Legislatures debate forest control

A packed house turned out Thursday night in Kalispell to listen to state Sen. Jennifer Fielder and state Rep. Ed Lieser discuss the pros and cons of Montana possibly taking control of federally owned lands within the state’s borders.

Fielder, a Republican from Thompson Falls and the Montana Republican Party vice chairwoman, seemingly had the support of the crowd.

Several times, she drew applause and shouts of agreement until debate moderator Michael Christensen, an English teacher and longtime debate coach at Columbia Falls High School, asked the crowd to hold applause until the end of the debate.

The point of contention between the two legislators was whether Montana should wrest control of federally owned and managed lands or allow the federal government to keep the lands and thus the burden of maintenance.

Fielder said she firmly believes Montana would do a better job than bureaucrats in Washington, D.C., managing public lands.

“Absolutely, positively, without a doubt there is a need for change in the way forest lands are managed,” she said. “We can have better access and better productivity.”

She cited cases in Hawaii and Canada’s Northwest and Yukon territories as examples where a federal government has given lands over to the state or province without ill effects.

Lieser, who is retired from the U.S. Forest Service, had significant problems with the idea, worried about tying the state up for years in courtrooms while the land sits under an injunction. Lieser is a Democrat from Whitefish.

“Congress is going to have to make the decision and no matter what, this is going to end up in court,” he said. “It, to me, feels like throwing money away. These are American lands and they belong to every citizen of the United States.”

He cited the 2,000-member Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation and many other outdoorsmen that he said strongly opposed the transfer of federal lands.

Lieser said more than anything, he felt Montana was not prepared to take on the burden of those millions of acres.

“I believe the state is not equipped to manage those federal lands,” he said. “We need to look for reasonable solutions rather than the radical step of transferring lands.”

Fielder read language directly from the U.S. Constitution to make her case, saying Congress has the power to “dispose” of lands as it sees fit.

She drew attention to the fact that the transfer of lands was only an issue in the 12 Western states with a majority of land owned by the federal government (Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, Idaho, Washington, Oregon, California, Nevada and Alaska).

“Why are states in the West treated differently than states in the East?” she asked. “We’ve seen enabling acts in place. There is nothing unconstitutional about it. This mutually beneficial exchange is legal and feasible. We just need leaders with the courage to stand up and do something.”

Both debaters agreed that the federally managed lands could be more productive, but Fielder said the lands were mismanaged and costing Montanans jobs while Lieser said the volume of timber coming out of the Forest Service’s Northern Region was an already impressive number and the management just needed tweaking.

Audience member Kim Davis, a former science teacher in Kalispell, came to the event with an open mind.

“I’m here for gathering information,” he said. “I spend a lot of time outside, a lot of time in the park. I’m a big hiker.”

Debate organizer Clarence Taber, president of Montanans for Multiple Use, said he thought the debate would inform the gathered hundreds.

“We hope at the end of the night, everyone will have a better idea of what’s being proposed,” he said.

Fielder concluded that she wants to keep Montana’s lands productive and be managed by people Montanans directly elected.

Lieser said he believes the lands should be kept open and public and wanted to avoid any “reckless” action that might deprive Montanans of their public lands.