Common Sense From Connell

BigHornRam

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2004
Messages
13,630
Location
"Land of Giant Rams"
Support for Zinke’s forest management plans


Posted on July 7, 2016 in Guest comment


By Sen. Pat Connell, SD-43, Hamilton
The past few days, Montanans have seen a debate develop regarding Congressman Zinke’s vote for a proposal that would create a pilot program for states to manage portions of US Forest Service (USFS) land. As a nationally certified professional forester and current State Senator who represents a district surrounded by USFS land, I am completely frustrated by the tone, tenor, and scare tactics being promulgated by fringe environmental groups.

As the Senator for the Southern Bitterroot, I sat in Congressman Zinke’s address to the Montana legislature when he promised that he would not support the sale or transfer of public land. This promise has often ruffled the feathers of some within Republican ranks, but he has remained consistent. However, he has simultaneously advocated for management proposals that give Montanans expanded authority to make decisions affecting the land within our communities. That is why he helped coauthor and pass the bipartisan Resilient Federal Forests Act last year, which would incentivize local collaboration to manage USFS land.

I find it ironic that the same groups who griped about Zinke’s bill last year are regurgitating the same failed talking points today. The reality is that these groups have no interest in any management solutions. They would rather issue scare tactics to maintain the status quo and promote their own political agenda and fund raising abilities. They’d rather try and convince you that the forest will be clear cut, your access will be cut off, and environmental law will be skirted, even though those claims are false. The reality is that the status quo has created some of the worst forest fires in our state’s history. Last year’s forest fires cut everyone’s public access, burnt down countless trees without discrimination, dirtied everyone’s air and water, and most importantly put Montanan’s life and property at severe risk.

As a forester I can guarantee you that with proper management, much of this could have been avoided. The federal government is failing us, and Montanans should be part of the solution. The idea of state management is not extreme, it’s common sense. Imagine a landowner’s home building project. The federal government as the land owner, the USFS the contractor. The blueprint for the house is the forest management plan. The plans have all been created and approved by the federal government, but the USFS can’t get the job done so they hire a subcontractor: the state. The state can’t change the rules or blueprints, but they don’t have the same backlog or bureaucracy so they finish the job more efficiently. The state doesn’t bypass the rules, they simply have the ability to put people with the skills on the ground to get the job done!

There is a fundamental flaw in the opposition’s argument. They believe that the federal government is the savior in this scenario, saying Washington bureaucrats can manage Montana’s interests better than actual Montanans. The inference is that the only thing saving Montana from itself is the federal government, as if we all want to clear cut our forests, lose precious wildlife, and dirty our air and water. The reality is that Washington didn’t make Montana the “Last Best Place on Earth,” we did. Our state is special because we value the true intent of multiple uses. We understand that responsible resource development and a clean environment are not mutually exclusive goals.

As a Montanan, a forester who worked in Montana’s forest industry over four decades, and current State Senator, I hate seeing our timber mills shuttered and pink slips issued. Federal timber is available, yet under the status quo it continues to decay as Montana is turned into a giant tinder box. This is unacceptable. We only have to remember the constant cloud of smoke we lived through in past years to know that something must change.

I applaud Congressman Zinke for advocating for common sense management reforms. It will protect our jobs, our forests, and our environment.

Sen. Pat Connell graduated from the UM School of Forestry in 1973 and made his career as resource manager in Montana and Idaho. He owns Timberland Forestry Services, LLC, a natural resource and forestry consulting business in Hamilton. He was first elected to the Legislature in 2010. Now in the Senate, he serves on Business & Labor, Natural Resources, and Energy & Telecommunications Committees.
 
I only got half way through before I started to hear echos of North Carolina and TrickyTross. Here it comes, Montana: east meets west.

While I can see legislation to encourage locals to participate, I don't think any more time, money or effort should be spent on that than on legislation to encourage non-locals to participate. Oh, wait, we have federal land managers for that.

Oh well, I'm going to stand down and take the responsive beating like a man. I'm not feeling like an argument today. Besides, I've said my piece elsewhere.

I will say that I walked past a pile of fire wood today and got the distinct smell of elk piss. Metaphorically made my dick hard.
 
Not much common sense from someone with a Forestry degree, must have flunked policy...
 
Not much common sense from someone with a Forestry degree, must have flunked policy...

Buzz, you are mean! :D

Carved in the shit house wall at my law school:

"A" students become teachers;
"B" students become judges;
"C" students get rich;
"D" students become politicians.
 
James,

I think Pack Rats are pissing in your wood pile, not Elk.

Buzz,

I was talking to a recently retired USFS forester last week. The dis-function in the USFS that he described was sad. You work for the USFS, right? With your attitude I can see where the dis-function is coming from.
 
I was talking to a recently retired USFS forester last week. The dis-function in the USFS that he described was sad.

I've had that conversation a thousand times. It usually involves complaints about politicians, political appointees and management types interfering with science and boots on the ground. I guess it depends on what position that recently retired USFS forester held.
 
The conversation centered around the USFS's complete inability to manage the lands they are in charge of. Knowing he had worked for the USFS, I was a little surprised at his un-flattering comments of how it is being run right now.
 
Last edited:
The conversation centered around the USFS's complete inability to manage the lands they are in charge of. Knowing he had worked for the USFS, I was a little surprised at his un-flattering comments of how it is being run right now.

I wonder if they need funding? Hard to do your job without money.

Anyway, don't be too surprised. Current and former USFS employees were saying the same thing back in the 80s and 90s.
 
http://news.heartland.org/newspaper...ays-forest-service-suffers-analysis-paralysis

Don't forget the 2000's James. But in 2016, the USFS dis-function is at a all time high. And throwing more money at the bureaucracy isn't going to change a thing.

Yeah, the bureaucracy is what I referred to above. Best to throw it at the science and the boots on the ground. That will work. Cutting will not work. In fact, it plays into the hands of those who want to privatize our national forests, or cut them down.
 
BHR, the problem with state management, is that it's possible for you to end up with a Fielder, or a Brenden, or a Barrett in charge of those state lands.
 
BHR,

Really, you think what Connell wrote is a good idea?

Come on...all he is proposing is to create another level of bureaucracy by involving the State. Plus, where is the State of Montana's flesh in the game? Oh, that's right, Connell just wants them (State) to be a sub-contactor, paid for by the federal taxpayer, from an agency that already is financially strapped.

Good thinking.

Plus, if he was in the timber industry for the last 40 years, he should be smart enough to realize that Federal and even State timber was never going to save the "timber mills shuttered and pink slips issued." Private companies, who owned large tracts of forest land, (Champion, Plum Creek) liquidated their timber in a very short time frame and reinvested very little in regard to reforestation...all in a climate/environment where rotation ages, on even the fastest growing tree species, is 80 years.

Once the cut was largely done on the private timber lands, the companies quickly became real-estate based and sold their lands...took their profits, cut ties with their Montana employees, shuttered their mills and left. Nothing out of the ordinary in a resource extraction based, "rape and run" economy that has plagued Montana since Statehood. Once the private timber companies left, the USFS was all that was left to blame, for not liquidating their timber assets to prop up/save the Montana timber industry. An industry that, even the private companies, had no intent of making a long term or sustainable endeavor (for many reasons).

Perhaps Connell flunked more than just policy...

I'm in no way opposed, and fully support sustainable timber production on Federal lands. The trouble is, to make money in the timber market, Montana is competing with States and Regions that can grow trees in half the time...places where long-term and sustainable timber production, actually pencils out.

The best Montana is ever going to do again, is to support small, local mills...and those small mills are still going to have to compete with the large companies that left them high and dry, sold their private Montana timber lands, and took their profits out of State. Gee, where have we heard this story before?
 
Buzz,

Here is a small Montana mill that specializes in utilizing tight grained Montana douglas fir, and chipped wood from restoration projects.

http://markslumber.us/

They pay a premium for their wood and good wages to their employees. They are having a tough time supplying their mill with logs.

You also failed to address the dis-function within the USFS.
 
. . . tight grained Montana douglas fir . . .

What is tight grained Montana fir? Is tight grained Montana fir a renewable resource? How does it get tight grained? Can't they just cut on all the vast stands of properly managed privately owned tight grained Montana fir? Or all the stands of tight grained Montana fir on public land that has already been cut before but, as a renewable resource, has already grown back?
 
Maybe their is dysfunction with the Forest Service, but I can tell you from personal experience that their is a lot of dysfunction with state agencies that manage land as well (at least here in the midwest).

I get a kick out of the whole argument that local people can manage land better than those in D.C. It's a nice, easy thing to post on social media to rally the troops, but the fact of the matter is that it is incorrect. The Forest Service has offices all over in local areas. The folks who are out managing the land live in the communities. It's not like the Forest Service is flying guys out to look at the land from D.C.
 
Proponents for state transfer don't like to admit that their "model" has actually been attempted at least once. In this case in New Mexico, it was a failure, even with the Feds still footing the lion's share of the bill. Notice the only thing that paid well was selling the hunting rights. And some people still think that couldn't possibly happen....SMH. Welcome to the future, if the transfer crowd gets their way.

https://www.hcn.org/articles/an-experiment-in-privatizing-public-land-fails-after-14-years

Local groups working collaboratively with the agencies and finding solutions can work wonders. Giving complete management power to the states will be a costly mistake.
 
Last edited:
In the case of the VC it was suppossedly a public/private partnership that would....bla bla bla
The trustees ate the budget & now it is run by Park Service and not the local FS.
It will soon be a full park with no hunting like the parent Bandolier Nat Monument that oversees it now and you can't hunt.
Sorry, I just see the writing that was on the walls.Not handed over to private but might as well be. Park service has underfunded maintenance in the Billions now.Just what they need with less $.....
 
It was my understanding that part of the agreement with the state legislators was that it could not go to the BLM or USFS, leaving NPS as the only option. They certainly wouldn't have been my first choice given their mandate. Can you shed any light on that Hank?

Regardless, I think this case is enlightening given the parallels to state transfer. The emphasis was managing for profit, recreation was limited to those willing or able to pay, and the financial windfall many claim federal management robs the states of never materialized. This "Trust" seems very similar to what Connell and others are now proposing. I have trouble seeing how the outcome would be different. The limited data that exist just don't support the arguments being made. If I'm missing something, please educate me.
 
John Gibson had just sent this editorial piece for submission, which I feel is pertinent to this discussion, so I asked his permission to post it here.

The recent article by U. S. Representative Ryan Zinke would have you believe the National Forest land in Montana is made up of 16.5 million acres of old growth timber, ready for harvest. He would also have you believe that agency inaction and environmental lawsuits are the only reasons preventing a return to the 'Good Old Days' of large harvest of this abundant timber resource and reduce the threat of wildfires in the process.

As a retired Forest Service employee (32 years of service), let’s take a look at reality: Over ten million acres of the sixteen million plus N.F. acres are unroaded and economically unsuited for sustained timber management. Another two million or so have been previously logged or are grassland, goat rocks or brush fields. To build roads in these areas to harvest the limited timber resource is economical unsound.

Building roads is unsound because basically Montana is a poor place to grow timber. The climate is too cold and too dry. There are much better places in our nation to grow a second crop of timber such as the West Coast and the southeastern states. The Forest Service has determined that scarce timber dollars should be spent in those areas where growing sites for timber are far better than here in our state. Given these facts, how does this strategy result in a greater threat of wildfire? What sort of actions would Representative Zinke suggest the agency use to lower the fire danger in these vast roadless areas?

As far as legislation that would transfer land or management decisions to state or local groups, we have to recognize that timber growing sites are just that. They are no more economical for those in charge of local control groups than they are for the U.S. Forest Service. Of course, corners could be cut to save money that should go to protecting erosion, water pollution and wildlife values but I doubt the public wants that to happen.

A couple years ago, there was an attempt from Sen. Daines, the Healthy Forest Act, with some similar implications, that I had a refutation page up on the site. Linked was an Economic Analysis of why it was not so "healthy", some of which refutes Sen. Connell's statements and validates John's statements of logging profitability in Montana. Like the Harvest profitability and unprofitability map on page 8. Most of Montana is classified as unprofitable and highly unprofitable.

harvest%20profitability%20map.png
 
Caribou Gear

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
111,004
Messages
1,943,299
Members
34,956
Latest member
mfrosty6
Back
Top