The following was written by Gary Milner and posted as a comment to a previous blog post titled “Good” and “Bad” Recreation: The Bitterroot National Forest. Gary’s comment provides so much additional context and information that it warrants its own post. – mk
I’ve been involved with the climbing controversy on the Bitterroot National Forest from early on. For me it would not matter if the damage I’ve seen is coming from climbers, backpackers, birders, or mt. bikers. It’s the damage on the ground that matters. Early on when Dan Ritter was the ranger on the Stevensville District the idea of coming together to develop a Leave No Trace (LNT) climbing brochure was hatched. It seemed like an easy way forward for all parties. Unfortunately, the Missoula based climbers would not participate, even after repeated attempts to get them at the table by Julie King, then BNF supervisor. Locals and BNF employees met many times developing that brochure. Most of the verbiage in that brochure comes straight from Access Fund literature. Before its final version, Julie King, ran it by the Access Fund and they approved. Why Missoula area climbers would not support developing a LNT brochure is still a mystery to me. I encourage folks to go to the BNF website, click on recreation, click on climbing and click on “Bitterroot National Forest Rock Climbing Brochure”.
Climbing is a legitimate, appropriate sport on public lands. However, what has happened in Mill Creek is not a good example of how an area should be developed. It seems there was no knowledge that the canyon contains golden eagle nests, is home to peregrines, is an important range for mountain goats, or that it is MA6 – recommended Wilderness. I don’t believe those considerations occurred to them at the time nor was any of the public involved in the process. There appears to be a bolted route within 25 feet of a golden eagle nest. If those developing the area would have consulted with FS biologists, and other specialists to determine what was appropriate, a well thought out climbing area could have been developed that provided access to climbers and protected plants and animals who need these areas just to survive. Following the Access Fund’s own guidelines and LNT principals, in my opinion, could have prevented what has become a very contentious issue.
What has saddened me the most is what appears to be the attitude from some climbers. Resisting rules or regulations seems to be the fall back, even though some rules and guidelines could protect wildlife, avoid user conflicts, and promote sustainable, ethical climbing on the forest. Self-policing simply was not working. The photos that Matthew Koehler posted are just some of the photos taken over the years, there are many more. Regarding the comment of planting dead birds and planting trash, if evidence of that can be presented, I would appreciate seeing it. I was with the party that found the dead golden eagle and I’ve seen enough trash there to fill several backpacks. I know none of the folks I’ve worked with over the years have planted trash or dead birds. Cole Lawrence, if you could let me know what evidence you have that these were planted, I would appreciate it. I’ve heard that bolts have been damaged, but not seen that personally. Although I believe the area is too densely bolted (on average one route about every 13 ft.), I disapprove of any action that could damage a bolt; that’s simply not the way to move forward and cannot be condoned.
Federal, State, and local agencies all over the country have rules and management plans for climbing; it’s very common and the accepted norm. The BNF should not be different. It’s not about banning climbing, demonizing the sport, or excluding user groups as some are saying here. It’s about impacts and developing an enforceable plan that protects wildlife/habitat and promotes long-term ethical climbing on the Bitterroot.
Vertical Times, the AF’s magazine in the Spring of 2013 issue stated; “The “Golden Era’ of bolting totally under the radar is coming to an end”. That issue has some good information. I hope in the next few months all interested parties can come together to identify issues and find enforceable solutions. Wildlands are getting smaller and recreation is growing. All of us, including myself should be working to find ways to lessen and eliminate our impacts. If it means finding alternative locations we should. The plants and animals who need theses areas don’t have that luxury.
Here’s the “other side of the story” from Julie Parrish, a board member of Timber Unity. Matthew posted a link to the Mother Jones story here.
I feel sympathetic, as I’ve worked on FS projects targeted by dark, or at least gray, money groups with associated media campaigns. In addition, the thought of being responsible, in some way. for every comment made on our own site, The Smokey Wire, is a bit scary, or silly, depending on your perspective. As to the policy, as I followed Washington State’s cap’n’trade initiative, I think it’s a no-brainer to return the tax to the people, and not put it in slush funds if you want it to pass. Atmospheric scientist and University of Washington professor Cliff Maas has a good discussion of that here, so it’s not just folks in natural resources who have concerns about that feature of some cap’n’trade bills.
From Julie:
I think the key takeaways are – there are some very powerful special interests out there, and for two legislative sessions in a row, Timber Unity frustrated their purpose of creating a complex wealth transfer scheme whereby every day working Oregonians would be taxed and the money would launder through the state and back into the hands of a few politically-connected organizations who will be the beneficiary of a cap and trade plan that is shrouded in secrecy as the plan disallows public records once enacted. As a former state lawmaker for nearly a decade, I understand well that when groups like this want to discredit a person or a movement, they do so through a carefully coordinated attack that starts with something like this “report” from Oregon Wild, handed to a local outlet, then rolled to a national outlet, to filter back into local social media and news outlets with “outraged” letters to the editors and Facebook posts/ads spread back again by these same groups.
It’s why I put out a forceful statement calling them on their nonsense and setting the record straight.
Timber Unity page and Timber Unity group discussion are two different things entirely. The main page is forward facing where only admins can create posts. In the group, anyone can post and our moderators (who are volunteers) strive to balance out the right to have free speech at the individual member level with the need to keep our page on topic to issues. If people post things that are incongruent with our stated message and community terms of service, their comments are removed, all the way to a member being blocked for violations of those terms of service. We get that people as individuals have other affiliations to groups on any other topic from knitting to other political groups. We have one mission – protect the jobs and rights to economic security for our members.
In another universe, I used to do online community management for a company I owned and here’s what I learned from nearly a decade of managing large forums (one of my communities had over 300,000 active users)….
1.The words of individuals on any topic do not reflect the words of our board. We operate based on the stated mission and that’s our mission, not any other person’s group or personal agenda.
2. Have community rules from the onset so that you have something to point to when you have to modify people’s posts based on inappropriate things they write or share.
3. People are always going to say or post inappropriate things in a group this size. See Bullet Point #1 again, and delete accordingly.
4. In a group this size, unless the community is policing itself, a board of seven members and a handful of volunteer moderators will never catch every little comment.
But at the end of the day, there are groups and individuals out there who would love nothing more than to be able to point to an article like the Mother Jones one, and make that a definitive authority for the purpose of being able to say in this election cycle where we have candidates running that the people we’re supporting are racists or bigots or right wing nuts. We actually did endorse some Democratic candidates who sought our endorsement as our group is non-partisan. And the diversity of our board cannot be understated – we seek to be a welcoming group to any person, regardless of their beliefs or other affiliations, who wants to stand up with us to protect jobs and kill bad legislative policies that impact the natural resource economy.
And the dark-money special interests are just really pissed off about it, as are quite a few politicians who couldn’t get their pet project bills passed.
And in a separate note she said:
Timber Unity’s board is made up of a majority of women. It is racially and religiously diverse, and several of us have LGBT family members. And our group is filled with veterans who have fought for the right for all of us to have free speech. Board member Todd Stoffel is one of those veterans who served his country, was disabled for his country, and has borne the brunt of this smear campaign.
No different than how Mother Jones is not responsible for every comment left on their Facebook, neither are we responsible for what every one of the 60,000 group members say. Yet we still try to ruthlessly moderate the group with volunteers, not paid staff, and we rely on the community to report things that violate the terms of service. Moreover, when we see things that are beyond the pale, we have blocked people, and even reached out to the state police for advice. So I reject that these left-leaning hypocrites want to hold us to a standard to which they do not hold themselves. Except that in their case, it’s apparently OK to leave hate filled comments about Republicans, people of faith, and even anti-police/law enforcement rhetoric.
To that end, I called the writer of this story out on that on his own hypocrisy. I also asked him why he spared not one sentence for the fact that Timber Unity has its own plan for carbon reduction. Or mention that the person who made our supposedly offensive rally posters is a Hispanic Jew with an African American daughter. His non-answers prove that wasn’t his agenda. His agenda was to paint the people who grow our food, fish our oceans, log our forests, and haul our goods to market as racist haters.
Here’s a link to a local story on Oregon State legislature deliberations, which apparently were incorporating ideas from Timber Unity. Here’s a story about the Governor’s approach and Timber Unity’s response.
Photo courtesy of Kurt Krueger – Western Montana Climbers Coalition
I was reading Sharon’s post about good and bad businesses and realized the same polarization is now occurring with recreation., and it seems the Bitterroot National Forest is ground zero for this new conflict. The BNF was the only Region One forest to ban bikes in both Recommended Wilderness and now it is instituting a forest-wide moratorium on sport climbing route development.
“With the sport of rock climbing growing dramatically across the West, the challenge on how best to manage all those new enthusiasts to protect the resource is an issue other national forests are beginning to ponder.
The controversy over the increase in rock climbing on the Bitterroot Forest has been a decade or more in the making.
It mostly centered on a popular climbing area in the Mill Creek area where climbers used rock drills to put in hundreds of permanent anchors to create popular sport climbing routes on what climbers called the Tick Wall.
With the sport of rock climbing growing dramatically across the West, the challenge on how best to manage all those new enthusiasts to protect the resource is an issue other national forests are beginning to ponder.
“Protect the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness and WSAs from unlawful and unauthorized bolted climbing routes!
Recently, officials at the Bitterroot National Forest (BNF) took steps to protect the national forest, including the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness and two congressionally designated Wilderness Study Areas, from a massive influx of climbing use that is damaging resources and elevating social conflicts.
The BNF issued a news release reminding climbers that it is unlawful for visitors to develop new climbing routes or trails or install “permanent hardware or apparatus such as bolts, glue, manufactured hand holds; or modifying routes through chipping, cleaning, hammering, or drilling new or existing holds,” on climbing routes while work proceeds on a forest-wide Climbing Management Plan (CMP). It’s a common-sense “time-out” approach that allows climbing to continue while minimizing further damage until a comprehensive climbing plan can be developed with public input and environmental review.
Sadly, a local climbing organization and the national Access Fund have launched a campaign urging the Forest Service to remove the protections, arguing that—get this— the agency shouldn’t take any action to stop the escalating damage until after the environmental review process has been done!”
“The ban was issued as an official order by Forest Supervisor Matt Anderson, and it declares all new route development (first ascents) after the date of the order illegal. The order does not include any allowances for emergencies, fixed anchors that protect natural resources, bolt replacement, first ascents with no fixed hardware, hand-drilled fixed anchors on new routes in Wilderness, or slings for descent. Of further concern, the Supervisor’s Order “reminds” climbers that new fixed anchors are banned—incorrectly implying that fixed anchors were illegal in the past. This implication is at odds with well- established U.S. Forest Service plans across the country, which acknowledge fixed anchors as critical tools for climbing.
“We haven’t seen a U.S. Forest Service decision as egregious and far-reaching as this in 25 years,” says Access Fund Policy Director Erik Murdock. “This Supervisor’s Order overrides a successful, existing agreement between the climbing community and the forest, ignores any public process, and sets a dangerous precedent for all national forests.”
Access Fund is working with Western Montana Climbers Coalition (WMTCC) to push back on this unsubstantiated ban and remind Bitterroot National Forest that fixed anchors are legal in national forests. Perhaps more importantly, we’ll be reminding the supervisor that a significant management decision like this, on our public lands, deserves public process and science-based decision-making. Learn more about this issue and past work with Bitterroot National Forest.”
The reference to science-based decision-making made me think of an opinion piece in the Missoulian here on the evils of collaboration,
“Collaboration is not about right and wrong or about intrinsic values. It’s a cop-out on the part of environmental groups that sully their reason for existence in order to be politically correct.
Ultimately, it’s a process that gives validity to those whose activities are either illegal, incompatible or so damaging to public resources that they have been or are being restricted for that very reason. Within normal data- and science-driven decision-making processes of land management agencies — the goal thereof, anyway — these peoples’ views lack substance and shouldn’t be incorporated into management…
Thus comes “collaboration” to justify misuse of the landscape. Best management practices, using science and best available data, don’t allow high-impact users the unlimited access they desire to meet self-centered, short-term recreation desires…
A Montana example of how wrong this now-popular approach to addressing land management via collaboration is exemplified by the Gallatin Forest Partnership. The Gallatin Range, adjacent to Yellowstone National Park, is a keystone of the Yellowstone ecosystem, the last essentially intact temperate ecosystem on our earth. There is nothing more short-sighted than to undermine environmental protections on an integral part of one of the original dozen World Heritage Sites to please users who have no appreciable respect for the global importance of this ecosystem or the future of what little remains of our natural heritage”.
At this point let me start winding my way back to the issue of good and bad recreation. The Gallatin Forest Partnership that so raised the hackles on the above writer was a collaborative agreement between non-motorized recreation groups and conservation organizations for management of the Gallatin National Forest in and around the Hyalite- Porcupine-Buffalo Horn Wilderness Study Areas. The issue the writer most likely has issue with, but only obliquely referenced,”high-impact users the unlimited access they desire to meet self-centered, short-term recreation desires“ was continued mountain bike use in areas where it is already established and recommending the remainder for wilderness designation rather that recommending the entire area for wilderness designation.
Although the writer says this is about science and not about values, he sure makes a lot of value judgments about the recreational users he opposes. They are self-centered.
Their views lack substance. Their use is incompatible with public resources. Furthermore they, presumably mountain bikers, have no “appreciable respect for the global importance of this ecosystem.” As far as the science, I’m not sure there is any evidence the wilderness designation is superior to Inventoried Roadless Areas, Recreational Areas, or Wildlife Management Areas. Most of what I have read references the need for roadless areas. As far as wildlife, there is some evidence that mountain bikes may cause more stress on elk than hikers in certain situations. It does not necessarily indicate that bikes are more impactful than supposedly low-impact and approved uses such as hunting or outfitters. What about economic impacts? Should the economic benefits of outdoor recreation be ignored? What about the mental and physical health benefits of getting outside in nature and having fun? The evidence is clear that it is beneficial for the individuals. Should this science be ignored? If these area are closed to recreation, will be people drive somewhere else, increasing their carbon footprint, or will they change activities and still be out in the forest still causing an impact? I think most studies have shown people will drive somewhere else to engage in their preferred activity.
Before I finally get back to the Bitterroot, one more quote from Wilderness Watch in opposition to the imposition of fees in Oregon Wilderness Areas,
““There is something amiss when an American citizen has to pay a fee to hike on their lands, which are really our birthright, not a commodity to be ‘sold,’” said George Nickus, executive director of Wilderness Watch.”
So this brings us back to the Bitterroot and good and bad recreation. First, a little information on the Bitterroot National Forest. Currently half of Ravalli County is National Forest and half of the BNF is designated Wilderness, mostly the Selway/Bitterroot, but also portions of Welcome Creek and the Anaconda/Pintlers. To the best of my knowledge, there no demand for bolting or the development of sport climbing routes in either the Blue Joint or Sapphire WSAs. I confirmed this with climbers coalition. Blue Joint is over 50 miles away from the area of contention in Mill Creek and the Sapphires are in a separate mountain range. The main climbing area is one mile for the trailhead, and despite the hysteria, it will not be confused with the lines in Eldorado Canyon waiting to climb the Bastile.
It seems everyone wants decisions to be science-based, but it becomes clear fairly quickly that science will not give us the answers. There is also not much room for compromise when one side is accusing the other of unlawful and unauthorized behavior. What baffles me somewhat is why the Bitterroot? Any day of the week the trails and lands around Bozeman, Missoula, Whitefish, Jackson are far more packed with people. Last year I saw more people on one backcountry ski tour outside Big Sky than I have seen in a year of biking and backcountry skiing here. Maybe it is because it still relatively quiet. Maybe it is because Stewart Brandborg who lived here in the valley espoused a no compromise ethos later in his life. Is the demographics: young vs. old, or newcomers vs. old timers? Is it because the valley is still rural and mostly conservative? My theory is, it’s the political non-viability of major wilderness designations. Occasionally you can get a wilderness for no-brainer areas like the Rocky Mountain Front, but the odds of ever getting a wilderness designation for the WSA or any significant portion of the recommend wilderness makes these designations life or death decisions for many people in the wilderness community. No one has attempted to get the WSAs in the Bitterroot congressionally designated wilderness since around 1990. (Tester did proposed some additional wilderness in the Beaverhead portion of the Sapphire WSA, but that bill died.) Same thing for any the recommended wilderness along the Bitterroot Front. As the possibilities for congressional support have dimmed, the desire, or depending on one’s point of view, the necessity, of getting the Forest Service to do what Congress won’t has become non-negotiable and any potential threats to the creation of de facto wilderness needs to be fought with all possible means.
Lance Bysher is a skier, biker, boater, hiker, rusty climber, all around lover of outdoor recreation and current president of the Bitterroot Backcountry Cyclists.
March 11, 2020 press release from plaintiff groups:
JUNEAU, Alaska― A federal judge today rejected the Trump administration’s enormous commercial timber harvest and road-building plan for Prince of Wales Island in the Tongass National Forest of southeast Alaska.
The judge ruled that the project’s approval violated the National Environmental Policy Act, which sets standards for public engagement on federal projects that will alter the environment, and the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, which requires federal agencies to evaluate how federal use of public lands will affect subsistence uses and needs.
The court found that the U.S. Forest Service “presented local communities with vague, hypothetical, and over-inclusive representations of the Project’s effects over a 15-year period.” It’s not yet clear whether the Forest Service will have to abandon the project entirely because the judge has not yet decided on a legal remedy.
The Forest Service greenlighted a sweeping 15-year logging scheme over a 1.8-million-acre project area across Prince of Wales and surrounding islands in America’s largest and wildest national forest. It would have been the largest timber sale on any national forest in 30 years, allowing for 164 miles of new road construction and the logging of enough trees to equal a forest three times the size of Manhattan.
More than half the logging would have targeted centuries-old trees ― old-growth forests that absorb the greenhouse gas emissions that drive climate change.
Eight conservation organizations, represented by the nonprofit environmental law firm Earthjustice, challenged the logging plan on the grounds that, among other claims, it had violated the National Environmental Policy Act, which gives people a say in government actions that will affect their communities.
Prince of Wales Island is prized for its subsistence hunting and fishing opportunities, yet the Forest Service failed to provide detailed information about where logging would occur. This made it impossible for subsistence hunters, local residents and others who care about the wildlife and forests of Prince of Wales Island to meaningfully weigh in on the plan.
Plaintiffs in this case include the Southeast Alaska Conservation Council, Alaska Rainforest Defenders, Defenders of Wildlife, Sierra Club, Alaska Wilderness League, Natural Resources Defense Council, National Audubon Society and Center for Biological Diversity. Prince of Wales residents, attorneys and plaintiffs released the following statements in reaction to the ruling:
“What the court has cut short is flagrant attempts by the Forest Service to trample not only the remaining old-growth forest on Southeast Alaska’s most heavily-logged major island, but also NEPA, which is America’s bedrock law for protecting the environment from contrived decision-making,” said Larry Edwards of the regional organization Alaska Rainforest Defenders.
“The Prince of Wales project would’ve been the largest logging project that we have seen anywhere in our national forests in decades, and it would have destroyed thousands of acres of irreplaceable old-growth forest in the Tongass National Forest,” said Kristen Miller, conservation director at Alaska Wilderness League. “Today’s ruling is a win for Southeast Alaska’s billion-dollar fishing and tourism industries, and a reminder as the Trump administration tries to significantly weaken the National Environmental Policy Act of the critical role NEPA plays in allowing the public to meaningfully weigh in on issues impacting their public lands.”
“Protecting the Tongass from old-growth clearcuts shouldn’t feel like a guessing game where Alaskans are left in the dark about whether the clear cuts will be on their traditional lands, in their favorite hunting spot, or in the middle of a stunning Alaskan viewpoint,” said Meredith Trainor, executive director of the Southeast Alaska Conservation Council. “Today’s court decision upholds the rights of Southeast Alaskans to weigh in on where logging happens not once our lands are changed forever. We’re grateful the law continues to stand strong and tall, like our old-growth trees, today.”
“This is a victory for wildlife, for our precious public forest lands, and for the rule of law,” said Patrick Lavin, Alaska policy advisor for Defenders of Wildlife. “This decision protects thousands of acres of high quality fish and wildlife habitat and the sustainable industries that rely on it. It also upholds the public’s right to basic information about proposed uses of our national forests, and the impacts of those uses on our shared public resources.”
“The magnificent, ancient forests of the Tongass just got a reprieve from the chain saws,” said Randi Spivak, public lands director at the Center for Biological Diversity. “We’re thrilled the court agreed that the Trump administration broke the law when it approved cutting thousands of acres of old-growth trees. It’s critical to protect our remaining old-growth forests to have any chance of stopping the extinction crisis and slowing climate change.”
“This ruling is a win for old-growth trees, wolves, and other species on Prince of Wales Island,” said Earthjustice attorney Tom Waldo. “Today subsistence hunters who were shut out of a decision-making process that would have caused even greater restrictions for them can breathe a sigh of relief knowing that a massive industrial logging operation isn’t imminent in the forested areas they know and rely upon.”
“This is a huge win for wildlife, climate and all people’s voices on the most biologically diverse and vulnerable island on the Tongass National Forest, said Natalie Dawson, executive director of Audubon Alaska. “This ruling protects ancient forests that are crucial to mitigating climate change impacts in Alaska and across the globe.”
I’m helping some students explore policy ideas for dealing with homeless folks on a neighboring National Forest. Last year, a recreation person from a district told me that he thought it was the #1 issue that the recreation program was dealing with.
If anyone knows about studies or experiments that Forests have done in response to this issue, please comment below. Thank you!
We’ve talked before about the history of the Roadless Rule in Alaska (should the Tongass have been included in the first place, litigation and so on). In my view (as a card-carrying State Roadless Rule veteran), the purpose of a State Rule is to take the nationwide 2001 Rule, which was a mark on a wall and fairly quickly constructed, and figure out improvements that fit the State. We have had 20 years of case law since 2001, and some of it is not really all that clear. How this works out in practice is that if someone wants to do a project, it depends on whether Environmental Groups with Lawyers like the project or not. It’s a bit like having an approval process for projects in your community by individuals often living far from the area affected, and perhaps not as familiar or sympathetic with the concerns of those living in the area. Perhaps they see it as an “iconic landscape” or a reservoir of carbon or biodiversity. It doesn’t feel fair because you can’t go into their communities and tell them what not to do to protect the environment.
There are many interesting concepts in the “middle alternatives” of the Alaska Roadless Rule that are worth discussing. Unfortunately, to me, the preferred alternative (I would bet not the FS’s call, after all, they did all this creative work) the exemption from 2001 was selected as the preferred. I still think it’s worth sharing all the ideas for common ground that the public and folks from the Forest Service and State came up with. Perhaps it’s not too late for whoever is deciding to change..it seems to me as if it would bolster the inevitable court case to select an alternative that incorporated the complex public comment on offer. This, to me, would be a case for not having a preferred in advance- selecting one (at least THAT one) possibly just further polarized people.
Here’s a link to a powerpoint from last fall from which I copied the slides below. I particularly like this idea of the “community use priority” as it takes into account community needs by requiring that projects need approval by community government (check out all the alternatives in the powerpoint, I only put a few below). You can click on them, as well as the “reimagining” slide above) to make them larger.
Court Affirms Key Rulings to Prevent Further Illegal Helicopter Intrusions in Premiere Idaho Wilderness Area
SAN FRANCISCO, Ca. – Today a federal appeals court affirmed key rulings imposed by an Idaho judge to prevent the U.S. Forest Service from again illegally authorizing the Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) to conduct helicopter-assisted wildlife-collaring operations in the Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness.
Today’s ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld an injunction that prevents the Forest Service from considering wildlife data gathered from radio collars illegally installed on 60 elk in 2016 because the Forest Service approved IDFG helicopter operations in violation of two environmental laws. The ruling also upheld a requirement that the Forest Service must delay implementation of any permits for future helicopter operations in the wilderness for 30 days in order to allow time for public challenges.
“Today’s decision upholds key requirements that protect the public’s interest in maintaining the wilderness as a wild area—not a helicopter landing zone,” said Earthjustice attorney Tim Preso.
In 2016, the Forest Service allowed IDFG to conduct 120 helicopter landings in the River of No Return to capture and place radio telemetry collars on wild elk. IDFG also captured and radio collared four wolves during these operations—an unauthorized action that was not permitted by the Forest Service, but that threatened to advance IDFG’s plans to undertake widespread wolf killing in the wilderness by providing locational information on the collared wolves.
Idaho District Court Judge B. Lynn Winmill ruled these actions unlawful in 2017 because the Wilderness Act prohibits the use of motorized vehicles including helicopters and requires preservation of natural conditions in wilderness areas, and the National Environmental Policy Act requires thorough environmental analysis of these types of actions on federal lands.
The helicopter operations that were illegally permitted by the Forest Service are part of IDFG’s broader program to inflate elk numbers above natural levels within the wilderness by eliminating wolf packs that prey on the elk. IDFG’s existing elk and predator management plans call for exterminating 60 percent of the wolf population in the heart of the River of No Return to provide more elk for hunters and commercial outfitters in an area that receives some of the lightest hunting use in the state.
Earthjustice represented Wilderness Watch, Friends of the Clearwater, and Western Watersheds Project in challenging the Forest Service’s decision.
“This is an important victory for one of the wildest Wildernesses in the lower 48,” said Wilderness Watch staff attorney Dana Johnson. “It sends an important message that intensive, helicopter-assisted manipulations of wildlife to appease the objectives of state managers will not go unchecked.”
Gary Macfarlane with Friends of the Clearwater said, “The 9th Circuit court recognized the importance of Wilderness and that the Forest Service was wrong to allow motorized use to approve routine wildlife management in the Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness. We can only hope that, in the future, both the Forest Service and Idaho Department of Fish and Game will honor Wilderness and its important attributes.”
“The court appropriately reminded the Forest Service that it must protect wilderness on public lands, including from state wildlife agencies seeking access to wild places and important habitats,” said Greta Anderson, deputy director of Western Watersheds Project.
This AP story has all the challenges of the “good industry” versus “bad industry” philosophical conundrum. We know that electric cars are good, at least if they are run off all carbon-free sources. Unfortunately, they require (as almost everything does) mining minerals to build them.
CBD says “not where they occur on federal land in Nevada, due to an endangered buckwheat.”
The company acknowledges Tiehm’s buckwheat hasn’t been documented anywhere else on earth, but denies the mine would lead to its extinction.
Company officials say they’ve been researching the plant since 2016, going to great lengths to ensure its protection and examining how it’s fared during previous mining operations at Rhyolite Ridge, near the small town of Tonopah, over the past 80 years.
They recently spent $60,000 for a yearlong study at the University of Nevada, Reno. Scientists there are growing hundreds of seedlings in a greenhouse to determine whether it’s feasible to transplant them into the wild to bolster the limited population, an estimated 43,000 plants covering a total of 21 acres (8.5 hectares).
“We have always been aware of the buckwheat. It didn’t come as a surprise,” Ioneer President Bernard Rowe told The Associated Press in a phone interview from Australia.
All site activity has been undertaken with the “protection of the buckwheat first and foremost in mind,” Rowe said. He added the company’s mitigation strategy “will ensure protection and, in fact, the expansion of the buckwheat population.”
“We’re seeing evidence of that at the greenhouse at UNR,” Rowe said. “We’ve got a reasonably high degree of confidence we can successfully propagate these plants and protect them.”
But what I thought was most interesting about this article, given our discussions about abstraction, are quotes from the scientists involved (caveat, they may have been misquoted, but I’m taking this at face value).
Leger, who also serves as director of UNR’s Museum of Natural History, said those who dismiss the flowers as weeds unworthy of all the fuss don’t understand the value of biodiversity.
“Weed is a human construct. A weed is a plant that grows anywhere a human doesn’t want it,” she said, adding biodiversity is “magic” and a safeguard against future loss.
Biodiversity is actually a human construct, as is the idea of species, especially when we get to telling closely related species apart.
I’m a little concerned with a scientist saying that that biodiversity is “magic”, though. Anyway, it’s interesting what it means to potentially lose “a species” of buckwheat that grows on 21 acres as opposed to losing “biodiversity”. Is it more compelling, or magic, or less compelling or magic?
Meanwhile, Donnelly of CBD (not a scientist) says:
He acknowledged a difference between transplanting plants and growing them from seeds, but said it’s “beside the point, really.”
“A species is more than a set of genetic material. A species is inextricable from its habitat,” Donnelly said. “To allow a species’ habitat to be wiped out and put it someplace else, is functionally allowing it to go extinct.”
I always thought ESA was about “sets of genetic material” but maybe CBD intends to raise the bar.
The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals issued an Order in favor of the Forest Service concerning amenities at the Marsh Branch Boat Launching Facility in the Daniel Boone National Forest. This was an attempt by an individual to compel the Forest Service to repair a security light and provide picnic tables because they charged a fee under the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act.
Neighbors of the Mogollon Rim filed a complaint against the Forest Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regarding the allotment management plan and grazing permit for the Bar X and Heber-Reno Sheep Driveway Allotments on the Tonto National Forest involving the effects of grazing on the Mexican Spotted Owl and narrow headed garter snake. (D. Ariz.)
Plaintiffs filed a complaint against the Forest Service regarding the Fossil Ridge II Land Exchange on the Gunnison National Forest, which would allegedly eliminate access to private property. (D. Colo.)
The District Court of Idaho has required notice and comment rulemaking for the BLM to change its public comment process for oil and gas lease sales in sage grouse habitat, and failure to do so resulted in the court cancelling $125 million in recent lease sales in Nevada, Utah and Wyoming. (More in this article.)
(Update.) Three environmental groups are suing the BLM over its decision to allow development of a gas field that overlaps with the state of Wyoming’s only recognized sage grouse winter concentration area and a migration path that’s used by pronghorn. (More in this article.) We have discussed the “path of the pronghorn,” which includes the Bridger-Teton National Forest, here.
(Update.) As a result of a lawsuit by the Center for Biological Diversity, the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service has designated critical habitat for the black pinesnake in the longleaf pine forests of Mississippi and Alabama, including the DeSoto National Forest, which comprises the majority of the habitat.
(New case.) The Center for Biological Diversity has filed a new lawsuit against the Fish and Wildlife Service for failing to act on petitions to list 241 species as it had specified in a schedule it adopted in 2016. The CBD press releases includes a link to a map that shows which species are found in each state (if you click on the state). Many are found on national forests. (More in this article.)
(New case.) A Montana ranch as sued an individual for trespassing when he crossed from one piece of national forest land to another at a corner (with an 80-foot gap) where that land abuts private land. The individual has claimed a prescriptive easement. The Gallatin National Forest states that it has no position.
(New case.) Surviving members of a family have sued the Forest Service for negligence, wrongful death, and negligent infliction of emotional distress because relatives were killed in a Tonto National Forest campground by a flash flood, and the Forest Service failed to provide a warning.
