Ms. Olsen raises issues that are important to anyone who cares about the health of our public lands, but I'd like to offer a few responses to her comments, specifically her concerns about where restoration work will be completed, the levels of timber harvest, and the release of WSAs.

First, let's talk restoration. Just last Friday, Senator Tester introduced a slew of proposed changes to the legislation (http://tester.senate.gov/Legislation/fores…). Tester's listened closely to people like yourself, and he's rolled out several key amendments. Here's a sampling:
a) Tester will "Ensure that stewardship contracting receipts don't go to other forests" by changing the language of the bill to make sure the money stays local.
b) Tester will "Fast track restoration work" by imposing time limits on when it must be completed in order to place timber treatment and restoration work on a more equal playing field. That suggestion was made by those at Friends of the Bitterroot, Wildlands CPR, and the Sierra Club.

Remember, no matter what happens with regards to restoration (and I want to see it get done as much as the next person), the only guarantee in the entire bill is that Wilderness will be designated - the environmental community should not forget that.

Next, let's discuss timber harvests. The key thing to remember here is that the bill mandates a certain "acreage" to be "treated," not a level of board feet. Projects will encompass both small and large areas, but timber may only be harvested on a small portion of that terrain. "Treatment," the somewhat ambiguous term used by the bill, can refer to anything from clearing dense brush from the understory, to thinning for fire-hazard reduction. Here are some more changes Tester put forth that speak to your concerns (http://tester.senate.gov/Legislation/fores…
a) Tester will focus work on the Wildland Urban Interface by adding language that prioritizes it in relation to other activities.
b) Tester proposes increasing and expanding monitoring requirements, at the suggestion of the UM School of Forestry, the MT Wood Products Association, Greater Yellowstone Coalition, TU, Sierra Club, and Wildlands CPR. A comprehensive progress report will be due every three years to report on "whether the ecological goals of the bill are being met."
c) Tester's heard from people concerned that the Three Rivers RD is potentially too small an area for the proposed acreage to be treated, so he's proposed expanding the area where work could get done (while leaving the levels of treatment the same) to include land stretching east towards Lake Koocanusa.

The bill addresses your road density concerns, as well. Page 16 of the bill specifically states: "In selecting areas on which to carry out landscape-scale restoration projects...the Secretary concerned, in coordination with applicable advisory committees or local collaborative groups, shall give priority to areas" where "the road densities...exceed 1.5 miles per square mile of land." And that's the first priority listed.

Lastly, to echo the comments of Mr. Porter, who wrote the other FJRA LTE this week, the bill only releases 70,000 acres of WSAs to other management, and those 70,000 acres are spread amongst several relatively small WSAs. In fact, 90% of the East Sapphires WSA will become Wilderness and ALL of the West Pioneers WSA will be protected with a core 25,000 acre Wilderness surrounded by 129,000 acres of Recreation Management Area where NO resource extraction is allowed (see page 70 of the FJRA).

Again, Ms. Olsen raises issues that should be important to anyone in the environmental community, but the fact is, Tester has crafted a bill that does right by the environment AND by our economy. It's been nearly 30 years since we last designated Wilderness in this state, and meanwhile, our timber economy - a critical economic base in many small towns - haven't exactly faired any better. Those mills that have lasted this long are the best of the best, and our forests will be worse off for their absence.

As Mr. Porter says, let's "stop making the perfect the enemy of the good," and actually work to get "a wilderness bill to the president's desk."

report 0 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

Walden apparently knows a lot more about these issues than Marilyn Olsen. The bill is focused on mechanical treatment and a range of restoration activities, not just commercial logging. The bill advances stewardship principles that take into account much more than the bottom line. As for Ochenski, the '88 isn't nearly as good on balance when compared to the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act. However, I'm not surprised that Ochenski used that as an example of the good ol' days because he's stuck in the past, a mythical past apparently. He's an old activist and lobbyist from the times of the timber wars. He's high on rhetoric and painfully low on ideas. I'm sure glad he's a columnist and not a policy maker.

report 0 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

Okay, I’ve been watching all the press on Testor’s bill and have decided to chime in on the debate.

It seems to me that everybody’s micro-analyzing the issue and not looking at the BIG picture: 6 billion (and growing) humans now inhabit the Earth and we (especially Europeans) don’t have a very good track record at planetary symbiosis. We tend to change/harm everything we touch all in the name of sustaining economics/life etc.

What Testor’s bill represents is a Band-Aid for X (the jury is out on what X may be) amount of years. What the future holds for our existence seems spelled out already: wilderness resource extraction, planetary exploration/habitation/resource extraction etc. The Utopian idea that our mtns/forest/water are going to be there, untouched, for our procreating masses, for all time, is wishful thinking.

Even if we were to “save” all the existing “roadless” (anyone who has spent time in these contested areas knows full well that there are plenty of roads left over, from the 40s on up) areas, some future generation (see X) will most likely find loopholes to extract/harm these areas AGAIN.

So, political corruption aside, Testor’s bill at least TRIES to find a balance for ALL (even if temporary) to enjoy, and live off of, the local wilds that we so love. Put aside the petty micro-analyzing and realize the positives that this Band-Aid bill provides

report 0 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

wow the same 3 talking haeds commenting in support of tester's logging bill.

face reality this bill stinks!

report 0 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike