Top down approach hurts Forest Service

One reader who was also at the meeting to discuss a collaboration with the U.S. Forest Service to aid them in planning the future of the Whitefish Divide objected to my comments about the Forest Service. The reader noted that their relationship with the Forest Service had always been positive and that it was counterproductive to insult them on the eve of what might be sensitive negotiations.

I, too, have always had a positive relationship with local Forest Service folks. I have known each of the last served Flathead Forest Service Supervisors, North Fork District Rangers and a multitude of other Forest Service employees. As a group they are professional and competent, and as hard working as anyone you could find. It is their agency that is broken.

The Forest Service has become a top down bureaucracy that is so encumbered by conflicting laws, rules and regulations that it is impossible for the most competent District Ranger or even the Forest Supervisor to get anything done let alone actually manage a District or National Forest. Even such simple things as wood permits are not managed by the District Ranger or Forest Supervisor but are set in Washington D.C. by folks who cannot imagine on the ground conditions.

As a result nothing of importance is ever accomplished. A Flathead Forest Plan is years overdue. How can a plan be formulated when no one has ever defined what a healthy forest is? Lacking any effective management plan or definition of healthy forest the whole process becomes a political dogfight, special interest groups (mine and yours) lobby only for what they are interested in and ignore everyone else.

In my opinion, the Forest Service should empower Forest Supervisors to define what is a healthy forest. Then citizens could provide input regarding what activities could take place in a healthy forest.

That would include logging to control fuels and maintain forest health and how much and where recreational activities could take place.

Defined wilderness areas today are not really wilderness. All of them have maintained trails with expensive creek crossings and even established campsites. Fire is used to manage fuels and to give the surface appearance of wilderness. Lewis and Clark would have had a much easier trip if the wilderness they crossed had a trail maintenance program like the Bob Marshall complex.

I think a healthy forest would require a mixed age forest in every major creek drainage. A mix that would include everything from saplings to old growth. This would reduce the risk of large stand replacement fires, encourage a mix of tree species, ensure diverse wildlife and plant populations and provide a wide range of recreational opportunities.

Anything less promotes further argument and polarization.

Our job is not to negotiate with anyone, but to promote sensible, long-term management of healthy forest for ALL of us.

What do you think?