The Bozeman Brawler Meets With RMEF

BigHornRam · Nov 1, 2017

Some of his comments are typical politician b s. Here's an example of G G talking out of his rear.

"I’m confident we’ll work it through the House,” Gianforte said. “We need a little help from the Senate so it becomes law so we don’t have to breathe our forests again next summer.”

Dumb comments like that are not helpful.

Overall a move in the right direction IMO.

http://missoulian.com/news/local/gi...cle_e4caffa0-729d-5994-ac05-9f54fcd2af57.html

tjones · Nov 1, 2017

There is a whole lot of things GiGi doesn't get, but he seems to grasp this. "However, he acknowledged that pellet fuel markets weren’t big enough to absorb all the thinning material coming out of forests."

BigHornRam · Nov 1, 2017

tjones said:
There is a whole lot of things GiGi doesn't get, but he seems to grasp this. "However, he acknowledged that pellet fuel markets weren’t big enough to absorb all the thinning material coming out of forests."

Westerman from Arkansas made that comment Tony. Your giving G G more credit than he deserves.

BigHornRam · Nov 1, 2017

The article mentions cross-laminated timber. Any future here Tony?

http://flatheadbeacon.com/2017/10/1...s-manufacturing-operations-weyerhaeuser-site/

Ben Lamb · Nov 1, 2017

30,000 acre cat Ex for timber isn't a good idea.

mtmiller · Nov 1, 2017

Ben Lamb said:
30,000 acre cat Ex for timber isn't a good idea.

Did I miss that somewhere in the links?

BigHornRam · Nov 1, 2017

Additional link to developing CLT technology and potential markets.

https://treesource.org/news/goods-and-services/mass-timber-vaagen-brothers-colville-clt/

Ben Lamb · Nov 1, 2017

mtmiller said:
Did I miss that somewhere in the links?

I apparently misspoke. It's 10,000 acres for cat-ex. Not 30 (unless three of these areas are bundled together) Cat exing these projects mean we lose elk security standards, etc as no review will be necessary and no public oversight can be had. It simply eliminates the public portion of public land management for certain projects. I get what folks are trying to do, but they're eliminating public participation under the banner of expedited projects.

Text of the bill: https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/2936/text

Ben Lamb · Nov 1, 2017

From the National Parks Conservation Association: https://www.npca.org/articles/1319-...ient-federal-forests-act-substitute-amendment

Ben Lamb · Nov 1, 2017

From The Wilderness Society: http://wilderness.org/blog/bad-bill-would-put-national-forests-risk-reckless-logging

BigHornRam · Nov 1, 2017

From RMEF: http://www.rmef.org/HowToHelp/Volunteer/VolunteerNews/LegislativeUpdate.aspx

sethkuhl · Nov 1, 2017

Ben Lamb said:
I apparently misspoke. It's 10,000 acres for cat-ex. Not 30 (unless three of these areas are bundled together) Cat exing these projects mean we lose elk security standards, etc as no review will be necessary and no public oversight can be had. It simply eliminates the public portion of public land management for certain projects. I get what folks are trying to do, but they're eliminating public participation under the banner of expedited projects.

Text of the bill: https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/2936/text

After years of working in the timber industry I am not sure that less "public Opinion" and more science base is not a good idea. I hear what you are saying but a Californian with a stamp knows more about our elk woods than we do. Just ask em!

Ben Lamb · Nov 1, 2017

sethkuhl said:
After years of working in the timber industry I am not sure that less "public Opinion" and more science base is not a good idea. I hear what you are saying but a Californian with a stamp knows more about our elk woods than we do. Just ask em!

Totally get that frustration and agree, which is why this bill, which was written by industry lobbyists from DC should worry us. We've done well by treating form letters as 1 comment, submitted X times, therefore reducing their effectiveness. I don't like them. I think it promotes lazy activism and grousp think that thousands of form letters are substantive comments rather than 250 actual letters written by people. REgardless, that person in California is a part owner of these lands. Theyhave the right to participate in the management thereof.

There are certainly parts of the bill that are good, but the release of conservation strategies on forest lands isn't a good idea, epsecially in light of all of the other actions happening. We're racing to the bottom here with this administration & congress to see who can remove all conservation programs and policies the fastest.

Like this latest missive from Bishop - that elimiates funding for the Land & Water Conservation Fund, hands mineral management over to states and eliminates the ability to create marine monuments from the Antiquities Act altogether.

You cannot look simply at one bill or proposed action. You have to look at hteh entirety of the effort underway to understand how all the pieces fit together.

Ben Lamb · Nov 1, 2017

Then there's this: http://missoulian.com/news/local/fo...cle_127599f5-a92f-5411-a76d-1f7cb95461c9.html

The US GOv't is now telling fire scientists they can't speak about fire because it doesn't fit the narrative for things like the Westerman bill, or the Gigi/Daines jerkfest on blaming everything but the root causes of mega-fire.

BigHornRam · Nov 17, 2017

Another lawsuit on USFS land.

http://mtpr.org/post/environmental-groups-sue-over-flathead-forest-project

BigHornRam · Nov 17, 2017

Good Article on CLT technology and potential to turn low quality small diameter trees into high end product. Would also benefit forest health economics as well as timber community's economy.

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2017/jun/09/vaagen-spinoff-will-turn-scrawny-trees-into-engine/

BigHornRam · Nov 17, 2017

Good short YouTube clip that explains what forest management is and how it can reduce the impacts of wildfire on our National Forests, particularly the acres that have already been logged and roaded.

https://youtu.be/9xQzEGZriDI

BigHornRam · Nov 17, 2017

Ben Lamb said:
Then there's this: http://missoulian.com/news/local/fo...cle_127599f5-a92f-5411-a76d-1f7cb95461c9.html

The US GOv't is now telling fire scientists they can't speak about fire because it doesn't fit the narrative for things like the Westerman bill, or the Gigi/Daines jerkfest on blaming everything but the root causes of mega-fire.

Response to your article Ben.

http://missoulian.com/news/local/us...cle_8e2f13d8-e647-5416-915b-eaa01130fc31.html

I particularly got a kick out of the last paragraph......

"The whole notion of conferences is antiquated,” Stahl said. “I don’t have to leave the computer to interact with anybody I want. And when the major theme of the conference was going to be effects of climate change on wildfire, isn’t the single most damaging thing an individual can do is to jump in an airplane and fly across the country?”

tjones · Nov 17, 2017

4 posts in a row Paul, you are talking to yourself. Are your tags all filled?

BigHornRam · Nov 17, 2017

You don't have to participate in the discussion Tony and you can try to marginalize it if you like. Most everyone else that cares about the health and resilience of our public forests are having an honest discussion about it. The RMEF is actively involved in this issue and will weigh in for you. Hopefully you share their perspective?

The Bozeman Brawler Meets With RMEF

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Similar threads

Forum statistics

Share this page