Too bad governor couldn't tell Curtiss that SB417 was poorly crafted

To the Editor:

I cannot ignore the 3-16 political speech offered as a Legislative Update by Aubyn Curtiss. I, too, am sorry the governor didn't take the time to invite her into his office. He could have told her SB 417 was so poorly crafted that it couldn't be supported.

The major problem with the bill is that it prohibits the governor's petition from considering the input from stakeholders and rejecting that which is incorrect, unfounded or deficient. The lack of any support of the purpose of roadless areas - to protect habitat for fish and wildlife, reveals the timber-cutting agenda behind this bill. The bill also requires the local government to fund the cost of meeting each of the seven considerations required by the bill - among them soliciting input from professional foresters, estimating future fire risk, reviewing boundaries, estimating social and economic impacts, and establishing access gain or loss. Where is the money for this work?

Further, the bill fails to recognize the actual petition requirements if the federal rule is finalized.

The rule requires detailed maps and other documentation to establish the areas included in the petition; specific management requirements recommended; how the recommended requirements differ from existing management requirements; that the recommended requirements comply with current law; how they compare to state land management requirements; the effect of the recommended requirements on fish and wildlife; and how the state will meet its commitment to assist in environmental analysis needed by the recommended requirements. By the way, where's the money for that as well?

SB 417 is actually unnecessary! The federal rule clearly provides for the governor's petition to include all the talking points in the bill, including boundary adjustment, human health and safety, and providing reasonable access. A careful reading of the rule would have revealed that.

As an aside, the federal rule itself is a sham. What the petition process does is shift the burden to the state, local and tribal governments to fund the work the USFS should (with our tax dollars) be doing to analyze roadless areas and establish plans for their management. The governor's petition will still undergo USFS assessment and there is no assurance it will result in any change in managing a particular roadless area.

One final comment. Ms. Curtiss continues yelling "fire" to prey on our fears and gain support for her efforts to help the timber, mining and motorized recreational vehicle manufacturers destroy the forest. For her to claim timber harvest and road building will prevent fires is just plain wrong. There will be fires and some will be devastating. Her efforts would be better spent proposing legislation providing tax incentives or programs that result in businesses that use the wood product now being left on the ground (to start those fires) and the build up of dead and down trees, instead of the timber business as usual cry that more trees must be cut or we'll close our mill. Please let Ms. Curtiss know how you feel about roadless areas. I've tried but have been ignored.

Bill Wilson

Yaak