Comparing 1986 Forest Plan with proposed revision

Having participated in the preparation and review of the original environmental impact statement and the Flathead National Forest Plan of 1986, I attended the March 17 open house to see what changes were proposed.

I was not surprised to see that most of the Forest (with the exception of Tally Lake District and the “Island Unit”) was either proposed as new wilderness, wild and scenic creeks, or some other “look but don’t touch” recreational area. This plan is supposed to determine the management emphasis for the next 15 years, but when an area is designated as wilderness or a wild and scenic river, this 15-year revision option no longer exists.

Joe Krueger is quoted as saying the proposed management plan seeks “the greatest good” for the Flathead’s wild interior for the next two decades.” Wild interior? This could be a misquote, but to me it depicts the subtle shift in philosophy from serving the public to serving “things.” The Pinchot philosophy for management was “the greatest good for the greatest number in the long run.” Number refers to people, not “things.” Whatever happened to the multiple-use part of the Sustained Yield Act of 1960?

Three philosophies prevailed during preparation of the 1986 Forest Plan. Multiple use, preservation (wilderness/do nothing) and one I call pseudo-environmentalism, which I define as “the philosophy of those who have found that creation of a real or imagined environmental crisis can result in public grants or contributions sufficient to sustain endless environmental studies or a career in environmental activism.”

There were some true environmentalists who were sincerely concerned about environmental issues. We had respect for these people and could work with them. The attorneys’ ads on TV today remind me of the pseudo-environmental bunch. They want you to be compensated for your injury or loss and are only doing this for you out of the goodness of their hearts. It appears to me that if the “environmentalist” litigation issues had merit, the Equal Access to Justice Act would not be needed.

Many of the Forest Service employees I worked with during my career subscribed to the principles of service and stewardship. We tried to provide a mix of goods and services for the people of the United States. Integrity was a requirement of the profession.

I wish all those who are concerned and feel the need to respond to this upcoming forest plan revision would do so in the spirit of truth/integrity. Based on the negative comments and character assassination I have observed in recent letters to the different newspapers, I really do not hold much hope for this occurring.

Warren Williamson lives in Lakeside.