Who speaks for the voiceless?

Motorized users combined with a mountain bike group have filed a lawsuit over the Bitterroot National Forest Travel Plan. They’re unhappy that some areas are off limits to their machinery. It’s interesting that mountain bikers now aligned themselves with motorized users.
I went to many Travel Plan meetings. Periods were extended and record numbers of comments were taken. In no meeting that I attended did a motorized user/mountain biker discuss the impacts their forms of recreation has on plants and animals. It was typically about their “rights.”
A spokesperson representing motorized users in Ravalli County was quoted in the Missoulian, saying, “More than half of the Bitterroot National Forest is already in wilderness.” That’s fairly close, but it’s fast plays with figures. The actual percent according to the BNF is 47 percent Wilderness. It’s worth looking at some additional figures.
Approximately 2.7% of the contiguous U.S. is protected Wilderness. Not even three percent of what once was, is left in a “natural” state. Wanting to protect what little’s left outside of Wilderness hardly seems extreme. Wanting to ensure the integrity of a few Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) doesn’t seem extreme. It’s wise.
According to the BNF, the forest has about 837,851 acres of non-Wilderness. There are also 2,246 miles of roads. You could drive an OHV from Hamilton to Houston and then head east the 348 miles to New Orleans and not travel all those 2,246 miles.
There are 543,840 acres open to snowmobile use. One would think that with over 2,200 miles of roads and more than half a million acres open to snowmobiles, a person could find a place to recreate.
The harmful effects to wildlife and wild places from motorized use are well documented in peer reviewed science. The same is beginning for mountain biking. Denying/ignoring this science is akin to stepping into the world of Climate Change denial. All recreationalists, myself included, have impacts. We could all exercise a little humility. We can go other places, the plants and animals who live there are about out of room. It’s not just about us.
Most user groups only show up at meetings regarding issues they perceive negatively impact their own interests. That says a lot. There’s one group, however, that never shows up. Consider a typical meeting with extractive representatives wanting more timber and roads, motorized users/mountain bikers wanting more areas open, and environmentalists wanting more protections. Now imagine seats at the table for the group that does not show up for these important decisions. Imagine elk, bear, big horn sheep, golden eagle, pica, bull trout, red squirrel, lynx, black-backed woodpecker, Douglas fir, and sage sent to represent their kind. Also imagine a seat reserved for the sacredness and integrity of the Earth. The plants and animals might start out by stating many of their kind are no longer alive due to recreational pursuits, development, and forest “management.” They might mention that a very small percentage of their original homeland remains and ask how much more should they give. They may state that even the science that humans sometimes respect, speaks to the harmful effects that recreation and extraction have. They could mention the many benefits to humans of saving what’s left, such as clean water and spirituality. They may voice genuine concern for the future of their children. They might remind those in attendance that their ancestors used to live in a sustainable manner with the people who originally lived here. They might make a final plea that humans alone have the capacity to make it possible for all species to live and thrive; that humans have that power.
That would be a great meeting and would be a start towards real collaboration. It would be a truer representation of all the stakeholders regarding the Travel Plan. One has to ask, how much more should plants and animals give up for our weekend warrior pursuits?
Gary Milner
Corvallis