Roadless rules

The Bush Administration has asked Western governors to comment on the fate of millions of acres of roadless National Forest lands. As a long-time resident of Northwest Montana (36 years) and an avid hunter and fisherman, I applaud Gov. Brian Schweitzer for his concern about the importance of roadless areas in providing clean water.

Roadless areas are popular for hiking, hunting and fishing, but their role in the water cycle is often overlooked. They provide much of the water that nourish our streams, lakes and recharge our ground water. This is important not only for fishing and recreation, but also for irrigation and drinking.

Roadless areas tend to be high, steep country with thin soils. They are susceptible to erosion that results from logging and road building as these high fragile forests collect much of the rain and snow that falls on the forest.

For example, the Flathead Valley typically receives 28 inches of precipitation a year. The surrounding mountains receive three to four times more moisture — up to 100 inches annually.

Building roads in these high forests makes little economic sense. Roads and accompanying development tend to upset the water cycle, allowing water to run off quickly rather than seep into the soil and recharge our streams and aquifers. This can make a big difference in late summer stream flows and lake elevations.

The Flathead Lake and river system defines the beauty and mystique of our unique area. Development of our high-elevation forests would increase sediment and nutrient pollution which would adversely impact the fishery and recreational values of the Flathead Lake and river system.

In Montana, we have long known that much of our economy and outdoor recreation depends on clean water. I urge Gov. Schweitzer and the Forest Service to conserve roadless areas. Clean water is one of the most important reasons why.

Bruce May

Kalispell

Wildlife solutions

For more than 30 years, I have had the joy of exploring open lands near my home in Whitefish.

Many of the areas I used to access are no longer open to public use, but several parcels of state land in Beaver Lake, Haskill Basin, and Spencer Mountain, for example, still provide walking, biking, skiing and snowshoeing opportunities close to home.

They also provide critical wildlife habitat and watershed protection, and all of the values inherent in working forests.

Our local politicians recognize the importance of protecting these areas from development, but during the legislative session, they couldn't agree on the best way to do it.

I commend Rep. Mike Jopek and Sen. Dan Weinberg for going the extra mile to achieve a working solution, and I urge all of our Flathead legislators to put partisan politics aside and work together in the next session.

Sen. Weinberg's bill would have allowed conservation easements on the 13,000 acres of state land currently jeopardized by the growing threat of development.

While I understand there may be other ways to solve the problem, it is critical to create a timely solution now before it is too late. The Flathead legislators can and must be leaders in the state on this issue.

Kerrie Byrne

Whitefish

No multiple use

The Flathead National Forest had the rollout of their revised Forest Plan maps on June 13 in an open-house format where one had to try to get information from various individuals with no public forum for explanations and questions and answers that all could learn from.

We did not get any explanation of how the thousands of volunteer citizen hours attending meeting and providing input in the initial scoping a year ago was used in formulating the proposal.

My view is that it made no difference whatsoever — the proposal is just the same or worse for multiple use as their initial "Proposed Action" in January 2004 that many, many people provided input on.

The proposal is way too vague on key issues:

? No disclosure of what motorized recreation opportunities will actually be available for winter or summer.

? No disclosure of where new road access would be permitted.

? No disclosure of "standards or guidelines," such as road density standards or other minimum management requirements needed to achieve compliance with laws.

Section 1.2 on recommended wilderness actually implements wilderness management without Congressional designation. The Clinton Roadless Rule did that and was declared illegal by the courts. Established and historic motorized uses are prohibited in these areas.

Section 2.2 on backcountry designation appears to include and even expand on existing inventoried roadless areas with management descriptions very similar to the section on recommended wilderness.

All the sections 2.2 Backcountry, 3.3 General Forest: Mixed Use Emphasis, Low Intensity Management, 5.2 Residential Forest Intermix and High Use Recreation Complexes or Use Areas are all equivalent to management areas classed and unsuitable for timber harvest under the current plans.

The Forest Service is verbally trying to spin these areas as part of the timber base, when it is plain in writing and National Forest Management Act law that they are not. They must be classed as "suitable for timber production" to be in the timber base, according to NFMA law.

Only the 4.1 and 5.1 General Forest sections are equivalent to the MA's suitable for timber production in current plans. The Flathead draft map shows about 50 percent of the suitable base in the current plan, with no justification for the reduction.

There will be no summer motorized recreation anywhere except on designated roads or trails. Practically no motorized recreation opportunities in alpine areas (nearly all alpine ridges are proposed non-motorized backcountry), with perhaps a few as yet undisclosed designated routes. Won't it be fun? Cops everywhere looking to bust someone for getting off the trail or on the wrong trail.

In short, there is no balanced multiple use. I rate the proposal an "F" for multiple use, fire protection, recreation, timber production and maximizing public benefits. The proposal merits an "A" for the wildlands project, wilderness and maximizing cost to the taxpayer.

Fred D. Hodgeboom

President, Montanans For Multiple Use

A visitor's view

Commendations to the Whitefish community for honesty and caring and leaving self-interest behind.

Shortley after we arrived in Whitefish, I was so eager to start vacationing. I was not aware my checkbook with cash, traveler's checks and cherished photos slipped from my purse.

The next morning, after realizing my loss, I remembered we'd stopped at the Dairy Queen on Spokane Ave.

A young girl, Amanda, had found it in the parking lot and showed it to her mom, who had the patience to wait.

We called, went back to the Dairy Queen, and there my checkbook was in the safe hands of the Dairy Queen employee.

Thank you Whitefish, a community with integrity, for allowing me to spend my vacation here on a happy note.

A traveler from Wisconsin