Thursday, February 18, 2010
Tester thwarts Forest Service
Posted Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 4:00 AM
Regarding Sen. Jon Tester’s Forest Jobs and Recreation Act: It is particularly troubling to see Tester attempting to mandate logging levels on national forests, especially when one of those levels is 14 times higher than what the U.S. Forest Service claims is sustainable. Tester is not a forester or any other type of natural resource professional and his logging mandate fails to take into consideration the ecology of the land. I doubt Tester would appreciate some bean counter telling him his ranch in Big Sandy could sustain 10 million cattle. This legislation attempts to thwart the Forest Service’s professional responsibilities in favor of private-sector logging.
I resent Tester’s allegations that anyone who disagrees with him is a radical or extremist. Many of the people who object to his legislation are fourth and fifth generation Montanans, small-business owners, retired Forest Service supervisors and district rangers, hikers and backpackers, hunters and anglers, outfitters and guides, veterans, scientists, former loggers, mill workers and community leaders. Tester’s emphasis on local control of public lands is detrimental to our heritage.
The wilderness designations are largely what we refer to as “rocks and ice.” Montana is the fourth largest state and we have the land to sustain wildlife populations in our remaining roadless areas. Only 2 percent of Montana is designated wilderness. If we were to designate all remaining roadless lands Montana would have approximately one-tenth of our land base in wilderness. With ever increasing population nationwide we should protect these areas for wildlife, water quality, and for future generations.
Denise Boggs
Lewistown
Comments (2)
Showing 1-2 of 2
Okay, I’ve been watching all the press on Tester’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 Tester’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, Tester’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
like
dislike
Wow Dave
what utter nonsense. It's not feasible or sensible to harvest these areas or they would've already. You can move to europe I like the little bit of wild left in america, sounds like you have a contempt for roadless areas and no any of them have never had roads like you claim.
"There are so many factual criticisms of the bill that go unanswered because of the attention given to (some of) the messengers instead of their message."^^^
Twitter
Facebook
RSS