Tester's bill will aid loggers; it's not politics

I read the commentary from Max Agather concerning Sen. Jon Tester’s Wilderness bill in Congress that includes Lincoln County, and thought I should comment on some of his thoughts as to what stewardship contracting with the USFS actually is. I also feel compelled to address the economic future of south Lincoln County, which he doesn’t have to worry about. I do enjoy boating by his house on Bull Lake all summer long, and am glad he enjoys being there as well.

But, he obviously does not  understand what stewardship contracting is. It is not “as anti-logging as you can get.” I was at the first stewardship contracting meeting in Denver in 1999, after it was authorized by Congress,  when the entire program began, looking at how to implement it in the West. I had the Yaak Stewardship Contract for six years, logging in the Yaak, and, yes, doing “restoration work.”  

I have been on the Northwest Stewardship Oversight Committee for the Northern Rockies since 2001, where once a year, we look at various stewardship projects from Wyoming to Washington, create a report for Congress, and have been to Wasington, D.C., on stewardship as well. I note that logging was the dominant work in all the stewardship contracts we looked at.

Stewardship contracting is simply a contracting tool for the USFS, whereas the stumpage fees are not kept by the USFS (when 25 percent of stumpage  went to counties, and that’s why some counties didn’t like it, as they did not get their cut of the stumpage fees) but utilized for “Restoration Work,” thereby creating more jobs from the logging since the stumpage-fee money is used to do other work, by the same workers. So, I took out culverts, put some new ones in, did some road work, did some trail work, and  yes, reclaimed the closed road at the head of Zulu Creek up the South Yaak. More than $350,000 in that contract was not kept by the USFS, but went to work, creating jobs. The people who did all this work, and the guys who did the trail work, were very happy for the work, and the income, as they needed it. This work would not have been done, and these people would not have been employed, without stewardship contracting. That’s all stewardship is — essentially trading product (logs) for work on the forest that otherwise would not be done, as the funding from Congress is not there. Stewardship is not a “conspiracy” to stop all economic activity on the forest, per Mr. Agather’s thoughts, as if there are no logs cut, there is no stumpage fees, so there is no money for any other work.

Stewardship contracting creates more jobs, from the stumpage fees, and that is why it is in Tester’s bill. Simply, to create more jobs from trees cut. One can argue about county funding, but that is another argument. I understand Colorado has now two 10-year stewardship contracts ongoing, all cutting logs, and some of my business clients are  down there working on these — logging — since there’s no work here in Libby. I have always believed the Kootenai should be doing 10-year stewardship contracts, but they will not do so, and I disagree with them. The Flathead is big on stewardship contracts, and there has been a lot of logging going on over there under these contracts. The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation has a very large stewardship contract south of Jackson, Wyo., logging aspen on many acres, for elk habitat, creating jobs. This is termed restoration.  How can this be, as per Mr. Agather?

As per Tester’s bill, I am only concerned with Lincoln County, and jobs here.  I don’t know anything about what’s going on down south on the Beaverhead and Deer Lodge Forests, but I  do know log mill owners, who I have talked to on this issue, support his bill for a log supply, which Mr. Agather seems to ignore. He tells us Tester’s bill will not help loggers. Really?

Then why do the mill owners and operators support this bill? They just want logs. Who would you believe?

Here in Libby, where there’s a definite lack of jobs with no change in sight. What should we do? Keep having lots of people having to leave town for work?  Our commissioners do not support Tester’s bill because it creates a wilderness area of Roderick Mountain in the Yaak. This area is now managed as a wilderness area, and the court has said it can be managed that way forever, and it will be. So, what’s the difference?

Tester’s bill does mandate logging and other woods work on the Kootenai. Will it work, or will the courts  continue to shut down logging on the Kootenai? Remember the USFS does not manage the Kootenai National Forest, the Federal Court does, because the Alliance for the Wild Rockies makes a living suing the USFS on logging jobs, particularly in the Kootenai, where  endangered species are.  And recently, Judge Malloy in Missoula has ruled against the AWR, but that doesn’t matter to us here, as they just appeal to the 9th Circuit in San Francisco, who seem to always agree with the Alliance for Wild Rockies.

And the latest ruling, whereas it seems to say that any logging is bad for the grizzly bear, could be the worst blow yet for shutting down all logging on federal land here in the future.  That is what we have to deal with here, reality, not ideology.

So, for some, like our county commissioners, they oppose Tester’s bill because it would create a wilderness area, Roderick Mountain, out of a place that will always be managed as wilderness area. I got involved in creating Tester’s bill because I was interested in jobs for southern Lincoln County.  Will it work? Who knows? Lawsuits will not stop, as the Alliance for Wild Rockies must make money.

So what will the courts say? Who knows? But I figure it is better to have a law that mandates logging, so the courts will also have to deal with that law, along with the Endangered Species Act, than doing nothing and keep the status quo, which is no jobs, and no designated wilderness area, but  no potential change in the future, which means the Alliance for Wild Rockies wins in the future and gets all logging stopped here, which is their goal.  

So, I say some compromise works for us, unlike what others think, which is no more wilderness, who  cares about anything else, including jobs. Just no compromise.

I have been in business here in Libby for over 35 years, seeing logging’s boom and it’s bust. And seen how its bust has effected people personally. People I know. I am no “far-left, eco-nut.” Just the opposite. But I believe that some compromise is worthwhile, if there is a potential to create some jobs here.  These no-compromise, stick-to-your-principles people, I wonder, why not at least try for more jobs, rather than just saying no, keep the status quo, which means no new jobs. But many of those have their own income, so don’t personally need any more jobs here. They can afford to stick to principles.

And then Mr. Agather, and others, say that “we should have the right as a sovereign state with the right to control our own lands” and that magically we should be able to have sustained-yield logging and everything will be as it used to be.   

Well, that would be nice, but it is not reality. It will never happen, the federal government giving federal management to the states. It’s a fantasy.  It’s like Rep. Daines bill passed by the House in D.C. that would try and restrict court challenges to logging.  Sounds good, and it’s good politics, and I like it. But it won’t even be heard in the Senate. So, it’s just politics, and will never happen.

And, I am tired of politics, and concerned with jobs. We need jobs, not political posturing for politicians own benefit.

   So, I just observe, for those who say Tester’s Bill is anti-logging, like Mr. Agather says,  then why do the independent mill owners of Montana, who need logs, support this bill?  We should try to do something, rather than nothing.

(Wayne Hirst is a Libby downtown businessman who, through his business, has come to know and work with loggers.)