Two weeks ago, to much rhetoric about putting “Montanans back to work in the woods,” Sen. Jon Tester introduced the “Forest Jobs and Recreation Act” (S-1470).
Tester’s 84-page bill mandates that 100,000 acres be treated over a 10-year period under “stewardship” rules established in the Omnibus Public Lands Act Congress passed this spring.
In return for blessing what is, in the context of Montana’s 3 million acres of beetle kill, a puny, temporary forestry program, environmentalists would see 670,000 acres of Big-W wilderness designated permanently. What a deal.
Even better, about 260,000 acres of “Protected” and “Recreation” areas will be carved out of proposed wilderness, supposedly to secure multiple-use recreation for the 98 percent of forest recreationists who use a motor. In these special areas, mining, geothermal, even forestry would all be prohibited, same as wilderness. New infrastructure (campgrounds, roads, trails) is verboten, same as wilderness. Grazing is grandfathered, but is to be managed under wilderness rules.
The only reason these areas are not “real” or “Big-W” wilderness is they would allow very limited mountain-biking, snowmobiling and on/off-road-vehicle recreation. But, like the timber “jobs” under stewardship, the access is not guaranteed. Access would be under direct control of the “Secretary concerned,” either Agriculture or Interior, who could decide to close “any trail or route for the purposes of resource protection or public safety.” In short, while these areas would not be “Wilderness” in name, they would be 90 percent wilderness in fact … and the last 10 percent depends on one person.
How can it be that nearly 1 million acres of permanent Wilderness and “Wilderness Light” is traded for a temporary 10,000 acres per year of badly needed harvest, and it’s a “compromise?”
The four timber companies involved in this “collaboration” probably feel they have no choice but to surrender. With the possible exception of Plum Creek, Montana’s timber industry has been kicked to its knees over a period of years by a vicious combination of Congressional neglect and endless litigation. Today’s rotten economy is just the knife on their throat.
As for the environmental “partners” in this scheme, S-1470 is perfect. The wilderness happens first and forever. If the “jobs” or “recreation” side is litigated into failure, the Greens have no skin in the game anymore. They’ll just move the goalposts and their money to the next campaign, the next “compromise.”
Now, since it’s not nice to gripe without offering alternatives, here’s what I’ll do when I’m in the U.S. Senate:
One: Open the process. Tester’s bill relies on closed-door machinations between self-selected environmental groups and sawmills. Everyone else, including elected officials, was kept completely out of the loop until the bill of goods was ready for sale. That is wrong.
Those at the table, including affected state and local elected officials, will be expected to see the process through in good faith to an agreement against which participants may not litigate once agreement is reached. Proven obstructionists can be voted out, or may leave in order to retain their litigation rights.
Two: No more moving goalposts. Any Montana wilderness/jobs/recreation “compromise” must contain binding this-and-no-more provisions that clarify and confirm Congress’s intent when it passed the first Wilderness Act in 1964.
Three: “Equal protection” for multiple use. Just as wildernesses are designated and therefore permanently “protected,” associated multiple-use lands and activities thereon should, at a minimum, be placed under equally permanent protection. Bonding or “loser pays” rules for litigants is one option. Even better, an agreed-upon management plan could be given a Congressional finding of “legal sufficiency,” thereby becoming lawsuit-proof for a fixed period of time so as to be allowed to work.
Finally, and critically: Wilderness after, not before. In a good-faith compromise, both sides wind up better off. Goals for forestry in terms of acreage, harvest, and reduced wildfire risk should be set; goals for trail, camp and road infrastructure should be enumerated. Only when the non-wilderness objectives have been met, after a set period of 10 or 15 years, shall wilderness designation go forward.
Wow. Would I make a great Senator or what?