By Michael Howell
Dave Schmid, who has been serving up until recently as Acting Regional Forester for the Northern Region, and Bitterroot National Forest Supervisor Julie King met with 15 of the 17 official objectors to the Bitterroot National Forest Travel Plan last week to hear about their concerns face to face. They also heard from a few individuals who have no standing in the objection process including County Commissioners Greg Chilcott and Doug Schallenberger.
Hunter, fisherman, and trapper Dennis Schutz summed up one major complaint that was echoed by many, when he complained of being denied access to public land by many of the proposed road closures.
Glen Frost agreed, saying, “We are not managing the forest, we are closing the forest.” Several objectors mentioned that motor vehicle users appeared to be discriminated against in the plan. One particular closure, to the Chain of Lakes area, drew particularly harsh objections from motorized users.
Back country bicyclists object to lumping bicycles in with motorized users and object to being excluded, based on that classification, from riding trails in the Wilderness Study Areas where they have done a lot of trail improvement work. They also believe that bicycles have a place in the wilderness.
Others, like the Montana Back Country Horsemen, believe the Travel Plan does not do enough to protect elk habitat effectiveness that would keep the elk on public land and not contribute to driving elk out onto private farmlands. They complained explicitly about the archery season and suggested that it be closed on the first of September instead of October 15.
Kirk Thompson, speaking for the Montana Wilderness Association, expressed concerns about the plan to open short trails to motorized vehicles that dead end at existing wilderness or Wilderness Study Areas. He also suggested that the allowance for motor vehicle camping up to 300 feet off the road should be reduced to 70 feet. He also questioned the open trails on the ridge tops which could negatively impact elk habitat and watershed issues.
Local legislator Pat Connell, who is an official objector, complained about the change of rules, during the extended review process, concerning how objections are handled. He called the change in rules a “poke in the eye to the cooperative spirit” that must be maintained between the federal government and state and local governments. He stated that the process was so cumbersome and took so long that a lot of the fundamental data used in making the decision was now out of date.
County Commissioner Greg Chilcott also complained about out-dated data and rule changes during the process. He said the Forest Service needs to partner with local government but was not. He said it should be an access plan, not a plan for closure of the forest as it now stands.
“Commissioner Doug Schallenberger agreed. “We want to use our forest and manage it, not be closed out of it,” he said.
Schmid has until July 16 to provide written responses to all the objections received. Another meeting between forest officials and objectors may be held before the Forest Supervisor is given “instructions” concerning any issues that may have to be revisited in response to the objections.