A welcome change
by Rick BassArticle Tools
- Chad Harder
- More than 100 Tester supporters—some from as far away as New York and Massachusetts—crowded into the parking lot of the Seeley Lake Chamber barn and Historical Museum Saturday to hear Montana's junior senator discuss his new bill.
I want to thank Sen. Jon Tester for his work on the forest stewardship bill—or the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act—that embraces wilderness as part of Montana's badly needed stewardship.
Many of us have been working for wilderness protection for decades in Montana. And many of us have always believed that Montana's 17 million acres of national forests include both places to provide fiber for local jobs and places to provide solace for wildlife and people.
Over time, people grow weary of intergenerational dead-end conflict. So perhaps it's no coincidence that in three distinct places, Montanans got together to set past battles aside and seek solutions for local communities and their surrounding forests. The Yaak Valley Forest Council (on whose board I serve as a volunteer) took part in one of those efforts—an effort now being rewarded as part of the bill drafted by Tester.
I support this bill enthusiastically because it is good for the Yaak Valley, a unique place that is special to me personally and, more importantly, vital to the ecology of North America. I support the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act because it is good for Montana, too. It protects the lowest elevation forest in Montana—gnarly, dark, swampy, mosquito-infested wild places like Roderick Mountain. It protects wild places that are the heart of a wild valley that never fails to recharge my spirits and soul when I am in those places.
These are places that, as I grow older, I hope to be able to share with future generations of Montanans. Do I mind that a community has assembled the disparate needs of others into a map of common ground to accomplish this protection? Not in the least. I celebrate it.
These talks—on the Kootenai, and in the Lolo, and on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forests—included leaders of snowmobile and ATV clubs, outfitters, mill owners, businesspeople and environmentalists, asking for support and belief in these place-based attempts to map areas of common ground. All participated with one commonality—a commitment to finding a solution, rather than attending to obstruct the attempts.
These earnest and trusting discussions began long before Tester was elected to his current office. These discussions were dismissed as "pipe dreams" by many, though not by anyone with skin in the game. Many of the participants had been involved in similar discussions in previous decades, to no avail, which makes these participants' most recent efforts all the more courageous and laudable.
Tester is honoring these discussions by packaging them into a bill now up for an even broader debate. Some will want more, others will want less. There remain rough edges to polish, gaps to fill, bolts to tighten. But this effort, and Tester, deserves the support of Montana's wilderness advocates—and of Montanans in general.
As with any issue concerning national forests—the thing that at the end of the day unites, or has the potential to unite, all Montanans—there will be critics and fears, some intense. But many of the early accusations aimed at the bill are downright ludicrous.
One accusation is the bill has been assembled in secret. This is laughable, given how participants have promoted their community projects, posted websites with proposed drafts of the bill, mailed out brochures, invited comment for years, held open community meetings, asked for input and drove to meet in person the very people who are now claiming falsely to have been excluded. I personally have rolled out the maps and explained the proposal to many of the new critics feigning ignorance.
But as Mark Twain said, a lie goes around the world before the truth gets its shoes on.
On one side, critics say the bill is a Trojan horse by the timber industry, brought in by environmentalists co-opted by the mills. On the other side, critics say the bill is a Trojan horse by environmentalists to destroy the last of our desperate timber mills. I can assure you that there is nothing so cynical or manipulative going on here. It's really much simpler: Montanans who know the contours of their forests quite well are putting the past behind them, and seeking solutions.
As an environmentalist, I am deeply troubled by these and other false claims that the bill is comprised of anything but integrity. It's a small bill, true, but a new start—and again, the fact that Tester is willing to devote time and resources to developing a solution for conflicts in Montana, when so much else of the world is in such worse shape, humbles those of us who have been involved in the process since day one.
Regardless of one's position or beliefs, it is imperative that we represent ourselves honestly and discuss the facts of the proposed legislation, rather than manufacturing untruths to suit political purposes. "Winning" at any cost is not winning. "Winning" without dignity is not winning. It harms Montana and poisons further any future discussions about community and wilderness. And there are many outside of Montana, on both the left and the right, who would love nothing more than to see this legislation fail, for reasons that rarely have anything to do with the health of communities, or wildness.
The point is, we are now just getting started. There is room for improvement. Tester is still requesting input, even from the very people who for years have spurned the proposal's efforts and invitations.
Some in the press have reported on this legislation in shorthand, calling it a wilderness bill, and certainly, wilderness is at the tiny heart of each of these three initiatives. Wilderness is the seed within the fruit, but the seed is surrounded by the flesh and ethos of restoration—of preserving, in every way, the things that make Montana be Montana. It's good for wild places like the Yaak, and the Beaverhead-Deerlodge, and the Seeley-Swan, and it's good for the grizzlies and elk and trout and people who rely upon those wild places.
The Yaak portion of the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act protects all existing core grizzly habitat and old growth in the Yaak—there is even a small increase in the grizzly core, which is absolutely vital for the bear's survival—while still creating local jobs by thinning some of the fast-dying, overstocked small-diameter trees in the extreme frontcountry, which is at the leading edge of the ecosystem collapse wrought by global warming. Anyone who comes out of their basement long enough to walk the land can see this. As well, the stewardship vegetative treatments—burning, thinning, logging, weeding, culvert replacement, road decommissioning—involved in the project areas will surely be the most-scrutinized treatments on national forests in recent history, as they should be.
Kudos to Tester for being bold enough to act in the face of ecosystem change, species extinction and, not coincidentally, economic distress. Such action is one of Tester's job descriptions—it's expected—but that doesn't mean it's not appreciated.
There are many champions—everyday heroes and heroines, as well as those at the congressional level—who have laid down the paving stones for the success of this brave and overdue venture, and many Montanans know who they are. Pat Williams, from the old days, is chief among them, but there are many others, too many to name here.
This issue—forestry, wilderness and wildness, and recreation—touches the heart of everyone who lives in this state, as well as everyone who ever will. Of course Tester supports it, and knows it's the right thing to do.
Still, after 45 years of being denied, we in the Yaak Valley Forest Council cannot help but be amazed. And grateful.
Author and environmentalist Rick Bass splits his time between Missoula and the Yaak, where he has advocated wilderness protection for more than 20 years.
Showing 1-5 of 8
Add a comment | All comments »
Rick, With all due respect and appreciation, I do have to address your bold claim that those of us who have been concerned since 2006 with the exclusive, self-selective nature of some of these public lands "collaborations" are either telling a "lie" or "feigning ignorance." That's simply not true Rick and readers deserve to know the whole story.
Rick, to my knowledge, all of the criticism about the exclusive, self-selective nature of some of these public lands "collaborations" has been directed at the Beaverhead Partnership and, to a lessor extent, to the Blackfoot-Clearwater proposal. I haven't seen one instance where any of this criticism has been directed at your groups involvement with the Three Rivers Challenge. That's an important distinction which needs to be acknowledged.
The secret, non-transparent, exclusive nature of the Beaverhead Partnership has been well established by many people since it was unveiled in the spring of 2006. It's not like this is new news to anyone who has been following this issue closely over the past 3 years.
For example, the director of the public policy program at Arizona State University's law school (and the former counsel to the House Resources Committee) wrote an article expressing serious concerns about the nature of the "Beaverhead Partnership" that appeared in the Los Angeles Times in January 2008 (http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jan/24/op…).
NewWest.net's outdoor writer, "Wild" Bill Schneider has written extensively about this issue for the past three years and they even published a memo from some Montana Wilderness Association members (written in March 2007) blasting MWA for their questionable roll in the Beaverhead Partnership (See:
http://www.newwest.net/main/article/memo_t…).
Regarding the Blackfoot-Clearwater project, the undeniable fact is that the WildWest Institute did try and be an active member of their "collaboration" but the Wilderness Society and other members of that "collaboration" ignored our numerous formal requests to be included. For proof of the validity of my statement, see the email chain below, which speaks for itself. It should also be noted that, to my knowledge, all of the 15 concerns listed below were just completely ignored by the Blackfoot-Clearwater group.
Ironically, our organization was intentionally excluded and prevented from being members of the Blackfoot-Clearwater "collaboration" despite the fact that we are active and important members of the Montana Forest Restoration Working Group and the Lolo Restoration Committee and our history of working on common ground with the Lolo National Forest dates back before any of these other exclusive, self-selective "collaborations" sprouted up. For example, see the Missoula Indy's feature story for July 21, 2005 titled, "Out on a limb: Local Conservationists and Lolo National Forest official reach out in an attempt to find common ground."
This comment will be long enough without getting into other issues, so I'll leave it at that for right now. Suffice to say, public lands management needs to be open to all people, not just the corporations who covet our public resources and the self-selected few.
Thanks, Matthew
---------------
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009
To: "Scott Brennan"
From: Matthew Koehler
Subject: Re: Thanks again...
Cc: , "Broberg,Len" , , "George Nickas" , "Tom DeLuca" , "Bob Ekey" , jake, cam,
Scott, Thanks for writing up the notes. It was certainly good to sit down with you, Tom and the others to discuss the BCSP.
Over all, I think the notes do a decent job of encapsulating our conservation with the following modifications.
1) My recollection from the meeting was that the biomass proposal, as it's currently written, had no support form anyone in the room. I think that's an important point that needs to be clearly articulated in the notes below. Concerns were raised not only about using millions in taxpayer funding to give the lumber mill free energy, but Tom and others also spoke about the ecological concerns with the biomass facility. If my memory is correct, Tom even said that another TWS scientist (can't recall the name) has similar ecological concerns. Again, this needs to be in the notes and shared with the BCSP folks.
2) Something I don't see in the Summary of Comments, but something we discussed quite a bit, was the public perception that supporters of the BCSP are giving. We talked about the concern that you folks, in your press work and other public meetings, are giving the indication that this is a done deal (based on direction from MT's Congressional delegation) and that there are no concerns or issues with the BCSP as it currently stands. That's not true and I hope these notes can be amended to include this fact and also that BCSP supporters will keep this in mind as we move forward.
Other than that, the notes look good. I'd also just like to re-state something I mentioned at the meeting. WildWest is not categorically opposed to the BCSP. Rather, if the comments and concerns that all of us brought up in the meeting are addressed and incorporated an improved and revised BCSP is something we could likely offer our support towards.
Finally, on Jan 29 I wrote TWS stating, "I would like to respectfully request that WildWest be included in any and all discussions related to the Blackfoot Clearwater Stewardship Project (BCSP)." I still haven't heard back regarding this request, so I would appreciate it if someone with BCSP would get back with us about WildWest's request. We're still a little unclear how the BCSP operates.
Thanks again...Onward.
- Matthew
------------------
Matthew, Len, Bethanie and George,
On behalf of Tom DeLuca and myself, I would like to thank you once more for a great conversation about the Blackfoot Clearwater Stewardship Project last week. Tom and I both appreciated your interest in the project and the good questions and suggestions you shared during our talk and I am writing today, as promised, to follow up on your comments and questions.
I tried to keep an accurate summary of the issues you raised so I might share them with BCSP steering committee as a way of continuing the good dialogue we initiated last week. Toward this end, I have included a summary of what I think I heard from all of you last Monday and I am asking that you let me know whether my summary below is accurate and complete. Let me know if you have any edits/additions and I will, as I promised, share them with BCSP supporters for consideration.
Best,
Scott
DRAFT Summary of Comments Received on Monday, February 9
1. How could public funds devoted to biomass component meet diverse local energy needs (perhaps including power for local school, mill, other businesses, non-profits, etc)?
2. Update the website to more accurately reflect project details including biomass thinking and other project details including project acreage.
3. How can we ensure that coal is not burned in any biomass combustion facility the project envisions?
4. Show how the long-term demand for biomass can be sustainably met from local forests.
5. Including additional low-elevation lands in wilderness while allowing some higher elevation lands to be designated a snowmobile play area (consistent with recent past uses) seems to be a reasonable trade-off but should be illustrated on a "before and after" map of the project proposal.
6. Interest in seeing "before and after" map showing current land status/condition and how land would look after legislation was enacted and forest plan amended as envisioned.
7. How can we ensure that any biomass/cogen facility uses the best available, closed loop technology and will result in no net increase in CO2 emissions?
8. Explain what will happen if restoration monitoring shows undesired/unintended impacts/outcomes.
9. Explain the economic viability of stewardship contracting in the current/likely future timber market and how this will impact the viability of restoration work.
10. Explore means of de-linking logging and restoration work; i.e. ensure separate funding sources for each of these activity types
11. Answer the question of why mandatory stewardship is a desirable/viable approach
12. Regarding cooperative forestry funding, how can we ensure that private land restoration is not undone later by private land management practices?
13. Is it possible to get a contractual/financial guarantee that private lands that are restored won't be damaged later by management practices?
14. Add "road decommissioning" as specific language in the legislation.
15. Ensure the benefits (ecological and economic) of the Clearwater Stewardship Project are accurately reflected on website.
Scott Brennan, Director
Northern Rockies Forest Program
The Wilderness Society
503 W. Mendenhall
Bozeman, MT 59715
406-586-1600 x 117
Scott_Brennan@tws.org
Mr. Bass,
Thank you for a thoughtful and well-written column. It cuts through the nonsense being written and posted by no-compromise critics, and artfully reflects why the bill is already enjoying broad support reflected in editorials and letters published in newspapers across the state.
Montanans are hungry for solutions to address the problems plaguing out forests and only by working together are we going to make any progress.
I applaud Senator Tester for introducing his Forest Jobs bill. Montana and timber workers in my community will benefit from his leadership.
"Vincent VanGoCart" (nice anonymous name dude):
Why do you seem to hate information? You never seem able to get your head around any of the economic, ecological, social or public process criticism being offered from many quarters, so you just resort to shooting the messenger by labeling everything you don't like as "nonsense being written and posted by no-compromise critics." Isn't that a little funny considering how you always seem to implore everyone to work together?
Despite what you say using an anonymous name (wait, don't you really work for one of the groups or businesses who crafted this legislation?) the WildWest Institute is deeply involved with open and inclusive collaborative processes here in the Northern Rockies.
Some examples include: Being a founding member of the Kootenai Forest Stakeholder Coalition, founding member of the MT Forest Restoration Working Group, which developed a set of state-wide restoration principles, founding member of FireSafe MT, member of the Lolo and Bitterroot NF Restoration Committees and a member of a successful collaborative on the Salmon NF just over the border in Idaho.
Interested citizens can learn more about our organization and what we actually stand for and hope to achieve at http://www.wildwestinstitute.org. Thanks.
In this article from January (http://missoulian.com/articles/2009/01/02/…), we see the Forest Service acknowledge that much of the $100 million worth of "shovel ready" projects in MT and ID involve "cleaning up streambeds, obliterating roads, reclaiming abandoned mines, noxious weed control and other cleanup work left unfinished from previous [stewardship contracting] timber operations."
That's right, the logging got finished, but tens of millions in restoration work remains.
Keep in mind that all this "work left unfinished from previous [stewardship contracting] timber operations" occurred and has been building up over the past 6 years or so...when lumber demand was still at it's peak and lumber prices for the mills were about triple what they are now.
So now that lumber demand is down 55% since 2005 and lumber prices are down 60% or so, how many more tens (or hundreds) of millions of dollars in "work left unfinished from stewardship contracting logging projects" will we be accumulating when we mandate more public lands logging while there is little demand for wood products?
It's amazing to me, given that Tester's bill is largely being promoted by its supporters for the supposed jobs and restoration work, that nobody looks into this issue more carefully and asks Senator Tester some tough questions based on economic realities and how stewardship contracting has actually played out on the ground in Montana over the years.
when i worked with doug scott on wilderness issues back in the seventies and early eighties we had a word to describe those who support their own areas at the expense of other wilderness groups areas- traitors. you sir are a traitor to any wilderness supporter worthy of the name. this bill is a sellout. never give an inch of your wilderness or anyone elses wilderness. that is the code i live by. that is all.
Twitter
Facebook
RSS
Comments (8) RSS