Comments on: Secrecy of Tester’s Wilderness Plan Draws Critics
By Matthew Koehler on 07-09-09
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2009 12:59To: “Stone-Manning, Tracy (Tester)” <Tracy_Stone-Manning@tester.senate.gov>,
<Matt_Jennings@tester.senate.gov>,
“Swanson, Dayna (Tester)” <Dayna_Swanson@tester.senate.gov>
From: Matthew Koehler <koehler@wildrockies.org>
Subject: Tester’s Staff: We’re still waiting for you to break the silence
Hello Tracy and Matt:
I’d just like to point out that the silence, secrecy and shenanigans from Senator Tester’s office continues regarding your Wilderness/Logging legislation, as we still haven’t been given a copy of the legislation. This is despite repeated requests all week long and yesterday’s promise from someone in your DC office that we’d at least be given maps of the Beaverhead part of your secret proposal.
Your spokesperson’s notion that once your secret legislation is introduced into Congress “It will be the beginning of the process, not the end” is insulting to everyone. Do you really think that anyone believes that average, ordinary Montanans and Americans will have more of a say in this legislation once it goes to DC?
Please stop the secrecy and the smoke blowin’ and open up this process to a broad-cross section of Montanans and Americans, who are the rightful owners of these public lands. All your folks have done is served to reward the secret, selective, exclusive nature of the Beaverhead-Deerlodge Partnership. That’s not the way we do things in Montana, even if one of the big Beaverhead Partnership promoters happens to be Tracy’s former boss.
Thanks,
Matthew Koehler
WildWest Institute
By Craig moore on 07-09-09
Matt K, thank you for your letter. This type of sheet as exhibited by Tester needs to stop.
By Matthew Koehler on 07-10-09
Thanks Craig. This is not about our perspective or our organization. This is 100% about ensuring an open and transparent public process when public lands policy is crafted. Even if Tester’s secret Wilderness/Logging bill was the best thing since sliced bread, this secret process bodes ill for the future of public lands management and everyone should be concerned and outraged.
By Craig moore on 07-10-09
Matt K, I agree. Thank you again for your citizenship.
By Ben Long on 07-10-09
Good grief. Secret my eye. Imagine trying to write a bill via committee—a committee of 900,000 opinionated Montanans. Maybe we should just legislate by Wikipedia? Let the Senator do his job. I have not seen this draft bill either but know the process well enough there will be plenty of substance to debate when we have a draft to tear into. I look forward to it.
By Fair Row on 07-11-09
Politicians cheat citizens out of the right to know. As soon as the cheating process is complete they are free to engage in deception. Transparency in government is a myth and can only be obtained after expensive and time-consuming lawsuits.
By John Q. Murray on 07-12-09
Hi MattWhat would you want in a Montana wilderness bill? (Is it different from NREPA?) Write it up and we’ll publish it.
Thanks
JQ
By Matthew Koehler on 07-12-09
Hi John. A great place to start the Wilderness discussion in Montana would be to look at what each of the forest plans recommends for Wilderness. These forest plans have been part of an open and inclusive process run by the Forest Service and most of the national forests in Montana are currently going through a forest plan revision process, so any recommended Wilderness contained within those forest plans would certainly be worthy of any Montana Wilderness bill. Another option is to start with the 6 million acres of Inventoried Roadless Areas on national forests in Montana and go from there. If people think some IRA’s aren’t worthy of Wilderness protection they would be able to make their case. And on the flip side, if people think there are non-IRA’s that are worthy of Wilderness protection they would be able to make their case as well.
These suggestions are in stark contrast to the Beaverhead-Deerlodge Partnership which has been a closed, selective and exclusive process. Heck, we’ve even heard from a good source that the three enviro groups and the four timber mills who were a part of the Beaverhead Partnership signed a “Confidentiality Agreement” prior to the start of their secret negotiations that took place three or four years ago. That’s right! A “Confidentiality Agreement!”
So, in other words, all Tester is doing by putting the Beaverhead Partnership in his legislation is encouraging and codifying public lands management by self-selected special interests groups or corporations who have signed Confidentiality Agreements among themselves while excluding everyone else who is an equal owner of these lands. Is this really how we want the future of public lands management decided? I strongly say “no” and I hope other people do too!
Those are just some Sunday afternoon thoughts to chew on. If you want more information please feel free to contact me. I’m glad that finally people are starting to talk about all of this. After all, for the past 4 years I’ve been trying to get the Montana media to take a look at all these emerging selective, exclusive, secret negotiations concerning public lands management without much luck.
By John Q. Murray on 07-12-09
Hi MatthewThanks much for the quick reply - let me make sure I understand what you would advocate if you were at the table.
You mentioned 2 possibilities for a Montana bill:
(1) based on Inventoried Roadless Areas—NREPA is already before Congress so there is little sense in duplicating that bill.
(2) Based on forest plan revisions.
I am familiar with Lolo NF and the area from Frenchtown west through Mineral County, and there the forest plan revision process called for wilderness in just a few areas, the Great Burn and the Reservation Divide, which is significantly smaller than all of the IRAs.
So if you were at the table, would you support a position less than NREPA, based on only the wilderness called for in the forest plans?
Thanks
John Q
The views expressed in the comments section do not reflect those of the Beacon.