Well said Adam! As we have seen Baucus can be slow to get behind the issues this year, so him stepping up shows there is really something to this bill : )

For those readers interested in a detailed analysis of Sen. Tester's bill from one of the nation's leading experts on natural resource policy and law, I'd highly recommend they check out (the University of Montana's own) Dr. Martin Nie's piece titled, "Questions, opportunities presented by Montana Sen. Jon Tester's Forest Jobs and Recreation Act." It's available at: http://www.headwatersnews.org/p.ForestJobs…

It would certainly be nice if Sen. Tester and supporters of his bill would address these important questions and concerns raised by Dr. Nie, which have actually been asked (yet ignored) for months. Instead of having an open and honest debate about Tester's Logging bill, we just get talking points, canned letters to the editor and dog-and-pony shows, such as the ones in Dillion, Missoula and Butte recently.

These dog-and-pony shows are not a replacement for the open, inclusive and transparent public processes that currently govern public lands management in this country, but that's sure how some people are acting. The simple fact that nobody was allowed to speak publicly at Tester's Missoula meeting, except for a rep of Roseburg Forest Products, who was allowed to address the entire crowd with a letter of support from timber industry workers (and a call for more public lands logging) proves the point about Tester's failed process and what a sham these "meetings" really are. Same thing with the Butte meeting from a few days ago. Tester allowed nobody else to speak publicly, except for Sherm Anderson, owner of Sun Mountain Lumber Company.

You see, Tester, his staff and supporters of his logging bill have no intention of really including the rest of the public in an open, inclusive and transparent process. After all, it's important for the public to understand the origins of the Beaverhead Partnership, whose misguided and unrealistic proposal makes up the bulk of Tester's Logging bill.

Back in the winter of 2005/2006, as most all of Montana's conservation groups were working together to protect all our remaining inventoried roadless lands in the state (nearly 6 million acres in total) unknown to any of us, a self-selected, exclusive subset of conservation groups (Montana Wilderness Association, National Wildlife Federation's Northern Rockies Natural Resource Center and Montana Trout Unlimited) began meeting in secret with the timber industry to craft a management plan for the entire Beaverhead Deerlodge National Forest. We have even heard from sources from within these organization's that a confidentially agreement was signed between these 3 groups and the timber industry. Can you imagine it? A "confidentially agreement" signed between self-selected groups to dictate public lands management? Is this really the direction we want public lands management to take? Anyway, like I said, their proposal today forms the meat of Senator Tester's "Forest Jobs and Recreation Act,."

Hundreds of conservation groups in Montana, and around the country, who were not part of the MWA's, NWF's and MT TU's secret meetings felt betrayed, sucker punched and used. Can you imagine? At a time when we were all working together so well to protect all of Montana's remaining inventoried roadless lands (and when that goal was certainly in sight) three groups peeled off and met in secret with the timber industry to carve up roadless lands, mandate logging and violate NEPA? The outrage was pretty universal. In fact, most people don't realize that Montana Wilderness Association was immediately forced to return nearly $80,000 that it was given as fiscal sponsor to assist our Montana Roadless Working Group's education efforts the public during Bush's state-by-state roadless petition process.

Unfortunately, MWA, NWF and MT TU ignored all of the concerns expressed over the past 3 years from the vast majority of conservation organizations in the movement and have just pushed ahead with Senator Tester and his staffers (some of whom have a direct conflict of interest based on their past relationships with these groups and their leadership) with their no-holds-barred, leave-no-talking-point-behind PR campaign supporting Tester's "Forest Jobs and Recreation Act."

So, given such a context, are we really surprised that Tester and supporters of his Mandated Logging Bill gloss over and ignore concerns and questions such as:

Given that there are already upwords of 30,000 to 50,000 acres of logging and "thinning" work on National Forests in Montana just waiting to be cut, does it make any sense to have Congress mandate logging on public lands, especially at a time when lumber demand has plummeted 55%, the greatest drop in our nation's history. You see, decades of over-consumption and over-development have finally come home to roost.

Tester's Logging Bill allowing military helicopters to land in Wilderness for the first time ever. Do we really want to go down this path? What will the future of our Wilderness areas looks like?

Tester's bill releases Wilderness Study Areas that were set aside by Montana's late, great Senator Lee Metcalf? WWLMD? (What Would Lee Metcalf Do?)

The fact is that while the logging is Congressionally mandated in Tester's bill, the non-logging related restoration goals are not mandated, quantified, nor prescribed in as much detail. Make no mistake, there is no guarantee that the restoration work will be done once the logging is done. In fact, the USFS in MT and ID already have nearly $100 million of unfinished restoration work just piling up from previous Logging-to-pay-for-restoration-schemes.

As Dr. Nie says in his conclusion, "The above questions are not driven by politics. Nor are they asked with the purpose of trying to defeat the Senator's bill or to criticize his courageous entry into Montana wilderness politics. They are meant instead to get the public thinking about the big picture and how the parts are going to fit or not fit together. The stakes are high. If the FJRA becomes law, place-based proposals throughout the West will take a big step forward. The FJRA would be the first one out of the gate, setting precedent for others, and this is reason enough why it must be scrutinized so carefully."

We can do better. We can do better than Tester's failed process and dog-and-pony-show public meetings. We can do better than Washington DC mandating logging on national forests in Montana. We can do better than allowing military helicopters to land in Wilderness. And we can do better than un-doing the legacy of Montana Senator Lee Metcalf. Thanks.

Senator Tester has addressed some of the complaints you are here forwarding. To begin with these assemblies are organized as open house venues, not town hall meetings, and are done so with people like you, Matthew Koehler, in mind. You want to grandstand and that isn't Tester's style of doing business. If you want to provide substantive feedback, you should speak with Tester personally, face to face. If the exchange is governed by tact rather than your ego and uncompromising principles, maybe you'll find the Senator receptive.

It is also why you were kept out of the original negotiations in the Beaverhead Deerlodge Partnership. Not because it was some elaborate conspiracy to hold out all diverse interests, but because, as you demonstrate daily, you cannot understand anyone's position but your own. You like to break the bill down as if you object to it on strictly logistical terms, but land management is a social, value-driven decision. There is no higher, purer rationality to which we must appeal, simply our own sensibilities as to what should be done with our land. Many people are willing to share or modify their initial expectations based off of what their neighbor might want to do. It's about checking your ideology at the door, not wearing it on the sleeve.

You are clearly not interested in this kind of exchange as your disingenuous citing of the esteemed Martin Nie illustrates. Nie's intention was never to derail the process, but to provide a useful critique as to how the legislation may be improved. You do not seek to work constructively and help shape the ultimate product; you dismiss it entirely. I am certain that Martin Nie does not appreciate your deployment of his work and words in this regard, taking him out of context to promote your own agenda. I hope that you can answer for that.

No dog and pony show is quite as tired and trite as the one you perpetuate after each article copying and pasting the same paragraphs, illicitly enlisting Nie and Senator Metcalf to bolster the inherent weakness of your position, sad scare tactics about helicopters in wilderness and other dogmatic rubbish. Anyone who knows anything about wilderness policy knows that exceptions like this are frequently written into wilderness bills, that this does not constitute some radical departure. Nearly all contain exceptions of some dimension that would seem to contradict the Wilderness Act, all or almost all include the release of other federal lands that can be harvested appropriately.

Truth be told, your feelings are wounded because you weren't involved and the biggest piece of wilderness legislation in Montana in the last twenty five years may pass without your contribution. This bill isn't sexy like chaining yourself to a tree in the name of environmental martyrdom. That divisive approach, for all your accomplishments, has shown its counterproductive nature. If you really care about Wilderness, it's high time you fessed up to your own problematic misconception of the current socio-political climate.

Adam Tew: How very interesting that you want to make this about me...and not about the concerns and issues I bring up, which deal directly with public process, public lands management, taxpayer subsidies, lack of lumber demand and the future of Wilderness in this country. Anyway, you'd be mistaken to believe that I'm the only person who has serious concerns about Tester's logging bill and the process used to develop it, especially the Beaverhead portion of the bill. So, feel free to tear me up and shoot the messenger all you want. But I'd rather have a debate about the important issues and concerns I bring up. I guess if I'd use a page from your playbook, now I'd go on to rip you apart and say what a big ego you have, but I see no real point in that...even if it made you feel a little better about yourself.

Regarding your non-sense that I am supposedly "disingenuously citing" Dr. Nie's paper and your claim that you are certain Nie doesn't appreciate my sharing his work with the public (and how you "hope I can answer for that"):

Funny, but when I spoke with Dr. Nie for about an hour last week, he didn't mention any concern. He did mention, however, the concerns and questions raised in his paper don't seem to ever be addressed by Senator Tester's office or the three conservation groups pushing Tester's logging bill. So there's your answer....Interesting how that works, isn't it?

Finally, for the record, I've never "chained myself to a tree in the name of environmental martyrdom." But nice try there Adam, as that did make for some pretty good fiction writing. After all, you gotta make this about me, don't you? After all, then you can continue to claim that the concerns I share that come from many Montanans and conservation groups around the country are really just all about my ego?

Actually, Matthew Koehler, I systematically addressed the concerns which you listed. It is a more likely scenario that my accusations ring true even to your own ears, which is why you're suddenly on the defensive.

Fact #1: You were asked to participate in the collaboration. You can continue to mischaracterize this legislation as conducted behind closed doors, but you and I both know that even in the preliminary stages of the Beaverhead-Deerlodge Partnership you were offered a place at the table. I say you specifically, because you are the one who continues to offer this as a strange bit of reasoning as to why one should not support the bill. However, as you say, it gives the situation a good storyline. If I saw others commenting after these articles, writing things in a similar vein, I would say the same thing to them as well. What you cited in your first response as evidence of this accusation amounts to hearsay, and nothing more.

Fact #2: Helicopters in Wilderness areas does not establish precedent. The Bob Marshall Wilderness, one of the most iconic Wilderness areas in the nation, has an airstrip in the middle of it that can see up many touch and go landings in one day. Other Wilderness areas, specifically in Nevada and Colorado, also make allowances for motorized use by ranchers to check ranging cattle. Do I need to elaborate here more or can we finally dispense with this well-worn and totally inaccurate criticism?

Fact #3: Lumber demand will rebound. I have no argument against overconsumption Matthew. We can agree that it's a problem, and I agree that the current economic picture does not look so bright. However, it is the case that most estimates and analyses indicate a recovering national economy more generally, and resumed housing growth within Montana specifically. Colorado did nothing to prevent the loss of their timber mills, and now vast acreages have succumbed to Pine Beetle infestation. The state can now no longer manage the issue because the forestry practitioners are gone. Are we going to continue to pretend that the beetle kill within the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest is not also an issue? Does that fact factor into your reasoning at all? And are people's livelihoods and our own local ability to manage our forests worth sacrificing for misplaced idealism?

If you want me to concede, Matthew, that there are uncertainties about this bill then you have it. Although the Wilderness Act itself was loosely written, and it is hardly novel that a piece of legislation in general lacks a few details. Although ecological integrity and wilderness protection are values I hold dearly, they are not the only ones, which is the place at which, Matthew, we seem to differ.

In regards to Dr. Nie, what bothers me Matthew is that you cite him as wanting to contribute to the development of this legislation and don't bother saying so yourself. I think you should make it clear and distinguish between your and Dr. Nie's positions because as conceptually similar as they may be, his recommendations and your opposition are not functionally the same thing.

Adam Tew: Well, this is going to be fun, especially because each of your three big "Facts" above are incorrect.

First, your "Fact #1"...basically your claim that I was "asked to participate in the collaboration" and that "even in the preliminary stages of the Beaverhead-Deerlodge Partnership [I was] offered a place at the table."

That's totally, 110% completely false Adam. Furthermore, I also 110% stand behind the detail account I provided above of the origins and development the Beaverhead Partnership that start with the paragraph "Back in the winter of 2005/2006..." So I'm not sure what else to say about it...except that I will point out that it's interesting that you now claim I was "asked to participate in the collaboration" and "offered a place at the table"....when just earlier in a comment you offered a supposed explanation for why "[I was] kept out of the original negotiations in the Beaverhead Deerlodge Partnership." So...which is it Adam Tew?

The fact and truth of the matter is that the WildWest Institute is currently involved in numerous, successful collaborative processes around the state and region. These include the Montana Forest Restoration Committee, the Lolo Restoration Committee (which last year was given the Forest Service's "Breaking Gridlock Award), the Bitterroot Restoration Committee, the DeBaugan HFRA project on the Lolo NF near DeBorgia and Haugan, MT, the Salmon Valley (ID) Stewardship. We were also original founders of the Kootenai Forest Stakeholder Coalition and FireSafe Montana (of which, our restoration coordinator serves as current Board President). I'm surprised you wouldn't know about this, Adam Tew, since I've written about all of these efforts quite extensively and since you've obviously taken a interest in what I have to say.

So, Adam Tew, you can spread a total lie that we were asked to participate in the Beaverhead Deerlodge Partnership and offered a seat at the table all you want, but it's not true and it certainly doesn't erase the real and successful track record our organization has with open, honest and transparent collaboration here in the region. But perhaps you are just purposefully ignoring these facts about our organization's successful collaborative efforts to help bolster your own argument.

Onto you supposed "Fact #2:"....Your claim that "Helicopters in Wilderness areas does not establish precedent." For starters, you are not correctly re-stating my claim...oh man, wait...are you being "disingenuous?" My actual claim was as follows:

"Tester's Logging Bill allowing military helicopters to land in Wilderness for the first time ever."

To offer proof for my claim, I'd like to direct you to a recent article in the Missoula Indy available here:
http://missoulanews.bigskypress.com/missou…

In the article, you will clearly see that my statement is 110% backed by the Forest Service's national press officer. Here is the snip from that article:

"The most glaring example in Tester's bill allows military helicopters to land inside the Highlands, a portion of the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest slated for wilderness designation. Tester included the provision in order to honor an existing agreement with Peak Enterprises, a private company in Butte that drops soldiers in the area as part of a mountain warfare training exercise three-to-four times per year.

Allison Stewart, national press officer for the U.S. Forest Service, incorrectly told the Independent three weeks ago that similar provisions existed in other wilderness areas throughout the country. The Independent found no such examples.

"I misspoke," says Stewart. "I was thinking of low-level overflights. I am not aware of any landings, and I do not believe there is any legislation that authorizes it.""

So, Adam Tew...enough said about that one?

Well, onto your supposed "Fact #3": "Lumber demand will rebound." Adam, since I'm not sure you have a very clear understanding of the current economic crisis and how it's affecting, and will continue to affect, the timber industry, I'll help you out by sharing with you some information provided by the Western Wood Products Association just last month.

Here are some highlights from the WWPA report:

For starters, according to WWPA, we're in a wood products depression and any rebound is year's away and we won't "rebound" to where we were...not even close.

For example, US lumber consumption is down over 55% and US housing starts are down almost 75% since 2005 to their lowest point since the middle of World War II (when America was essentially building nest to no housing because all our resources were spent on the war).

Furthermore, according to WWPA, any modest rebound in housing starts isn't likely to occur until 2012, and even with this prediction those 2012 housing starts will still be only about 50% of what the housing starts were in 2005.

That's worth repeating there Adam...Even the "rebound" which may (or may not) come in 2012, housing starts in the US will still be down 50%. How do these facts from the Western Wood Products Association compare with your statements Adam? You think they may have a better handle on the current and future status of the wood products industry then some 5th year English major at UM?

Also, I'm glad you brought up the Colorado bark beetle issue, but it looks like you could brush up on the facts surround it, Adam. I'd like to direct you to a new study from respected researchers at Colorado State University, U of Idaho, Colorado Forest Restoration Institute and the Colorado St. Forest Service. It's available at: http://warnercnr.colostate.edu/images/docs… and it's titled, "Recent Forest Insect Outbreaks and Fire Risk in Colorado Forests: A Brief Synthesis of Relevant Research."

Once you read this synthesis of relevant research on bark beetles and fire, I think you will gain a new perspective on the issue...or at least I hope so.

Let me also once again stand by my use of Dr. Nie's paper and the fact that I've spoken to him at length about these issues...So please stop beating that dead horse in your effort to discredit me. I'm simply providing the public with access to Dr. Nie's paper and the questions, concerns and opportunities he sees with Tester's Logging Bill. Dr. Nie's paper speaks for itself and I have made no claims of any sort that Dr. Nie is in 100% opposition to Tester's bill or in 100% support of the WildWest Institute's position. Any inference of this is on your shoulders, not mine.

Finally, let me close with bringing up something you wrote in your original LTE, which rubbed me the wrong way.

You wrote: Inevitably, such a commitment to practicality requires compromise, humility and perspective, all of which were ingredients in this legislation. If one looks toward those who oppose this bill, you’ll be hard-pressed to find these qualities in abundance."

When I read that statement, that those who are opposed to Tester's Logging Bill lack "humility and perspective" I immediately thought of two people.

The first is Stewart Brandborg of the Bitterroot Valley. Brandy's in his 80s and for months now has been actively meeting with Tester's office and other conservationists to either greatly improve Tester's Logging Bill, or, since Tester's office has shown a complete unwillingness to budge on proposed amendments, to kill the bill if it stays as it is. You may recognize Brandy's name, since he was the executive director of the Wilderness Society from 1964 to 1976. He took over TWS following the death of Howard Zahniser. Brady is a living Wilderness legend, who also happens to be a former Forest Service wildlife biologist and his wife, Anna Vie, was one of the first female fire lookouts in the history of the Forest Service. Oh, and Brady's father was Supervisor of the Bitterroot National Forest from 1935 to 1955. But according to you, Adam Tew, since Brady opposes Tester's Bill as written he lacks "humility and perspective," eh?

The other person is Bill Worf, who I also believe is in his 80s. He recently wrote Senator Tester a letter detailing his concerns from the nursing home that he know lives in. Mr. Worf is a decorated WWII Marine veteran (He left high school to join the Marines) who fought in the battle of Iwo Jima and who started his 31 year Forest Service career in 1950. Mr. Worf's Forest Service career included serving as the District Ranger on the Ashley National Forest, Supervisor of the Bridger National Forest, Branch Chief for Wilderness and Special Areas and Director of Recreation, Wilderness, Minerals and Lands in the Northern Region. But again, according to Adam Tew, people like Mr. Worf lack "humility and perspective."

Adam Tew, that's all from me on this. I think it's quite clear that your "facts" have fallen around you and it is you who lacks some "humility and perspective." Maybe you can pick up a three credit course on the subject at UM. I will end, however, by stating that based on the facts of the matter you own me (and Wilderness and American heros such Stewart Brandborg and Bill Worf) an apology. Thanks.

Now that's the more animated response I was searching for, Matthew. I wish you would have included that information in your first response instead of the template. Unfortunately I don't have an abudance of time to debate the many points of this post, although I will say a few things.

Truth be told I wasn't certain that you hadn't been invited when I first posted, although I followed up and found that you had, and on more than one occasion. I'm not going to get into a he said/she said game of nonsense with you. I've heard from reliable folks that you were invited, and from what I see you tend to misrepresent things. My point initially is that you inevitably create division, which I think even you can admit.

It's true that the Wildwest Institute accomplishes some admirable things, although yourself and the institute are not the same thing. I've actually been to a Lolo Restoration Meeting or two, greatly admire their work, but would note that when I attended, your WWI representative was just being voted into the working group, and already seemed to have unrealistic and purist objectives which contrasted with the more moderate position of most members. Although I'm not condemning that, I find it indicative of the Institute's stance generally on issues that could use a dose of compromise.

Projections are thorny business, although you can be sure I'll follow up on the information provided. And I think that it's important to distinguish between national and local trends.

Bill Worf and Stewart Brandborg, based on your account, seem like respectable individuals, although it is truly sad to see you trot out that American hero cliche tagline which betrays your intent behind marshalling these accomplished men onto the page. It's again because you along with your reputation cannot stand on your own, and need to coopt others to construct a guise of legitamacy. As for my letter and the phrase "humility and perspective" you try to take out of context, I never said it was not altogether present. Maybe these men are among the uncommon instances where these qualities can be found. Of course they are participants from the public lands management arena of the past, and it is possible that their sensibilities are dated like yours. In the sense that they cling to the old way of doing business, I would say that yes they lack perspective and the humility to admit that we need to try a new direction. That doesn't speak to their personal qualities as human beings so I don't need to apologize for anything.

Finally, I'm not going to pretend that I'm more well-informed on the matter than you Matthew. Although I'm also not so arrogant as not to read the information provided, admit when I'm wrong, or modify my position based on compelling data. However, nothing that I read in your post refers at all to source of the issue which is values. As much as you may try to make it seem so, things are not black and white. You also seem to try to belittle me for being a student (just before you ask for an apology) as though that somehow draws into question my ability to speak about these matters. In response I guess I would say that I hope when I'm middle-aged I don't have the time to waste engaging in internet forum debate with someone not yet graduated from college. For my part, I really do no longer have the time to argue, that weird homework thing you know.

Adam Tew.

I will state, once again (yet again), that neither myself nor the WildWest Institute were ever invited to participate in the self-selective, exclusive Beaverhead Partnership. I will swear this on my grandma's grave in this public forum. If you could provide me with a virtual bible and a witness stand, I'd also swear on that. It is completely ridiculous that you continue to spread a lie by insisting otherwise. This is not about a "he said/she said game of nonsense" as you claim. This is about the truth of the matter, which you clearly don't know, otherwise you'd stop spreading this lie.

Regarding WildWest's role in the Lolo Restoration Committee and your attending a "meeting or two." I'm not sure which meetings you actually attended, but you should know that WildWest has had a rep on the LRC since it was formed, so your inference otherwise is, yet again, completely wrong and unfounded...and I can only assume yet another lame attempt to discredit our organization.

Here are the facts of the matter: Our first rep on the LRC was Jeff Juel, who ended up leaving for Washington to take a job with The Lands Council. Our next rep was Cameron Naficy, our staff biologist, who has been conducting groundbreaking research on effects of fire, logging and fire exclusion in the northern Rockies. Cameron and his research is so highly respected that last year he earned a highly-coveted Fulbright Scholarship and is currently conducting research in S. America. When Cameron returns he will pursue his PhD. Our current rep on the LRC is Jake Kreilick, our Restoration Coordinator (who's from a logging family and is the current board president of FireSafe MT and a part time history teacher...and football coach...at Big Sky HS).

So, I'm not sure which meeting you attended, but you are incorrect to state and infer here that somehow WildWest hasn't been involved with the LRC since it's inception. Ask any of the LRC members about WildWest's contribution to the LRC and I'm sure you'd get positive feedback. Again, nice try Adam Tew...but these pesky facts keep getting in the way of your argument and your attempt to tear me and the WildWest Institute down.

One final thing about Brandy and Mr. Worf. Again, I find it very interesting how I want to make this about the issues of public process, public lands management, taxpayer subsidies, lack of lumber demand and the future of Wilderness in this country...and you want to make everything personal about me and my ego. But then when I bring up other people and their perspective based on their life experience you chastise me as "need[ing] to coopt others to construct a guise of legitamacy [sic]." I guess I just can't win with you as it appears to me as if I'm damned if I do...damned if I don't.

Good luck finishing your college degree. As someone who was once a college student myself...and who actually is a certified secondary history and English teacher...it was certainly not my attempt to belittle you for being a college student. Seems kinda like to me that you can dish out the insults in big helpings, but can't even take a potentially little one yourself. I only brought it up in response to your claim that opponents of Tester's bill lack "perspective." I'd put forth that people who've traveled around the sun a time or sixty more than you, might have a pretty good handle on "perspective" based on their life experience. Without you bringing this up, I certainly never would have.

Anyway, if you ever want to speak with this middle-aged man (ouch...I'm only 37 after all...and still get carded on occasion...hey, maybe we could settle this by arm-wrestling or a game of one-on-one?) face-to-face about any of these issues, I'm more than willing and would be happy to sit down and chat. You can contact me at koehler@wildrockies.org. Thanks.

Make it-take it, ones and twos, first to seven, win by two? Whadda you say granddad?

Anytime, any court Adam! Finally...now we're getting somewhere. You have my email address. I haven't played b-ball in a few year's and currently have a broken big toe on my left foot, but waaaaaaaaay back in the late 80s (remember, I'm old) I was an all-conference guard and my younger brother, Mike, played college ball at the U of South Dakota and is still the third all time leading career scorer in the history of Wisconsin High School Boys Basketball (http://www.wisbca.org/wbca.asp?fid=152&msg…)

...So I think I'll be able to make at least a few buckets!

I have been warned about getting into a pissing match with a skunk, so I am a bit nervous to venture in. I have seen that conservation critics of Testers logging Bill are personally set upon by the conservation collaborationists. However, I am a passionate advocate of wilderness and, being from Darby, have developed some thick skin over the years. So here goes...

I can honestly say that many individual conservationists and some local conservation groups that have been actively protecting wildlands on the Beaverhead Deerlodge NF for many years were not invited to the table or even informed in a timely way of the B-D 'Partnership'. Friends of the Bitterroot, one group that I am familiar with, has 21 years of blood sweat and tears (not to mention tens of thousands of dollars) invested in protecting wildlands on the B-D NF, our backyard. We were never invited to the table of the 'partnership' collaborationists or for the making of Tester's sausage. The wildlands we helped to protect have been seized upon by a few, mostly more distant groups, as political poker chips.

We have tried to influence Tester's Bill, to improve it through meeting with staff and a letter to Tester. We have received zero indication that any of our thoughtfull and considered comments have been taken to heart.

This is no way to run a National Forest. Oddly, as a long-time critic, I find myself defending the Forest Service's way of managing the forest. They use science and an open public process that does not depend on who you are friends of. You just need to be a citizen of America. Tester's wildland logging Bill legislatively usurps the perogatives of scientific management by the Forest Service. It does so to primarily advance the interests of local commercial interests. It locks in motorized use PERMANENTLY in some areas...no matter the environmental costs to wildlife, etc. It mandates taxpayer subsidized, unsustainable logging, even if there is no market. (Where are the teabaggers?)

The notion of arrogance and lack of humility brought up by Adam in reference to the personalities of critics of Tester's Bill is almost laughable given the hubris of humans in general and their blind arrogant abuse of nature. It is this cultural lack of humility that will be our undoing.

Wilderness is an ancient legacy that is too important to trade for a highly persishable hash of pork.