Thanks for coming and holding a true public meeting.  Mining is a lucrative business that enables employers to share benefits with employees.  This bill severely limits mining, which in turn will hurt the economy.

We don’t need more wilderness.  The environmentalists will still litigate the timber sales, and this bill does nothing to stop that.  Litigants should be required to post bond before litigating.  Please oppose the bill.

As a retired forest ranger, I disagree with the testimony of the Forest Service at the Senate hearing for Senator Tester’s legislation.  In that testimony, the Undersecretary said mandated harvests were unachievable.  Stewardship projects could be set, and foresters in the Beaverhead-Deer Lodge would be excited to prioritize these projects at the local level.  As a political appointee, the Undersecretary has never stepped foot in the forest.

I’m concerned that this bill will not deal with forest gridlock, as logging mandates will expire in 10 years. 

Environmentalists are getting paid by the government to litigate.  They are never going to stop.  I’m concerned over the handling of high mountain lakes and reservoirs in wilderness areas. 

This bill attempts to lock people out of the land and does not include input all of the interested parties.  The former Forest Supervisor wrote a letter saying that his goal was to turn the Ruby and Snowcrest Mountains into wildlife preserves.  Why do they have to come here to get it?

I support the bill due to its preservation of the Madison Valley.  The bill allows for ATV sheep trialing and access to water using mechanized equipment in the Snowcrests. 

This bill has been touted as a cooperative effort and nothing could be farther from the truth.  Thanks for coming to listen to us, the people who are most impacted by it.  The bill claims it will not impact grazing, but it will—it takes the authority to manage grasslands away from the local entities and gives it to the federal government. 

This bill is a good start.  We need to go somewhere, and we also need to modify the court system.

I’m concerned that 7,000 acres of logging a year isn’t feasible.

This bill offers a balance.  It will create jobs and preserve wilderness areas.  Who knows what will happen if we don’t jump on this bill now?

This bill is bad for agriculture.  We don’t need more lands set aside for wolf habitat.  Oppose the bill.

Senator Tester claims the language in his bill protects grazing.  The wilderness designations will negatively impact grazing.

Please oppose the bill.  This is our state and we can’t allow outsiders to create a framework that locks up our natural resources.  We shouldn’t have to bargain things away.  This bill is a sovereignty issue and gives more power to the federal government and severely limits resource opportunities for Montanans.

How do you propose to fix the bill, and how will you fix it? 

The process this bill took was not inclusive of all stakeholders.  I do support wilderness, but I would support the logging provision.  That being said, I don’t think logging will happen.  Nothing in this bill makes timber harvests more likely.

I’m concerned that we already have too much wilderness and too many restrictions on our lands.

I’m concerned about ranch lands that border wilderness.  My ranch borders the Lee Metcalf wilderness, and it’s a bad deal.  We don’t need any more wilderness.

As a Commission, we were involved in the forest plan revision process.  The process behind this bill was very one-sided.  Many people were left out.  We have asked to be included and have our suggestions looked at—we’ve been ignored.  We’ve had meetings to try to understand how wilderness will benefit Madison County, but no one has ever been able to give us a straight answer.  We asked why the Snowcrests were proposed, and we were told it was to appease the environmentalists.  We are concerned about water developments and grazing in the Snowcrests.   Senator Tester says anything allowed now will be allowed in the future, according to the bill.  He adjusted language in the bill allowing motorized use in the Snowcrests, but that contradicts the definition of wilderness.  We have resigned ourselves to the fact that we are going to get some wilderness, but we’d like additional consideration taken for some areas, like the Snowcrests and Tobacco Roots, that are very critical to our producers.  

As a representative of the Ruby Valley Stock Association, half of our grazing allotments are in the proposed wilderness areas.  This includes stock tanks, fences and roads.  These areas don’t meet wilderness requirements.  We are using the lands and taking good care of the resources.  We sat down with Senator Tester’s people and asked them to keep the wilderness boundaries above the farmstead.  We are very concerned because such a large part of our grazing allotments are within the proposed designations. We would like to see language that protects grazing, wilderness boundaries, release language, and no further wilderness designation in the Beaverhead-Deerlodge.

We would like know if anyone has done an analysis of the economic impacts of wilderness.  We have yet to see one.

There is no language in the bill that addresses tax revenue impacts.  Things like Secure Rural Schools aren’t addressed.  We need explicit language requiring payments to the counties in case Secure Rural Schools isn’t reauthorized.

As a State Representative, restricting economic activity reduces populations and cuts funding to schools.  Our economy is hurting because we don’t have opportunities to develop our resources. 

Can we include language that will fix the appeals process? 

As an elected official, I estimate that 70% oppose this bill in Madison County. 

I am opposed to designating the Snowcrests as wilderness.

As a Commissioner, we aren’t opposed to wilderness altogether.  Changes in the proposed boundaries are needed, however. 

As a Commission, we had a few small requests for Senator Tester.  We feel like our wishes were dismissed.

As a representative of a mountain biking group, we have concerns over trails that would be cut off by the wilderness boundaries.  One small, five-mile adjustment would keep many miles of trials open.  We are not supportive of the wilderness designation in the Big Hole. 

As a multiple use advocate, we have concerns about the process and people being excluded from the process.  We have been trying to express concerns and be a part of the process from the beginning, but were excluded.  The foundation of this bill is the Ecosystem Research Group Study.  This bill does not include the three things you said a bill must include for you to support it.  Please do not support it. 

This bill has been touted as a collaborative effort, but it’s been nothing but a dog-and-pony show involving a select few.

Should we start a petition in Madison County opposing this bill?  80% of the voters in the county oppose it.

I’m concerned over the access abilities for elderly and handicapped in wilderness areas. 

Balanceduse.org has a legal analysis of the bill that was done by American Stewards of Liberty.  It violates a lot of laws and the Constitution.  It will not stop litigation and gives the Montana Wilderness Association excessive powers.  It undermines Montana’s water rights laws.

As a representative of a Montana snowmobiling group, we oppose this bill.  We would like there to be trigger language that would prevent wilderness designations until logging takes place.  We feel the bill will hurt many Montana communities and their economies as it limits snowmobile access and allows for the closure of trails at any time.

Senator Tester has been true to the proposal we brought to him.  We would encourage you to support the legislation.  We did a ton of outreach and included everyone in the process.

As a conservation group, we think this bill will take significant steps towards creating jobs. 

We need to change the stigma of logging, and I like the collaboration that went into this bill.  I am concerned that logging may not occur.  The ag community is important, and this could be the final straw that breaks the camel’s back.  We don’t want to put more burdens on our producers.

Doing nothing is not an option.

As a wilderness advocacy group, I thank Senator Tester for all he’s doing to protect the wild grandeur of Montana. 

As a conservation district, we want clean water, but we are concerned about our producers and the impact this bill will have on them. 

We don’t support any effort to change the appeals process for timber harvesting.  The timber guys said they didn’t want or need this in the legislation.

As a wilderness advocacy group, we need to bring people to the table early and often.  This will be enough to prevent such problems in the future.

We were very involved with the Blackfoot Clearwater part of the bill, but feel that Senator Tester was very inclusive and open with the rest of the bill as well. 

As an environmental coalition, we were included in the process.  They brought the proposal to us and listened to us.  We support the bill because we feel it was a collaborative process that supports restoration and stewardship while protecting our landscapes and resources.

As a representative of a ranchlands organization, I like the work and collaboration that went into the bill, but I don’t think it’s going to create jobs in Madison County.

I can use wilderness to create jobs.  I’m an outfitter in the Mount Jefferson area.  Currently, the snowmobilers are taking over my terrain and hurting my business.  The appeals process does need to be addressed and the Forest Service needs to be empowered to manage lands.

As Commissioner, I want to thank Congressman Rehberg for taking the time to listen to us.  I can say that the claim that this partnership was a collaborative effort is false.

We worked with the Forest Service for 6 years on the forest plan.

We asked Senator Tester to utilize the forest plan rather than the Partnership strategy. 

There are significantly more acres of wilderness proposed in the bill as compared to the Forest Plan.

If these are areas that they feel need to be protected, we should use special designations rather than wilderness.

The language in the bill is also a concern of the Commission.  According to some of the language in the bill, the National Recreation Areas would be managed as National Protection Areas. 

The Commission is also concerned about the terms “permitted” versus “allowed”.  The definition of “permitted” is not clear, and raises the concern that they might use this to severely limit access for grazing or other activities.

Another concern is that the bulk of the wilderness is designated to Beaverhead and Madison Counties.  If the other counties are so supportive, why don’t they suggest some of the wilderness designations be put in their counties?  We have identified an area in Silver Bow County that is very suitable for wilderness, but it’s not designated in the bill.  As it stands now, we get wilderness and no jobs.

Inventoried roadless areas are a major concern, particularly in the case of Maverick Mountain Ski Company.  Maverick Mountain sits in an inventoried roadless area, and this could have an impact on their ability to maintain and keep the ski area safe. 

Along with these concerns, the Secure Rural Schools formula is not addressed adequately in the bill.  Should Secure Rural Schools not be reauthorized, it would be very detrimental to the county.

There is worry that no logging will take place in Beaverhead County because it’s too far to transport to Sun Mountain.  Instead of bringing it in from Beaverhead County, they’ll harvest timber near their mill.

In this legislation, the stewardship projects would be prioritized as follows: miles of roads per acre, habitat connectivity, dead and dying trees.  The Commission feels that these priorities are backwards.  The dead and dying trees should be the first priority.

We would like to know where the harvestable number of acres, 7,000 per year, came from. Why is this number not 5,000 or 10,000?

In 2007, the Forest Service did the first oil and gas leasing in years, and now this bill would put an end to that.

We have concerns about the Forest Service having emergency authority to bypass the NEPA process when issues of human health are concerned.  The current state of dead and dying trees seems to be reason for action.

We are concerned about similar legislation that was passed in New Mexico and the impact it could have on grazing in Montana.

We have concerns about the snowmobile ban in the West Pioneers.

As a State Senator, I’m concerned that every potential mineral reserve in Beaverhead County is in the designated wilderness areas.

As a State Representative, I have concerns that there was no mention of predator control in wilderness areas.  Also, how will permanent structures currently in wilderness areas be addressed or handled?  Lastly, there is no meaningful multiple use language in the bill.

What is this bill trying to do?

I’m concerned about the bill.  We already have a lot of wilderness and no one is taking care of it.  We need to take this country back and manage our resources.  If we don’t, our country will not survive.

I support this bill.  We need to look at wilderness as a way to keep the population boom off our public lands.

When did you become concerned about natural resource issues?  You and your staff need to know that plenty of people in this county support the bill. 

Is this bill going to solve the problem?

This bill is another example of the government wanting to make rules that we can’t live by.  Where did common sense go?  It’s costing us jobs.

Recreation is not a right, it’s a privilege.  We already have a lot of wilderness that only 2% of the population utilizes.  Why do we need more?  We need to stand up and say enough is enough. 

I’m concerned about fuel build up and forest health.

We don’t need to create wilderness—wilderness naturally occurs.  The economy is hurting now and this bill will cost jobs, not create them. 

We need people who actually know what’s going on to make the decisions.  I’m tired of the environmentalists running the show.

I’m a resident of Wise River and no one there who earns a paycheck supports this bill.  Why didn’t they discuss it with us before making the decisions?

Mining is the second or third largest industry in Montana, and the Montana Mining Association was excluded from the process.

This method was shoved down our throats.

I am a rancher at Wise River, and I have grazing permits in the East and West Pioneers.  How will I get my cows in and out without trails?  I use a four-wheeler because I’m too old to walk. 

This bill will not create one job.  It’s a self-interest bill for Senator Tester and Sherm Anderson.

Our federal debt is too high.  What backs up this debt?  Is it the federal lands?

I’m a former Madison County Commissioner.  I oppose this bill.

How many board feet of timber will actually be available in the 7,000 acres of timber to be harvested?

If we don’t manage our lands, they’ll become wastelands.  We don’t need any more of that. 

Please oppose this bill.  It’s being promoted on the false notion that the tradeoff for wilderness is more jobs.  It also contains no litigation reform or hard release language.  There is an opportunity for you to use these meetings to craft a new bill that is done right for the people of Montana. 

I’m a firefighter.  If this bill passes, I know I’ll be guaranteed a job for years to come because our forests will continue to burn.  Our resources are what we survive and live on.  We need you to support Montana and write a new bill.  

As a balanced use representative, I feel that no timber will be harvested as a result of this bill due to continued litigation.

The Forest Service just went through the forest planning process on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge where 329,000 acres of wilderness was proposed and reduced to 321,800 after public comment.  Now this bill designates 505,000 acres of wilderness in the Beaverhead-Deerlodge, in addition to 59,000 acres on Bureau of Land Management land.  We have concerns that even though the bill has a much higher wilderness designation, it didn’t come close to the same process as the Forest Plan did.

We need to come up with an alternative to this bill.  Most of our forests are being managed as wilderness; even if they aren’t designated as such, no management is taking place.  Our ranches border many of these federal lands and the lack of management is detrimental.

I have concerns with the many times the word “permissible” is used in the legislation.  That kind of language leaves too many things open to interpretation by the agencies, and this is a major concern for those who make their living off the land.

We are concerned with the 300-foot versus 30-foot rule for firewood permits.

I have concerns over wilderness in general.  Wilderness is naturally occurring and we don’t need to label it as such.  The checker boarding wilderness is concerning because eventually, all of the land within the checker board will become wilderness as well.  We would support a bill if you introduced one.

I have questions on how this bill helps small business.  It may help Sherm Anderson, but none of the rest of us.

The mining association offered to sit down and talk to Tester’s people regarding the bill, but never got a call back.

There are concerns felt by the regional water companies and stockgrowers.

This bill guarantees a few things: a new wilderness designation, which hasn’t occurred in 26 years, logging, help for rural economies and multiple use protection.  The forest plan was a starting point.  We were very conscious of who was at the partnership table and who wasn’t.  We knew some people were left out, but we met with a lot of people and won’t apologize for the process.  I don’t think people realize that we are giving up some aspects too.  I have received hate email and lost funding.  Everyone looks at an issue and thinks they are the only ones who suffer consequences.  This is an opportunity for us to move past a debate that has hurt us for a long time.  We’ve signed onto agreements with seven or eight motorized groups in the past when other groups brought litigation.  The collaboration and motorized users was enough to override the litigation.  We need to make sure we have all stakeholders at the table early and often.  I can’t promise that litigation won’t happen.  We want Congress to give clear direction to the agency and feel the bill does this.

As a retired forester, I was often frustrated by not being able to accomplish anything in the woods.  We spent all our time planning, but never got to carry out the plans as they were often tied up in litigation.

As a former Forest Service Ranger, I can tell you that even though the 7,000 acres of harvest is reasonable, this bill will produce some real hardships for the Forest Service.  I feel the objectives in the bill are important.

Wilderness restricts access to people.  The only people who can enjoy it are those who have the time, health and money required to do so.

I’m not opposed to wilderness, but I fear extremists who wish to restrict access.

I support the bill and feel it starts us down the road to finding solutions.

There is a need for timber harvests, but this bill will limit timber harvests because litigation will still occur.  The Forest Service currently has the ability to regulate timber harvests.  This bill does not change that.  Also, this was not a collaborative effort.

Would you sponsor competing legislation or work to fix this bill?

The state should be in charge of the land, not the federal government. 

This bill is going to restrict access.

As a representative of the Montana Mining Association, this bill presents significant problems for the mining industry.  The proposed designation has never been inventoried for its mining potential.  We have no idea what resources are there and need to have the opportunity to develop them. 

Why do you have to create wilderness to be able to log?  We need local people to manage forests.  The people should get to vote on this proposal before it’s locked up and taken away. 

I’m concerned about recreation areas, specifically the ban on snowmobiles in the West Pioneers. 

Litigation takes such a long time and can tie up timber sales for years. 

We need trigger language in this bill—no wilderness until logging occurs.  This bill will hurt the economies that benefit from snowmobile use.

There needs to be a buffer between wilderness and private lands.  Otherwise, the wilderness can be a burden to private land owners and restrict access.

I use wilderness areas, but fear the continual loss of access that we are facing. 

As the Vice President of Montana Resources, wilderness comes with many restrictions.  Logging can’t be the only winner here.  There are many other resources out there such as mining.  Why were they overlooked? 

I am the owner of a small outdoors business in Butte and a member of the Montana Mountain Bike Alliance.  I am concerned over access restrictions to bikers.

Support the bill. 

Support this bill.  It won’t impact mining.  We already know what exists for mining opportunities.

As the Chief Executive, we’ve discussed the bill and have some of our commissioners who support it and some who oppose it.  We have not come out with an official position on it.

As a Commissioner, we need to meet in the middle.  That should be the theme song for S. 1470.  I’m pro wilderness and also represent backcountry horsemen and women.
As a Commissioner, I think the forest plan is what we should use.  Why the need for this bill after all of the work that went into the forest planning process? 

As a Commissioner, are you supporting a bill other than this one?  Senator Tester is trying to move people out of entrenchment.  We need something to be done about this, so please sit down with Senator Tester and come to a workable solution.

It seems to us like everyone was included in this process or given the opportunity to be involved.  Many people chose not to be involved.  We have heard many concerns from people worried about losing access to lands.  Wilderness is difficult to access unless you have the resources to do so.

As a Commissioner, I think compromise is the answer and 600,000 new acres of wilderness is not compromise.  We need recreation to survive economically. We have enough wilderness, and to ask for that much more is not compromise. 

As a Commissioner, I’m concerned about the small communities and the potential economic impacts this bill could have on them.

As a State Representative, this bill will put a lot of the controversy to rest.  It would be good to have all of our congressional delegation on the same page supporting the same thing.

As a Commissioner, this bill will create jobs and preserve the land.  It seems like job creation would be a sure thing.

As a Commissioner, the opposition to logging by the Obama Administration will be worked out. 

Our districts are affected in different ways.  This bill affects each district differently. 

This bill is a little too late.  Smurfit-Stone has already gone under.

Where is the biomass in this bill?  There is an opportunity to write this into the bill.  The bill is a mess and lacks any language regarding beetle kill.  If we are going to have a wilderness bill, this language must be included. 

I’m disappointed with the forest managers.  Will the bill pass as written, or will it be amended?

We have the second smallest county in Montana, so any wilderness designation is proportionally more significant to us.  We’re already running out of useable land thanks to the superfund site in our district.  The lumber industry is also down, and we must support biomass efforts.

Private landowners are in direct competition with government thanks to this bill. 

Bio-mass is huge and we are glad that you support it. Any market that you can make is a good one.

We support active management.

Some say it’s impossible to harvest that much area, but others say it’s not enough?  The beetle kill issue also needs to be addressed.  I appreciate that people are willing to sit down and listen. 

Not all of the interested groups were included in the process.  There are a lot of word games being played.  I want it to work, but that doesn’t mean it’s going to work. 

One idea for Senator Tester to consider is designating acreage as National Recreation Area instead of wilderness.  Definitive language must be added to prevent litigation, but if amended, the environmental groups will not support. 

If this legislation was drafted by groups from another state, I would understand.  However, this bill was conceived by Montanans and doesn’t agree with our values.

Public access is becoming an issue and affects regular Montanans.

Tester’s bill is the Partnership Strategy.  The Forest Service said that the partnership contained “too many unknowns and little science”. 

Release language is the crux of this issue. 

We sell equipment to loggers.  The logging industry is hurting right now and this bill isn’t going to do anything to help that.  All it’s going to do is give us more dead trees and weeds. 

As a balanced use advocate, I appreciate Denny’s efforts to hear from us.  When we submit comments and concerns to Senator Tester’s office, they defer us to someone else.

A mining association is upset that Senator Tester’s staff said hard release language won’t fly.

According to the Montana Bureau of Mines, Southwestern Montana contains 70% of the mineral deposits in Montana.  An inventory hasn’t been completed for many of the designated wilderness areas, so we don’t know what possibilities exist.

We need to develop our resources where they are.  We can’t lock them up and hope to find them elsewhere. 

There are a lot of different types of metals that may be mined in the affected areas.  They create products such as cell phones, computers, jet engines, wind mills and solar panels

Where and when do we draw the line and say “this is wrong”? 

As a mining club, we have concerns over stewardship projects that tear out roads.

As a multiple use advocate, I’m concerned that our tax dollars are being spent to promote a dishonest bill.  I don’t like the mailer sent out by Senator Tester promoting the bill.  We have put together a white paper and petition against this bill.

As a natural resources council, we oppose the bill.

I have concerns over access issues for elderly and disabled.  Four-wheelers enable people to see a lot of land they would never have the opportunity to see otherwise.

This bill would affect snowmobile grooming in the East Pioneers.

We’re confident the 10 year sunset for logging will set a precedent and that the logging will continue after the 10 years.

Senator Tester will have to persuade the Obama administration that the logging can be done to get this bill through.  This is going to be a much simpler process if you get on board with it.  It’s in your best interest.  If you have changes you think need to be made, go to Jon and propose them to him.  There are three parts of this bill: timber, restoration and wilderness.  Senator Tester has promised me that this bill will look the same when it passes as it does today or he won’t continue to carry it.  Killing this bill won’t make the wilderness issues go away. 

I don’t see this bill as a “deal”.  I see it as a fundamental change in the way things work around resources.  I hope it will create a different vision.  The amount of outreach we did is reason for us to be proud of our efforts to make this change.  It’s about the people who want to find solutions working together.  People who oppose wilderness aren’t thinking about their children.  I’m amazed that people can’t see the value in wilderness

Sun Mountain Lumber tried to get CBU to the table and they refused to meet. 

You have supported the Blackfoot Clearwater portion, which is part of this bill.  If you don’t support the bill, will that be an issue?