Biathlon Course Decision Lacks Prudence
By Michael Pearlman, 11-21-08
 |
|
 | |
|
“Why would anyone want to live in Wyoming or Montana?”
This perfectly legitimate question comes up periodically from my city-dwelling friends spread around the country. While my response cites many reasons, it always includes a mention of access to beautiful public lands and untouched open spaces.
For some Westerners, the National Forest is a place to recreate, hunt and appreciate the natural world. For another group, public lands represent areas full of valuable resources to be extracted, or places suitable for operating a business or advancing an agenda. For the past eight years, the policies put in place by the Bush administration have been crafted to accommodate the second group. Off in the shadowy halls of government offices, public lands have been stripped of key protections. When a bureaucrat somewhere in the system deems a proposal worthy, there’s no worry-it will find a way to sail through the approval process.
That’s exactly what’s taking place in the Helena National Forest in Montana. On McDonald Pass, the Montana National Guard has been given approval to construct a biathlon course for National Guardsman on Forest Service land. Throughout the five-year approval process, private citizens, the Alliance for the Wild Rockies and the Helena Hunters and Anglers Association have been commenting on the impacts of the proposal, only to have their concerns fall on deaf ears. In June, Forest Supervisor Kevin Riordan delivered a decision that found “No Significant Impact” for the project, clearing the way for work to begin. A lawsuit has now been filed for the courts to sort out.
The biathlon course site splits two parcels of private land, and would consist of 10 miles of trails and 4,700 square feet of buildings, requiring the clearing of 32 acres of trees. To reduce impact during wildlife migration periods, the the facility would be permitted for use only four months of the year. The rest of the year, 4,700 square feet of buildings will sit unused in an area that was once pristine forest.
There’s numerous red flags that jump out when the proposal is examined, but one sentence that appeared in the Helena Independent Record article made me sit up in my chair:
“The logging could begin this winter, even though a funding source for the course hasn’t been identified. Initial estimates put the cost at $1.5 million.”
Excuse me?
Logging is about to begin on 32 acres of public land for a vanity project that the Montana National Guard hasn’t even figured out how to pay for yet? Isn’t that like putting the cart before the horse?
This is utter stupidity. At a time when government agencies are cutting budgets and our national economy is reeling, the Montana National Guard wants to spend a million dollars to get more guardsman proficient in biathlon. That’s nuts. Why should the Forest Service allow trees to be felled for projects which might not even come to fruition?
According to the Montana National Guard, the purpose of the project “is to provide a high quality National Guard biathlon facility in the western region to increase the biathlete pool and to enhance opportunities for cross-country experience for the local Nordic ski community.” I have nothing against biathlon, a sport where American athletes are constantly battling better-funded European competition. But is there truly a demand for a new biathlon course in a critical wildlife migration corridor plagued with inconsistent snowfall? Montana already sports an underused biathlon training site at the Rendezvous Ski Trails in West Yellowstone, located in an area that gets much more consistent snow. Is demand by Helena-area cross country skiers so overwhelming that the Forest Service needs to cut miles of trails to accommodate them?
This unnecessary project desperately needs to be re-examined. Until funding is in place to guarantee the project’s completion, not a single tree should be cut. But an additional question remains: Why does the Forest Service consider a project that’s primarily for military training to be an appropriate use of our forest. The answer to that question exists somewhere in the halls of Washington DC.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
A well constructed place for generations to enjoy the outdoors, skiing, and shooting, is a good way to encourage good stewardship. Four months of winter biathlon training and racing at a good venue sounds like a blast.
I’d be curious to see reporting on the minutes from the meetings before those involved who did not manage to stop the project got litigious. Were the ‘conservation’ groups truly going to the meetings with open arms to biathletes in an effort to come to a consensus?
If find it curious that the point is made: “To reduce impact during wildlife migration periods, the facility would be permitted for use only four months of the year.”
Clearly a concession to any migrating animals by the Guard as the space could be used year round or summer biathlon and training.
However, a second point is made: “The rest of the year, 4,700 square feet of buildings will sit unused in an area that was once pristine forest.”
Reading between the lines this has an “air” of ‘well ~ how silly to build this if it’s not going to be used much.’
So your point is that because this is a seasonal sport, and the migration patterns will be respected as a concession, that the range should not be built. Typical, to get a fair bit, then demand “the rest.”
If you truly respect biathletes and have our best interests in mind as we try to compete against European powerhouses: Why do you not propose a better location? You provide roadblocks and grief with no assistance. To which I say “Excuse Me?”