THREE WAYS TO END THE WILDERNESS DROUGHT
Green Group Feud, Afterthoughts
By Bill Schneider, 3-19-08
 |
|
 | |
|
A few weeks ago, I lost a few friends in Wilderness movement when I wrote about a feud between green groups stifling efforts to protect roadless lands. The following week, I invited the executive directors of two of the opposing groups to write guest commentaries on how they think we should end the Wilderness drought in Montana.
After carefully reading the words of what I called "dueling greens," reviewing all the comments, and having a few more chats with wilderness leaders, I have a few afterthoughts and possible solutions to the stalemate.
By the way, this issue is hardly restricted to Montana. Other states face the same dilemma, infighting among greens preventing progress and giving victories to the competition. Take last year's Central Idaho Economic Development and Recreation Act (CIEDRA), which was actually, sort of, considered a "Wilderness bill," despite the title. It almost passed, but was bitterly opposed by a coalition of green groups who believed it gave away too much wild land to development and motorized recreation.
| |
| It might be time to give up and go to Plan B. | |
|
First, if wilderness groups can't find enough common ground to form a unified front in the battle for Wilderness, we should just give up and go to Plan B, to be explained later in this commentary. I still can't imagine Congress passing a true Wilderness bill with a large percentage of wilderness advocates opposing it--or to be fine-line political, not supporting it.
Second, I probably shouldn't call it a green group feud. It no longer seems like green vs. green; it's more like green vs. brown, with supporters of the quid pro quo approach being brown and supporters of the save-what-we-have-left approach staying green.
Third, I had a lot of emails and calls, and the comment section was alive with pro-wilderness people who aren't happy about the current approach and dismal record of Montana's major brown group, Montana Wilderness Association (MWA). Witness the companion article, Memo to MWA, an internal letter from two former MWA council members.
I regret saying this because I have been a member most of my life and did a shift on the MWA Council, but we've lost the MWA of the past. The group has grown and radically changed--and not for the good.
Third, my "can't we all get along" concept clearly isn't going to work with the current cast of characters. So, what to do about it? Here are three "Plan Bs." For Wilderness advocates, they should all fall into the same category, which is: We don't have to like it or each other, but we have a job to do.
Plan B #1:The brownish green approach. The real hang up with the quid pro quo approach is trading roadless lands for "stewardship logging," real estate development or motorized recreation or as it has been called, "wreckreation." Take roadless land giveaways off the table and give those normally opposing Wilderness something else that doesn't sacrifice roadless lands, something like power line corridors, pipelines, power plants, economic development funding, or water rights--anything with an acceptable environmental impact but would normally not garner support from green groups. It may leave a bad taste (i.e. Wilderness groups supporting power plants?) and if we need to call it the MEDA, as in the Montana Economic Development Act, so be it--as long as it has a solid Wilderness component and doesn't sacrifice de facto wilderness like the 700,000 acres (much of it with interim protection) MWA proposes to give up to the timber industry in its now-infamous Beaverhead-Deerlodge Partnership or convert roadless land to motorhead parks and trophy homes like CIEDRA would have done. Be innovative in picking the trade offs. This could work.
Plan B #2: The pure piecemeal approach. "Pure" is the operative word. Take a high profile area that all Wilderness advocates can support but don't load up the bill with giveaways. Make it a pure Wilderness bill, but for a small, popular area, as opposed to the massive Northern Rockies Ecosystem Protection Act (NREPA), which includes basically all roadless lands in the northern Rockies. A good candidate would be something called the Bob Marshall Completion Act, which designates the famed Rocky Mountain Front and smaller roadless tracts contiguous to the Bob Marshall, Great Bear and Scapegoat Wilderness Areas. I happen to know that both sides of this debate would support such a bill, so, alas, we have common ground. Together (for a change!), the two sides might be able to convince a member of our delegation to introduce it.
Plan B #3: The throwing in the towel approach. Assuming my first plans won't fly and assuming the current broken system will do nothing but extend the Wilderness drought, which is a good bet, then what do we have left? No chance for designation of what we know as Wilderness? If this is where we end up, and it seems likely to me, our Wilderness leaders need to suck it up, give up on so-called "Big W" Wilderness and start over with a new, slightly less restrictive land designation that I've called Wilderness Lite. Basically, the new designation would allow all nonmotorized uses, including mountain biking, and probably be less restrictive in several areas such as wildlife management, fish stocking, outfitting, or firefighting, but still prohibit roads and motorized recreation.
So, we have some options, all of which I'm sure neither side of the debate likes, but hopefully, they can like one of them better than the status quo, which is nothing more than fueling the perfect storm for those who don't want to see our roadless lands protected.
Footnote: For more on this general subject, go to A Natural Allies Chronology.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Read more Northern Idaho stories
Comments
Excellent article as usual. Let's see if the nutjobs will totally disregard the issue and begin to rant.
Here is my view on roadless lands.
1. Do not create anymore unless it is in the immediate prevention of forest fires.
2. Mange the roads that we currently have. By manage I mean prevent erosion (do not pave them).
3. If a road is obviously not being used and is over grown and is not used i nthe prevention of forest fires, allow it to be planted with plants that are native to the area.
I also look at things this way.
Power line go through forests. Why not in extremely remote areas setup solar power panels. and route the underground cabling to existing power lines. I am not an electrical engineer but it seems doable.
We should seriously consider the public lands of Utah and Colorado as additions to the bioregional approach invisioned in the 1980's, now being considered by Congress. It furthers the national interest in wilderness ecosystems, and the species upon which they depend. It also potentially adds the urban support of Salt Lake City and Denver to the political mix.
This addresses two fundamental problems with the other alternatives: corrupt (state-by-state protocol) delegation politics, and use-based decision-making. We will never have enough public land to divide among all the growing number of user groups (and population) that want to consume remaining roadless lands. If we want wildlife and native fish in the future, we need to protect roadless areas now, not deplete them further. These lands belong to all Americans.
Thanks for your thoughts on this issue. Despite the difficulty of enacting new wilderness in Montana, I still believe doing it the old fashion way by building popular support for specific parts of the landscape is the best way to proceed. Champion the land--build popular support--and hopefully politicians will get in front of the parade.
By the way, I contacted the BDNF and found out that roughly 500 acres per year have been logged over the past five years. That compares to the 7000 acres (about 5000 football fields) that may be logged annually if the Beaverhead Deerlodge Partnership is enacted.
For others interested in a critique of the Beaverhead Deerlodge Partnership see my earlier essay on New West.
http://www.newwest.net/topic/article/beaverhead_deerlodge_partnership_misplaced/C38/L38/
Amazing study in human nature, both the BD and NREPA factional participants see only their own use as relevant, and fork everyone else. So I guess neither deserve to fly.
What needs to happen is this: Put the recommended wildernesses up for designation, conditional on a ten-or-twenty year review on whether the other uses are, if not satisfied, at least feeling proportionately put upon rather than singled out for a screw. In short, a fair shake for everyone. If the, ahem, CONSENSUS is that things are working out all right, then go ahead and designate the old mid-eighties recommended wildernesses. And only those. The fact is, the criteria used in those days is far more objective, good faith and less politicized than any standards we have today. Let's not forget the old Wilderness Act was sold as a "look things over, pick out the good stuff and get this matter settled" to Congress. It was NEVER intended to drag out as long as it has.
Your perspective is entirely limited to direct human uses, and you are neglecting perhaps the more important benefits of wilderness designation which is protection of ecological services that benefits everyone. This includes production of clean water, protection of habitat for sensitive wildlife, carbon storage (unlogged landscapes--even burnt ones store far more carbon than logged landscapes), soil protection, scientific control value, and much more.
Furthermore, you neglect to consider that the majority--and I mean the majority of the US is developed landscapes--including most of Montana. Nearly all of the recreational users that are "locked out" to use the parlance of the anti wilderness crowd are easily found on the "rest" of the landscape--those lands already roaded and available for all other uses.
Ecological services can be provided pretty well by a managed landscape. And I am not sure if there are all that many "services" provided to either humans or animals or even vegetables if the landscape goes pyroclastic.
It is profoundly mistaken to ignore that the "natural" landscape seen as pristine by the white guys was rather and in reality formerly inhabited by lots and lots of people who practiced deliberate and systematic vegetation management. The resulting "biotic community" or whatever mumbo-jumbo buzz phrase you prefer is a human artifact. "Wrong color" humans, but humans nonetheless, doing what humans tend to do. Even now, the decision to manage or not manage "wilderness" and utilize or not utilize other non-biotic attributes is, yep, a human, societal and cultural decision.
I know you dearly desire to separate the two. You were born two hundred years too late, what can I say.
Why don't you engage Dave Skinnner? His thoughts sound resonable to me. Wilderness Lite seems workable. The strategy for gaining additional wilderness designation is not working. There must be a reason, that is, if the American public truly feels the need for further wilderness designation, why the effort is failing. It seems like the rut many "good and reasonable" causes fall into. If only you could educate us country bumkins. Be glad for what you have for once. Considering the crap wilderness advocates have been spinning for twenty years, its no wonder none has been designated.
Many of us are insulted by the tactics of the wilderness crowd. A lot of us have lived and worked in the woods. On the weekends we play in the woods, some of us are pigs, so we deal with it, times change. Once was the time the pigs shot everything and anything. "Build the road to the trees and to hell with the rest", changed too, but not just because the wilderness lobby made it so. I would respectfuly submit that we do in fact have healthy forests in most of the northern teir of the US. Most have been recovered in my lifetime. East to west from ME,NH,VT,NY,PA, MI, WS,MN, all have healthy forests and recovered game and fish. Wildlife populations are robust and our large preditors are sustainable. Whats not to like!?
In this case. Stop the in-fighting and get as much protection as possible for our last remaining wildlands. 25 years of failure should be enought evidence that the current method is not working.
Dave and I have talked, and from my perspective at least, we agree on more things than we disagree on. He has some great ideas, often from a new viewpoint I haven't adequately considered. I respect and welcome his comments, as I do yours and all others who take the time to share their feelings with all of us, but I try not to engage anybody in the comment sections. Answer questions, yes, but in my experience, one-on-one debates tend to get personal and as you know, I try to do what I can to encourage people to address the issue not the person.
On the "what about the rest of us" point that Dave and others have mentioned, I agree that wilderness advocates should spend more time giving non-members and non-supporters the feeling that they care and plan to address the interests of others.
I think designating wilderness under the Wilderness Act of 1964, which was meant to be ongoing and not a one-shot deal, is the best economic and job creation move any local community can make. Witness the local opposition to Glacier National Park, now the focal point of the local economy. Or if somebody wanted the Bob Marshall for timber and homesites and to create more jobs, we'd heard a lot in a hurry from all the people who make a living off wilderness. Recreation is going to be a big part of the future economy in Montana, if not the biggest. If I worked for the local chamber of cmmerce, I'd be working to designate more wilderness, not for ecological reasons, but to booster the local economy.
But as I've mentioned several times, "Big W" Wilderness has hit the skids and we might not have any more for a lot of reasons. So, in parting ways with my wildernut friends, I say we should give up on it and go to Wilderness Lite, which can give us the same economic and ecological benefits, if not more.
Bill
Suffice to say that we have differences in how much the landscape was manipulated or changed by Native Americans. But we do know that there was a lot more old growth. Rivers that hydrologically were in better shape. And many believe a greater diversity of wildlife (though in some circumstances--like Hawaii Natives were capable of extirpating some species). Nevertheless on the whole, the general impression is that human imprint was lighter on the land and the land, not humans, dominated ecological processes.
You also have a negative attitudes towards wildfire. Increasingly there is new evidence that burnt forests contain the second highest biodiversity of all forest types--vastly superior to managed forests--and only second to old growth forest types. In the forest cycle dead trees are actually more ecologically valuable than live trees (so long as they remain on site).
As for managed landscapes being as good as wilderness in terms of ecological services, that appears to be contrary to most research. Of course, all of this depends on the questions you ask and how you measure them. I'm sure we won't change each others minds by these missives.
You make a great point about the interrelation of the verious groups. They seem to have similar goals in mind just different ways to get there. I do however think that from time to time BOTH sides of the Green Groups lose sight of what is important, as do we all from time to time.
By setting up roadless wilderness areas in each state, you might be able to assess jsut how much real support there is for the costs of such a program. No one minds how much a program costs as long as someone else is paying the cost, but reality hits when it is costing everyone for their share.
Thanks Bill.
You got me thinking about how wilderness and national forest land impacts local economies. Is nearby designation "good" or not so good. I recall the economic impact study done by the National Parks Conservation Association in the Flathead several years ago. Is it always good, is every community effected the same way? How do Kalispell and Browning compare, Chouteau and Polson? I know its off topic a bit but maybe a future discussion of the effects on gateway communities might be interesting.
Can anyone recommend any recent books that do a good job of exploring these issues at a deep level? There is so much more here I feel I need to learn.
Also, any scheduled, upcoming conferences or other public discussions that will feature discussions on these issues? What a great topic for a weekend of discussion!
Thank you!
Win
Thank you for your interest in further information.
For starters, you might be able to gain by reading:
Wild to the Last: Environmental Conflict in the Clearwater Country, by Charles Pezeshki, WSU Press.
Tree Huggers: Victory, Defeat and Renewal in the Northwest Ancient Forest Campaign, by Kathie Durbin, Mountaineers Press.
Cascadia Wild: Protecting an International Ecosystem, Edited by Mitch Friedman and Paul Lindholdt, Greater Ecosystem Alliance.
WildFire: A Century of Failed Forest Policy, Edited by George Wuerthner, Foundation for Deep Ecology.
All my best,
Paul Richards
Deerlodge Forest Defense Fund
P.O. Box 780
Boulder, MT 59632
Take forest fires, you will find those who insist forest fires are better than thinning and harvesting some timber You have to evaluate that contention against the actual expense of fighting those fires and the loss from fires.
Some will tell you that ranching is bad, only if you can actually look at the grazed land, and the cost to individuals if that is taken away, and reduction of taxes that actually occur if ranching is stopped, the increased cost of food, and the decreased availability. This is difficult because ranches are knocked off one by one so the food costs edge up very slightly each time.
The difficulty of evaluating both sides of setting any land aside for only wilderness users is difficult enough at best, and that is why I feel each place should be evaluated on a local basis, not a national basis.
What might sound good to me in Wyoming that would take place in New England might not be so good to locals. And of course visa versa.
Twister, as for the NPCA economic studies, and the recent one done for Yellowstone-area economic development that New West covered, neither one strikes me as properly rigorous as to the implied connection between "wild lands" and economic nirvana. The raw data sets show that there are plenty of prosperous areas that do not have the amenities. Further, I think "expert" Larry Swanson does short shift when it comes to the places most connected to the "amenities." While Bozeman and other "gateway" places a couple hours from "amenities" look good, the real gateways like Cody, West, West Glacier, Hungry Horse, Babb, Browning et al tend to show a very high seasonality and income ranges in the basement.
The reality is these growth communities have a life other than "amenity" service, a pretty good fundamental setup aside from being associated with "protected areas" and other PC eco-whatnot. To claim the environment is the end-all and be-all for current and future economic "growth" is not warranted.
Stoney Burk
I missed your comment about wilderness being "ongoing." No, RARE 1 and RARE 2 were never intended by Congress, nor was the Act intended to be dragged out.
In testimony Zahniser gave on behalf of TWS in 1964, he presented the Act as “a positive program that will establish an enduring system of areas where we can be at peace and not forever feel that the wilderness is a battleground.” So, is a reasonable person to assume that statement really means the act was only intended to settle the matter of wilderness in one way, in one direction only? In hindsight, I suppose it was, wasn't it? Good job of fooling Congress, it was.
Forest fires in wilderness areas are normally allowed to burn themselves out, unless they are threatening to burn into developed areas. Designated wilderness simply means that these areas will still be there, with their clean air, clean water, intact ecosystems (all of which benefit EVERYONE, whether they ever set foot in a wilderness area or not), hunting, fishing and camping opportunities, for our children and grandchildren and great grandchildren. Win, win.
I hear enviros who insist that our grand, great grand children, etc will thank us. Will they thank us that only those working little enough to be able to take time off for hiking will be able to access our wildlands? Will they thank us for eliminating American produced beef and other feed when they have to worry about the safety of food from country A, or having their food supply shut off by country C if we don't do as we are told by their dictators? Will they thank us when the streams are all polluted by those able to access the back country using them for latrines?
I will gladly share with wildlife, livestock, kids, hikers cars, etc.
I suppose becasue I do live in Wyoming, I know of lots of places that I am all alone, sage grouse leks for instance, they just are not the prettiest that certain people want to keep others out of becasue they feel only hikers are good enough to use them.
Most of northern New England and upstate New York is commercial forest and has been for many years. Though not technically wilderness,its pretty darn good. Besides, you use a little bit of Maine everyday. As we all know these productive eastern forests grow much faster than western forests and generations have lived and worked in them. My point is, when you are trying to add wilderness through congress you must take into account the difference in perspective relative to ones frame of refrence.
The oldest designated Wilderness in the system, circa 1924, The Gila Wilderness in SW New Mexico has alot of problems, namely devastating wildfires and the resulting erosion. The US forest Service started fighting fires way back some 90+ years ago and created a monster, which inturn has resulted in heavy fuel buildup in much of the Wilderness and when it burns it burns too hot. It will probably be centuries before much of the more severely scorched areas will ever recover. What used to be such a wonderful fishery has for the large part turned into a steril stream, namely the upper Middle and West Forks of the Gila River.
Other results of many years of fire protections and especially in the mid 1900's and to this day, were the drying up of the streams flowing out of the Wilderness areas. as the forest grew thick and with a heavy duff cover water didn't run off , springs dried up and water flow curtailed. Now we are seeing portions of the Wilderness that are doing just the opposite and are flooding and with the resulting soil erosion are for much of the year, producing a lower quality water.
I read in the above pro-wilderness advocates statements that they expect just the opposite. Clean water and all of those great qualities we are supposed to expect from Wilderness areas, are a noble cause but many times aren't a reality.
There are numerous other problems we are seeing more and more and that is the Federal Agencies working hard to keep people out of the Wilderness areas such as little to no trail maintenance and many other restrictions that play into the Wildlands Project goal of eliminating human use from these areas.
One thing that should make all of the greens and brown-greens? happy is the proposed Forest Service roadless rule which is going to make defacto wilderness out of a huge portion of the US Forest Service probably as soon as mid 2009.
By the way Marion I really appreciate your stance in sticking up for the federal lands ranchers.
Regarding book recommendations. While not a recent book, I'd highly recommend reading Michael Fromme's Battle for the Wilderness. The book centers on the struggle to pass the 1964 Wilderness Act. Pay particular attention to the values and principles of those who fought for years to get the Wilderness Act passed, including one of Montana's own Wilderness heros, Stewart Brandborg. If Brandy and those advocating for wilderness back in the late 1950s and early 1960s would have taken the "modern" quid pro quo approach favored by the Montana Wilderness Association, our nation's Wilderness areas would be full of roads, trams and developments.
Also, Win, regarding your question about any upcoming conferences or public discussions about these issues. You should know that with very few exceptions those promoting the quid pro quo approach to Wilderness - including the Beaverhead Deerlodge Deal - make every effort to avoid talking about or debating these issues in public, and certainly not with grassroots environmental organizations. Apparently their political connections (whether perceived or real) and multi-million dollar budgets are more important than having an open and honest discussion with us lowly grassroots folks.
For example, less than 6 months after the Beaverhead Deerlodge Deal was announced, a major national and regional conference was held - ironically enough - right in the Beaverhead Deerlodge National Forest at the Birch Creek Center outside of Dillion, MT. Representatives of MWA and the other supporters of the Beaverhead Deerlodge "Partnership" were asked to participate in a discussion about the "Future of Wilderness." All of them refused.
A few months after that, we helped plan a national meeting for conservation leaders centered on the issue of collaboration. We brought together about 75 conservation leaders from around the country with a diversity of perspectives on collaboration to try and crystallize the discussion. Representatives from "The Partnership," including MWA and the National WIldlife Federation's Missoula office, were invited to participate. They refused to attend. Ironically, at that conference, there was universal condemnation of "The Partnership" proposal for the Beaverhead-Deerlodge from a wide cross section of the conservation community. If you are interested, I'd recommend looking over the document "Collaboration Best Practices for the Conservation Community" that came out of this meeting. It's here: http://www.americanlands.org/documents/1176314811_FinalCollaborationGuidelines3-07.pdf?PHPSESSID=26bebf9976d20a5311963a913849d01 .
These are hardly isolated incidents. Consider this note from a former MWA council member and recipient of MWA's Brass Lantern Award:
"When I first heard of MWA's Beaverhead-Deerlodge shenanigans, I called MWA offices in Helena and Dillon expressing my interest in being part of the process. Three separate times to each office! No one bothered to return my calls. I wrote three e-mails to the players involved, expressing my interest in being part of the process. No one bothered to return my e-mails, despite my having 24 years of involvement with this specific national forest."
Open, honest discussion and a free exchange of ideas is a central tenant of democracy. These public lands, including the Beaverhead Deerlodge National Forest, belong equally to all Americans, not just to a few multi-million dollar "brown" groups and a few timber mills.
Ranchers have overall done far and away the best job of keeping the land open and pristine. The cow patties you hate so much make flowers. Believe me when you see land that has run cows for over a hundred years covered with wildlflowers in the spring and cured grass come fall, someone is doing something right, and has been for many many years.
Clean up the area where you yourself live folks, then offer suggestions to other people, when you have experience improving something.
You can put the most beautiful steak in the world on your table and not touch it, not only will it not provide food for anyone, but it will deteriorate and rot. Oour natural resources are improved by using wisely, and grazing is wise use.
I get the impression that some folks have never visited a National Forest Wilderness area. I suggest calming down, taking a break. Quit worrying about money and gasoline and wars and politics (for just a little while). Take a walk (or a horseback ride) to a place where the loudest sound you hear is an elk bugling, coyote yipping or water so clear and clean that you can see the bottom of the deepest lake, rushing down a creak bed. Sleep under the stars. Take a deep breath of air so clean that it invigorates your soul; and know, with every fiber of your being, that this will all be here, to hunt, fish or simply enjoy, unchanged for your great grandchildren. That, my friends, is wilderness.
Every spring (if it ever gets here) I go to the sage chicken leks to count andphotograph them. It is out in the middle of nowhere on sage brush flats, and so quiet. that I can even hear them from quite a distance. Of course the meadowlarks are singing too.
The point is not everyone has the free time or the physical ability to hike. Shutting them out is not right. The cows do not harm the land & indeed I submit that they actually help it, plus provide food for millions of people.
Here we go again with the "if only they would see the light". Big W ain't working, look at the record , 25 years, no new wilderness. If you are not part of the solution get out of the way. We are long past silly simple minded "coyotes yipping, birdies chirping" drivel. Its high time certain wilderness proponents put aside their dogma and get to work. Please check your emotions at the door or save them for when you are in the woods.
Only a fool would agree to multiple abuse of our public lands.
One of the primary objections to wilderness that I hear is that folks can't take their ATV's or snowmobiles into them. Even though there are millions of acres (and always will be) of public land where they can ride them, they can't stand the thought of there being somewhere for the rest of us who (really) enjoy nature and peace and quiet.
When talking "unroading" it's not like we're plowing under the I-90!! In most cases it's allowing a few very rocky, dirt roads that are used by a dozen or so (if that) people a year to grow over.
The population of the planet is increasing by three people EVERY SECOND! We are fast approaching seven billion people. I truly believe that clean air and water, wildlife and open spaces will be valued more than ever in the future. What we do today will well determine whether or not they exist.
Mr. T: Don't sweat it, man. You say that we shouldn't allow our emotions to affect our comments, but that is not possible. All of us who comment here have one thing in common. Whether we agree or disagree about an individual issue, we all are kindred spirits in that we care. Too many people don't. Caring, my friend, IS an emotion.
I don't have to, we're already there! Have you noticed how the word "wilderness" had crept into every discription of the outdoors? Most people think any patch of woods they can't walk through in a day is "wilderness". The media discribes national forest as wilderness constantly. Perseption is reality. Our forests provide all the benifits Frank mentions, and some he doesn't. Count me with the vast majority of reasonable people with a lot more to worry about than more wilderness designation.
Congressionally mandated Wilderness, not the uninformed media's perception of "wilderness," is closer to being "multiple use management" that mining or logging.
I say Wilderness is multiple use management.
The Multiple Use and Sustained Yield Act of 1960 lists the five multiple uses as outdoor recreation (listed first, but no message in that, right?), range (i.e. livestock grazing), timber, watershed, and "wildlife and fish purposes."
Wilderness allows all of these except timber. Any grazing allotments in place before designation remain unless purchased or retired, and many designated Wilderness areas have livestock grazing. Mining can even be allowed in Wilderness if the leases wee in place before designation, although this is bitterly opposed and often delayed or defeated by environmentalists.
It's a long, complicated piece of legislation open to interpretation, but right on the first page, it states: "Multiple use means the management of all the various renewable resources of the national forests so that they are utilized in the combination that will best meet the needs of the American people." Well, that definition is certainly open to interpretation, but I interpret as our roadless lands being designated as Wilderness to "meet the needs of the American people." Or per this definition, "multiple use."
Now, compare this to a large mining development or area being extensively logged. Where is the "multiple use"? Where is the fish and wildlife, outdoor recreation, livestock grazing or watershed protection? Gone at least during development if not long into the future in the case of mining. Ever see cows grazing on an active mining site? No hiking or even ATVing there. No wildlife or hunting or fish or fishing.
I realize timber development can be done correctly to preserve watershed and wildlife values and be good hunting land later if roads are retired, but how often does this really work? Not enough.
I point this out because of what I consider misuse of the word "multiple use." It's now little more than a political catch phrase. What the people who use this word really mean is "single use" or "motorized recreation and logging use." If they wanted true multiple use, they would support Wilderness designation. Or use different words and not try to pretend that they represent a broad range of interests.
So there!
Bill
Timbering has been all but forced out of forests, resulting in horrible fires from dead timber. Fighting them has to be done by air because of the lack of roads, then of course the enviros do not like the fire retardent used, so that also is cause for multiple lawsuits as we have just seen.
Every attempt is made to force grazing out of the forests, totally disregarding the effect on our food supply or the impact to individual ranch families.
If you really want pristine land, turn some of the presently designated roadless land into true wilderness, and do not allow any recreational use by anyone. After all we have no idea what the effect of all of those folks using ground for latrines is going to have on our long term water supplies, or even to the forest ecosystem itself.
Assumptions are incorrect. Roads actually increase fires--since access makes it easier for arsonists as well as careless people to start fires. Documented many times in studies. Furthermore, logging slash is one of the major factors in big fires, as is the loss of big trees (which are more fire resistant than small trees).
There will be a panel on "collaboration" at the upcoming wilderness conference in Seattle (first weekend of April) on which we'll be talking about this issue.
And truth? Come on, Geo, big trees are more fire resistant? Tell that to the big sticks that got smoked in the Brush Creek fire. Mortality was most complete in unlogged stands. Period.
And that "arsonist" access angle on roads is a canard, sort of like the "poacher" hooey bruited about regarding hunting...I think in one of your books, George, come to think of it, and then parroted elsewhere.
Twister, you are right about people being clueless about real "wilderness," and that's thanks to spin hacks who have deliberately waltzed the ditzy, dizzy press. The game of semantics is certainly being well-played by the dialecticians, especially those who have sympathies for political ideologies that depend so much on dialectic gymnastics.
It's been so effective I remember one PBS TV show I watched, on the New York Central High Line. Being from Montana (where the real Hi Line be) my ears perked up, never mind I have actually been on the NYC Hi Line, which is an elevated railroad viaduct in lower west-side Manhattan (the New York one) that used to run to the meat processors in the city.
So the show was about a proposal to make the viaduct into a linear elevated park, as has been done already with one viaduct in Paris, France.
Anyway, in 2000 or so, I'd walked the High Line and it's pretty brushed up, right? Birch and stuff growing up through the rails and ballast. So some lady on the tube, one of the park advocates, gets on a riff about how a walk on the viaduct is "just like being in the Colorado wilderness" -- really. I mean, I'll concede it's sort of a neat thing, a nice, relatively quiet walkie in the big, busy city...I even saw a couple SQUIRRELS and some BIRDS...but a big-W Wilderness?
Finally, Bill, I must disagree with you that Wilderness allows multiple use as intended by Congress.
Multiple use included the societal benefit of resource production, which clearly affects everyone on this board. In the first place, it is mined products that make this "dialogue" possible --at all. Wood products make a lot of other things possible, as well. If you think the practices of production are unacceptable, then it is incumbent upon you to not consume those products.
Also in a larger sense, if the multiple-use model was as Bill describes, and implemented nationally, what would the consequences be? Would we all be Heiling Hitler or Hirohito? I can see the little Aryan Junior SS doing their Vilderness Trail Fixungen and perhaps a posh Swiss-model setup for what are now true wildernesses.
Sometimes I wish there was a mean genie somewhere, that if you wished against a mine or facility or growth or forestry or meat, you didn't get to use that product any more. It's one thing to expect resources to be produced in a conservative, practical way that minimizes the wreckage....but this conspiracy of NO is a fantasy.
Pure W. bills, however small, as in Plan B #2 will be fiercely opposed by the ranchers & motoheads, who are well organized & funded. They will not able to be rolled as in W glory days past...
You're such a skeptic. And a smart guy--but sometimes I have to spell everything out for you.
Big trees are more resistant to fire for several reasons--which I'm sure you have seen numerous times. First, they tend to self prune--thus have fewer lower branches to carry the flames into the crown. Second, they have thicker bark which can protect the inner growth layers from heat. Finally, big trees typically are more widely spaced and thus are naturally less likely to carry a flame from tree to tree.
That doesn't mean big trees won't burn under the right conditions--under high winds, and drought--all forests burn well--which has been the constant point that I've made in many of my essays which you are indirectly supporting by your statement.
As for fires and roads, humans cause more ignitions than any other source in the US. Most humans drive roads. Thus most ignitions are located along roads.
Finally, Dave, you're for using resources wisely. Right? The fact remains that most of the remaining wildlands are the most remote, least productive lands for resources left--or they would have been exploited long ago. Just because something exist doesn't mean it makes sense to exploit it. Sure there are trees growing at 10,000 feet in the Absaroka Beartooth Wilderness, but that doesn't mean it makes sense to cut them.
There's a real cost to everything, including extraction. It is only after the Texas oil fields were depleted that anyone thought about going to Alaska for oil. And even then the only reason Alaska is a major oil producer today is because it is home to one of the largest oil fields in the world--i.e. high resource quality. Prudhoe Bay is the tenth biggest oil field in the world--all nine others are in the Middle East. If Prudhoe Bay were a typical oil field, the entire North Slope would still be undeveloped caribou pasture. The cost of production simply wouldn't justify the potential profit--even at $100 dollar a barrel oil.
Most of the lands protected or proposed for wilderness have low quality resources compared to other lands that are already in production. Better use of these lands would easily fill any gap. At the same time these remaining "wildlands" do serve many social functions as Bill has pointed out. Clean water. Wildlife habitat. Scenery. Soil protection. And so on.
It doesn't make any sense to jeopardize these high social values to get some modest returns on resource extraction. You can grow tomatoes in Alaska and then export them for sale in the lower 48 states. Tomatoes will grow there. But why would you try to produce them--at least for commercial purposes? It's cheaper and less expensive to grow them in California, Florida, or even in your own garden in Montana. That's the point of resource quality. Just because something exists someplace, doesn't mean it makes any good economic sense to exploit it.
I'm not sure I understand. Is it OK to exploit resources (mid east oil, far east timber) while consuming 25 times more than any other civilization on the planet. No wonder they hate us.
Where in the above comment did I say it was OK to exploit resources while consuming 25 times more? I never said it was OK. I just said it didn't make sense to exploit in our last roadless lands. You are making a straw man so you can cut it down.
If we weren't subsidizing the destruction of our landscape by ignoring the real environmental costs of all production, we would create natural incentives to use less and to waste less. That doesn't mean we shouldn't consider the environmental costs of cutting trees or drilling oil anyplace we do so.
Internalizing the real costs of all production is the best way to reduce exploitation and consumption--plus give consumers a real choice.
Forests have burned and regenerated for centuries. New and continuing wildlife habit is made better in many cases by far. The bigger threat to all our lands is global warming.
Can't we agree that our public lands have multiple uses? Multiple use does not mean every kind of use is allowed on every parcel.
Wilderness is one of the multiple uses that impacts a very small area of the total mass;and, it has significant social, economic and aethetic value that cannot be replaced if damaged.
Every timber company and mining company and many off-road vehicle users like to argue that fallacous concept of multiple use. You have a home (your public/private land unit). You have multiple uses within your home. You do not (I would guess) use your bathroom as a kitchen and visa versa. What is going on with irrational argument that pristine areas of unique value be opened to roading, mining and timber harvesting under some concept of multiple use?
Let us live up to the promise of RARE II. Stop the stupid arguments and work toward defining areas that should be used for timber harvesting and those special areas for roadless or Wilderness. It is time for this bi-furcated, irrational madness to stop or we will destroy all that is left. Most wildernes proposals are miniscule in comparison the the vast areas already exploited. Those who want Wilderness on every acre of undesignated public land are hurting the fight for Wilderness as much as those on the far right who want to exploit everything. Please - the land - the land- the land is the focus, not petty little personal grievances against 'greenies' or "abuser'. 25 years of stalemate is nuts.
Stoney Burk
Seems like a deal is only a deal until the ink dries.
As for fires, are you really all that cool with the aftermath of the Ahorn and that other fire you breathed all summer? Gonna be a big runoff this summer.
And Geo, big old sticks are NOT fire-resistant if they are laddered up with, say, white fir growing up into the PP crowns. And it's stupid to put a DBH 21 inch rule when you have a 24 inch WF interlocked in with a much-older PP (that incidentally isn't growing too fast any more because of water competition with the white fir) -- with that kind of fuel, which never existed before, I don't see how anything could resist ignition, and ya know what? Nothing can, no matter how big the capital W or capital R (Roadless).
As for road-associated anthropogenic ignitions, sure, you'll get ignitions from people on roads, but then again, people HAVE been responsible for most forest ignition ever since the glaciers melted in Global Warming Cycle One, roads or no roads. But roads are also pretty cool fire breaks as well as pathways for fire engines and water trucks to put unwanted fires out.
Far as I'm concerned, the biggest W in Wilderness is the ensuing and inevitable WASTE.
Dont trip, Geo. Your pet scientists are in the overwhelming MINORITY on this one. First of all, Dave's points above about the relationship of that "big tree" (which I assume is "old growth" wink, wink) to the surrounding vegetation and arrangement of both live and dead fuels on both small and intermediate spatial scales is PARAMOUNT. What this means is that you can burn up a crap load of old growth in forests where there is alot of kindling and smaller trees around it. Duh. I could go on, but I am just giving you a platform for more BS. I'll take my cues from the likes of Steve Arno and leave your arrive-at-the-conclusion-before-designing-the-research scientific method to you.
HOWEVER, oh I cant stop, one point that you made in a previous "article" regarding fire size being a pure function of "climatology", needs clarified. First of all, climate refers to longitudinal agregation of a number of individual weather years, not an individual day when a fire burns. This is called simply: "weather"...............or "fire weather" as people who deal with wildfire regularly and know what they are talking about refer to it. So, fire weather can absolutely drive large fires, no one disputes that. ALSO, it AINT FIRE SIZE THAT IS AS MUCH OF A PROBLEM AS FIRE SEVERITY!!! You in the "fire is natural we should let it burn wherever, whenever" camp should understand that this increase in fire SIZE (footprint acres), is actually not the issue. If it was everythign would be great right? More acres burned the better! The last few fire seasons of record acres burned would have been greatly succesful, right? NO? Why not then? Two reasons:
It is the resulting SEVERITY of the effects of the fire passing over that 1 acre or 1000000 acres that matters. Its what matters for wildlife, water, carbon sequestration, and other values that forests provide. Burn it really hot and the severity of the burn is high, as in third degree burn. FUELS MAKE THE DIFFERENCE IN BURN SEVERITY, NOT WEATHER OR TOPOGRAPHY. Ask for the citations and I'll give you a literature review full of them.
Wouldnt it be great if we could have 1000000 acre fires that left behind a healthy, light underburn over that entire foorprint. Thats is not what is happening out there. Places where we want it to underburn lighttly are incinerating, and this is happening on a vast majority of the acres that used to support the underburning "good" fires. SEVERITY is what needs to be measured, not size. FUELS are what increase severity. That is, the more fuel, the higher the severity, the higher the cost to all of us who like forests to provide clean air, water, carbon sequestration. Nice try at obfuscation.
Reason two: the vast majority of people dont care about the ecology of the system back in 1910. They care about what happens now and tomorrow, and they care how it affects them. The dogmatic positions that are espoused by the crusaders for all wildfire are so disconnected from the social and economic reality of the current situation it is laughable. People MIGHT care about the effects on the ecology AFTER the ember showers stop....after they stop breathign smoke, etc. The point is this: we live in a human dominated ecosystem. Those humans, and their political systems (not necessarily science), will have the most influence on how our wildfire policies evolve and either contribute to solving or exacerbating the problems associated with the current managerial connundrum we are in. People think people matter more than ecology, even if ecology is what you care about the most. Get it?
This isn't the appropriate place to respond at length to your comments--this is supposed to be about wilderness. I also sense you are not interested in a discussion--rather a diatribe.
Your use of pejorative language like catastrophic and even the term "severe"--though I know both are common in the parlance of fire researchers--it still displays an anti-fire bias in our social viewpoints.
As to your comment that people think people matter more than ecology demonstrates the common error and arrogance of humans---which is that they think they are above ecology. That is why we continue to have trouble living on the Earth in a way that doesn't jeopardize the rest of all life, including our own. Nature always bats last.
But if you want to discuss you can always send me an email and I will respond.
Geo.
Stoney