Thank you all for your thoughts and care. You got it right Reed, he was just a boy and so scared. I am touched by each one of your insights about my beautiful boy. Thank you again.
Their prices are welcome to speak on their behalf, but quality of service as is often the case can drown out the murmuring. I wish them the best of luck.
have a great day
Why didn't these guys open in the old Safeway on Brooks- or even Broadway for that matter? I don't think that location is close to their target hippie market.
Good luck getting out of the parking lot! Traffic is already backed up at the intersection of 3rd and Reserve..but Missoula is already used to driving a 1/4 mile out of the way just to turn around and get pointed in the right direction.
Thumbs up to increased access to organics and 50 new jobs...thumbs down to corporate grocery chain.
"But Rehberg, who had no response when asked directly how much outside interests had spent in this race, doesn’t seem to be too troubled by where that money is coming from. "
What a douchey excuse for journalism. Outside interests aren't allowed to coordinate with the candidate, and knowledge of their activities would be illegal. But to the liberal press, its a negative for Rehberg. Please...
I regret reading this poor excuse for a review.
This is awkward. I'm the first one to leave a comment. But yeah, I'm a Jesse Stone fan. Saw my first movie about two years ago and quickly warmed up to it. Nice break from all the frenetic TV and movie shows out there. I loved watching Jesse Stone somewhere between 12 mn and 3 am. It's a cozy relationship. I love the characters and the mundaneness of it all. Like a nice cool half-full glass of Scotch sitting in a room by itself...
Shweittzer would sell all of eastern MT., to put money in the bank. Which is fine with me. Just 'scrub-land anyway.
Hill and Rehberg are just like the Missouri failed pig-farmer Senator Burns.
'WORTHLESS AND GREEDY. ~ ~'
Seeing as it has not even been two weeks since this happened how is it possible "the kitchen staff is at least two weeks out on paychecks"? get it right random, it seems as though they are doing their best to get it back up and running!
Please don't change the mandolin burger. best burger in town (get it right indy awards).
That's what unemployment is for.
. . .no one's losing their job, but most of the kitchen staff is out at least two paychecks at this point.
Oh, and speaking about Wayne Hirst from Libby (the gentleman in the pro-Tester ad posted above)....
Today marks the 4 year anniversary of Wayne Hirst paying for a half page newspaper advertisement in a local Libby newspaper accusing me of being (and I quote Hirst) the "man most responsible for the economic destruction of Libby."
I guess a little company called WR Grace really didn't screw over Libby's workers and the Libby townspeople after all. In his paid ad Hirst called on the Libby newspaper never to print any of my words again. How very anti-First Amendment of him, eh? So that's how Wayne Hirst likes to roll.
There is no way possible that 72 percent of Montanans back Tester’s mandated logging bill.
It's important for the public to understand that the poll referenced here was commissioned by an organization (League of Conservation Voters) that supports Tester's FJRA and the poll was paid for by an out-of-state foundation that supports LCV and 'collaborator' organizations such as Montana Wilderness Association. A poll about Tester's logging bill commissioned and funded by groups working to get Tester re-elected is no more unbiased than a GOP poll commissioned and funded by Karl Rove's organization.
The Missoulian newspaper was nice enough to provide me with a copy of the actual FJRA poll and, as expected, it's more of a "push poll" designed to get a predetermined result than an actual unbiased, scientific poll. I can provide anyone with a copy of the actual poll if they like (firstname.lastname@example.org).
As such, I highly doubt that statewide support for Tester's Forest Jobs and Recreation Act would be anywhere near as high if the FJRA question was actually an accurate portrayal of the bill and not simply what amounts to basically only positive talking point we often see regurgitated by die-hard supporters of the bill.
Here's the actual question language related to Senator Tester's FJRA from the poll:
"Do you support the the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act, a partnership with timber companies and conservation groups, which protects wilderness areas on three national forests, while also requiring the Forest Service to increase logging for jobs and forest health"
Notice the poll question only focused on the FJRA in an entirely positive light.
One has to wonder if the if the FJRA question would have brought up the fact that Tester's FJRA releases Wilderness Study Areas for development that were protected by the late Senator Metcalf what the results would have been. Would 72% of Montanans really support this? No way.
Or how about if the poll question would have acknowledged the fact that Tester's bill would allow sheep ranchers motorized access into designated Wilderness areas? Or if the poll question would have pointed out that the Forest Service is concerned that the FJRA would cause budgetary problems throughout our region? Or if the poll question would have mentioned that some roadless and wildlands would become more of a motorized recreation play area than pristine land?
The undeniable truth of the matter is that the FJRA poll question is obviously very one-sided and doesn't at all touch on any of the concerns many different people (whether rural county commissioners, ranchers, conservationists, etc) have with the FJRA and the negative, long-term ramifications aspects of this bill would inflict on the management of America's public lands.
P.S. While obviously on-line newspaper opinion polls aren't scientific, it's worth noting that of the four Montana newspapers that ran on-line polls about Tester's FJRA those opposed to the bill outnumbered those in support by a nearly 2 to 1 margin in every one of these on-line polls.
In the Missoulian article about the UM rally, Senator Tester stated: “We can’t wait any longer. We need to responsibly manage our forests, and living here in Missoula you folks know exactly what I’m talking about. You see the effects and smell the effects of doing nothing.”
This is yet another unfortunate example of where Senator Tester, and the paid 'collaborators' campaigning around passage of this bill, are intentionally lying to and misleading the public.
The truth of the matter is that the forests and grasslands of the northern Rockies is a fire-dependent ecosystem. We always have had, and always will have, smoke from forest and grassland fires to deal with in this corner of the world.
Tester, the paid 'collaborators' at Montana Wilderness Association and the timber mills that support Tester's mandated logging bill are always attempting to convince the public that "nothing" is happening on our national forests in the way of logging, fuel reduction, restoration, etc. Heck, Tester even blames the smoke as part of "the effects of doing nothing."
Well, how about some of these little facts? Missoula is surrounded by the Lolo and Bitterroot National Forest. The Lolo National Forest has seen 99 ACTIVE TIMBER SALE during the period of FY 2005 to FY 2010. Furthermore, the Lolo National Forest has seen just one timber sale lawsuit during the past six years.
I don't have exact data for the number of active timber sales on the Bitterroot National Forest in recent years; however, I can tell you for sure that the Bitterroot NF hasn't had a timber sale lawsuit in over six years time while there has been dozens of active timber sales on the forest.
Ask yourself, does the fact that there have been over 100 active timber sales on the Lolo and Bitterroot National Forests in recent years, with only two timber sale lawsuits on these entire forests, really sound like we're "doing nothing" when it comes to timber sales?
Or how about the fact that when the federal stimulus bill passed in 2009, the Forest Service in Montana and northern Idaho documented the fact that they had nearly $100 million worth of shovel-ready restoration work (improving streams, repairing or replacing culverts, dealing with weeds, mine reclamation, etc). The Forest Service claimed that most of this $100 million in shovel-ready, NEPA-approved restoration work came from previous national forest stewardship contracting timber sales, in which the logging was finished years ago, meanwhile there was no money left to do any of the promised restoration work.
Senator Tester's staffers, the paid 'collaborators' at MWA and the timber industry are all well aware of these facts because these facts have been pointed out to them repeatedly over the past few years. Yet they still lie and mislead the public and claim that "nothing" is happening on our national forests...and the only way "something" will happen on our national forests in regards to logging or restoration is by passing Tester's FJRA. Statements like this are so obviously false and are one of the major reasons why Tester's bill has little to no support among the greater US environmental and Wilderness protection community or even within his own Democratic party. Thank you.
I support completely protecting our remaining roadless wildlands as Wilderness. I also support putting local people to work on bona-fide restoration projects to restore our national forests.
However, while college students and a handful of well-paid 'collaborator' environmentalists speak about the importance of wilderness areas, and their support of the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act (FJRA) they never stray too far from carefully scripted talking points to let the general public know a few more details about the FJRA.
After all, with any piece of legislation, the devil is in the details, not in neatly crafted sound-bites. I would hope that all of today's college students, and also well-funded 'collaborators' realize this.
For example, these folks fail to mention that Sen Tester's FJRA designated over 1,000,000 acres of Inventoried Roadless Areas on the Beaverhead Deerlodge National Forest as "Timber Suitable for Harvest."
Another important aspect of the FJRA that these folks completely ignore is that the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act (FJRA) has one member of Congress – for the first time in America’s history – simply mandating how much logging should take place in our public National Forest lands. This dangerous precedent would open the door for other members of Congress to simply mandate more logging, oil & gas drilling, grazing or mining on federal public lands in their own states. How in the world will the future of America's national forests (which belong equally to all Americans) look once the Idaho delegation starts mandating logging on Idaho's national forests? Or the West Virginia delegation starts mandating mountain top removal coal mining? Or the Wyoming delegation simply mandating the level of oil and gas development or fracking?
Yet another important policy issue surrounding the FJRA that these college students and paid 'collaborators' don't seem to understand is that this mandated logging would cause significant budgetary problems for the other national forests in Montana and our region. That's right, if Tester's mandated logging bill is passed, you can expect other National Forests, such as the Bitterroot, Lewis and Clark, Custer, Clearwater, Nez Perce, etc to have to fork over their limited resources and ship them over to the Beaverhead-Deerlodge or the Kootenai to complete all of Tester's required mandated logging.
In testimony before the US Senate, the head of the Forest Service said this about Tester's FJRA:
"We would urge you to consider the budgetary implications to meet the bill's requirements. If we were to go forward with FJRA it would require far greater resources to do that and it will require us to draw these monies from forests with 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 efforts to sift out what priorities ought to exist across the country."
You would think today's college students would be worried about the future of the national forest system and the legacy that we pass on to future generations.
Speaking of legacies, these college students and paid 'collaborators' also fail to mention that Sen Tester's FJRA would release, and open for development, pristine roadless wildlands that were protected as Wilderness Study Areas by the late, great Montana Senator Lee Metcalf in the 1970s.
Take, for example, the 229,710 acre West Pioneers Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRA), which includes the 151,00 acre Metcalf Wilderness Study Area (WSA). What Sen Tester’s bill does is turn 129,252 acres of this IRA into a permanent, motorized Recreation Management Area (RMA). Not even the “Beaverhead Partnership” supported this. Do we really want politicians ignoring the Forest Service’s travel plans to just legislate where they want motorized recreation permanently permitted? Should we include facts like this in a discussion about the FJRA or should be just limit discussion to the positive talking points?
Or take, for example, what Tester wants to do to the West Big Hole IRA, a 213,987 acre area along the crest of the continental divide that provides linkages and connectivity between the Greater Yellowstone area and forests to the west and north. Sen Tester’s bill turns just 44,084 acres of this IRA into two small, far-apart Wilderness Areas while turning much of the IRA into a single, large, permanent, motorized National Recreation Area (NRA) totaling 94,237 acres. The large NRA would be twice as large as the two proposed Wilderness areas together and access to these two proposed Wilderness areas would be forced to use the motorized NRA trails. Again, this extreme move by Senator Tester to mandate motorized recreation in our wildlands wasn’t even supported by the “Beaverhead Partnership” in their original proposal.
Once again, I appreciate that some college students have support for Wilderness, but the young people being organized by the paid 'collaborators' at the Montana Wilderness Association (which has received almost 1 million dollars to campaign around Tester's FJRA) are purposely only telling a small part of the FJRA story.
They are focusing on a few of the more positive aspects of the bill, such as the protection of roadless lands, while (very ironically) ignoring the roadless lands and already-protected Wilderness Study Areas that will be opened up for development and sacrificed if Senator Tester's FJRA passes as written.
Let's hope the students at UM, and the paid 'collaborators' who are directing them, that are supporting FJRA actually take the time to read the bill and consider the policy implications both for the short-term an the long-term. The UM has a long history of students becoming leaders in conservation and environmental protection and good public policy. Let's hope the current generation takes that responsibility seriously, instead of what unfortunately seems like just repeating talking points and supporting politicians over good policy and the future of our national forest legacy.
P.S. Over the past four year many Montanans – as well as Americans – have expressed serious, substantive concerns with Senator Tester’s FJRA. Concerns and opposition has come from not only the 50 plus conservation organizations (see list at the bottom of this comment) that make up the Last Best Place Wildlands Campaign, but also from conservation groups such as the Sierra Club, Defenders of Wildlife, Natural Resources Defense Council, Center for Biological Diversity and Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility – some of the most respected environmental groups in our nation.
Alliance for the Wild Rockies (MT)
Big Wild Advocates (MT)
Buffalo Field Campaign (MT)
Conservation Congress (MT)
Central Montana Wildlands Association (MT)
Deerlodge Forest Defense Fund (MT)
Friends of the Bitterroot (MT)
Friends of the Rattlesnake (MT)
Friends of the Wild Swan (MT)
Montana Rivers (MT)
Swan View Coalition (MT)
Western Montana Mycological Association (MT)
Western Watersheds Project (MT)
Wilderness Watch (MT)
WildWest Institute (MT)
Yellowstone Buffalo Foundation (MT)
Allegheny Defense Project (PA)
Big Wildlife (OR)
Biodiversity Conservation Alliance (WY)
Buckeye Forest Council (OH)
Caney Fork Headwaters Association (TN)
Cascadia Wildlands (OR)
Center for Biological Diversity (AZ)
Center for Sustainable Living (IN)
Citizens for Better Forestry (CA)
Clearwater Biodiversity Project (ID)
Cumberland Countians for Peace & Justice (TN)
Dogwood Alliance (NC)
EcoLaw Massachusetts (MA)
Ecosystem Advocates (OR)
Environmental Action Committee of West Marin (CA)
Environmental Protection Information Center (CA)
Green Press Initiative (MI)
Friends of Bell Smith Springs (IL)
Friends of the Breitenbush Cascades (OR)
Friends of the Clearwater (ID)
Hells Canyon Preservation Council (OR)
John Muir Project (CA)
Kentucky Heartwood (CA)
Klamath Forest Alliance (CA)
League of Wilderness Defenders (OR)
Native Forest Council (OR)
Network for Environmental & Economic Responsibility, United Church of Christ (TN)
Protect Arkansas Wilderness! (AR)
Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) (DC)
RESTORE the North Woods (ME)
Save America’s Forests (DC)
Selkirk Conservation Alliance (ID)
Umpqua Watersheds (OR)
Utah Environmental Congress (UT)
Western Lands Project (WA)
WildEarth Guardians (NM)
If this is such a good piece legislation, then why is it so difficult to get it passed on its merits? Whether you like the Wilderness designations or wish for more logging, can't we all agree that the process used to push this bill is repugnant?
Consider what they’re trying to do. This model says any self-selected group that catches the ear of a congressman can decide for the rest of us how to manage huge swaths of PUBLIC land. No votes, no amendments, no public comments can influence the outcome.
How does one get invited to these collaborative groups? If you’re not involved in the collaboration, when and how do you get a voice in the process?
Before the "listening sessions" started, Sen. Tester made it clear that there would be no negotiation on Wilderness acreage or amount of logging. He threatened to kill the bill himself if any changes were made to either in committee. Then he engaged in backroom dealing to get the bill passed without any further debate or an actual vote. The inescapable conclusion is that they want to minimize public input on how to manage public lands.
If you're a Democrat, ask yourself if you'd be comfortable with Denny Rehberg carrying a bill like this, written by people who stand to profit from its passage, shielding it from votes and amendments in committee and tacking it on as an amendment to must-pass legislation.
What could go wrong with a model like that?
This is a flawed model that will lead to predictable problems down the line. We can accomplish all the goals of this bill in smarter ways that preserve the public’s voice in these matters and at the same time insulate public land management from the whims and dirty dealing of congress.
Nice shows lately with
Missoula News/Independent Publishing |
Powered by Foundation