Forest designation seen as compatible with forest management

To the Editor:

A recent letter from Roger Lund on forest management issues misses the mark on a few key points. Lund complains that wilderness designation will limit silvicultural treatments in the forest. In reality, efforts to protect existing wildlands are very compatible with active management of most forest lands.

It is only common sense that we prioritize fuel treatment projects in the forest to areas near towns and homes. Similarly, forest plans prioritize timber harvesting to more productive forest lands, and away from areas with regeneration problems, steep slopes, unstable soils and high road and harvesting costs.

The idea that we could and should be thinning and trimming vegetation in remote backcountry areas ignores the reality that these efforts will be much more effective in higher priority areas.

Our wild country is typically a low priority for active management because of low commodity values and high operating costs. These lands have incomparably high values for wildlife, recreation and all the appeal and benefits of wild and natural landscapes.

A combination of more active management for suitable lands – the majority of the forest – and protection for existing wild areas provides our community the most benefit from the public lands which surround us.

Years ago many Montanans invested a lot of energy in empty debates promoting conflict between wilderness protection and timber management, but today most realize that both approaches can be part of common sense forest management.

Doug Ferrell