Letter to the Editor - Nov. 20

To the Editor,

Jennifer Fielder recently missed another chance to correct extensive misinformation she has publicized about forest management. Fielder made headlines before last year’s election with claims that draft forest plans would result in “massive access closures and job losses“ and result in no hunting, hiking, camping, berry picking, etc. in large areas of the forest. These claims are not just exaggerations of real facts. They are pure nonsense.

In a column that appeared in this paper on November 7th, Fielder provided more misleading information about forest plans, but appeared to retreat from some of the more extreme statements she made last year. Last week she wrote (somewhat more moderately) that when new forest plans take effect “Motorized access will be immediately prohibited on at least 500,000 acres.”

This statement is inaccurate on several levels. In fact, implementation of the new Kootenai Forest Plan will result in motorized access and overall forest management that is remarkably similar to existing management. Additionally, wheeled vehicles are regulated by miles of open and closed roads, not by area closures. The forest plan does not take any steps to open or close existing roads.

Unlike wheeled vehicles, snowmobiles are regulated by area closures, but the Kootenai Forest Plan proposes that 87% of the forest – 1.9 million acres - will remain open to snowmobiles. Only 300,000 acres are protected from snowmobile traffic. Again these acreage figures and areas are very similar to existing management, so Fielder’s statement is both misleading and factually wrong. Check facts on page 420 of the EIS.

Our community deserves a full explanation from Fielder about why she has worked so hard to warn us about threats that do not exist, and whether she thinks she has a responsibility to correct misinformation she has promoted so actively.

We can all agree that management of our public lands is frustrating, as most of us would like to see more timber harvesting and active forest management as well as more permanent protection for recreational activities. But the planning documents are products of years of input from the logging community as well as those who work for watershed protection, wildlife and fisheries habitat, motorized and non-motorized recreation, wilderness, and all the multiple uses of the Forest. All of these people deserve credit for contributing to a plan with diverse goals.

As far as increasing timber harvesting, the experience of many Montana communities is that promotion of misinformation and conflict tends to get poor results. Those communities that work together for common goals tend to do a far better job of nurturing prosperous and appealing places to live and work.

Submitted by the Steering Committee for Truth Matters Citizens Group

Rusti Lievestadt, Lynn Harris, Peggy Johnson, Carolyn Hidy, Doug Ferrell, Dave Lyman