Nork Fork wilderness debated

The group has met twice monthly since last fall, with many committee meetings in between. Also meeting with the group have been Glacier View and Flathead Forest officials who acted as resource support. There have also been presentations by other resource folks with special expertise, like wildlife experts Tim Their, Jim Williams and John Weaver.

With a lot of give and take, the group has completed and agreed on most issues, including timber, fire, river corridor and wildlife until only one issue remains — wilderness. This has proven to be the toughest issue of all. Included in the group are folks who are adamantly in favor of wilderness and those equally opposed.

Thus, the debate centers around whether or not compromise is possible. What will each side be willing to give up? This first becomes a matter of size. How many acres will be involved, and which areas most need to be included?

As important as whether or not there should be wilderness and where it should be located is how will acres not in wilderness be managed? At one end of that spectrum is high-density timber management, which would include road construction and heavy logging. At the other end is inventoried roadless areas, where there is no logging but most non-motorized recreation is allowed.

In a wilderness, hiking trails are maintained and horseback riding is allowed, but mountain bikes and motorized vehicles are banned.

Wilderness advocates believe there is too little wilderness, and opponents believe there is too much and that each addition is taking opportunities from them or their group. Both have legitimate concerns, especially when we can all see that as our population increases, more people with diverse interests will put more and more pressure on outdoor recreation.

I have my own opinions and was fortunate to be young when recreational opportunities were virtually unlimited. You could camp anywhere in the North Fork without a permit, including Glacier National Park, and you would seldom see anyone else.

Among my favorite memories include lying in my sleeping bag in Boulder Pass listening to the wind, hobbled horses and watching the coals of the camp fire as it ebbed into darkness. Today, you must camp only in established campgrounds, pay for a permit, and camp fires are limited or prohibited.

Increased use will necessitate increased regulations, even on the national forests. The wilderness debate will no doubt continue but will be settled at some point.

The real solution will be when the Forest Service decides to manage the resource — or is forced to. They did a good job when their primary job was to sell logs. Today, they must manage true multiple use and protect the resource for future generations. I hope they can rise to the challenge. What do you think?

Last fall, I wrote about the formation of a group which named itself the Whitefish Range Partnership. Their goal was, and is, to write a draft Forest Plan for the Whitefish Range to present to the Flathead National Forest as they begin the process of writing a new plan for the entire Flathead National Forest.

The group has met twice monthly since last fall, with many committee meetings in between. Also meeting with the group have been Glacier View and Flathead Forest officials who acted as resource support. There have also been presentations by other resource folks with special expertise, like wildlife experts Tim Their, Jim Williams and John Weaver.

With a lot of give and take, the group has completed and agreed on most issues, including timber, fire, river corridor and wildlife until only one issue remains — wilderness. This has proven to be the toughest issue of all. Included in the group are folks who are adamantly in favor of wilderness and those equally opposed.

Thus, the debate centers around whether or not compromise is possible. What will each side be willing to give up? This first becomes a matter of size. How many acres will be involved, and which areas most need to be included?

As important as whether or not there should be wilderness and where it should be located is how will acres not in wilderness be managed? At one end of that spectrum is high-density timber management, which would include road construction and heavy logging. At the other end is inventoried roadless areas, where there is no logging but most non-motorized recreation is allowed.

In a wilderness, hiking trails are maintained and horseback riding is allowed, but mountain bikes and motorized vehicles are banned.

Wilderness advocates believe there is too little wilderness, and opponents believe there is too much and that each addition is taking opportunities from them or their group. Both have legitimate concerns, especially when we can all see that as our population increases, more people with diverse interests will put more and more pressure on outdoor recreation.

I have my own opinions and was fortunate to be young when recreational opportunities were virtually unlimited. You could camp anywhere in the North Fork without a permit, including Glacier National Park, and you would seldom see anyone else.

Among my favorite memories include lying in my sleeping bag in Boulder Pass listening to the wind, hobbled horses and watching the coals of the camp fire as it ebbed into darkness. Today, you must camp only in established campgrounds, pay for a permit, and camp fires are limited or prohibited.

Increased use will necessitate increased regulations, even on the national forests. The wilderness debate will no doubt continue but will be settled at some point.

The real solution will be when the Forest Service decides to manage the resource — or is forced to. They did a good job when their primary job was to sell logs. Today, they must manage true multiple use and protect the resource for future generations. I hope they can rise to the challenge. What do you think?