A NEW BEGINNING OR THE LAST GASP FOR TIMBER?
A Multiple Use Analysis of the
P ARTNERSHIP
STRATEGY
FOR THE
BEAVERHEAD-DEERLODGE
NATIONAL
FOREST
This accord between three environmental groups and two
timber companies claims to be good for everyone. Far from
it. The accord is much worse than the preferred alternative (5) of the new B-DNF forest plan
which is itself much more restrictive for timber harvest and motorized access than the existing plan.
In the Forest Service plan, motorized recreation will lose one third of its use in roadless areas plus all use in existing and additional
recommended wilderness. Alt 5 also increases the acreages of roadless areas and
recommended wilderness. In short the preferred alternative from the
Forest Service is very green.
But not near as much as the BD Partnership Strategy, which restricts public access
even more than the B-D proposed forest plan.
 |
The agreement (BDPS) closes 76% of the roads on this forest and sets the
goal to at least partially obliterate all of these closed roads. BDPS is a massive
road-ripping project. |
|
Because the difference between the suitable timber base in the BDPS and Alternative 5 is
mostly semantic (stewardship logging on over 700,000 acres in both plans) and because
there is actually some non-stewardship suitable timber base in Alt 5 but none in the
agreement, the B-DNF preferred alternative should be better for logging than the
BDPS. |
|
Because recreation interests were not allowed to participate, BDPS is less friendly to
recreation than Alt 5. |
|
BDPS more than doubles the acreage of recommended wilderness. |
|
The partnership intends to find a congressional
sponsor to put at least the wilderness piece of the strategy into
law. Designated wilderness is forever. Recommended
wilderness can be changed by USFS. |
If these companies had actually gotten some guaranteed
benefit from this agreement, it would be understandable even though
reprehensible. But they got nothing they wouldn't have had in
the forest plan anyway. With the forest plan they could have kept
their dignity and their alliances with other users.
Why are these timber companies willing to make a deal
with their sworn enemies that sells out the interest of other forest users
while producing no real benefit for themselves? Do they imagine that
by agreeing to more wilderness they will cause the greens to take pity on
them and not sue on every little logging job that comes their way. A
whipped dog cringing before its master comes to mind.
The Group of Five hired a consulting firm to help
them. All of the documents and maps can be found on this firms
website
>HERE
After you get to Ecosystem
Research Group's website,
-
Clik on Project Websites at the top
left
-
Clik on Partnership Strategy
documents in the scrolling box in middle of page.
-
Clik on document you want to see.
If this agreement is sent
to Congress for designation of wilderness with the appearance of local
support, how will it affect the chances of passing NREPA?
|
