About our Public Survey

Purpose of our public survey: gauge the level of understanding and interest in landscape-scale thinning projects in our national forests and surrounding woodland areas.

Additional comments and questions posed by people who have taken this survey:

1. Do you think that this is an unbiased survey since in the introduction it clearly states that this as an opportunity to support large-scale thinning?

Answer: No, this is not an "unbiased" survey. This organization supports forest thinning projects for very good reasons, environmental, social, and economic. If you want fair and unbiased, try the Yellow Pages.

2. Would you approve of increasing the Forest Service budget for restoration work in watersheds damaged by previous logging and road building activities?

Answer: Sorry, this question isn't suitable for inclusion in this survey. Perhaps if the Forest Service didn't burn half its budget fighting wildfires there'd be more money for remediation...

3. The questions are extremely narrow and speak to a conclusion that seems to be already made, i.e. "logging will fix the wildfire problem." The approach is all wrong. Ask people what they enjoy about Montana and national forests, what they perceive as the threats to the forest. Ask if they think that the legacy of Plum Creek, Champion and other logging companies has added to the threats or if such "cut and run" management is good for hunting, fishing and recreation.

Answer: Our conclusion is self-evident: We support responsible forest management that includes landscape-scale thinning where it is appropriate. The forest products industry has come a long way in technology that adversely impacts the forest and its inhabitants. Low-impact harvesters, cut-to-length technology, coupled tightly with a guiding set of forest management principles that helps define best practices. These best practices didn't exist when logging companies of yesteryear did their thing on the forest environment. Times and technology, and the reason for acting, have all changed.

4. Should environmental groups that sue to stop fuel reduction projects be required to post a bond to cover costs of firefighting in the area and losses of property and value?

Answer: This question has been added to the survey. The Big Sky Coalition believes that environmental groups that sue to stop fuel reduction projects post a bond to cover costs of firefighting in the area and losses of property and value.

5. The survey appears to be pretty one-sided. It's like you're trying to get me to support by what you all want by setting up the survey a certain way. I don't think that's fair. Besides, these issues are more complicated than simply taking a simple and biased survey.

Answer: Yes, it's one sided. If you want to try your hand at creating a survey that isn't biased, please let me know. I'm a volunteer.

6. This survery was definitely initiated by the Logging Industry. Yes we do need forest products and the industry. At the same time our Forests are not all about money and people.

Answer: Hello....this survey was initiated by regular Bitterroot people who have zero to do with the logging industry. We're tired of the smoke, and we're tired of the same old arguments that have essentially locked up the national forests. It's time to get a spine and do what it takes to clean up the overgrowth. And do it responsibly, with regard for the environment, and our economy.

7. What do the following terms mean to you:

• fuel reduction
• thinning
• forest management
• logging?

Answer: This question has been added to the survey.

8. Most of the Yes/No questions make no sense because they can't be answered with a simple Yes/No. For most of those questions I would have said "Yes, but..." or "No, but..." Also, this whole survey seems a little on the "push-poll" side. I don't appreciate that because it seemed like you were trying to trick me into supporting your large scale thinning on the Bitterroot.

Answer: The yes/no questions are straightforward enough for anyone with common sense. If you have comments about the yes/no questions, add them as a comment to the survey. As for being a little on the "push poll" side, consider our purpose as an organization. We have a transparent agenda to bring common sense to modern forest management and we don't resort to trickery in trying to make our points. Large scale thinning isn't logging per se, as some who have taken the survey seem to believe. In fact, we are advocating environmentally sound, scientifically vetted fuel reduction techniques using the biomass from the forest for energy purposes, which could greatly reduce the need to harvest larger trees to fund the thinning project.

9. The survey appears to be pretty one-sided. It's like you're trying to get me to support by what you all want by setting up the survey a certain way. I don't think that's fair. Besides, these issues are more complicated than simply taking a simple and biased survey.

Answer: If this survey were truly "one sided" it would not allow for comments and suggestions to make it better. Observations like comment #9 carry zero weight. Helpful suggestions to address concerns about fairness in the survey are far more likely to be addressed. Just plain common sense please.

No survey can adequately address or convey the complexity of forest management issues, and besides, education isn't the point of the survey, which is to determine the current public level of understanding of the issues. If you're concerned about "fairness" of this survey perhaps you should avoid trying to complete it.

10. How can we work together to ensure that solutions are created that work well in the long term?

Answer: Great question! Will be added to the survey. Of course we invite anyone who wants to work together to get involved with our organization and bring our message to the forefront of the forest management logjam. It's time to look past the historic problems and focus on solutions!