Kootenai Forest Stakeholders Coalition meeting: A new way to negotiate wilderness and roadless

Upon attending the most recent meeting of the Kootenai Forest Stakeholders' Coalition, I came away with some real questions about the true mission of the organization.

While the initial intent and desire has ostensibly been economic development, both the Lincoln County Coalitions '06 bill draft presented to our U.S. Congressional Delegation and the Kootenai Stakeholders '07 draft called the Three Rivers Challenge Cooperative Stewardship Restoration and Conservation Act contain three inhibiting elements:

(1) mandated wilderness, even though the proper procedure has not been followed to allow wilderness designation,

(2) the proposal to remove private property from the tax base of a county facing uncertain funding sources since policy changes have deprived the county of forest receipts to fund roads and schools, and

(3) protection of alleged "roadless areas when roads are essential for fire suppression and access for residents whose heritage, customs and culture have long been dependent upon our forest. How do these contribute to economic development?

I appreciate and have regard for all of the people who selflessly give their time to attend these meetings in order to find paths to a sustainable future for our county.

However, I have little patience with those who would attempt to sway public opinion in order to achieve their own agendas.

I view advocating more wilderness set aside as a means of improving the economic base and well being of our citizens a true misstep, and one that runs completely counter to the desires and wishes of the majority of our county's residents.

If there are those who wish to pursue the path pertaining to extension of wilderness areas and more closures of our forests, I would welcome a true public forum to discuss it with the community at large, rather than in meetings which have not been publicly advertised as is required by Montana's open meetings laws.

My strongest objection is to the action of taking proposed legislation to our Congressional Delegation and special interest groups in Washington, D.C. on behalf of Lincoln County residents, most of whom had no awareness of what was being asked of Congress, nor opportunity to comment.

Second is the total disregard shown for work done by the working committee commissioned by the Eureka Chamber of Commerce and the Tobacco Valley Community Development Council.

The Totally Involved in Managing Better Economic Resources Committee met and worked diligently to deal with the same issues now still under consideration, and came up with a bottom line statement which, I believe, reflects the beliefs of the vast majority of county residents.

That statement reads: "In all areas, we endorse active over passive management of the Kootenai National Forest!"

Active management is utilization of long proven methodology to maintain healthy productive forests. Passive management is restriction of forest uses which limit productivity and limit access to the public at large.

It is obvious that the recommendations put forth to date by the LCC and the Stakeholders on behalf of the county did not include reference to any input offered by the North County Committee, and were made without providing opportunity for the majority to be heard.

Nor have the commissioners spoken up on behalf of the majority, or provided for a vote to allow the people a voice in what is being requested.

There are many other objectionable facets to what is being proposed on behalf of us all in the name of economic development.

I know of no one who does not support fuel reduction and stewardship projects as a means of aiding fire suppression and restoring forest health, but if forest service administrators assume their rightful decision-making roles, it is simply not necessary to involve committees comprised of non-residents, non-governmental entities, and special interest groups to intervene in the management of the Kootenai National Forest.

Nor to our knowledge has it ever been necessary for the Supervisor of the Forest to enter into any Memorandum of Understanding with non-governmental entities in order to carry out his administrative functions.

The one constant element in every bill draft I have seen since monitoring the actions of both the LCC, and now the Stakeholders,' is the drive for more wilderness designation in Lincoln County.

The "not to be explained" appearance of the Scotchman's Peak Wilderness video promotion on Thursday's agenda should be a wake-up call noted by all.

The presenters stated they had not requested a spot on the agenda and absolutely no one at the meeting confessed to knowing who had placed it on the program.

The result, of course, was a captive audience viewing the attributes of more wilderness designation.

Not all present were wilderness advocates, but someone "driving the bus" made sure wilderness was on the agenda.

This raises the question of motivation for membership in the Stakeholders Coalition and desire for leadership in the organization.

Some sincerely believe this is the route to economic development. Some, like forest service employees, attend because it is their job.

Some genuinely feel that the input they provide, can gain concessions which will make any decisions reached a bit more palatable and provide more timber-related jobs.

Some are there because they strongly advocate more wilderness designation and are paid by their organizations to be there.

Many others, like the man at a January '06 LCC meeting said: "I am here because I am afraid that if we don't make some concessions, we will lose all use of the forests for our recreational purposes."

Reality is that concessions made in the name of putting an end to litigation, though well-meaning, carry no weight at all with the vast networking creature embodied in the preservationist movement. We are naive to fall for that kind of coercion.

So where are we a year later? We have another bill draft dealing with one ranger district, rather than the entire forest, the forest service is advertising some sales which most probably would have been offered anyway, participants are still looking for common ground, and seeking to come up with a credible consensus to sell in Washington, D.C.

Even consensus has a new meaning in 2007 and no longer denotes "agreement" as defined by Webster.

Long expressed goals like revitalization of mills which no longer exist, or creation of jobs when infrastructure and capital for providing them is gone, offer no solution.

What remains, if we continue in the present direction, is a few stewardship jobs and an ongoing appeal to state or federal government for grants and loans to make up for revenues lost since we are no longer allowed productive use of our natural resources.

We can, however, anticipate revenues provided by creating jobs to obliterate roads on our forests.

That seems covered in the current appropriations bill!

Isn't it ironic that British Columbia in '06 allocated $20.7 million to beef up roads to handle salvage of their bug-killed forests, while our Congress in '07 is in the process of appropriating millions of dollars for road obliteration?