Tim Seipel wrote on July 11, 2008 12:24 AM: This editorial is biased and uninformed, frankly it speaks poorly for the newspaper. First the whole story, soft timber from Canada has a lot to do with the demise of the lumber industry in Montana. Secondly the pace at which the state was cleared and the silviculture practices play a role in the timber industry demise. The opinion refers to PC as Loggers, they are not, the people they employed are loggers. PC is a corporation willing to do anything to make a dollar and is uninterested in the preserving of the land. The timber industry can exist in Montana, yes it will take some cooperation between environmental groups, the forest service, and loggers. Montana is always on the edge of drought, tree production is not what it is in BC or Cascades, the industry will not be as big. The break neck pace of logging in the 60's 70's and 80's is not possible. This article mentions none of the ecologic constraints of the timber industry. It merely blames environmentalists the demise. Standard blame the other people politics, it does nothing to advance the United States as a nation or develop local sustainable economies. How about we work together in an open dialogue?

Lumberbroker wrote on July 10, 2008 04:08 PM: UFI's... what a surprise!

Slim Jim wrote on July 10, 2008 07:27 AM: Clearly, the editorial writer knows nothing of what he speaks. Several of the Montana Counties that have scolded the Bush Administration and Plum Creek Real Estate are Republican, timber communities. We're talking rural forest communities like Lincoln, Granite and Mineral Counties, Montana. When big biz and big government negotiate in secret, everyone else loses. That's the point, utterly lost in this editorial. Stick closer to home.

R-J Political Hacks wrote on July 08, 2008 07:55 PM: After reading so many of these half-baked R-J editorials, day after day, week after week, month after month, I have come to some conclusions.

The R-J editorialists are really not intellectual pundits, and do not really even care about any facts that might contradict their prejudiced conclusions. Rather they are, first and foremost, newspaper managers, businessmen, and political hacks.

dennis1944 wrote on July 08, 2008 12:51 PM: Seem to me that what any owner does with their land is their business and no one else's. Folks should mind their own business and not anyone else's.

Dick wrote on July 08, 2008 12:27 PM: As a Montana Forester, I find your comments about the Plum Creek road access issue and environmentalists to be totally wrong-headed, but probably appropriate for pandering to your right-wing Sagebrush rebels in your readership. Opposition to the secret deal between former Timber lobbyist Mark Rey (now a USDA Undersecretary) and Plum Creek has been widely opposed by County Commissioners from the affected counties; by US Forest Service retiree groups, and by our Rancher/Farmer US Senator Jon Tester (hardly an extreme environmentalist!)
Many Montana mills shut down because of previous overcutting, poor market conditions,outdated equipment and competition from Canada and abroad. Plum Creek lands are privately owned: they don't follow the same rules that apply on Public lands like National Forests: if you came to Montana and looked at the lands in their ownership, you'd see that they have exercised few restraints in harvesting whatever merchantable timber they could, all for the corporate bottom line. Plum Creek is trying to sell off their timberlands for one simple reason: they make more profits in land sales than they do in forestry.
Your unprofessional bias in this editorial does, however, serve a good purpose: I now better appreciate the high quality editorial comments appearing in my local paper. Although I don't always agree with the content, our writers don't stoop to the petty tabloid style you've used in this editorial. I hope and pray that you aren't a graduate of a Montana Journalism school?
If a reader wants to see a somewhat less biased few of what's happening here in Montana regarding the formerly secret Plum Creek road deal, check out our Missoula paper, the "Missoulian" for a more balanced view.

timinator wrote on July 08, 2008 11:20 AM: Follow the Constitution, hand federally controlled lands that are not Constitutionally authorized over to the states to privatize, and quit politicizing the whole process.

Problem solved.

JIM wrote on July 08, 2008 11:18 AM: The perspective though which this editorial was written is clear; the author has a limited understanding of the issue and a fast approaching deadline.

As a sixth-generation Montanan with deep family roots in both logging and mining, I can assure you that this issue has nothing to do with "anti-capitalists" or "environmentalists" or any other pejorative you wish to use to label the local population. The crux of this issue is the economics of land use and its affects on a community.

The average Missoulian makes $12 per hour and the average home price in the county is around $200,000. Do the math and you'll find that it is difficult, if not impossible, for Missoulians to buy a piece of Missoula. Part of the problem is outside wealth (read "unearned" as "trust fund") increasing the cost of living and real estate prices, thus making it more difficult for locals to buy a part of their community. Plum Creek is the largest land owner in Missoula County (nearly 70 percent), so when the largest local land owner is set to sell off it's holdings, people become concerned.

With a limited tax base, (MT only has income tax - taxing a low wage pool does not generate vast sums of money) there are limited resources to dedicate to protecting "McMansions" built on the urban/wilderness interface from wildfires.

Lastly, the closing of local lumber mills has less to due with road easements and environmentalists and more to due with a decreased demand in lumber in the building industry, thus reducing the demand in timber.

The LVRJ might want to take a closer look at an issue, or just read a local newspaper, before writing such a myopic

Rich wrote on July 08, 2008 08:16 AM: I live in Montana and know quite a bit about this controversy. It actually has nothing to do with loggers or environmentalists. The problem is that the forest service has old easements with Plum Creek which allows Plum Creek access across Forest service land for logging. Plum Creek and Mark Rey have been negotiating in secret to rewrite these easements to allow the establishment of roads across forest service property so that Plum Creek can build subdivisions.

Of course, that leaves the local counties with huge burdens for roads, fire and law protection, with no say in the matter. The problem is that the U.S. is giving away property for roads across public property which will greatly impact local governments, and the Forest Service is doing the deal totally in secret.

Before taking a few quotes out of context and writing an extremely misleading editorial, you might want to do a little research of actual facts. There are a number of articles archived at Missoulian.com.

I'm sure that the LVRJ isn't really for secret giveaways of public land, or for deals between the federal government and private parties which will have the effect of greatly increasing the tax burden to local governments. But, then again, researching actual facts wouldn't allow you to write a snarky "told you so" editorial about them damn hippie tree huggers.

Partisan R-J wrote on July 08, 2008 08:14 AM: Whenever I read one of these R-J anti-environmentalist rants about an entire State with half the population of our Rown Clark County I am reminded of the highly-partisan R-J's long series of editorials about how global warming is a myth, and today's headline:

G-8 Agrees To Halve Greenhouse Emissions By 2050

"In a five-page statement released during a summit in northern Japan, the Group of Eight leading industrialized nations also called on the rest of the world to join in stemming the dangerous rise in global temperatures."

"'This global challenge can only be met by a global response, in particular, by the contributions from all major economies,' the G-8 said."

Read All Comments