and take feedback from thousands of Montanans. Or something.

I'm not really sure what the conspiracy theory will be here. Notably, these meetings are coming before a hearing has been called on the bill, more evidence that this bill ain't exactly being rammed through Congress (anyone following the health care debate will actually note the Democrats' unwillingness to ram anything through Congress).

Anyways, go check out the open house, offer feedback, etc.

Worth noting as well, although on places like Left in the West, you'll note that the there's a lot of criticism of this bill from the left, the loudest voices against it are particularly anti-wilderness voices. If this bill dies, the CW in Montana will remain that wilderness is not politically defensible and no more wilderness will be protected.

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!"

A rhetorical question...

by: Jay Stevens

Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 17:54:03 PM MST

Helena's city commission met last week to earnestly discuss something that three years ago would have been a sacrilege: logging Mount Helena city park.

The mountain park, as iconic to the capital as the Rims are to Billings or the "M" to Missoula, is now streaked with ribbons of dead, red pine trees, the victims of a fast-moving epidemic of pine bark beetles that is visible from every house in town.

Helena and Butte are in the epicenter of the infestation, but the tiny killers have also been found in the Beartooth Mountains and other Montana and Wyoming forests. The dead trees they leave behind have changed more than the landscape, say loggers, mill operators and politicians. They've changed the way people think about cutting down trees.

Question: given the epidemic is a result of climate change, why isn't the bark beetle epidemic reshaping the debate on global warming legislation?  

Tester's wilderness bill links...

by: Jay Stevens

Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 09:27:07 AM MST

Such as Ralph Maughan: "In recent years, however, areas have been proposed for Wilderness designation where livestock effects are seen and felt on almost every acre. Yes, these areas are roadless, with little previous logging activity, and no permanent structures, but to call them places where the effects of humans are not lasting or very evident is a bad joke.

"This bill continues in this bad tradition and grandfathers this use."

Read Bill Schneider's latest on the bill: "Tester's Wilderness Bill, the Sweet and the Sour." Here's the lede: "Based on past commentaries and concerns with Beaverhead-Deerlodge Partnership draft legislation, I suspect many readers expect me to oppose Senator Tester's Forest Jobs and Restoration Act of 2009. And I might, but not now. Instead, I've decided to keep my powder dry and reserve judgment until I see how the bill fares in the legislative process and what amendments win approval.

"Right now, I definitely see it as a sweet-and-sour pill for Montana, the main reason for my indecisiveness. To summarize, here are a few things I like--and don't like--about what could become Montana's first wilderness bill in 26 years."

Among the "sour" aspects of the bill Schneider opines that 668,000 acres of Wilderness area is "not enough," suggesting enlarging of some of the suggested areas and inclusion of others. Also, Schneider's "game changer" is release of the most of the "fabulous" West Pioneers Wilderness Study Area, that "should definitely not be tolerated, and I really have a hard time believing Congress would undo the great work of legendary Montana senators Lee Metcalf and Mike Mansfield who fought hard for S.393, nor can I believe our leading green groups or Senator Tester can even suggest this without choking on their own words."

Ochenski: "The challenge for Tester and the bill's supporters is to build a groundswell of support, but the veil of secrecy surrounding the measure, which was only lifted last Friday, has not worked in their favor. Already a number of wilderness advocates have panned the measure, and they're joined by motorized recreationists and county commissioners from the affected areas who are unhappy about any number of the bill's provisions.

"Wilderness advocates, for instance, see the de-designation of 12 Wilderness Study Areas as un-doing the work of Montana's late Sen. Lee Metcalf, who has a wilderness area named after him to honor his dedication and accomplishments. Metcalf's legislation from the late '70s requires those areas to be managed to preserve their wilderness characteristics. But Tester's bill, while designating new wilderness, will remove that protection and open the areas to logging, motorized use and development.

"But wilderness was seldom mentioned at the press conference. Instead, Tester and most of the speakers focused on its utility to the logging industry, which Tester says is 'in crisis.' Under the provisions of the bill, the U.S. Forest Service is mandated to log nearly 100,000 acres of forest over the next 10 years. The key word here is 'mandated.' The Beaverhead-Deerlodge portion of the bill, for instance, says 7,000 acres a year must be harvested from the forest as part of 'landscape scale' forest treatments. Theoretically, the revenue generated from the sale of those logs will be reinvested in the forest to improve and maintain fisheries, fix trails, remove culverts and stabilize or remove roads.

"But therein lies the rub.

"As Tester admitted at the press conference, 'If nobody wants to bid on these, we are in trouble.' The trouble, however, is already here. Much of Montana is now covered with dead and dying forests due to drought, warmer winters and longer, hotter summers that have spawned an exponential explosion of bark beetles. Wood supply isn't the problem-it's the lack of demand for wood products. With the most severe economic recession in 60 years and the concurrent collapse of the housing market, there is simply no demand for the lumber, no matter how many acres are mandated to be cut. And without a market, there will be no revenues for the restoration work the 'stewardship' logging is supposed to generate. When questioned by a reporter about what would happen if the market didn't turn up, Tester simply replied: 'It's gotta happen.'"

Rick Bass: "One accusation is the bill has been assembled in secret. This is laughable, given how participants have promoted their community projects, posted websites with proposed drafts of the bill, mailed out brochures, invited comment for years, held open community meetings, asked for input and drove to meet in person the very people who are now claiming falsely to have been excluded. I personally have rolled out the maps and explained the proposal to many of the new critics feigning ignorance.

"But as Mark Twain said, a lie goes around the world before the truth gets its shoes on.

"On one side, critics say the bill is a Trojan horse by the timber industry, brought in by environmentalists co-opted by the mills. On the other side, critics say the bill is a Trojan horse by environmentalists to destroy the last of our desperate timber mills. I can assure you that there is nothing so cynical or manipulative going on here. It's really much simpler: Montanans who know the contours of their forests quite well are putting the past behind them, and seeking solutions.

"As an environmentalist, I am deeply troubled by these and other false claims that the bill is comprised of anything but integrity. It's a small bill, true, but a new start-and again, the fact that Tester is willing to devote time and resources to developing a solution for conflicts in Montana, when so much else of the world is in such worse shape, humbles those of us who have been involved in the process since day one."

New West publisher Jonathan Weber explains in The Atlantic that Tester's wilderness bill represents "carefully structured processes" of small Mountain West communities "by which people on all sides of the debate can meet and negotiate for what's really critical to them, rather than shout at each other in the service of an absolutist agenda. When you do that, you can start to bring politicians of both parties along. And sometimes, you can then actually get something done."

On Western environmentalists: "On the other side are traditional environmentalists. They argue, with some justification, that what's at issue are the last scraps of Western wilderness, and that it's nothing less than a betrayal of future generations to sacrifice them for short-term economic gain. Once the old-growth trees and the extensive wildlife habitat they provide are gone, they're gone forever. And why should a handful of loggers and ranchers be allowed to dictate policy on millions of acres of land which they don't own but rather are allowed to use courtesy of all Americans?

"Yet the old-school greens too often refuse to recognize even legitimate objections to their agenda. Since they have little political support, they rely on court actions - and especially suing the federal agencies - as their primary strategy. This does not exactly help them in the court of public opinion."

More: "Many environmental groups, such as the Alliance for the Wild Rockies, consider these efforts a sell-out, dismissing the new wilderness areas as mere 'rock-and-ice' that's no good for other uses anyway. They are furious at organizations like the National Wildlife Federation, Trout Unlimited, and the Montana Wilderness Association for supporting the compromises. They're now furious at Tester, too, noting, probably correctly, that it was environmentalists and not loggers who helped get him elected. The bill's fate in Congress is by no means assured, partly because of opposition from the left.

"Personally, I find Tester's legislation a little light on wilderness protection and little heavy on job-preserving mechanisms that preserve very few jobs. Frankly, I'd probably vote for NREPA if I ever had the chance.

"But I do respect the process that produced these compromises - highly time-consuming, good-faith efforts by many people over a long period of time. I'm hoping the final bill may yet tilt a little more toward my personal priorities, but that's not really the point."

Seeing the Forest for the Trees: Tester's Jobs and Recreation Act

by: Matt Singer

Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 15:10:11 PM MST

To some extent, I don't know a ton to say about this bill other than that I trust the process.

Q: What was the process here?
A: A dedicated stakeholder process lasting years.

The individuals critical of this process so far tend to complain about big, important groups being included and smaller ones being excluded. In other words, the process has been one inclusive of politically relevant organizations with some ability to help pass or block legislation. And, unlike some of my friends, I'm not inclined to think that Montana Wilderness Association, Trout Unlimited, and National Wildlife Federation really have it in for wilderness. I think the opposite, actually, knowing a number of their staff and board members, who have always struck me as committed to the cause.

It is nearly banal to say that the recent history of public land politics in the West in general and in Montana in particular has been one of divisiveness and intransigence. In recent decades, this crucible has given rise to a new approach to these issues: stakeholder negotiations, attempts at deep rather than representative or direct democracy. Stakeholder processes are almost inevitably fraught with difficulties: who decides whom to invite, who facilitates, and who ensures that the sum of the narrow interests adds up to something approximating the public good?

At the end of the day, saying that a U.S. Senator should facilitate the process, decide whom to invite, and work to craft something good for the whole state is a pretty good argument since that Senator is ultimately politically accountable in the best way any of us know.

A process that involves wilderness advocates, motorized users, and logging mills is a good one to me.

And to George Ochenski, whose column this week maintains that Jon Tester didn't get support in his election from people who work in the woods or enjoy ATV or other motorized uses, I've got two responses:

1. Politics has to be about more than "dancing with the one who brung you."
2. I'll point to my friends at the Montana AFL-CIO. Working people of this state, including mill workers and loggers, definitely did support Jon Tester. And a whole lot of those folks comprise everything from backcountry quiet recreators to the people who ride the damn noisy snowmobiles that I personally, like many others, can't stand.

Lots of folks, inevitably, see a stakeholder process that doesn't include them as an illegitimate one, but the important thing to keep in mind here is that while we've got representative democracy, which we still do in the form of the Congress, the stakeholder process defines a beginning, not an end.

A smart stakeholder process will, of course, create a framework strong enough to survive all-out assaults on the bill. This is a process known since the beginning of organizing time as coalition building, a process that is inevitably give-and-take.

There's still lots of opportunity for input on this bill, input that will no doubt improve the quality of the legislation. But let me give a small round of applause for the process that led to this bill getting rolled out.

Update -- George Ochenski correctly points out in comments that I meant union millworkers in the above post. My bad.

The fundamental point, though, is that I think George is wrong to characterize Tester's backers as uniformly supportive of wilderness expansion and is wrong also to conclude that the job of elected officials is to bend to the will only of their supporters.

Those arguments don't really disappear.

Besides, from what I can tell, if politicians only listened to their supporters, no politicians would listen to George, since he seems not to support any of them. I think he's someone worth listening to, even if I rarely fall in the same camp as him.

Tester's Wilderness Secrecy Embarrassing

by: Matthew Koehler

Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 07:28:18 AM MST

Check it out here:
http://www.newwest.net/main/ar...

Logging Lobbyist Logs More Lies in Never-End Quest for More Logging

by: Matthew Koehler

Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 10:42:34 AM MST

She continues to ignore the fact that we're in the worst economic crisis in history, the steepest decline in lumber consumption ever and the worst housing market since the Great Depression. Lumber mills in the Montana, the US and Canada simply cannot sell the lumber products that have on hand. That's a fact that's been proven time and time again over the past few years.

If you bother to read Ellen's commentary, you'll see clearly that she is also completely misrepresenting the Missoulian article about the Foresters Ball. According to that article http://www.missoulian.com/arti... it's clear the students could get scrap wood to build their western town because of the housing market slump and fewer homes and log homes being built. Their problem was NOT because of lawsuits on national forests as Ellen infers!

Also, please note that the figures Ellen Simpson uses in her commentary regarding lawsuits and "legal actions" are false and have been proven inaccurate time and time again, most recently this past summer by the Governor's office who took a look into the issue.   It's a shame that Ellen refuses to stop using these statistics, which are not valid.

For example, Ellen has now stopped talking about timber sale lawsuits, but now instead talks about "legal actions" because any one timber sale lawsuit might have numerous "legal actions" associated with it.  Basically Ellen is giving the public the impression that every time paper work is exchanged between attorneys that this constitutes another lawsuit. That so patently false.  Again, Ellen isn't being honest with the public.

Right now there are zero timber sale lawsuits on the Lolo or Bitterroot National Forest. Right now there isn't one single court-ordered injunction of a timber sale anywhere in Montana.  Right now the Kootenai National Forest, for example, is free to log any of that 119 million board feet of timber that Ellen mentions below. There is simply nothing preventing the Forest Service from moving forward.

Finally, Ellen again offers her support for Sen. Dave Lewis' SB 34, which would basically allow MT counties to just march onto National Forest lands and start cutting trees. So, now the logging lobbyists in Montana support illegal tree cutting on national forests by some sort of reincarnation of the Sage Brush Rebellion. So much for all those "collaborative efforts" many of us are involved with now-a-days.

Unfortunately SB 34 already passed the MT Senate. Right now it's in the House Local Government Committee. Please consider contacting all the members of the Local Government Committee and state your opposition to SB 34. Names and emails for all committee members are at this link: http://tinyurl.com/dlm5xn

And for the record, the person that Ellen identifies in her commentary as "a representative of the Forest Service" was in fact, Tom Tidwell, the Regional Forester in charge of the management of all National Forests in Montana. Here's what Mr. Tidwell had to say about SB 34 and also lawsuits:

"We're not aware of any legal authority that would support legislation that would allow the state or the counties to go in and log federal lands. I'm concerned that attempts to implement this legislation could result in protracted legal challenges and would cross currents with our ongoing collaborative efforts.  Even though litigation does make the front-page news when it does occur, most of our projects we're able to move forward on.  The amount of litigation definitely is reducing, and I think the key to this are these collaborative efforts."
- Tom Tidwell, regional forester for the Forest Service's Northern Region
http://www.greatfallstribune.c...