Sunday, August 27, 2006
Forest lawsuit emotion, not science based
ECHO EDITORIAL
Another lawsuit against the U.S. Forest Service has been filed by groups such as the Sierra Club and Friends of the Boundary Waters. This time the issue is the 2004 Superior National Forest Plan, a document used to determine the hot button issue of logging.
According to a news release, "The groups aim to ensure that the logging prescribed in the plan -averaging 20 square miles per year - does not harm the wilderness canoe area. The lawsuit also seeks to reinstate discontinued wildlife censuses that had held the agency accountable for preventing negative impacts from its taxpayer-subsidized commercial logging program."
Now, for those concerned directly with the BWCAW, we would like to remind people that the Forest Plan includes this statement, "The Revised Plan makes no changes to management direction for the BWCA Wilderness, except for the technical corrections in management area boundaries. It continues to protect and manage the BWCA Wilderness as called for in the Act."
Harm the wilderness canoe area? Hardly. The plan is for lands outside the BWCAW. However, to use the wilderness as a fear factor to get people riled up is a common tactic, even if the truth is stretched along the way.
This lawsuit is really no surprise, these groups have sued the Forest Service so many times it is likely they have lawyers who continuously look at new ways to bring the government into the courtroom.
Lost along the way is the basic premise that science should be used to determine public policy such as logging on federal lands. Instead we have Forest Service employees spending vast amounts of time preparing for and/or reacting to lawsuits.
Long gone are the days when our foresters spent the majority of their time out in the field. Now they spend time on litigation, which has become the hidden basis of public policy.
If you doubt all of this, just review these excerpts from the Sierra Club et al, keeping in mind the Forest Plan has no changes for the BWCAW:
"The Forest Plan in its current form will not sufficiently protect the wilderness and wilderness values. These places are sanctuaries for people and wildlife. There will be an echo effect from this logging, with negative impacts inside the BWCAW. Global warming is stressing the boreal forest wildlife in the Superior National Forest."
We just do not believe that a document such as the U.S. Forest Service plan for managing the Superior National Forest should be based on values, sanctuaries, echo effects and global warming.
And using the BWCAW as a scapegoat here is nearly fear mongering. To oppose land management outside the wilderness because it might impact visitors inside the BWCAW is ludicrous. If that is something the Forest Service should look out for, where do we draw this line? Just north of Hinckley?
But, the lawyers will continue to force the government into court, whether or not they have a chance of winning or not. This fight is not about the best way to manage the forest. It is about what is best for the Sierra Club and the Friends and their political agenda.
This is not about what is best for plantlife and wildlife. This is really about what's the best way to close off more areas to the public and end logging on federal lands.
We have watched for many years how groups such as the Sierra Club have used the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to take science out of forest management.
This lawsuit only proves that NEPA needs to be reformed before we end up with a Forest Service staffed not be scientists, but by lawyers.
Check Out Our Forum Tab!
Topic: Forest lawsuit emotion, not science based (Read 2010 times)
