News about Fire Suppression meeting, Hamilton
State fire panel discusses solutions in Hamilton
By JOHN CRAMER of the Missoulian
HAMILTON - Montana's Fire Suppression Interim Committee kicked off its statewide road tour Monday at ground zero in the West's growing dilemma on how to reduce large-scale wildfires at a time when more people are building homes in fire-prone forests.
The Bitterroot National Forest, which the U.S. Forest Service considers America's most threatened national forest because of the population explosion in the Bitterroot Valley's "wildland-urban interface," served as a backdrop for the state legislative committee's first public forum.
Link to full article.
State legislators gathered in Hamilton Monday in hopes of hearing ideas on how better to address the wildfires that have raged across Montana since 2000 - the year the Bitterroot burned.
The Legislature’s Fire Suppression Interim Committee learned the answers won’t be easy.
Link to full article.
Forest Supervisor discusses fire strategies
One-quarter of the Bitterroot National Forest’s 1.6 million acres have burned since 2000, Forest Supervisor Dave Bull told a meeting of the state Legislature’s Interim Committee on Fire Suppression Monday.
“How come we’ve been so lucky that hundreds of homes have not burned yet?” State Senator John Cobb R-Augusta, asked. “Is it just a matter of time?”
“It is a matter of time,” replied Bull. “People move here and most of them do not have a clue they are living in a fire-dependent ecosystem. They like the setting, they like seeing the turkey and deer.”
Link to full article.
By JOHN CRAMER of the Missoulian
HAMILTON - Montana's Fire Suppression Interim Committee kicked off its statewide road tour Monday at ground zero in the West's growing dilemma on how to reduce large-scale wildfires at a time when more people are building homes in fire-prone forests.
The Bitterroot National Forest, which the U.S. Forest Service considers America's most threatened national forest because of the population explosion in the Bitterroot Valley's "wildland-urban interface," served as a backdrop for the state legislative committee's first public forum.
Link to full article.
State legislators gathered in Hamilton Monday in hopes of hearing ideas on how better to address the wildfires that have raged across Montana since 2000 - the year the Bitterroot burned.
The Legislature’s Fire Suppression Interim Committee learned the answers won’t be easy.
Link to full article.
Forest Supervisor discusses fire strategies
One-quarter of the Bitterroot National Forest’s 1.6 million acres have burned since 2000, Forest Supervisor Dave Bull told a meeting of the state Legislature’s Interim Committee on Fire Suppression Monday.
“How come we’ve been so lucky that hundreds of homes have not burned yet?” State Senator John Cobb R-Augusta, asked. “Is it just a matter of time?”
“It is a matter of time,” replied Bull. “People move here and most of them do not have a clue they are living in a fire-dependent ecosystem. They like the setting, they like seeing the turkey and deer.”
Link to full article.
posted by Jay at
4/29/2008 02:29:00 PM
To comment on this post via email, click here.
Subscribe to
9 Comments:
Sen. Laible reduces MT fire committee to a cronyistic dog and pony show
etc
By: Missoula Independent Staff
05/01/2008
www.missoulanews.com
State Sen. Rick Laible (R-Darby) used his position as chair of the state's Fire Suppression Interim Committee to pimp his personal agenda April 28-failing to mention a significant conflict of interest until being publicly shamed by a local watchdog.
The state's fire committee, solemnly charged by the legislature to "study various aspects of wildland fire, including suppression costs and resources and state and federal management policies," met in Hamilton as part of a cross-state tour. To educate this committee, Laible scheduled an agenda composed primarily of fire professionals and timber agency men. But he also brought in some speakers whose interests had less to do with the committee than with the Big Sky Coalition (BSC).
So then, who is the BSC? While it claims to be a "common sense environmental group," its goals include promoting "large, landscape-scale" logging projects, "getting the cut out" on public lands and using an unprecedented suspension of NEPA-the legally mandated environmental review process-to avoid having to hear from that pesky public.
One of the scheduled speakers at the meeting was Veto "Sonny" LaSalle, Big Sky's executive director, who is charged with implementing the vision of the board of directors. Sitting on that board is none other than committee chairman Laible. In other words, LaSalle was presenting his ideas not just to fire committee chairman Sen. Laible, but also to his boss, Laible.
This affiliation didn't get mentioned until 5:20 p.m., during the day's last public comment period, when Matthew Koehler, executive director for the WildWest Institute, stepped forward and scolded Laible for being disingenuous in failing to disclose his connection with the hand-picked speaker.
Previously well-composed, Laible went pale, mustering only a half-assed, "I, uh, was gonna do that today, as well."
Today, Mr. Laible? As in: During the committee's last ten minutes? As in: Not once during the first seven hours of the hearing? As we see it, this kind of behavior shows a total disregard for the people of Montana and the issue at hand. It reduces the fire committee to a cronyistic dog and pony show.
Montana's biennial session requires that our legislators have lives outside of politics-that's appropriate, even expected. But full disclosure is necessary when there's even an appearance of a conflict or impropriety. By presenting himself as if he had no affiliation with the man he'd actually hired, Laible significantly diminished the decorum of his body and the important work we ask it to perform.
Is there anything else you'd like to tell us, Senator?
Posted to article by BSC Webmaster 05-01-08
This is attack-dog journalism fed to you by a "watchdog"?
Senator Laible's declared relationship with BSC as a member of its board of directors is hardly a secret to anyone paying attention to the issues. And unlike some people in western Montana who wrap themselves in environmental causes for a paycheck, he's focused on solutions.
Did the writer of this hit piece even attend this meeting?
"Cronyistic", "pimp" and "half-assed" are colorful adjectives most often wielded by third-rate minds barking from the sidelines.
"Decorum" obviously doesn't apply to your editorial standards.
Wild West and Friends of the Bitterroot always use the same strategy. If you don't have good science on your side, talk about something else that will draw people's attention from the real issues! Their new mantra is there is nothing wrong with the forest, the problem lies with people building homes in the forest! And that's why the government and the taxpayers are paying so much to fight catastrophic fires. They go on to say we need to raise taxes on all the people that live in the urban interface and to enact new zoning and planning regulations to stop this growth! Definitely sounds like a Stewart Brandborg idea to me.
I would like to provide a fairly detailed account of the comments I made during the public comment period at this meeting in Hamilton. I believe this information will help people better understand where the WildWest Institute and other environmental groups stand on these important issues. This step is especially needed because a few anonymous posters at the Missoula Independent's site, including someone identifying themselves as the Big Sky Coalition's webmaster, have said false things about our organization and our motives, all the while throwing in some juvenile name-calling that is so typical (and so tiresome) from these folks.
When I was finally able to address the committee, I started off by saying that while we heard a lot today during Sen. Laible's hand-picked agenda about how environmentalists supposedly want no work to happen in the forest and how the few lawsuits we file are the reasons for the smoke and wildfires, the committee needs to understand there is quite a bit of consensus and common ground about just how to protect homes and communities from wildfire. I urged to committee and everyone in attendance to focus on this common ground - these zones of agreement - and move forward with the work everyone agrees should be done, while we continue to debate whether “large-scale, landscape level” logging accomplished by suspending NEPA and the public appeals process will do anything to protect homes from wildfire or restore our forests.
I clearly told the committee that because of limited time and resources we should focus our fuel reduction efforts where they will do most good: around our homes and communities, not in the backcountry many miles away from homes. This just makes the most sense in terms of effective protection of homes from wildfire and also in terms of helping to ensure firefighter safety. Often now days, wildland firefighters are being asked to do residential structure protection, which is a very dangerous task if homeowners and the area immediately around homes are not prepared via defensible space.
Next I told the committee about all the collaborative efforts to find solutions that our organization and other environmental groups are currently involved with. This was especially important to point out because all I seemed to hear during the agenda that Sen. Laible put together was how environmental groups want nothing to happen in the forest and how lawsuits are the reasons for all the smoke and fires. Of course, Sen. Laible didn't actually put an environmental representative in his agenda.
So I mentioned that WildWest helped form FireSafe Montana (www.firesafemt.org) last year and how the current president of FireSafe is Jake Kreilick, who is WildWest's restoration coordinator. Firesafe MT works in partnership with local, state, federal agencies, and stakeholders and individuals to provide locally led conservation and fire management programs and services.
I mentioned how WildWest was one of the main organizations that came together with about 35 other diverse stakeholders (including other conservationists, motorized users, outfitters, loggers, mill operators, state government and the Forest Service) to develop a set of 13 Restoration Principles to restore forests in Montana (www.montanarestoration.org).
Next, I talked about how Cameron Naficy, our staff ecologist, is currently involved with the Bitterroot and Lolo National Forests Restoration Committee's that are tasked with implementing these 13 Restoration Principles through specific, on-the-ground restoration projects on the Bitterroot and Lolo.
I talked about how WildWest is involved with other collaborative groups that have arisen over the past few years to help move community fire protection and restoration projects forwards, including the Kootenai Forest Stakeholder Coalition, the Mineral/Sanders County Stakeholder group and an effort on the Salmon National Forest just over the pass in Idaho.
I also pointed out to the committee that, specifically, the Kootenai Stakeholder group that WildWest is a part of has endorsed five fuel-reduction projects on the Kootenai NF that covers some 7,000 acres in the Wildland-Urban Interface and that these projects will produce over 16 million board feet of wood products for local mills. The committee was told it was also worth noting that these endorsements were made through a consensus process.
At this point I repeated that there's ample common ground and zones of agreement out there and that the committee should focus on this common ground rather than seriously entertain the idea that we should convince the federal government that NEPA should be suspended and the public appeals process should be suspended.
Since I knew the committee was going to tour the Middle East Fork logging project the next day (a project that drew the ire of not only WildWest and Friends of the Bitterroot, but also local East Fork residents, former Forest Service workers, hunters, outfitters and a number of prominent PhD faculty from the University of Montana's School of Forestry) I made sure to point to the committee what we supported in terms of that project. While a timber industry lobbyist, who was also at the committee hearing, had in the past falsely claimed that our group only supported the raking of pine needles from under decks, I pointed out that we supported 1,600 acres of fuel reduction work on Bitterroot NF land that would have produced 45 local jobs and pumped $1 million into the local economy, according to FS figures.
Next, I directly took on the issue of lawsuits from environmental groups causing the smoke and wildfires, which again was a pretty common refrain given the way Sen. Laible set up the agenda. I asked the committee directly, “What lawsuit caused the Chippy Creek Fire? The Jocko Lakes Fire? The Black Cat Fire? The Gash Fire? The Rombo Fire? The Derby Mountain Fire?” No answer from anyone on the committee, just uncomfortable fidgeting and looks at the ground.
Finally, after mentioning a few facts concerning the current state of the lumber industry (ie lowest lumber prices in history, housing bubble bursting nationally, which has caused supply to far outpace demand, and $4.25 for diesel) and pointing out how in the world do we expect receipts from logging to pay for all the restoration and fuel reduction work given these current circumstances, I respectful addressed Chairman Laible.
I told Chairman Laible that as a Montana citizen and a Montana taxpayer and property owner, I believe it was his responsibility to let everyone on the committee and everyone at the hearing know that he was on the board of directors of the Big Sky Coalition. Laible's verbatim response was included in the Indy's column above.
While the BS Coalition's webmaster can claim on the Indy's comment section that everyone knows Sen. Laible is on the BS Coalition's board of directors, that's simply not true. In fact, I spoke with members of the committee during one of the breaks and they didn't know of Sen. Laible's relationship to the BS Coalition or the fact that Laible essentially called his employee (Mr. LaSalle) to testify before him. In fact, at one point during the committee hearing, when Sen. Laible allowed his friend and fellow BS Coalition board member to address the committee (and blame lawsuits for the lack of biomass energy production on national forests) even though this person wasn't on the official agenda, one of the republican members of the committee spoke up and complained that he wanted to hear from a conservation perspective at some point during this meeting. This senator also came up to me and distanced himself from the agenda and the way Sen. Laible was running the meeting.
However, I agree that the main issue here is not Sen. Laible conflict of interest. I believe the issue we need to solve is how are we going to move forward with bona-fide efforts to protect our homes and communities from wildfire while we also move forward with bona-fide, scientifically-based efforts to restoration our national forests and watersheds that have been degraded by past, and in some cases on-going, mismanagement.
As you can clearly see, local, grassroots organizations such as WildWest and others are working very hard to try and find these solutions and to move forward where there is consensus and agreement. It should be pointed out that while the BS Coalition says false things about our organization, our motives and resorts to name-calling, the fact remains that the BS Coalition isn't involved in ANY of the collaborative groups or solution-based efforts that I described above.
The BS Coalition has not joined FireSafe MT. They did not help establish the 13 Restoration Principles (although here at their website you'll notice that they have changed the name of the 13 Restoration Principles and they have falsely claimed that the 13 Restoration Principles support their idea of “large, landscape-level thinning.”) In fact, the BS Coalition wanted to be on the Bitterroot Restoration Committee and the diverse people who make up this committee voted to not have the BS Coalition as members.
Finally, I should also point out that in spite of all of this, in the past I've called Mr. LaSalle and asked him to give me a call so we could talk about these issues. Mr. LaSalle never called back. Furthermore, you can look at their journal at this site, and you'll see that I have often made comments that include an offer to sit down with any of the BS Coalition folks to talk more about these issues. They have never taken the effort to sit down and speak with us about these issues. I think this fact speaks volumes about the Big Sky Coalition, especially when looked at in the context of all the work and efforts to find solutions that is currently on-going that WildWest and other local, grassroots environmental groups in our state and region are involved with.
Matthew,
Just who is being juvenile and tiresome here? And on the lovely article you fed to the Missoula Independent? We don't pick fights, but we will definitely respond when provoked.
I am the BSC Webmaster and I posted on the Missoula Independent site. Nothing pejorative was said about WWI or FOB. I called into question the tone of the article as a hit piece. Which it clearly was.
As far as name calling, the epithets hurled at this org and Senator Laible I read in yesterday's article were far more egregious than referring to 'some' people as chihuahaus.
As far as why nobody from this organization cares to talk with you, what would be the point? Your steel-trap mind is clearly already made up and you've done nothing but slam us from the beginning. What could we say that would change that?
When you exhibit some professional "decorum" we might feel comfortable sitting down at the table with you. Until then, we'll probably continue to avoid discussing anything with you like the plague.
One final note, your comments on this site have so far been posted as a professional courtesy in the interest of open communication and discussion.
Please adjust your attack-dog tone and avoid double posting your comments in the future.
I fixed the 13 Restoration Principles link on our site based on your comment.
Lastly, it is "BSC" or Big Sky Coalition. Please avoid BS Coalition when referring to this organization. Any comments on this site using this derisive term will be promptly deleted.
Jay,
What in my 1,600 word comment above is not true? What is not professional? I have simply attempted to share with the public what I said during the comment period at this meeting. I would think the transcript of the meeting would confirm the basic premise of my comments.
I felt as if posting my comments from the meeting were important, because one commenter above (Tom...is that Mr. Robak?) has made more false claims about what our organization stands for or what we are advocating.
What WildWest stands for and what we are advocating is clearly outlined in my comments above, as well as on our website.
Also, what have I said about the BSC above that isn't true? Are you members of FireSafe MT? Am I wrong about the Bitterroot Restoration Committee voting to not allow the BSC to sit on the committee? Am I making up the fact that other members of Laible's committee didn't know he was a BSC board member? Are you involved with all these collaborative efforts I outlined above, but we just don't ever see you at the meetings? Has the BSC not been contacted by the people who came up with the 13 Restoration Principles and told to stop mischaracterizing these restoration principles? Seriously, I'd be curious to know your response.
Jay: "Senator Laible's declared relationship with BSC as a member of its board of directors is hardly a secret to anyone paying attention to the issues."
It is the public, whether "paying attention" or not, which deserves and benefits from absolute conflict of interest disclosure. Any ethical official or organization, evidently unlike Laible and BSC, will always err on the side of caution.
Whatever, Lawrence.
To err in any case is human. To impugn another's character on such flimsy reasoning takes a surly watchdog who probably doesn't get enough chow from its owner.
I'm sure the good Senator values input of this sort and accords it the level of respect and attention it deserves.
Thanks to Matthew's question, everyone at the meeting who didn't already know of Senator's affiliation with BSC was made well aware in the end.
So, mission accomplished. That could have been the end of it. But no...a hit piece in the local bastion of environmental rectitude ensued.
That's what Public Comment time is for: hold politicians and other public servants accountable, right?
Score one in the FWIW column for the people.
Matthew,
Since you've posted comments on the original article and on our journal, I am responding in both places.
"Are you members of FireSafe MT?" (No BSC is not a member, although I did add a link to the site to our page. Let me know if this too bothers you.)
"Am I wrong about the Bitterroot Restoration Committee voting to not allow the BSC to sit on the committee?" (Apparently not, but so what? We have plenty to do and there are enough subject matter experts on the panel to cause the usual committee problems, from what I've heard.)
"Am I making up the fact that other members of Laible's committee didn't know he was a BSC board member?" (Apparently not. You managed to find 1 state senator who allegedly didn't know. This person is living under a rock, in my humble opinion, like most politicians.
"Are you involved with all these collaborative efforts I outlined above, but we just don't ever see you at the meetings?" (No, I'm not involved in most public meetings for reasons related to the aforementioned dog and pony shows, “cronyistic” or otherwise.)
"Has the BSC not been contacted by the people who came up with the 13 Restoration Principles and told to stop mischaracterizing these restoration principles?" (No, we have not been contacted afaik, and I would be happy to receive the correct usage guidance from anyone in the group. Any mischaracterization of the 13 principles with landscape-scale thinning on our site was unintentional on my part.)
Most of what you have to say is anchored in some aspect of truth, Matthew. You wouldn't be credible to anyone otherwise. But flogging those who approach the same set of problems from differing perspectives isn't moving this issue or the dialog around it forward one iota. In fact, I think it's a gigantic waste of time to perpetuate this kind of divisive stuff.
What doesn't ring true and is offensive is the ongoing "evil human" spin you resort to that amounts to a running catalog of aspersions, asides and hostile, circumstantial judgments about this organization's motivation, activities and messages to date. Like this paragraph in the comments on the original article:http://www.missoulanews.com/index.cfm?do=article.details&id=A0CC56AE-14D1-13A2-9F241FE501074E21
"Meanwhile, the BS Coalition has a letter of support on their website from an individual that was recently featured in the Missoulian because he called for people to burn down the homes of Sierra Club members (www.bigskycoalition.org/2007/10/letters-of-support.html)."
I don't know you except from your truculent media persona. But I'd already like to punch you in the nose for being among the most judgmental people I've ever encountered. Making this statement doesn't mean I'm making a threat (or advocating violence) any more than I would get violent when I do meet you. It's not my style anyway. But you do make honorable, well-intentioned people angry, and I believe unnecessarily so. Tis the nature of environmentalism to incur the wrath of people seeking someone else to blame. It comes with the territory as you know.
Of course litigation doesn't cause fires. But litigation doesn't prevent fires either. Tom's simplistic use of this association from time to time is similarly anchored in some aspects of truth. You should give similar consideration and look for the same here, even when it seems there is none, which is common ground. Litigation, on top of market considerations, is another obstacle keeping the forests locked up and strangling what remains of the supposed “timber” economy and related industries.
You lay claim to a local, grassroots organization as if yours was the only one. We too are local,and grassroots, with no out-of-state support, and no partners or "alliances" yet. The biggest difference as I see it is that we have yet to build the organizational and strategic rigidity to go toe to toe with you on all the ground there is to cover. You get paid to do this. I don't, and neither do Tom or Sonny. There is only one subject matter expert in BSC and that is Mr. LaSalle. The rest of us are volunteers involved simply because no other group really represents our views about forest management.
WildWest is providing direction for validating thinning projects in the WUI. I believe BSC is pretty much in sync with WildWest (something beats doing nothing) but we would like a far bigger and more feature-complete approach. Bigger because it must be in order to make a substantive difference in fuel reduction across the landscape actually in need of treatment and not some arbitrary distance around structures. And more feature complete because we would like to see the fuel come out of the forest on a regular, contractual basis and reinvigorate local economies that have historically depended on timber in one form or another. With a biofuel facility in place, we're only talking about honest-to-goodness thinning, not a ruse to reintroduce commercial logging in the National Forests.
It must concern you that 750 Bitterrooters are concerned enough to join our organization and endorse our strategy and tactics. What do this many people feel strongly enough about that you fail to provide for in your elaborate machinations to be the end-all, do-all of environmental orgs?
What WildWest has yet to account for is the human factor in its equations. Restoration economy? What does this mean? People, jobs, infrastructure, supported by sustainable forestry at wide enough scale to be effective long term? Like you've noted, "where will the money come from to pay for it?"
How relatively simple this could be with a steady stream of biomass? Here's what we think: The biomass from a mere 25 thinned acres could power a 250 TPD biofuel facility that could produce 30,000 gallons of ethanol or di-methyl ether...per day. And that feedstock figure includes leaving up to 8 tons of slash per acre on the ground, replenishing the soil, retaining moisture, keeping the forest floor healthy.
Of course we should protect communities from fire. And we all know that fires will continue to happen regardless of what mechanical intervention is brought to bear on the problem. But the price of doing nothing will still be greater than a life cycle management methodology and infrastructure for processing woody biomass, and even municipal waste along with it, to get the job done.
Tom DeLuca's published observations about biofuel don't carry weight with me because they focus only on a narrow interpretation of biomass scenarios and viability. For example, what about using municipal waste as the main feedstock resource with augmenting by forest slash? That's something that has yet to be seriously discussed. My research suggests that a biofuel facility that consumes a diversity of feedstocks will indeed be profitable for investors while creating jobs for Montana. And solve the problem of how to fund a strategic thinning plan.
It will all come down to the private sector's ability to turn vision into workable reality based on guaranteed feedstocks. And that will only happen, apparently, with legislative action by our elected representatives, as well as a comprehensive focus on results on the part of the various non-profits. Whether it will ever involve suspending NEPA and public appeals, I have no idea. But I'd rather see all stakeholders make it happen and make such onerous legislation unnecessary. And I'm sure Sonny LaSalle would agree.
Log home builders in the Bitterroot are having a tough time for reasons we know too well: slumping demand, transportation cost of Canadian timber, etc. One of the leading builders recently told me he's only interested in 'standing dead trees of adequate dimension.' He's not an evil logger, he's a lifelong resident of the valley, a civic and business leader who employs dozens of skilled woodworkers. He's not a forest raper anymore than I am. He's currently paying $15,000 a truckload for Canadian timber, including fuel costs. How long do you think it will be before he packs it in and moves to Canada and lays off everybody here? And how long until he's joined by other log home builders and over 1,000 more people in the “timber industry” become unemployed in the Bitterroot valley? Not long, from what we hear.
It's time to stop the public pissing contest and get to work addressing the systemic problems beyond tactical thinning and the historical enmity around the issues. We are working on the economic side of this problem, and clearly WWI is working on the ground to develop good science and methods. There is much work yet to be done. And the great divide between our respective interpretations must give way to a consensus on how to take the best of our ideas and approaches to a new level. As far as I'm concerned, filing lawsuits is tantamount to failure on all sides, and it's time to move beyond conflict as a means of winning. I think we can all win here. But only if we step up, lay down our arms, and come to the table determined to stay there until we are successful.
The 6 months it has taken to develop our approach has been productive, and we will soon be ready to meet with you and other stakeholders to discuss our strategy.
In the meanwhile, I hope you will refrain from further cross-examination of our actions, motives, etc., in public so that we may focus what resources we have on the true fire and related economic issues around forest management we face here in Montana and in the western United States.
Post a Comment
<< Home