By SUSAN GALLAGHER - Associated Press Writer - 11/02/05
With commentary by JUSTIN - pissed off hillbilly writer - 11/12/05
HELENA Gov. Brian Schweitzer maintains Montana's federal backcountry does not need more roads and says any county commissions that find otherwise should give him their road proposals by Jan. 1. Schweitzer also has told commissioners he wants to meet with them at the Capitol on Nov. 28 for roadless discussions that, for many, will be a follow up to county visits he made in recent months.
You're exactly right, it doesn't need more roads, but it doesn't need any less either.
The timeframe for proposals and the meeting invitation are in a letter the governor sent last week to commissioners of all 56 Montana counties.
Read the next paragraph, B*shco would like to think that I'm stupid enough to get behind him on this one, sorry didn't work, you ain't looking out for my interests, you're looking out for your big money pals.
Earlier this year, the Bush administration moved to allow logging or other commercial activity on millions of roadless acres in the nation's forests. Governors have until late 2006 to petition the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which includes the Forest Service, on the status of roadless federal lands in their states.
Logging, Oil Drilling, Toxic Chemical Waste Dumps, WE DON'T WANT THAT SHIT, WE JUST WANT A PLACE TO RIDE OUR 4 WHEELERS DAMN IT! Logging, if done correctly, isn't so bad, but it can be done with helicopters, we don't need more roads in areas that don't already have them. Take your "commercial activity" and cram it up your ass B*shco. I won't let you and your buddies get rich off of MY damned forests, go back to DC and leave the forests to us.
Montana has 6.3 million acres of roadless land, about two-thirds of it at issue in land-management debates.
6.3 million acres is enough, no more, no less. Leave the existing roadless lands alone, leave the existing roaded lands alone, that's all I ask.
Schweitzer said the Forest Service reports a $588 million backlog in maintenance of existing Montana roads the agency manages.
It doesn't cost anything to leave 'em there, off road clubs would be happy to volunteer for trail maintenance if you just leave the trails open.
"Building new roads into backcountry areas would add more cost, and at this time I strongly believe adequate federal dollars should be available to fund forest management, forest and stream restoration and existing trail and road maintenance," he said in the letter.
I agree with Schweitzer, that's scary.
"With proper management, currently roaded forest lands can supply the logs necessary to keep Montana's mills running, and help sustain our rural communities across the state."
It doesn't take very many logs to keep the remaining Montana mills running, there aren't very many left. They already ruined the timber industry, that's why a sheet of frickin 3/4" plywood will blow the hell out of a 50 dollar bill. That's why a house that should cost $20,000 costs $120,000, total lack of common sense. You can't clearcut an entire mountain range, you can't shut logging off entirely. There's ways to cut timber without ruining the environment, somebody tell that to the Wilderness Society.
Schweitzer said he wants commissioners whose counties have roadless federal lands to evaluate whether any new roads are necessary. He said any proposals, for which he set the Jan. 1 deadline, should include an analysis of the roads' environmental impact, construction and maintenance costs, and a summary of community support.
Is that the support of the local community, or the support of the environmentalist community?
Ellen Engstedt, executive vice president of the Montana Wood Products Association, said the process for federal petitioning makes clear that it is not commissioners' responsibility to develop plans for roadless lands within their counties.
"It's asking a lot of county governments," Engstedt said Tuesday, adding she has encouraged her association's members to be involved at the county level as roadless issues are considered.
She said she suggested months ago that the Schweitzer administration gather people with a stake in how roadless lands are managed, and "develop some kind of petition that would be statewide and not county by county."
A stake? What kind of stake? A financial stake? I'm not against logging, especially if it's done right by local loggers that are just trying to make a living. I am against big time corporate clear cuts. Thin out the trees and reduce the risk of forest fire, fine. Start ruining wildlife habitat or making the mountainside look like a plucked chicken, we got problems.
Chris Mehl of The Wilderness Society said of Schweitzer's letter, "I think it's great that the governor is listening." Mehl also said the letter reflects the value of roadless lands as part of a system important for clean water, wildlife and recreation. "When you have a good thing going, you don't mess with it lightly," he said.
That's exactly right, now quit messing with it. Leave our ATV trails alone you elitist bastards.
In the letter, Schweitzer emphasized that he wants consideration of roadless lands to be clearly focused.
I'm all for that, as long as the considerations aren't clearly focused on closing down what's already there, like they have been.
"Much of the roadless debate for over 30 years has amounted to philosophy, even theology, about how the Forest Service manages its 16.9 million acres of public lands in Montana," he wrote. "These tired arguments have gotten us nowhere. By keeping proposals specific to Montana's backcountry roadless lands and avoiding the temptation to rehash the management of the lands where we have built roads, I hope to focus our efforts on the administration's current request."
I sure do wish that one damn person in government would apply even the slightest little tiny bit of common sense to just one stinking thing that they do. Why can't we just keep the right to use the roads that are already there? We don't need more damn roads, we just want to be able to use the existing ones. This is why the environmentalists hate us, this is why, right here. Can you blame them if they associate us with profiteering warmongers? Thank you B*shco for making outdoor recreationists get behind your plan for corporate welfare in order to keep our trails open. UP YOURS! I'd rather lose the trails than give the forests away to the highest bidder like you want to. Let me say it one more time,
WE DON'T WANT MORE ROADS, WE JUST WANT TO USE THE ONES THAT ARE ALREADY THERE, HAVE I MADE MYSELF CLEAR? WE DON'T WANT THE FORESTS OPENED UP TO COMMERCIAL DESTRUCTION, WE ONLY WANT THEM KEPT OPEN FOR LEGITIMATE RECREATION AND RESPONSIBLE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT. TOO BAD THAT COMMON SENSE ISN'T SO COMMON ANY MORE.