FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Forests of the Future: Local or National Control?

Montana, like most of the West, continues to struggle with the question of how its massive federal lands should be managed. While collaborator groups and the timber industry have been very busy suggesting management plans that primarily benefit local economies and desires, an outpouring of support for continued federal management of the 2.4 million acre Flathead National Forest from across the nation once again reminds us that these are lands and resources owned by all 323 million Americans, not just a handful of local interests or politicians.

In the recently closed public comment period on the Flathead National Forest’s draft environmental impact statement and draft revised forest plan, a rather astounding 34,409 comments were submitted by members of the Sierra Club, Wilderness Watch and WildEarth Guardians urging the management of all remaining roadless lands as wilderness to protect wildlife, water and recovery of imperiled species such as the grizzly bear, lynx, bull trout and wolverine.

To be sure, thousands of those comments were submitted as suggested by the organizations who alerted their members to the opportunity to help steer the future direction of the national forest lands. But many were also personalized statements of support for maintaining and enhancing protection for the vital – and increasingly rare – still intact ecosystems of the Northern Rockies.

The concerns of the commenters are certainly not new. Road-building for oil and gas exploration and development, logging and recreation tops the list due to the well-documented impacts of roads and the increasing number of humans pushing ever further into the remaining roadless lands.

Just as roads have been shown to increase grizzly bear mortality due to conflicts with humans, a new study coming out of the University of Alberta shows that elk – easily the most highly prized wildlife in Montana – tend to assiduously avoid roaded areas.

The study’s conclusions were that: “Elk responded to roads as they would natural predation risk. Elk selected areas farther from roads at all times of day with avoidance being greatest during twilight. In addition, elk sought cover and moved more when in the vicinity of roads. Consequently, any new road construction or increases in existing road-use intensity would have detrimental effects on migratory elk populations by restricting space-use.

Energy development is transforming landscapes in western North America with the proliferation of roads, which I show is having substantial and multifaceted negative effects on elk behavior across multiple scales.” That’s no surprise to elk hunters here, many of whom will tell you the best way to find elk is to park the rig and start walking away from the road.

Meanwhile, the Lake County Conservation District is surveying people to determine whether there is local support for turning over some 60,000 acres of national forest in the Swan Valley to state management for logging for the next 100 years.

It’s strange to see a government agency whose “funding for operations comes from a small tax levied on real property within the boundaries of the conservation district” spending funds on this exercise when, according to the Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC), “the majority of conservation district levies generate under $25,000 in revenue. This funding is inadequate to meet the goals of conservation districts…”

It’s equally strange for a conservation district to step into the political arena rather than concentrate on its mission, which is “to carry out programs that conserve soil and water, protect streams and rivers, improve soil health, as well as improve wildlife habitat, improve the tax base, and protect the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the state.”

Obviously there’s nothing in that mission statement to suggest taking over management of federal lands. Moreover, the many polls regarding the possible state takeover of federal lands consistently show the public far prefers the lands stay in federal management.

There’s no denying the effort by politicians at the federal, state, and local level for what they call “better management” of federal lands. Unfortunately, the inclination is to “manage” for resource extraction to fuel local economies rather than stewardship over the broad range of forest values and their long-term health.

With a Donald  Trump presidency and a Republican Congress dominated by corporate interests, we can expect to see more attempts to dish out public resources for private profit. But as the recent comments on the Flathead Forest Plan show, the public wants its lands protected, not ripped or roaded – and it’s risky business for politicians to ignore such strong public sentiment.

This column originally ran in the Missoulian.

More articles by:

George Ochenski is a columnist for the Missoulian, where this essay originally appeared.

Weekend Edition
December 07, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Steve Hendricks
What If We Just Buy Off Big Fossil Fuel? A Novel Plan to Mitigate the Climate Calamity
Jeffrey St. Clair
Cancer as Weapon: Poppy Bush’s Radioactive War on Iraq
Paul Street
The McCain and Bush Death Tours: Establishment Rituals in How to be a Proper Ruler
Jason Hirthler
Laws of the Jungle: The Free Market and the Continuity of Change
Ajamu Baraka
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights at 70: Time to De-Colonize Human Rights!
Andrew Levine
Thoughts on Strategy for a Left Opposition
Jennifer Matsui
Dead of Night Redux: A Zombie Rises, A Spook Falls
Rob Urie
Degrowth: Toward a Green Revolution
Binoy Kampmark
The Bomb that Did Not Detonate: Julian Assange, Manafort and The Guardian
Robert Hunziker
The Deathly Insect Dilemma
Robert Fisk
Spare Me the American Tears for the Murder of Jamal Khashoggi
Joseph Natoli
Tribal Justice
Ron Jacobs
Getting Pushed Off the Capitalist Cliff
Macdonald Stainsby
Unist’ot’en Camp is Under Threat in Northern Canada
Senator Tom Harkin
Questions for Vice-President Bush on Posada Carriles
W. T. Whitney
Two Years and Colombia’s Peace Agreement is in Shreds
Ron Jacobs
Getting Pushed Off the Capitalist Cliff
Ramzy Baroud
The Conspiracy Against Refugees
David Rosen
The Swamp Stinks: Trump & Washington’s Rot
Raouf Halaby
Wall-to-Wall Whitewashing
Daniel Falcone
Noam Chomsky Turns 90
Dean Baker
An Inverted Bond Yield Curve: Is a Recession Coming?
Nick Pemberton
The Case For Chuck Mertz (Not Noam Chomsky) as America’s Leading Intellectual
Ralph Nader
New Book about Ethics and Whistleblowing for Engineers Affects Us All!
Dan Kovalik
The Return of the Nicaraguan Contras, and the Rise of the Pro-Contra Left
Jeremy Kuzmarov
Exposing the Crimes of the CIAs Fair-Haired Boy, Paul Kagame, and the Rwandan Patriotic Front
Jasmine Aguilera
Lessons From South of the Border
Manuel García, Jr.
A Formula for U.S. Election Outcomes
Sam Pizzigati
Drug Company Execs Make Millions Misleading Cancer Patients. Here’s One Way to Stop Them
Kollibri terre Sonnenblume
Agriculture as Wrong Turn
James McEnteer
And That’s The Way It Is: Essential Journalism Books of 2018
Chris Gilbert
Biplav’s Communist Party of Nepal on the Move: Dispatch by a Far-Flung Bolivarian
Judith Deutsch
Siloed Thinking, Climate, and Disposable People: COP 24 and Our Discontent
Jill Richardson
Republicans Don’t Want Your Vote to Count
John Feffer
‘Get Me Outta Here’: Trump Turns the G20 into the G19
Domenica Ghanem
Is Bush’s Legacy Really Much Different Than Trump’s?
Peter Certo
Let Us Argue Over Dead Presidents
Christopher Brauchli
Concentration Camps From Here to China
ANIS SHIVANI
The Progress of Fascism Over the Last Twenty Years
Steve Klinger
A Requiem for Donald Trump
Al Ronzoni
New Deals, From FDR’s to the Greens’
Gerald Scorse
America’s Rigged Tax Collection System
Louis Proyect
Praying the Gay Away
Rev. Theodore H. Lockhart
A Homily: the Lord Has a Controversy With His People?
David Yearsley
Bush Obsequies
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail