Jason, A few weeks ago, Ed Regan, the manager of RY Timber (a die-hard supporter of Senator Tester's mandated logging bill) stated on the television news, "It (FJRA) probably wouldn't create new jobs...." (Source: http://www.krtv.com/news/tester-still-push…)

So, Jason, are we supposed to believe that you have a better handle on timber industry jobs than an actual mill manager, who also supports the bill, honestly acknowledging "It probably wouldn't create new jobs."

Also, the public shouldn't forget that just a few weeks ago Julie King, the Supervisor of the Bitteroot National Forest penned a guest column in the Missoulian (http://missoulian.com/news/opinion/columni…), in which see stated:

"Some of you may be wondering why timber is not being sold as it was in previous decades when the Bitterroot routinely produced 20 million board feet or more. One of the main reasons is that no one is buying the wood. For example, the Bitterroot National Forest recently offered two different timber sales on land that is easy to access near paved roads, and neither sale received any offers. These were not isolated incidents. In 2011, the forest brought four timber sales to the public that did not receive one bid from an interested buyer. Why is this happening? Much like the housing crisis, the answers can be found in the market.

Many of the problems occurring in the timber market today are not due to a lack of supply, but rather a lack of demand. Logs that were selling for $80 a ton during the housing boom, are worth less than $45 a ton today. This loss of demand has had a significant local impact on acres harvested. Poor market conditions have also forced us to use scarce taxpayer dollars to pay to remove timber to meet our forest fuel reduction goals in areas adjacent to private property."

The undeniable truth of the matter is that Senator Tester’s bill to mandate increased logging levels on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge and Kootenai National Forests comes at a time when the economic crisis has resulted in nearly a 75% reduction in new home/business construction in the U.S. and almost a 50% reduction in over all U.S. lumber consumption. This is part of the economic reality that supporters of Tester's FJRA never once have gotten around to responding to. If the USFS can't even sell the many timber sales it's already offering up every year, just how will politicians stepping in to mandate more logging actually help the situation? Does that make economic sense? Ecological sense? Taxpayer sense?

Based on recent cost estimates from federal timber sales in Montana, Senator Tester’s mandate to log 100,000 acres (156 square miles) on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge and Kootenai National Forests could cost U.S. taxpayers $100 million over the lifetime of the bill. That’s why, during official Senate testimony, the head of the US Forest Service had this to say about the federal budget implications of Senator Tester’s logging mandates:

“We would urge you to consider the budgetary implications to meet the bill’s requirements. If we were to go forward with the FJRA it would require far greater resources to do that and it will require us to draw these monies from forests within Region One or from other Regions….My concern [with FJRA] is that there will be somewhat of a balkanization that occurs between the different Forest Service regions in the country. Those [National Forests] who are first in may get funded and those who come later may find there are less funds available. There will be certain ‘haves’ and ‘have nots’ that result from this process. Then in someways there is no longer a national review, an effort to sift out what priorities ought to exist across the country.”

report 1 like, 1 dislike   like  dislike

That's just incredible intellectual dishonesty on display. What did the full quote from Ed Regan say? Just this:

"It probably wouldn't create new jobs, but it would preserve these jobs a lot longer," said Regan.

He also said:
He said Tester's Forest Jobs and Recreation Act would keep his mill running, mandating logging on 100,000 acres of Forest Service land in Montana.

At least pretend to be honest.

report 1 like, 1 dislike   like  dislike

Danny Rehberg wants to take the Federal Government out of Montana, which equals no Subsidies, $billions out of Montana, oh ya, that will get him elected. Next he will be posing with his M-16. Someone wasting a lot of $money on Danny, ouch... I have one question, why are these ranchers and farmers subsidised with $billions and the food at the food bank is spoiled or rotting or expired? Would someone please let me know, thank you.

report 2 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

Don Pogreba, It's sort of funny to be lectured by you about honestly concerning Senator Tester's mandated logging bill when it has been you who repeatedly censored and removed substantive comments on your blog about the bill. In fact, you censored and removed a link to the actual US Senate hearing on the bill, as well as censoring and removing the actually written testimony of the head of the US Forest Service.

The fact of the matter is that Mr. Brown stated, "The idea that the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act won’t create jobs is absurd."

And, yes, Mr. Regan stated, "It probably wouldn't create new jobs, but it would preserve these jobs a lot longer."

So, Mr. Regan, a timber mill manager, believes the bill "probably wouldn't create new jobs (despite Mr. Brown's assertion that such a belief is "absurd"), while Mr. Regan thinks Tester's bill "would preserve these [existing] jobs a lot longer."

Preserving some existing timber mill jobs a lot longer is not the same thing as creating new jobs by mandating logging on our public lands.

Regardless, the timber industry is faced with lots of problems, the result of decades of over-logging and the associated over-consumption and over-development that's rampant throughout our country. The reality is that the economic crisis has changed the future dramatically and we have a tremendous glut of homes, apartments and commercial real estate already on the market (or even being kept off the market on purpose by banks and lending institutions).

In such a context simply having politicians mandating more logging on public lands is, well, absurd and incredibly intellectually dishonest. Thanks.

report 1 like, 0 dislikes   like  dislike