Timber "Sale" to Cost Taxpayers $3Million in the Gallatin

[YourRoyalHighness]

|oo


LIVINGSTON - A trio of environmental groups is appealing a proposed timber sale south of Big Timber, contending the fuels reduction project will cost $3.8 million in tax money and harm grizzly bear habitat.

U.S. Forest Service officials have estimated taxpayer costs at bout $300,000 and contend the project work in the Gallatin National Forest is needed to provide escape routes from the Boulder River drainage in case of wildfire.

It would remove trees and brush on about 2,500 acres over about seven years in a 24-mile long canyon, including an estimated 4.5 million board feet of merchantable timber.

Michael Garrity of the Missoula-based Alliance for the Wild Rockies said the environmental groups believe the true cost to taxpayers could be 12 times as high as the Forest Service projects.

Also participating in the appeal are The Ecology Center and the Native Ecosystems Council, which is run by former Forest Service biologist Sara Johnson.

The Boulder River Canyon is flanked on both sides by the Absaroka Beartooth Wilderness Area.

Gallatin spokeswoman Lorette Ray said appeals officers at regional headquarters in Missoula would rule on the appeal in April.

 

[ELKCHSR]

We don't need the careful thinning of the forests that would keep habitat; we need the hard running fires that will devastate every thing...
I like it...

 

[BigHornRam]

Gunner,

I always knew you were a queen. You added a zero to you title. Did you go to the Michael Moron school of journalism?

 

[cjcj]

AH HA! the Gunner has went underground? and he chose AZ as his "homebase" pretty funny .

 

[Elkhunter]

I would be interested to know how each side came up with their #s. $300,000 is a far cry from $3.8 million.

 

[ELKCHSR]

It looks like the project will cost around 300K and the timber will gross the 3Mil...
just a guess though, not much info to go on.

 

[Elkhunter]

No, both sides have a different amount, which I don't think is unusual, but I find it unusual that it would be $3.5 million differnce.

 

[MattK]

The entire project may cost in the neighborhood of $3.8 million but the net cost after timber sales could make the cost at about $300 thousand. That would be my only explanation for such a discrepency.

 

[Elkhunter]

OK, I can buy that. That makes a little sense.

 

[Ithaca 37]

Matt, That's exactly the way I figured it. .....a $300,000 net loss to taxpayers to subsidize the whole thing. You can bet it will end up being much higher by the time it's done. Here's the other factor; suppose it actually pays off someday in providing escape routes from a forest fire Elkchser can't put out fast enough? (Remember, those guys get paid by the hour ). Suppose it actually results in a less severe forest fire someday where the project takes place?

I'm pretty skepitical, but trying to figure this out. We need more info than the article provides.

Suppose they just do some controlled burns in the 24 mile long canyon. What would that cost and would it work just as well?

 

[Elkhunter]

But Ithaca, look at the roads that could be put in while doing the logging. We need those for the ATVs to use.

 

[BigHornRam]

Garrity is a obstructionist POS. I say he's full of shit and would like to know where his numbers come from. The enviros are playing with fire on this one and could get burned badly. The Boulder is a box canyon with one road in and out. Wilderness is on both sides of the road. Many church camps are located there and have lots of kids there in the summer. Kids that get to learn what wilderness is about and will be future advocates to preserve and protect this and other wilderness areas. (The curch camps are on private land BTW)

If a fire starts in this canyon and people get trapped and die because there is no way out, and some enviro obstructionist group stops the F. S. from doing their job, then their WILL be hell to pay. What that California guy that started that fire was ordered to pay will be chump change.

 

[BuzzH]

Paul,

That has to be the most lame excuse I've ever read on why we need to log...provide escape routes for PRIVATE landowners. What a crock. You assume risk, including choosing to have a church camp in the woods with one way in and one way out.

Could you please explain or provide proof of any legislation, state law, federal law or anything else that demands the FS must provide escape routes to a handful of church camps?

The reason I asked, is because last time I checked, no such rule, regulation, or law existed for that.

Your mileage may vary...

 

[ELKCHSR]

I think it should be left alone, with the way our drought is going, and with the amount of people playing with fire in that area, I should get a personal view of the place, maybe this summer...

 

[BigHornRam]

Buzzboy,

No comment on where your boy Garrity get's his numbers? If the forest circus is not going to manage the forest, the adjacent land owners should be allowed to do it for them. Appearently the circus would like to manage this forest, but the tree hugger obstructionist are looking to stop them. The real sad fact is that if the circus was run like a business, and not a bloated gummint welfare agencey, their timber sales would actually turn a profit.

 

[MattK]

BHR- If the Forest Service and the BLM were businesses they wouldn't give all the lumber and grazing lands away to welfare businesses.

 

[Ten Bears]

Good, make the private people and camps come up with the $300K for the escapement road, and call it even.

 

[BigHornRam]

Ten,

Its called a public access road not an escapement road. Lot of wilderness trailheads are accessed by this road. You see lot's of differnt state license plates in the summer. I even saw a group of atver's using it once. Maybe we should set up a toll booth to help pay for the $300,000?

Matty,

Who do you believe, the tree huggers or the forest service's estimated cost? Wouldn't you like to see where Garrity comes up with his numbers? What kind of business takes 50% right off the top for adminstrative costs? How many bids do you think I would win if my administrative expenses were factored in at 50%? What about the Healthy Forest Initiative? This was passed by OUR government just like all the other rules you and your brother in law Buzz like to reference. Shouldn't it be followed?

 

[Ten Bears]

If it's gonna be for forest access, then I can see the road costing the gubbermint a few dollars, but if the road is to ensure escapement, let those escaping foot the bill.

 

[MattK]

BHR- I believe both parties, I think I explained how I thought the numbers went. For the sale of this timber, why don't they charge the going rate or better yet, auction the timber to the highest bidder. I don't mind creating an escape route for a public road but if it is all private, they should have thought about it before they moved in. If it's in the best interest of the forest and the land I have no problem with it. If it isn't in the best interest of the forest, I don't like it.