Great to hear Michael Garrity defending the Forest Service professional honor, when he spends most of his life attacking anything the same Forest Service proposes to actually manage the forest. Garrity and the other high priests of purity must be pretty lonely in this game if they allign with the Forest Service.

One major concern with this bill is the notion that we can use money generated from "stewardship logging" to pay for needed restoration work. That strategy has largely failed to pay for much restoration work even when lumber demand and prices were high. The fact that the Forest Service in MT and ID has over $100 million in "shovel ready" restoration work just waiting for funding proves this point. Much of this restoration work was actually part of these former "stewardship logging contracts." The logging got finished years ago, but there was no money left to do much of the restoration work.

Now that there's no demand for lumber and lumber prices are low and we're in the the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression this "stewardship-logging-to-pay-for-restoration" strategy is even more bankrupt.

For example, the Beaverhead Partners have already proposed a test pilot project called the East Deerlodge Valley Project. The Forest Service analyzed the project area and found 3000 acres suitable for logging. Apparently, in a private meeting with the Forest Service Bruce Farling of MT Trout Unlimited and Sun Mountain Lumber's Steve Flynn objected to "only" 3000 acres of logging and instead proposed 10,000 acres for logging. I have the actual maps the Forest Service produced and shared them with the Indy reporter. Ironically, the maps are called the Sun Mountain Lumber Additions. Unfortunately, none of this information makes it into this story.

Funny thing, for every acre of more logging above 3000 acres, the project's economic analysis actually shows that the project loses more and more money. How such an approach pays for all that restoration work these "partners" keep touting is a real mystery.

Hopefully the public asks some tough questions about the economic and ecological realities behind how "stewardship contracting" actually plays out on the ground. Then again, I've been trying to get the Montana media to look into this issue for something like 5 years now, with little success. I guess it's just much nicer to tell people how great "stewardship-logging-for-restoration" is without getting into the messy details about how the logging always gets finished but the restoration work lags far behind.

Oh, and before I forget, while on the subject of "stewardship contracting" I need to address the notion from Pyramid Lumber's Gordy Sanders' that "a stewardship project can turn a profit if it controls two variables-location and extraction method. If the mill is close to the logging site, and the loggers don't use helicopters or other expensive extraction equipment, it's possible for the logging company to make money despite depressed timber prices."

Fact is, on that East Deerlodge Valley project the entire project area is quite literally located directly uphill from Sun Mountain Lumber. The log truck drivers could quite literally put it in neutral and coast to the mill. Still, more logging equals more money lost.

And of course the logging industry would like to see all public lands logging done with ground based equipment. Sure it's cheaper for them. However, ground based equipment is also ecologically detrimental for things such as sensitive forest soils. It facilitates the spread of weeds and creates skid trails/mini-roads which are illegally used by ATV'ers, etc, etc. We've seen this time and again when monitoring projects post-logging. That's why the Forest Service's resource specialists often call for helicopter logging or sky-line yarding. So, basically all Sanders is saying is stewardship logging pays (if you're a timber mill) if we let the logging companies do half-assed logging on public lands (and if nobody is really too concerned about getting much bona-fide restoration work accomplished). Not sure how that gets us to a "healthier forest" or qualifies as "stewardship."

The Indy's blog features an interview with Senator Tester. Check it out at http://missoulanews.bigskypress.com/IndyBl….

Here's a SNIP from that interview followed by my comment and some facts about US lumber demand from the Western Wood Products Association.

"As for the claim that declining market for wood products is permanent, Tester brushes it off. 'I hope we get [the bill] kicked in sooner rather than later and I hope the economy kicks in sooner rather than later,' Tester said. 'Overall, our demand for wood is not decreasing....'"

Really Senator Tester? Our demand for wood is not decreasing? Perhaps some of your staffers need to do a better job getting you credible information Senator.

According to a press release from the Western Wood Products Association (available at: http://www2.wwpa.org/ABOUTWWPA/NewsRoom/ta…), "demand for lumber in the US in 2009 will slide to the lowest level in modern history."

Also, "The poor economy and a housing market that has plummeted to historic lows are the chief reasons for the remarkable decline in lumber demand. WWPA predicts U.S. lumber demand will slide this year to just 28.9 billion board feet, down almost 30 percent from 2008 totals. Since reaching an all-time high of 64.3 billion board feet in 2005, U.S. demand for lumber has dropped by more than 55 percent - the steepest decline in the history of the industry."

So, to re-cap, according to the Western Wood Product's Association, U.S. demand for lumber has dropped more than 55% since 2005, the steepest decline in the history of the industry." But according to Senator Tester "Overall our demand for wood is not decreasing." Who are you going to believe?

Many of us rightfully question how Senator Tester is going to save timber industry jobs by simply mandating that the Forest Service provide more cheap, public timber to the industry.

Does this make any economic sense? Is this really how we should develop public policy dealing with public lands? Right now on national forest lands throughout Montana there are easily 20,000 + acres of timber sales just sitting there waiting to be logged. The timber sales either have gotten no bids from the timber industry or even if the sales are under contract to logging companies they simply aren't logging because they can't sell the lumber.

The fact remains that mills such as RY Timber (where Sen Tester announced his bill) are running at 60% because demand for lumber has plummeted and they simply don't have the big customer contracts they had before the housing bubble burst (Which many of us in the environmental movement warned about for years because the building and development rates were so unsustainable).

Heck, US taxpayers just handed $1,000,000 in "stimulus" money to a helicopter logging operation in the BItterroot Valley so they could log previously unlogged forests up the East Fork and send the trees to Smurfit Stone (which recently got $543,000,000 from US taxpayers to burn more diesel fuel as part of an "alternative" energy tax credit) for pulp logs. If this is what it means to "save the timber industry" does this make any economic or environmental sense?

All the slick talking points aside, when do we get answers to these important questions Senator Tester?

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.

Jon Tester made a campaign promise to protect
ALL remaining montana roadless areas. This bill release vast amoutns of roadless lands to logging etc. It;s as simple as that TESTER LIED OLD GROWTH DIED. I'm so dissapointed Rick I truly thought you of all people could see through the bs in this bill. They know NREPA just got shut down and was painted in a very bad light by the media etc. They know montana is hungry for the big W and that this is just the right time to pass soke sheisty bill like this under the lame guise of compromise. This bill protects roughly 10% of the available wilderness lands in Montana. A 90-10 "compromise" is anything but. All remaining roadless lands deserve protection. These ancient forests have survived for thousabnds of years and it's a miralce they're still here approaching the year 2010. Perhaps you could use some your own advice Mr. Bass perhaps it's been too long since you've slept on the ground in an unprotected roadless area. Perhaps it's been too long since you heard a golden eagle scream from the top of a wolf lichen draped old growth Douglas Fir. I work and spend almost all my free time in roadless and wilderness lands. These areas are the last of our wild country and they represent a very small percentage of the whole that can and should be protected. Their portection does not hurt the local economies, terminate jobs or prevent acess to our public lands in any way. These lands are worth more remaining as they are.

We can do better Montana..do you want to be the last best place or just the last best place to log old growth.

I dont want montana to beomce just like every other place.