Virtually all western states have been hit with wildfires this summer but the damage from fires in Montana appears to have been aggravated by Federal Government rules and policies governing vast tracts of federally-owned land in the state.
According to a report by Montana Public Radio, the U.S Forest Service, under the direction of Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack, restricted Montana fire teams from using the helicopters in fire suppression efforts. The report cites Montana’s Department of Natural Resources and Conservation director, John Tubbs:The issue, according to the state of Montana’s John Tubbs, stems from the 2009 crash of a private helicopter the U.S. Forest Service contracted to fight fires. After that, the Forest Service put restrictions on what kinds of helicopters can be used to fight fire on national forests.
Tubbs, the director of Montana’s Department of Natural Resources and Conservation, says the restrictions are now applied on his department’s helicopters, and cost valuable time.
“Earlier in the summer, we were in Kalispell with our aircraft, and watched the smoke column on the North Fork fire build for 4 hours before they were able to get a U.S.F.S. contracted helicopter on that. And we would have been up and over to the fire in 30 minutes, so that’s three-and-a-half hours of fire,” Tubbs says.
Fire suppression exercises are ordinarily an interagency effort, with state and local agencies coordinating with the federal government. But the vast majority of public lands west of the Continental Divide, including those in Montana, are owned and managed by federal agencies including the Department of the Interior, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the U.S. Forest Service
On August 21, 2015, Montana Governor, Steve Bullock fired off a grievance letter to Secretary Vilsack regarding the helicopter ban. In a letter to the USDA, Governor Bullock declared:I have previously stated to you my concerns related to restrictions placed by the USDA Forest Service on the use of Montana UH-1H helicopters. Our pilots have flown these helicopters on hundreds of missions on wildland fires around the state this summer. The primary goal for [Montana’s] DNRC’s UH-1H aircraft is initial attack and they are again demonstrating their effectiveness this fire season.
However, wildland fires emerged on federal fire protection in full view of our aviation staff, who watched them grow as federal firefighters waited for other “approved” aircraft to be dispatched from distant locations. I am also aware of fires where state aircraft were above wildfires and instructed not to take suppression actions, due to the fact that the fires were on federal fire protection. This makes no sense, and puts the safety and property of Montanans at risk.
As of August 24, 2015, over 7 million acres have been burned in western wildland fires, with 13 large and 26 smaller fires still ablaze in Montana. A conservative estimate for damages in Montana alone is currently $36 million.
Last week Governor Bullock declared a state of emergency in Montana’s fire-ravaged regions, authorizing the National Guard to use its resources to aid fire-fighting efforts. But in spite of cries to reverse what Governor Bullock refers to as “nonsensical restrictions,” to date there is no indication that the federal government intends to lift the ban on Montana’s helicopter fire-suppression fleet.
Montana and several other states maintain aerial firefighting fleets to be deployed in wildland fire emergencies. Montana’s fleet includes Blackhawk and Chinook helicopters used for quick and effective fire suppression within the state.
"I'm from the Federal govt and I'm here to help"................
When they guarantee access make sure it doesn't mean at $200 per day. Guaranteed access is very nebulous. It's our lands so demand free access as we have it now. Otherwise there is no guarantee that the state would not give all rights to whoever leases the land.
Plains please don;t bring that tired crap into a discussion aimed at learning how the system is broken and speaking to how to try and fix it.
Any agreement passed by Congress to transfer these lands would have language to keep these lands public as they are now or the likelihood of passing would be slim to none. All those states out east that do not have those vast tracts of land to sell off would assure that.
The only way those eastern states would agree to sell western lands is if the monies went into the coffers they could access and then what state would agree to sell those lands off under those terms?
Lets try to keep this thread from turning into what every other one has and maybe find a solution or two instead of dividing and distracting.
- - - Updated - - -
A pretty good read if one wishes to take the time. An odd discrepancy but for the most part pretty accurate.
https://www.downsizinggovernment.org/interior/reforming-federal-land-management
