I’m against any new wilderness area—we have enough.  Older people do not have access to this land.

Disabled people cannot access most wilderness areas.  Keep in mind older people. 

Washington State has land set up specifically for handicap access—we should look at setting up that same model here in Montana.

There are more benefits of designating wilderness, such as clean water, clean air and open space.

My family loves to go out and enjoy these lands—we are also happy to see jobs created.

A collaborative process is the way to go.  Teddy Roosevelt set up these wilderness parks and it was a great idea.

I am handicapped and moved here because there was access.  You need to keep roads maintained so we can access these lands.  Granite County is an aging community.

So many jobs have been lost in our state lately, and this bill helps create new jobs. 

As a Smurfit-Stone employee, this bill has been marketed as a tradeoff.  Nothing in this bill, however, says that you’ll get wilderness without proper management.

If possible, give your comments to both of Montana’s Senators.

I oppose this bill and support logging.  We need to be able to provide input and be included in the process—something that was not done with this bill.

I support more wilderness, but loggers also need support.  We must find a compromise, but regulations will always be a problem. 

The real problem is Congress.

Montana has unique wilderness lands.  We must pass this bill for future generations of Montanans.

There is too much bureaucracy.  I am a forester, and I know that wilderness will become designated and the logging mandates will become tied up in litigation. 

Wyoming and Arizona both passed wilderness bills.  As such, both states lost their timber industry.  Timber needs to come first before wilderness is established.

The Forest Service’s model of management is broken.  There is no management.  You must find a model people can get behind and support it.  I support this bill, but I understand the concerns as well.

Clean water comes from private land.  Once wilderness is established, there is no guarantee on jobs.  We won’t get any outdoor activities.  Don’t give up our lands before jobs are created, because lawsuits can impede job creation.

Tester is quoted as saying “incremental portions are a non-starter.”  You are in a unique position to influence Senator Tester, and we encourage you to do so. 

As a small business owner, I must ask: what will this bill do to our small businesses?   This bill will put us all out of business.  Don’t lock up areas that we actually use.  We live here to use wilderness, and I am against this bill.

There are a lot of people who do not use motorized vehicles in the wilderness.  There is not that much land locked up in Granite County currently, and I see more access points in this county then most.

Our congressional delegation is small, and I don’t think we want the rest of the country deciding what’s best for Montana.  This process should be left up to the state of Montana.

As a rancher, I have grazing permits in the Sapphire area.  I will lose my ranch if these areas are included in the bill.  I won’t be able to use vehicles to monitor cattle.

I realize this bill is not perfect, but it’s a step in the right direction.

If all the roads are closed, I’m not sure how recreation would be affected?

We should keep this process in gridlock so that no new wilderness is designated.

To what extent will this bill create new regulatory authority?

I thought that preservation was written into the bill.  Congress has the authority to regulate each forest as it sees fit.

I’m concerned about grazing allowances.

With so many interests, somebody’s bound to lose out.

Matthew Koehler of the WildWest Institute and Michael Garrity of the Alliance for the Wild Rockies provided testimony on this legislation before the Public Lands and Forests Subcommittee.  Links to their testimony can be found here: Matthew Koehler Testimony and Michael Garrity Testimony.

Thank you for representing the state.  We need active management.

If we’re designating more than 600,000 acres of wilderness, why are loggers only getting 100,000 acres for harvesting?  We’re giving up too much to wilderness at the expense of loggers and the general public.

According to a State Representative, timber harvesters often have to pay bond money to reserve a National Forest contract.  When the Forest Service is sued and such contracts are litigated, harvesters often lose that seed money.  The Representative tried to pass a resolution that would require plaintiffs suing over such contracts to provide the same bond money before litigation can proceed. 

The Blackfoot Challenge is a consensus.  It brought groups together for the past several decade, and we need the same consensus-based agreement in this bill.

I came from Minnesota and I moved here because Montana is the greatest place in the world.  I’m glad to see everyone working together on this project. 

There’s no doubt that we need active management.  This is bill is experimental with a sunset provision after 10 years.  Even weight needs to be given to all issues.

I believe this bill is a vision, not a deal, because it’s solving problems in Montana after 25 years without a new wilderness designation.  I’m a proud supporter of this bill and want to put people to work in woods.  The partnership is a great step forward, and there should be consideration given to extending the portions of this bill that are successful after their expiration.

I support bill.  It’s not a great bill, but it’s good.  Nowhere does it say we will stop managing our forests.  It says 10 years because that’s the current authority the Forest Service has.  Snowmobiles have lost some things, but we haven’t lost that much in the past.  We must make sacrifices, and we need to keep people working. 

If we manage our forests properly, we also need to set aside natural resources that have not been addressed in the bill.

We already have the prison, the ranches and a gated community—the entire area is already restricted.  Right now, we have a 25-minute drive to access snowmobile trails, but wilderness will obstruct these trails.  Be careful what you turn into wilderness.

The Forest Service has managed forest with a consensus-based approach.  Everyone complains that the Forest Service can’t do anything.  The bill’s not perfect, but if something isn’t done, we’ll be out of jobs.  This bill strikes a good balance. 

As an immigrant to America, I feel like I’m back in the old country where I have to ask the Queen’s permission to do anything.  We need Republicans and Democrats to work together.

Let’s talk realistically for a moment—the forests are dying from bug infestation.  We have to do something in Montana to avoid an imminent wildfire crisis, and this bill’s a good start.  Most important, it creates jobs. We must seek middle ground.

As a representative of Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, we get pulled in all sorts of different directions.  I believe that timber management is valuable tool for managing our forests and we support this bill.

This bill sounds like a big compromise.

Thank you for being accessible, Congressman.  You left a footprint after your last listening session.  We weren’t sure who you really were, but we now realize that you really do care about Montana.  This isn’t a great bill, but it’s a good bill.  I want Montana loggers to have jobs, and I also want to snowmobile.  We need to create a good balance. 

My passion is hunting and fishing—we have the best of that here in Montana.  I support this bill because active management is good for hunting and fishing, along with everything else.

You are a third party to this bill, yet I appreciate you listening to us.  I am a cyclist.  Bicycles aren’t allowed in wilderness, and we like wilderness.  The Beaverhead-Deer Lodge area is concerning.  We just need a few compromises that will make this bill workable for everyone.  Over all, I support this bill, but we need a few adjustments. 

I’m an avid snowmobiler who’s also involved in the timber industry.  This bill is not perfect—everyone’s losing.  Some wilderness areas aren’t cheap to access, such as the Bob Marshall, and designating more wilderness will financially restrict my ability to recreate on lands we’ve used for years. 

I support this bill, but I also understand that it isn’t perfect.  Montana needs this bill to get us past impasse. 

Why do we have to call it wilderness?  We have forests—you can protect these forests and not have to call it wilderness.  Why does access have to be limited?  Where is this going to stop?  Wilderness is not the answer.

I went on a tour of these lands and saw all the dead trees.  I feel that the Forest Service has their hands tied when it comes to timber sales.  The Forest Service has failed to manage the forests because of the hoops they’re forced to jump through.  For example, one sale has been delayed for three years due to lawsuits.

They need to put trigger language in the bill, which would equate the amount of jobs created to an equal amount of wilderness designated.  This is a good idea, but how do you calculate and quantify the jobs created? 

Lawsuits are the biggest problem, and the Forest Service can’t properly manage our forests as a result.  No one is to blame.  The loggers and miners are good people.  There’s not even a market for timber right now—any harvests will be turned to pulp.  What is the market with Smurfit-Stone down?

The key is getting a discussion going.  Infrastructure is a huge part of why Russia is so much farther ahead of us.  We support this bill, but would like to see checks and balances added.

Smurfit-Stone’s closure is affecting everyone.

Seeing the mines closing in Butte opens your eyes.  Learn from the past.  All the hoops people are forced to jump through have made things impossible to navigate.

We actually want the bill to work if it’s passed, but we know that’s unlikely.

We would rather have the bill killed then corrupted.  I trust your commonsense approach, and I believe you’ll do the right thing when it comes to this bill.

I served with the Beaverhead County Commission, and we know where they’re coming from.  They’re against it because they weren’t involved in the bill’s drafting.  We don’t want to be sued by the environmental groups.

Part of the way to pay for the land is by harvesting it.  We seem to have forgotten this.

We must manage our forests, but the bugs have killed so many trees and we’re left with nothing.  Can you sue the Bureau of Land Management for not taking care of their land?

The ranchers are worried about water rights with this bill.

Jefferson County would like the opportunity to voice its opinion on this bill.  If you have time in your schedule, you should visit with their Commission as well.

As the President of a snowmobiling group, we’re playing too many word games.  Recreation is the largest draw in Yellowstone and Glacier National Parks, and both allow motorized vehicles.  They also allow hiking.  The Bob Marshall Wilderness has been in existence for 50 years.  Since its establishment, not one town has benefited from this designation since motorized access is not allowed.  97% of people don’t enter wilderness areas because of its ban on motorized access, and I don’t see a huge demand for more wilderness.  Only 2% of our forests are open to snowmobiles.  As far as forest management goes, we created the Forest Service to help manage forests.  To take 600,000 acres and designate it as wilderness removes the Forest Service’s authority and ties the hands of land managers.  The Forest Service has the power to make something wilderness without limiting access, so why don’t we try that approach first.

The access issue is a big deal the older you get.  Once it’s wilderness, wilderness is set in stone.  To use wilderness, you have to be young enough or rich enough—not everyone falls in those categories.

Economics has something to do with this also.  I feel that it’s been completely left out of the discussion.  If this land becomes wilderness, these counties will no longer receive money for the land.  You need to draft something to protect us after the sunset clause expires.  Schools used to get royalties from public lands.  The only issues we’ve addressed are logging and recreation, but this land is also full of minerals.  I’ve seen a change in this county, and minerals are no longer being produced.  Resources are a real factor to consider before this land is locked up.  

If people have their way, we’d be locked out of nearly all public lands.  How much timber is 100,000 acres even going to produce?  If you don’t harvest the timber, it will burn.  It’s a part of nature.

Locally, the Forest Service has not been involved in the process.  This is not a ‘win deal’ for most.  Something needs to be done.  The bill’s needed to create qualified wilderness, but we need hard release language to manage our other forests.

In last 10 years we’ve lost all access around the Pintlers.  We used to log and mine in the past, and now that’s all gone.  If this bill goes through, it will be completely shut off to motorized use, and the Pintlers will be something we can only look at.

We are all environmentalists—the issue is distinguishing between preservationists and conservationists.  Conservationists believe that you use land to support your country.  Wilderness areas just draw more people.  We like to call a trail, which used to be empty of hikers, the “toilet paper trail” now.  The number of people who come to visit these areas has doubled.  They are wilderness areas that are managed and protected without having to be termed wilderness.

We are no longer self sufficient.  The specifics in the bill are too narrow, and people have been left out.  Privileges are not the most important issue.  Rights come first—water rights.

Their policy is to let fires burn in wilderness.  This is dangerous.  How many jobs have been lost because of environmentalists?

Aren’t there two other wilderness bills targeting Montana?  9 million acres just in Montana have been proposed.  The gap between urban and rural Americans is growing.

Thank you for coming to Libby.  I had a business in the wood products industry.  I watched it die.  People who don’t live here don’t care about our jobs.  Our economy is weak.  Lincoln County has some of the highest unemployment in the state, while around us we have some of the highest forest productivity and potential.  I support this bill because doing nothing is not the answer.

As a County Commissioner, thank you for being here.  I am a logger’s daughter and wife of a logger.  These issues are important.  The Lincoln County Commission sent a letter to Senator Tester to be submitted as testimony for the Subcommittee hearing.  The Board of Commissioners supports moving forward.  The Three Rivers Challenge Coalition’s portion of this legislations is small scale, but we believe that S. 1470 should move out of committee.  Some changes in wording may be needed when the bill reaches the floor.  I encourage Rep. Rehberg to work with Senators Tester and Baucus on the bill. 

The Three Rivers Challenge coalition worked to find much-needed common ground solutions.  Doing nothing is not the answer.  The community here is tired of the polarized rhetoric of the past.   Three Rivers has brought the community together.  It has brought logging and motorized community in to be a part of the discussion.  There is a place for motorized recreation, non-motorized recreation, wilderness, and timber management.  Some people did opt out of the coalition, but we have been open and transparent.  The mandated treatment in the bill will ensure stability for logging.  It helps build a restoration workforce.  I am proud of the Three Rivers Challenge.  Thank you for listening to us today.

I am against this bill.  It is a land grab for the federal government.  The federal government shouldn’t be here.  It’s against the Constitution.

I am from Sanders County.  There is a video that I will give you of a field hearing that we held in Missoula on September 11th about this bill.  We invited all people to be a part of it.  Oppose S. 1470.  It is a bill based on the United Nation’s Agenda 21. 

The majority of people don’t want this bill.  We don’t need more wilderness. The Montana House passed HJR 31 in 2007 that said Montanans don’t want more wilderness.  How long do we have to be continually blackmailed with more wilderness in order to get timber harvest?

We do need a bill with common ground.  I’ve been involved in this since the RARE-I and RARE-II processes.  There needs to be language in this bill making environmentalists post some kind of bond or risk if they don’t win their appeal.  I would support this if the bill had that language.  This gridlock means we have no place to take our timber.  My problem with this is I have no trust in what is in this bill.  In the logging industry we always gave.  I support an incremental approach that would give wilderness if the logging actually occurs.

How long before there will be no loggers left?  This bill means miners and ranchers will be thrown under the bus.  This is not a jobs and recreation bill.  Senator Tester’s staff says 7,000 acres will be logger per year.  The Forest Service says this is unsustainable.  What I say is unsustainable is losing 6 million acres of trees that we’ve lost to bugs and fires.  This bill is not enough.  We’re getting thrown under the bus.

I am a commercial forester.  Additional wilderness is a one-way street.  That land is gone.  More wilderness is shortsighted.  It is land with only a single purpose forever.  We don’t know what our needs will be in the future.  30 years ago, I remember a congressional hearing on wilderness.  An environmentalist at that time said if they could get 15 million acres of wilderness, we don’t need any more.  Now they want more.  There is no consensus behind this bill!

As a Montana State Representative, thanks for providing an open microphone for the public.  Senator Tester was in Troy a month and a half ago.  There was no open mic.  We have enough wilderness.  Right now it is 20% of our public land.  I sat down originally with the Three Rivers Challenge.  They are good people.  But they are far short here of achieving their goal.  There should be in this bill the same security and permanence for timber management as there is for wilderness.  Is this any different than the Quincy Library Group’s efforts?  This is almost a carbon copy.  In that group, every sale was litigated.  The last mill down in that area closed last year.  This bill should have a trigger mechanism.  Until we get back what we have given, we shouldn’t have to give any more. 

As a retired County Commissioner, the process for developing this proposal has been invitation only.  It should have included our local legislative delegation.  The process is flawed.  The logging is not achievable or sustainable in Lincoln County because a mandate to the Forest Service doesn’t necessarily make logging happen.  Certain areas in the bill have little or no access for logging because they are in bear management units.  The Libby District of the Forest Service has said these areas do not provide much opportunity.  This is insulting to the Forest Service. 

As a Montana State Senator, my district encompasses the Three Rivers Challenge.  The original draft of this bill was taken originally to Washington, D.C. in 2006.  That meeting was behind closed doors.  We need healthy forests.  We need active management.  Over 1,600 people here in the area have signed a petition supporting active management.  Senator Tester’s bill kept people out.  A group of people held a public hearing at the University of Montana.  It was boycotted by Tester’s office.  30 people offered statements opposed to the bill.  Tester promised us the goals that we hold.  But what this bill would achieve doesn’t meet our goals.  These are three selected stewardship areas.  That’s not nearly enough.  There is no relief from catastrophic wildfires.  Fires originate in wilderness and then spread to other lands.  This process hijacked public comment.  It was the result of three entities and selected interests were involved, but hundreds were excluded.  Montana’s open meeting laws weren’t followed.  Montana has been seeing mill closures.  Our mills and jobs are gone.  S. 1470 can’t revitalize them what no longer exists.  All that’s in that bill is wilderness.  Agencies already have the power to do what is in this bill, but don’t.  The bill has violations of federal law and the Constitution.  Senator Tester won’t allow an economic analysis of the bill.  Don’t allow our resources to be sacrificed to environmental groups.  Follow the money trail of the groups putting up the website that supports this bill.  They are special lobbying interests.  We need sound resource management.  Say no to this bill.

This bill is not environmentally friendly.  I used to make lye soap at home and I know the environmental implication of it.  Fires are more environmentally unfriendly than logging because they create the chemicals in lye.  We don’t need this bill.

As a County Commissioner, I appreciate the Three Rivers Challenge, but I could not sign the Lincoln County Commission’s letter to Senator Tester.  The threat of litigation is still there.  We have been in gridlock forever.  This is too important to make a mistake on it.  A trigger option isn’t in the bill.  The 10-year sunset isn’t enough.

Montanans for Multiple Use believes in robust, scientific natural resource management.  The collaboration that resulted in this bill was way too narrow.  It doesn’t represent all of the stakeholders.  It prohibits future access.  This legislation has language that affects thousands of acres outside of the wilderness areas.  Lawsuits are coming.  We could do this by forming a community forest process that could exempt these areas from the morass of current forest laws.

Collaboration and consensus is not always a good thing.  Look at who you’re trying to have consensus with.  They are looking at destroying our Constitution.

The trade off in this bill is unbalanced towards wilderness.  People have said that we’ve had no new wilderness in 25 years.  Why should we add wilderness every few years?  It takes more land out of production.  We should be fighting to preserve what our ancestors have preserved with responsible management.

In the past, we’ve done a terrible job of getting things done on our forests.  S. 1470 represents common sense.  The areas suitable for wilderness and logging are different places.  It’s easy to be a critic.  It is harder to put together a positive program.  This is not perfect, but is a step forward.  A majority of conservationists do support a vibrant timber industry.

We don’t need more wilderness.  We need to take drastic steps to get rid of litigation that stops management.

I owned a business here in Libby.  Wilderness bothers me.  This bill is just camouflage to create more wilderness.  It allows no management.  Is the bill’s intent to hurt our lands?  Up to 80% of two counties in this area recently said no to more wilderness.  Improper management leads to diseased, fire-prone forests.  It doesn’t create new jobs.  And we need jobs to begin to get our nation out of debt.

I would like to see an open meeting on this bill in Noxon, where I live.  This bill is short-lived.  There is a little work for a little while, but then it shuts the forest off.  There are 2,300 signatures here opposing this bill that I gave to your staff.  The school here is now down to being a Class B school because there are no jobs in the area.

I appreciate your refreshing tone on this issue, Congressman Rehberg.  Let’s get this bill to a place where we can all say yes to it.  The bill isn’t perfect, so let’s get it there. 

I support this bill for the wilderness element.  Jobs are a concern here, but we won’t see logging come back ever again.  We need to build a mill in order to do that.  There is room in this bill for both logging and recreation.

I am against this bill.  Outside influences are trying to impact our state.  We need to fight for states’ rights.  No more wilderness.  This bill hurts the logging industry.  We have tons of wilderness.  It’s not shrinking.  This isn’t the way to do this.

I emailed questions about this bill to the Three Rivers Challenge coalition.   They never answered.  I also emailed these questions to Senator Tester and got a response about healthcare.

My opposition to S. 1470 is out of concern for this community.  I attended the recent meeting in Missoula.  All comments at it, except one, were opposed to the bill.  Many other counties are opposed to the bill.  One State Representative has said that there are already laws that would allow stewardship contracting.  There was a poll about this bill done by the supporters to give to Senator Tester.  I’m curious who the people were who were in this poll.  What were the questions in the poll?  The website that was set up to support this bill was done by the Campaign for Wilderness.  It is an elitist, vocal minority supporting this bill. 

The environmentalists who are saying they are for logging are liars. 

Senator Tester did not have the guts to take opinions like this from his audience.  Thank you for hearing from the audience, Congressman Rehberg.  We can’t continue to keep increasing our country’s debt.  We need to use our resources while we still can.  I read a study that says that in over thick forests, rains cannot get to the ground.  95 % of greenhouse gas is water vapor.  So in my mind a way to lower greenhouse gas is to cut down some of our forests.  

Thank you, Congressman Rehberg.  You must kill this bill.

Thanks for hosting the meeting.  Stop Tester’s bill if you can. 

No more wilderness!  Good public lands management is all that is needed, and frivolous lawsuits by the environmentalists have to be stopped.

Tester’s bill is a wilderness bill.  We will lose access to our lands as a result of it.  This bill will not benefit hunting, only real estate salesmen.

Thank you for taking the time to come to Butte to listen to the people of Montana.  Please do what you can to stop this proposed increase in wilderness in Montana as we have enough wilderness already. 

I don’t support S. 1470.  Wilderness is not a good alternative.  We need to be able to utilize and enjoy our forests.  The forest service signs say “land of many uses,” but wilderness does not allow for many uses.  I’m also concerned about weed management.

Tester’s bill may not be perfect, but it is a starting point.  The miners, ranchers and loggers all have their own interests, but the management of national lands must benefit all of us. 

You said it yourself: logging as a tool is good and wilderness is essential.  Senator Tester’s bill has both, so what’s the problem?  The meeting is obviously political, plain and simple. 

The Forest Jobs and Recreation act is a better alternative than Beaverhead-Deer Lodge Forest Plan.

As a retired Forest Supervisor in the Kootenai National Forest, I oppose S. 1470 and would like the people of Montana to be allowed the opportunity to consider what’s actually in the bill.

I support the bill and believe it’s time to get the people back to work in the woods.

I don’t see how jobs will be created in Lincoln County because of the logging component and don’t think the bill should be passed.

I recommend that the bill not be supported because of the lack of involvement on the part of the Forest Service.

I will support the bill if the Wilderness Study Areas and Recommended Wilderness Areas are removed from this designation on the Bitterroot National Forest.

I support the bill and believe it will bring jobs and growth to the county.

I support the bill because it represents hope and new opportunity for our state and aims to break the decades-long logjam regarding forest policy.

I object to the inclusion of the Sand Basin Allotment because of the restrictions it would place on ranches being able to graze cattle and use motorized vehicles to monitor livestock.

This bill represents a serious threat to America’s public lands legacy.

Motorized users on the Beaverhead-Deer Lodge National Forest must stand and speak up.

This bill won’t create any jobs.

I don’t want any wilderness proposals supported at the time, specifically S. 1470.

I endorse the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act because it will add thousands of acres of new wilderness and make financial revenues available from the proceeds of timber sales.

Senator Tester is ramming this bill through and not taking the time to hear what people actually think.

This bill will help provide jobs, which will reduce fire and insect problems.

We should designate more wilderness in Montana.  We need to keep these lands roadless for future generations.

I support Senator Tester’s bill.  It was put together by open-minded people and should be made to work.  At the meeting Senator Tester held in Troy, there was a lot of listening and no grandstanding.

I submitted a petition with 2,188 signatures opposing S. 1470.

This bill would be good for Montana. We need to protect some of the last bits of wilderness and create more jobs.

Yes on S. 1470.  Let’s work together to accomplish something positive.

Thank you for listening, and thank you for working towards a workable consensus.  I support the efforts of S. 1470.

This bill attempts to solve the issue of “locked-up” de-facto wilderness by releasing some of this land for logging.  As a result, I support S. 1470.

The wilderness bill does nothing but hurt recreation in Montana, and there are no guarantees that it will create more jobs.

I’m passionate about snowmobiling, mountain biking, ATV riding, hunting and horseback riding.  Please don’t pass this bill. 

There should be a provision in the wilderness bill that prevents lawsuits from environmentalists. 

This is America, and we are supposed to be free.  I’m tired of losing the land I grew up using. 

Management of our forest is in gridlock.  Doing nothing is not an option.

I am firmly against the wilderness bill and any other land grabs.

The wilderness bill finds a workable solution that truly reflects the needs of Montanans.

Montana is not perfect, but it’s a good bill that doesn’t need fixing.

Please try and make the wilderness bill go away.

Without some means of limiting appeals and litigation, this bill will be a waste of effort.
The wilderness bill is definitely not good for Madison Valley. 

I oppose more wilderness.  I’m for multiple use, logging, mining, grazing and recreational access. 

No to more wilderness.

Deer Lodge has already given too much wilderness, and there are no jobs left here.

Because I’m disabled, I want roads to be accessible so I can enjoy our public lands. 

It doesn’t make sense to put all these lands into wilderness status.

Thank you for holding a listening tour and honestly representing us.

We don’t need more wilderness.  We don’t need to be told what to do by environmentalist.

There needs to be certain logging provisions to make this bill work.
Tester is suggesting wilderness for a very unhealthy forest.  If wilderness is designated, there will be terrible forest fires.

Wilderness with sections of diseased timber will just burn.  Why waste it?  We should log it instead.
I’m against the wilderness bill and against bigger government.

The bill cannot ensure that logging will happen without litigation.

The wilderness bill would have a large economic impact to the Big Sky area.

More wilderness will not bring more tourism, and it will definitely not guarantee more logging.