Communication Corrections

It has come to my attention there are some misperceptions about the Big Sky Coalition (BSC) running around in this "neck of the woods" and I will try to set the record straight. In my 42 years of being in the communications game I should not be surprised there are correction needs.

1. The BSC is only interested in large landscape scale forest thinning projects. Our stated objective of reducing fuel loading in the forest to reduce the chances of large catastrophic wildfires has been said and written over and over. It is our highest priority and that should be clear to everyone. We did adopt the 13 Principles of Restoration as the way to accomplish this objective, and those Principles make it quite clear that restoration involves more that just thinning the forest and we support those principles. There are varying levels of restoration needs in each watershed. Thinning and basal area reductions should produce the funding necessary to accomplish most of the needed restoration and that's the way it should be.

2. The BSC is trying to get the Forest Service to put out all fires so there is no smoke in the Valley. This is the one that bothers me the most. Yes, at our November 4th Rally there was discussion about people being tired of breathing smoke for 45 to 60 days, as they should be. I made it as clear as I could at the November 4th Rally and in newspaper articles, that we live in a fire dominant ecosystem and we cannot and should not put out all fires. The attempt to do that is one of the main reasons we are having so much trouble now with large uncontrollable fires. Principle 5 is Reestablish fire as a natural process on the landscape. We and other scientists are totally convinced that we cannot do this safely and with public acceptance without a significant reduction in fuel--usually through mechanical means.

3. The BSC has inferred that the Montana Forest Restoration Group and the two local committees are committed to large landscape level restoration projects. The BSC newsletter that I wrote does that and I am the one responsible for those statements. My rationale is: there is no practical way to achieve the Principles without doing large landscape level projects; you cannot (Principle 1) restore functioning ecosystems by enhancing ecological processes by analyzing and accomplishing 250 or 500 acre projects; you cannot (Principle 5) reestablish fire as a natural process on the landscape by analyzing and restoring small parts of the landscape. Quite a few of the Principles fit in this category, but the Bitterroot Committee has NOT made a commitment to any size project so, technically, I was in error for making those statements in the newsletter. I also made a common sense assumption that any project that has a significant cost will need to generate funds through the removal of trees that have value in order to pay for the other restoration needs. The Forest Service budgets are such that little money is available for these restoration projects. This assumption may prove to be false and time will tell as the committee moves forward.

Thanks for taking the time to read this and I hope the misperceptions have been corrected.

Sonny LaSalle
Executive Director
Big Sky Coalition
sonny@bigskycoalition.org