They're your public lands, but you just can't go there? |
| January 13, 2012 |
|
Publisher's note: This letter first appeared
on the website of the Flatlander,
www.bonnersferrynews.com, as an open letter
to the many people who will be directly affected
by a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposal to
designate more than 600 square miles as critical
habitat for the Selkirk Mountain caribou.
Several attempts to contact the author for
permission to reprint went unanswered. Due to a
looming deadline on a decision that will have
substantial impact on the future of North Idaho,
and because it was labeled an open letter, I
chose to violate my usual policies of either
requesting permission to re-publish or of
verifying that the author wrote the words
submitted and intended them for publication. Mike Weland Publisher Now is the time for citizens of Boundary County to join together to make your opinions known regarding the latest land closures outlined in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's caribou critical habitat proposal. We need to join with the residents of Bonner County to challenge the rule proposed. Having been quietly released, the open public comment period is nearly over, as it closes January 30, 2012. Few, if any public or town hall community meetings were held informing and educating the general public of the facts contained in this proposal. To submit comments, members of the public should sign onto a computer and go to this web link: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FWS-R1-ES-2011-0096-0001. The caribou critical habitat proposal for the Selkirk Mountains is the result of a 2009 settlement agreement (court order) which stipulated that the USFWS would submit a proposed critical habitat rule to the Federal Register on or before November 20, 2011. This proposal, having been initiated by a petition submitt to the USFWS by the preservation community, which includes but is not limited to Defenders of Wildlife, Washington, D.C., The Lands Council, Spokane, the Selkirk Conservation Alliance, Priest River, Idaho, and the Center for Biological Diversity, Tucson, Arizona. In other words, the petition finds its way to court where the legal system directs the USFWS to generate the proposal and follow the Endangered Species Act regulatory process rather than the employment of sound and proven forest practice techniques. This is no way to manage any forest ecosystem, not to mention our public national forest. "The primary threat to the species' survival is the loss of contiguous old growth forest habitat due to timber harvest and wildfires," reads a press release issued by USFWS November 29, 2011. "Human activities such as road building and recreational trails can also fragment caribou habitat and facilitate the movement of predators into the caribou's range." Along with numerous small wildfires, the large 1910 Trapper Peak and Sundance fires burned extensively throughout the Selkirk Mountain range of Idaho which, by way of nature, eliminated the largest majority of old growth forest within the proposal area as well as most adjoining areas. Combined with these multiple fires and over 100 years of a forest prescription of Multiple Use Management consisting of logging, road building and trail maintenance, a contiguous old growth forest within the Selkirk range of Idaho is long since and cannot be regained. Furthermore, according to the press release, it is feared that road building and recreational trails fragment habitat and facilitate the movement of predators INTO the caribou's range. In fact, the movement of predators INTO caribou's range has been facilitated not by roads and trails so much as by the introduction of predatory species, such as the Canadian Grey Wolf, by the USFWS. Again, the USFWS states, "The primary threat to the species' survival is the loss of contiguous old growth forest habitats due to timber harvest and wildfires." The Selkirk Mountain Range of Idaho is not, and has not been managed as primitive nor as wilderness. As a consequence, a quick review of the satellite imagery easily displays visual evidence of logging, roads and trails existing in virtually every drainage within the range. Again, other than a few localized pockets, old growth forest within Idaho's Selkirks have been long since gone. Also evident with the adjoining areas of Canada, large scale logging has been extensive and road systems and trails are prevalent. These adjoining areas pose a much larger issue regarding the "loss of contiguous old growth forests," and embody the large-scale fragmentation of caribou habitat, which is effectively out of any U.S. ESA regulation or influence. The USFWS states, "... road building and recreation trails can also fragment the caribou habitat." Buried in the plan is the proposal that roads and trails will be demolished and re-contoured. Funding for this project would rest squarely on the shoulders of the tax payer, but all funding aspects are exempted from any ESA consideration. Presently, the remaining herd of Selkirk Mountain Caribou resides in the Selkirk Mountain Range of British Columbia. Not to be overlooked, there is currently a major east-west highway in British Columbia just north of the international boun dary that traverses through the north- and south-tending Selkirk Range. How can the USFWS propose the demolitioni of forest road and trails on the Idaho side of the border while such a large scale trans-continental thoroughfare dissects directly through the proposed range habitat? The existing caribou herd resides north of this Canadian highway. If road demolition needs to be done to recover the species in the United States Selkirks, it must start with Highway 3 in Canada. After all, Highway 3 is the largest and most impending threat to the fragmentation of the caribou habitat. Simply put, this proposal has been initiated because the Selkirk Mountain Range of Idaho is downhill from the present caribou herd and several preservationist organizations are attempting to take advantage of the holes in the Endangered Species Act. The Selkirk Mountain Range of Idaho cannot, under any terms, meet the definition of critical habitat. Fire impacts combined with over 100 years of multiple use management cannot be demolished, no matter how much funding is required from any source. Truly, this is nothing more than another environmentalist movement land grab supported by like-minded biologists facilitating and pursuing their personal agendas. Moreover, this plan identifies another used to perpetuate the ongoing assault on our comminity's economic "life's blood," the forest products industry. It's a tactic supported by the preservationist ideology shared by the current leadership of our U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Forest Service. I request that the USFWS and USFS schedule numerous public meetings within all of the communities of the affected area and outline the policy's intentions to all area media. Clearly, if this proposal requests the "best science available," as it purports, the science community should be embarassed by the lack of detail, evidence, impartiality and validity. There are so many flaws in this proposal, it cannot be declared as factual science but rather merely theoretical or hypothetical rhetoric. This proposal and process does, however, make evident one clear fact. It displays clearly the need for a complete re-draft of the Endangered Species Act. |
|
LeAlan Pinkerton Bonners Ferry Lester Pinkerton Custer, South Dakota |