A fair way to address multiple uses of the forest

Letter to the Editor:

I am for wilderness. I am also for timber harvest, mining and more access than we currently have for ATV and snowmobile use. More importantly, I am for fair and equitable distribution of use to all interests. The current plan is not fair and does not provide for all of our citizens’ interests. There is no valid argument that it does.

We have two subjects to make on this point.

The first is timber harvest. The harvest quota in the plan is more than what it has been, no doubt. Could our forest support more harvest? No doubt there either. The current plan could be considered a step in the right direction, but promise of good work has little value when a person, any person from anywhere, can put a stop to a timber sale for the cost of a stamp. And that is the real problem. It is not fair and it is not right.

Second is the multiple use (spelled: recreation) debate. Each time a bill comes along demanding a large amount of new land to be designated as wilderness it endures a process. The original request is pared down some after all the haggling. Government officials, the media and people on the more wilderness side of the debate get together and declare it a victory for meeting everyone’s needs.

The truth is that it has never met everyone’s needs fairly or equitably. More wilderness was designated, but no new trails to ride an ATV were set aside. Apparently they believe that because they did not take away any trails already open to ATV or snowmobile use the off-road folks should be happy.

Every time we name more wilderness acres we are in fact subtracting from the total area available to off-road recreationists. The off-road people lose more ground every time. They lose hope of ever being able to enjoy our land the way they like to, because land potentially available for off-road use has just been reduced again. I do not see how anyone could view this as fair or equitable.

I realize that most of the people who push for the additional wilderness do not care one bit about being fair to their neighbors, but that certainly doesn’t make it right. It makes it selfish.

I do not know anyone interested in total, unrestricted use of the forest by motorized riders. Nor do I know anyone interested in cutting all of our trees. These people just want a fair deal. They want to be treated with respect and offered a vote with equal weight. For a long time now that has not been the case.

The fair thing to do is, anytime new wilderness is established, a new section of closed road should be opened for off-road use. Each time more wilderness is established, a new section for timber harvest should be allotted.

That is the fair thing. Our right, as citizens of this country, is to be treated fairly and equitably.

— Tom Gilmore,

Libby