Guest Column
Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest Deal Would Create More Ice Cream Wilderness
By George Wuerthner, 5-15-06
 |
|
 | |
| Caption: Mr. Wuerthner | |
|
Key features of this proposal call for 570,000 acres of new wilderness, but also a tripling of logging over what even the BDNF had proposed in its forest plan, permitting logging of over 700,000 acres of the forest. On the face of it, this may seem like a reasonable compromise: timber companies get to take public trees at bargain basement prices to keep their stockholders happy and hikers get some beautiful alpine country to explore.
I know and love the BDNF from first hand experience. I shot my first mule deer on the slopes of the Madison Range near Cowboy's Heaven. I once spent an entire day tracking the largest bull elk I've ever seen outside of a national park among the doghair lodgepole pine forests along the lower slopes of the Pintlers. I caught my first big bull trout from the cold headwaters of Rock Creek and I've pulled many grayling from some of the clear creeks in the West Big Hole. Indeed, I have fished, hunted, hiked, skied, and camped among 16 of the 18 magnificent areas that would be protected as wilderness by this proposal. So I don't take this opportunity to permanently protect 570,000 acres as designated wilderness lightly.
But read the label. I read labels on the food I eat. Take ice cream, for instance. I love it. It tastes good. But I also know from reading the label that it's high in fat, sugar, and calories. It's not the kind of diet that can sustain a healthy person. In fact a diet of only ice cream would likely kill you over time. Most of the acreage in this proposal is like ice cream-- high alpine country. It tastes good. It looks yummy. But in terms of sustaining the biological heritage of the BDNF, it is sorely lacking in nutrition. There may be a lot of "wilderness acres" in this proposal, but not that many acres protecting ecologically important lower elevation productive landscapes.
Not withstanding that these areas are worthy of wilderness designation based on their scenic values alone--the West Big Hole, East Pioneers, Italian Peaks, Lima Peaks, Mount Jefferson, Flint Creek Range, Snowcrest-these are some of the most spectacular alpine landscapes in Montana. But for the most part, they are lands that no one wants to exploit-and thus in little need in the way of protection. These lands are steep, snow covered most of the year, and lacking in any developable resource or they would have been logged, mined, or drilled a long time ago. They are, with some notable exceptions, not even that attractive to ORVs. In other words they are "self protected". Having a lot of acres of these lands "protected" is a hollow victory if you give up a lot of the biologically important landscapes to resource exploitation. Unfortunately that is just what is proposed.
By contrast, the 700,000 plus acres that will be logged will impact much of the forest's most productive wildlife and fish habitat. Whether "stewardship" or otherwise all logging has unavoidable negative costs including the removal of woody debris, disruption of natural fire regimes, forest fragmentation, loss of old growth forests, changes in forest stand age and structure, and so on. Anyone who suggests that commercially viable logging can be done in a benign manner is glossing over substantial ecological impacts. The only way timber companies make any money cutting trees on the low productivity BDNF is because taxpayers pay many of the real costs of production such as constructing roads, while at the same time industry is permitted to marginalize the genuine environmental costs to our collective national heritage.
Proponents of logging further try to minimize this damage by stating that "only" 7000 annually or 70,000 acres over ten years will be logged-a small amount of the forest they assert. But that is somewhat disingenuous. It's like the oil companies claiming that only 2000 acres of the coastal plain of Alaska's Arctic Refuge will be impacted by drill pads. The oil company and their supporters ignore the many miles of pipeline, winter service roads, and so on that will come with development that will be scattered across nearly a million acres of the coastal plain among what is the refuge's most important wildlife habitat.
Similarly proponents of this logging ignore the fact that these 7000 acres are not concentrated in one patch-they will be scattered in many different drainages on the most productive lands of the forest. And their effects are longer lasting than the single year when trees are cut on those acres.
Cumulatively this proposed logging will affect far more of the landscape than the mere acres that will be logged annually. For instance, the roads constructed for this logging-whether temporary or not-- will cause some sedimentation for years. They will disrupt natural drainage and water flow-and may never be restored. They will be pathways for the introduction and spread of weeds. The road system will invite ORVs use whether legal or otherwise. And the human activity associated with logging and subsequent human use will negatively affect wildlife from elk to grizzly bear. And these impacts extend well beyond the acres that may be roaded and logged so influence far more of the forest than these numbers represent.
And just as the coastal plain of the Arctic Refuge is the most biologically rich portion of the entire refuge, thus any energy development has a disproportionate negative impact on the entire landscape, most of the BDNF logging is by default targeted for the most productive lower elevation wetter lands-thus the most important wildlife and fish habitat. Though "only" 70,000 acres will be logged over any ten year period, the overall ecological impact of logging to the BDNF ecological integrity is amplified many times that amount.
Given the fact that the BDNF is one of the least productive forests in Montana with slow-growing, small trees, steep slopes, poor soils and high erosion rates; does it make any sense to log even an acre of it? What this forest does better than just about anyplace else in the country is produce high quality water, wildlife, wildlands, and fisheries. Why risk degradation of these nationally significant assets to enrich some private timber companies' bottom line to get something like 2 x 4s you can produce someplace else at far less ecological and economic cost? Logging the BDNF for timber is like burning priceless paintings from the Metropolitan Museum to warm your house-it just doesn't make any economic, ecological or ethical sense. It's a crime against our collective heritage.
The MWA, TU, and NWF have the best intentions and goals and I want to see new wilderness designations as much as they do. There is no doubt that there are some important wildlands that will be designated if this proposal is enacted into law. Yet if these lands are given Congressional wilderness designation , it will be mostly a symbolic "win" since most of these land are not now under immediate threat, nor will most of these acres ever be threatened by development. At the same time we will be giving away the low elevation forestlands for certain development, including hundreds of thousands of acres. Worse yet there is no way this development will truly "pay" for itself. It will only occur with public economic and environmental subsidies.
Some may suggest signing on to legislation that gives away public resources to private industry is the "cost" of new wilderness designation today, but if all we get is empty acres of rocks and ice, in exchange for ecologically degraded lands, and at the same time shifting the economic burden to the public through direct and indirect economic and environmental subsidies, it's reasonable to suggest as some have done that the cost this proposal is unacceptably high.
EDITOR'S NOTE: George Wuerthner is an ecologist, writer, photographer and activist known nationally for his positions against public lands livestock grazing. He is also a dad, former Montana hunting guide and once a board member of the Montana Wilderness Association. In addition, he is the author of 32 books including Montana Magnificent Wilderness. [End of article]
George Wuerthner states a reasoned and important case for keeping the Beaverhead's unlogged acreage unlogged.
I would phrase his approach as "do no more harm," and I'd point out that a lot of harm has been done by individual logging and related developments that didn't seem very harmful in and of themselves.
Not too many years ago, the UN published a study of the world's endangered mountains. The Rocky Mountains were among those listed, along with the likes of Afghanistan's Hindu Kush.
What has endangered these mountains? By and large, it's the same tale everywhere -- the cumulative effect of many little schemes that did little harm in and of themselves.
There's been a lot of it in the Rockies, including the Montana Rockies. Even if we push our analyses back no further than 1980, it's possible to chalk up lots of harm done to lots land and lots of species.
I'd rather see no more harm done. I side with George and the Alliance for the Wild Rockies.
Lance Olsen is project director for Cold Mountain, Cold Rivers, Missoula Montana.
Death by a thousand cuts sums up what has happened to much of the forest land in the west. Splitting the baby in half is not a good idea for the baby, nor is it good for our public lands and people who own the public lands.
Why is it accepted by some that to get any more designated Wilderness the public has to give up public resources to a special interest group? Who will step forward and say enough is enough to the liquidation of public resources?
To answer Lorenzo, I say we must all say enough. That is the only way to stop this slow death by a thousand cuts. Draw a line in the sand and say we must protect all the rest of the roadless lands that remain.
Comment By Paul Olson, 5-24-06I've read with interest Georges article and can agree with a lot of what he says. There are concerns with guarantying logging on 7000 acres of the B-D per year. I would like to see less logging but do feel if done right some timber cutting could be done and not have negative affects to most of the Forest. All groups against this proposal state a lot of new roads would be built and that isn't the cast. No new system road would be constructed except to replace a portion of an existing system road that needs to be moved away from a stream or unstable area. Under Stewardship contracting many eroding roads would be obliterated, roads that the Forest is unable to maintain and may never see funding to get rid of. The conservationist/timber coalition alternative would close 2 1/2 times more motorized roads and trails than the Forest's Alternative 5. Under Alternative 5 the Forest shows 216,000 acres suitable for timber harvest but they also show 900,000 acres as "unsuitable but with harvest by exception" where harvest can occcur for bug infestation, fire and other treatments.
George says areas worthy of wilderness designation are "self protected". I disagree and living in the Big Hole continue to see roadless lands disappearing. Many of the areas George lists have and are being affected by motorized use and many trails leading into these areas have become two track ATV trails. Along with motorized use comes more users and their associated impacts, more garbage and badly eroding trails. Who's going to deny that motorized trails have no affect on wildlife, wildlife habitat and fisheries. Most trails were never designed or intended for motorized use and many follow stream bottoms or pass through wet meadows that are too tempting for users, and many motorized users leave trails and damage sensitive areas. The newer snowmobiles are allowing access to areas previously unaccessible to snowmobile use. Now many of the high basins in areas recommended for Wilderness are filled with snowmobile tracks during the winter. I know I've been there and do not like what I see. What's the affect on mountian goats and wolverine?
There has been little or no protection of areas recommended for Wilderness in the last 20 years. Isn't it time to give these areas some protection. If we wait another 15 to 20 years there will be less areas to protect. Once motorized use has become established for any length of time it will be impossible to get the area designated Wilderness.
Let's try to work together and tweak this proposal and come up with something that most of us can live with. 7000 acres of timber harvest per year is a lot but is there some lesser amount that would be acceptible? I would like to see 707,000 designated as Wilderness under Alternative 3 but is that reasonable?
Paul:
I'm afraid you are making the same mistake that I believe TU, MWA, etc. are making. They are under playing the real ecological and economic costs of logging in order to make this deal work, while at the same time over playing the threat posed by ORVs. Now let me explain before you tune out.
I do not want to suggest that ORVs aren't a problem. I've just completed putting together a 300 page book on what I call Thrillcraft (ORVS) that will be published in six or eight months, so I am well aware of their effects upon the land. However, suggesing that logging is relatively benign and should be supported as a strategy to rein in ORVs is bad policy.
I am as aware as anyone of the ecological effects of ORVs, but there's simply no comparison between the impacts from logging compared to ORVs. Logging removes woody debris. ORVs do not. Logging alters fire regimes. ORVS do not. Logging causes far more soil erosion and disturbance than ORVs. Logging roads because they are bulldozed actually change slope and drainage patterns--ORVs may do this in some instances, but not nearly to the degree as logging roads. There's no comparison to the fragmentation that results when hundreds of acres of forest are removed compared to the fragmentation that occurs with ORVs. Again I reiterate that ORVs are not neutral--they do cause many impacts, but for every insult to the land you can list for ORVS, logging insults are worse--even stewardship logging.
In sum logging does more long term and often irreversible damage to the land compared to ORVs (not that I am suggesting that ORVs are benign--I'm not. )
Furthermore, many are acting like the anti wilderness purists that once was so common in the FS when it did its original RARE 1 inventory. Just because there's a two lane track or ORVs use a trail does not disqualify it from wilderness. I don't want to say it doesn't matter what happens, but there are many places where entire towns once existed in some of our designated wildernesses so a few ORVS trails should not and must not allow the agency, ORVers, or anyone else from disqualifying otherwise worthy lands from Congressional Wilderness designation.
I can't get into it here, but the only real solution to the ORV problem that works is a total ban on the machines. And this movement to ban the machines is growing around the country. If ORVS are a threat on the BDNF than confront that directly. Do not go around suggesting that logging is benign. That only makes fighting logging everywhere much more difficult.
Again I appreciate your concern and your obvious support of wildlands, but the way to reduce ORV impacts is to go after ORVS on all public lands. Just as I would argue we have a duty to protect our public lands from logging impacts we should be protecting our lands from the collective impacts of thrillcraft. Indeed, the majority of public lands users oppose these machines, so it's not as tough as you might think to support a complete ban on them.
George I appreciate your comments but I do not agree with everything you state. There are better methods for removing trees than the way it was done in the past and yes there will be some adverse ecological affects. I guess we need to weigh those affects and determine if there are positive benefits. More designated Wilderness, obiterating many old roads, removing fish blocking culverts, etc. are benefits I see. Not all logging is bad unless it's being done using old methods, ie. using large dozers skidding small diameter wood. Biomass can be left on the ground instead of piling but then there is the increase in fire hazard for a few years until the slash rots and settles.
I worked as the recreation forester on the Wise River District for almost 22 years so have intiminate knowledge of parts of the B-D. ORV use is a major issue and in many areas damage is pretty bad on and adjacent to trails. There are serious erosion problems on many trails with ATV use. The unfortunate thing is that motorized use has driven the non-motorized public out of many areas and few people know what is actually happening with motorized use and some forest managers do not seem to want to deal with that use because motorized users are becoming very vocal. The managers are relying on the Forest Plan to make decisions on closing areas. Alternative 5 goes a long way in doing that but there are many areas that are not protected under Alternative 5. The longer we wait to get areas protected the less we will have in the end. The unfortunate thing is that discussions should have started a year or two ago and more folks should have had imput. If other folks or groups have a better idea then they should put that idea forth for discussion.