It is time for everyone interested in outdoor recreation and productive natural resource management to get behind Sen. Tester’s Forest Jobs and Recreation Act. We have been in a 35 year management stalemate since the RARE I and II (Roadless Area Review and Evaluation) studies of the early 1970s. The RARE studies set out all of the areas the U.S. Forest Service recommended for wilderness classification. Since then, those areas plus many others, including large buffer zones, have been managed to protect wilderness qualities. Any attempts at resource extraction have been met with expensive litigation.

A number of proposals have been worked on by thousands of us in the ensuing years. One of the most similar was the Lolo/Kootenai Accords in the early 1980s. A large group representing all interests, from miners and loggers to strong wilderness advocates, got together to produce a seemingly impossible document that would delineate all wilderness and general forest zones on the Kootenai and Lolo National forests. Despite original doubts, the task was accomplished after hundreds of hours of meetings. The only reason for failure was a new senator who didn’t want more wilderness and was out to make a point. He didn’t consider that at least 50 percent of the effort was put forth by his supporters. If that bill had passed, there would no doubt be more lumber mills still in business, operating under sustained yield forest management practices.

I have been an avid outdoorsman and hunter for over 55 years, starting work with the Forest Service as an assistant packer in 1964. I worked for a commercial outfitter, as well as having my own small outfitting business for a few years. Elk hunting and horse pack trips into non-motorized areas are my most cherished experiences as a Montanan. I understand how difficult it is to balance all opinions where public lands are concerned, and how important these lands are to private businesses in Montana.

Tester’s bill respects private business and puts job creation out front as a primary goal, along with setting aside those lands that deserve protection for diverse recreational uses. Fortunately, Tester understands both sides and does not consider them mutually exclusive.

We should all applaud the effort Tester and hundreds of citizens have put forth to create this bill. I would also like to commend Sen. Max Baucus for his support and Rep. Denny Rehberg for his efforts to understand the public’s concerns. Bipartisan collaboration and support for this bill is what Montanans expect and deserve.

It is time to end the stalemate and pass legislation for a more productive and certain future.

Michael Chandler

Missoula

I’ve noticed an even higher than usual level of traffic on Sen. Jon Tester’s forest bill lately. I find it encouraging because this type of dialogue is a necessary part of any collaborative process, and it’s a good sign that we have a bill that’s well worth talking about.

Yet, I can’t help but notice a stark contrast between those who stand in opposition to this bill and those who support it. The critics are taking it more personally, but I suppose those at the radical end of any compromise often feel wronged. Folks in the middle though, understand that it is unreasonable to expect this bill to have only wilderness provisions in it, just as it is unreasonable to expect the bill to have only timber provisions in it. They’re willing to acknowledge imperfection and move forward.

They are backing Tester because he’s interested in getting past the division that defines our dialogue over public land management. That’s why Tester is maintaining an open process. This bill is still being amended and rewritten by Tester and by the subcommittee in Congress, and Tester is still open for further suggestions.

This bill is the product of conversations between people who were traditional enemies: loggers, off-road vehicle users and wilderness advocates. They’ve seen that arguing with one another and alienating one another was not working. They were ready to try a different approach.

I’d encourage those in the opposition to follow their example by taking part in the process productively, rather than complaining from the sidelines.

Brian Fauver

Missoula

I appreciate the passionate comments regarding Sen. Jon Tester’s Forest Jobs and Recreation Act written by Marilyn Olsen and others in recent pages of the Independent (see “Tester taken to task,” Feb. 11, 2010). I too love Montana’s wild places and recognize their ecological and cultural significance. That’s true of most Missoulians. What is also true is that Tester’s bill is the product of an open public process with promise to restore inclusive deliberation and adaptability to natural resource decision-making in the West.

All three of the projects in Tester’s bill had websites up for everyone to view for more than a year before the senator introduced his bill last July. I personally helped organize one of many public meetings on the Blackfoot Clearwater project at the Missoula Public Library last May that was attended by over 120 people.

Tester’s bill designates over 670,000 acres of new wilderness in 25 new areas. These areas range from the low country of Roderick Mountain in northwest Montana to the high country of the Lima Peaks in southwest Montana. The bill would include no less than six areas in the Anaconda-Pintler Wilderness and five additions to the Lee Metcalf Wilderness Area.

The bill calls for 7,000 acres to be treated in the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest annually for 10 years. The bill gives local contractors agency to conduct fuels reduction and thinning in the wildland-urban interface, where the Forest Service has identified an immediate need to mitigate severe fire risk to homes and communities. In a forest where1.6 million acres are marked “suitable” for timber harvest, treating just 4 percent of the available land is a remarkably moderate goal.

That this bill has generated such fervent public dialogue illustrates how much people care about public land. I hope this bill sets a precedent for more place-based, collaborative land management decisions to come.

Alex Hessler

Missoula

Why would Rep. Denny Rehberg propose changes to Sen. Jon Tester’s Forest Jobs and Recreation Act when Montana mill owners say it won’t work?

During his tour of southwest Montana, Rehberg told Montanans he wanted to “fix” the bill by adding complicating provisions. But Sherm Anderson, owner of Sun Mountain Lumber in Deer Lodge and a former Republican state legislator, said he fully supports the bill as it is. Anderson also said he doesn’t think Rehberg’s plan would work. Anderson said the proposal would upset the compromise and be impossible to sell in Congress. He’s right. Not one single bill with trigger language has passed in Congress. After 10 years in Washington, Rehberg must know his plan won’t work.

Tester’s bill is supported by a broad spectrum of Montanans, including mill owners and respected Republican leaders such as former Gov. Marc Racicot, former Senate Majority Leader Bob Brown and state Sen. Dave Lewis.

Rehberg’s suggestions would do nothing more than maintain the status quo and keep Montana in gridlock, losing good jobs in the woods and mills. As Rehberg himself said, “Doing nothing is not an option.” Montanans need leadership, not politics.

Leticia Romero

Missoula

In the beginning, the Big Sky Documentary Film Festival (see “A fan’s guide to the Big Sky Documentary Film Festival,” Feb. 11, 2010) committed to screen my film, Hear The Buffalo, at this year’s event. This film advocates ending the Yellowstone Park bison hunt and for the safety of the herd. The film is controversial. In the end, however, Big Sky censored the film from screening for esoterically lame reasons of their own. Janet Rose, on the other hand, welcomed our film at her CINE event at the Roxy. Go figure.

Frankly, I have no problem with Big Sky yanking off a bison advocacy film. That is entirely their business. What disturbs is the exploitative use of the bison image in all their advertising. Higgins Street is inundated with their bison image ads. Their website flaunts mega images of the bison. And their preview guide is emblazoned with bison. People in our region care deeply about wildlife. How is it that the Big Sky Film Festival censors a buffalo advocacy film, yet hypocritically exploits the image to sell seats? Is this business as usual?

And why should anyone complain about the white buffalo image, sacred to Native Americans, plastered upon a tub of popcorn on the Independent’s front page? It makes good business sense, right?

All is not lost, however. Anyone wishing to view Hear The Buffalo, can see it for free, that is, no charge, on the website www.worldwidefilmexpedition.org. Enjoy!

Gene Bernofsky

Director

World Wide Film Expeditions

Missoula

Marilyn’s Olsen’s letter on Sen. Jon Tester’s forest bill (see “Tester taken to task,” Feb. 11, 2010) got one thing right: More people need to read Tester’s bill.

The levels of timber treatment called for in the bill are sustainable precisely because the mandates include a range of activities, not just commercial logging. Mechanical treatment can include pruning the understory of overgrown stands, hauling forest materials that are building up on the ground, doing selective thinning in the wildland-urban interface, among many other activities. What’s more, the bill only mandates a level of acres to be treated, not an amount of board feet to be cut. And the 21 amendments that Tester has proposed make sure that restoration work is done within a set amount of time, that only local mills will get the contracts, and that treatment projects are prioritized in the wildland-urban interface.

The mandates in the bill can be met using a very broad range of treatments, but the critics of Tester’s bill love to talk about commercial logging because that’s the bogeyman that frightens other environmentalists. Thankfully, most Montanans are getting beyond scare tactics and following Tester’s lead. Tester is talking about much more than commercial logging. He’s talking about getting more work done in lands that are already roaded and suffering from extensive beetle kill. He’s trying to forge a future for our timber mills that focuses on restoration instead of just “getting the cut out.” He’s trying to work alongside timber industry leaders to preserve our options for the local management of our forests.

And, he’s trying to make sure that we protect the headwaters of Rock Creek, Monture Creek, the North Fork of the Blackfoot and the Clearwater River. These are Montana rivers and last time I checked there isn’t even one other bill that stands half a chance of protecting them.

Tester just introduced 21 proposed changes to a bill that was already quite good. For some people, it will never be enough. For Tester and for most Montanans, though, enough is enough. We aren’t going to get a bill that is perfect for everyone, that’s why we compromise and work together on these things, something you know if you’ve spent much time at all in the West. We need to designate these 670,000 acres of new wilderness and get more work done in the woods. Here’s to Tester and to Sen. Max Baucus for backing a fine bill.

Emma Young

Missoula

Your “etc.” column in last week’s paper criticizing the coverage of the stomping death of the kitten named Mercy left me wondering about those who criticized.

It was surprising that either of the journalism professors doubted the newsworthiness of the story compared to what they cited—the Haiti earthquake and the Flathead man who allegedly killed family members. Haiti has been covered extensively in all the daily news outlets for weeks now. And the family shooting was certainly horrible—but when is there not a human-shot-human story in the paper?

Both of those stories were relatively “dog bites man” in comparison to the “man bites dog” shock of someone stomping a helpless kitten to death, much less their own kitten. Most people think of their pets like family—making the story emotionally comparable to the very human-shot-human story the professors wanted us to be more concerned with. And people who know that animals are conscious, sentient, vulnerable beings cried over Mercy’s fate—and that was if they could even bear to read or hear about the story, which many could not. Mercy, especially vulnerable as a kitten, had already been rescued from being abandoned at about two months old, two months earlier. Do any of you who doubted the story’s newsworthiness even think that animals have inherent worth and dignity and deserve protection from abuse? Or maybe none of you have pets? Or maybe you just don’t like cats? As for those who might agree with you, I’ll bet trappers were as surprised as any of you that animal-stomping was news, since they do that every day for fun if they can. And finally, the huge outpouring of responses to the story proved that it was newsworthy.

As for a claimed “intention to sensationalize,” I don’t suppose we can know that without knowing the motives of the publishers. Regarding the abuser’s name getting into the paper right away, unless the person is a juvenile, that regularly happens with most news stories. As for the risk of creating a “mob mentality,” then maybe his name should have been kept out for a while if the publishers realized that could happen. As to whether neighbors should have known about the abuser’s stress, he reportedly kept to himself. After he did stomp the cat, nobody knew the why of it all, nor whether there was a chance to treat his mental condition. But given that society does not provide counseling for those who need it but can’t afford it, and that counseling is largely not covered by insurance anyway, it’s predictable that nothing would have been done for him (and that’s assuming that he even could change at the late age of 63). In fact, the real news here would have been if adequate and sufficient counseling would have been attempted for him.

Bill Clarke

Missoula

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

Sen. Jon Tester’s cavalier remarks about the Obama administration’s objections to his logging bill demonstrate incredible arrogance and willful denial of reality (see “Logjam,” Feb. 11, 2010). Undersecretary Harris Sherman, whose hearing testimony strongly questioned essential aspects of Tester’s bill, is not just any old witness—he’s the guy who was hired to oversee the Forest Service, and to formulate and give voice to the administration’s forest policy.

It’s not about Sherman having “heartburn,” as Tester puts it. And it’s immaterial whether there are individuals in the Forest Service or anywhere else in government who don’t share Sherman’s views, as Tester speculates. A policy has been articulated—the administration, representing citizens inside and outside Montana and a broader public interest, has put its foot down on the senator’s over-the-top logging mandate and the terrible precedents his bill would establish.

Unfortunately, since the hearing, Tester’s contrarian response has been to increase the amount of logging the bill requires. He says “the jury is out” on his bill, even though it’s hard to find anyone who likes it. He promises “plenty of places to find and cut trees” to prop up the timber industry, when there’s little demand, and a huge backlog of uncut timber under contract.

Tester seems to have made a personal decision to just bully and bluster his way ahead, no matter what common sense would dictate. By contrast, the Forest Service appears to be trying to serve the public interest with its assertive stand against the bad ideas in Tester’s bill.

Steve Gilbert, board member, Helena

Janine Blaeloch, director, Seattle

Western Lands Project

Missoula’s horrifying story of the kitten Mercy’s abuse—smashed spine and pelvis, squished vertebrae, bruised and broken limbs, attempted drowning, shock, paralysis—has brought a national outpouring of compassion. But the agony poor Mercy suffered is exactly what happens to countless tens of thousands of animals that struggle in fear and pain and slowly die in traps every year in Montana.

Tens of thousands of traps are baited, hidden, set and reset across Montana. The furbearing season lasts nine months. For predators like foxes and coyotes, traps can be set all year long, anywhere, no license required. No one knows how many animals are killed, drowned, or how many chew off their feet or twist their limbs until they break, and then chew through tissue, muscle and arteries to escape—it’s so common, trappers call this a “wring-off.” One ranger, trapping for a year, documented that for every animal taken, two are discarded.

Now Montana has vanishing populations of rare and sensitive creatures who live by their wits and endanger no one: fisher, marten, otter, lynx and wolverine, all thanks to recreational trapping.

In any other circumstance, this wasteful abuse would bring felony charges. But every day and night across our public lands’ mountains and prairies, thousands of animals suffer and are stomped and clubbed to death in the name of recreation. Wildlife in Montana belongs to all Montanans. Over the past 15 years the Legislature has killed three bills attempting to rein in trapping. Why is the state letting this practice continue?

Now citizens can stop it. We can support Initiative 160, Montana Trap-Free Public Lands. Find the petition and sign it. Go to www.mttrapfree.org. Put an end to this shameful “hobby.”

Dave Taylor

Missoula