Man vs. nature in forest planning  

The Flathead National Forest held a series of meetings in February trying to use a collaborative effort among many stakeholders to help revise the 2006 management plan. These meetings commenced back in September 2013, went through February 2014, and are to continue with two more meetings in March and four more in both April (geographic areas) and May (management areas). A final report by the forest may not be forthcoming until anywhere from year-end 2014 until 2016.  

Through various combinations of topics (suitable timber harvest, acceptable motorized recreational vehicle access, soils, streams and watersheds, aquatics, vegetation, fire, wilderness designation recommendations, and finally wildlife habitat considerations) and different participant seating arrangements, the participating stakeholders, led by the Flathead Forest and moderated by the Meridian Institute consulting firm, have worked hard to establish cooperation, conciliation, consensus, in a civil, cordial, collaborative fashion.

The reason why little may get accomplished is that ordinary people do not have the scientific knowledge, or adequate time, to treat the entire forest as a complete, complex ecosystem instead of treating it as small, individual, non-contiguous pieces as was done in the past.  This is a difficult task that, without the benefit of using a massive, expensive, supercomputer to mathematically model the forest ecosystem, will challenge all who participate.

This is an arrogant attempt by man to “manage” the Flathead National Forest ecosystem better than Mother Nature can.  Disagreements abound on many fronts, with timber production, motorized recreational vehicle access, fire suppression, and wildlife habitat priority being the most contentious. Turnout to the meetings runs 25 percent favoring wildlife considerations as the priority, with the other 75 percent being more vocal and passionate and supporting the other positions. It does not reflect the Forest Service polling statistics indicating wildlife viewing as the much higher activity in reality.

It does look like some new innovative considerations will come into play, namely a better understanding that noise pollution from motorized vehicles severely distresses wildlife, and that global warming will impact wildlife food sources and cause more frequent forest fire disturbances, and my idea of the forest making contingency plans for derailment of railroad cars carrying coal and highly toxic and flammable tar-sands oil along the forest scenic river corridors that were not taken into account in the 2006 plan. My biologically natural idea of utilizing domestic sheep or goats to eat the proliferation of noxious weeds, rather than applying poisons which get into the ecosystem, was again rejected as it was when I suggested it on the 2006 plan committee. Hand-pulling weeds will never get it done.

My personal opinion revolves around my core belief system that wildlife should be the primary concern for forest management planners. Does anyone share my concern that this Flathead National Forest Collaborative Revision Management Planning effort treats wildlife like they are merely a natural resource to be managed and controlled by humans? Do any of you feel that wildlife should, instead, be treated like living breathing organisms with rights of survival just like us humans? Isn’t the forest habitat where they make their home… their living room, dining room, kitchen, bedroom, bathroom, et al, a necessary sanctuary for them?

Wildlife cannot attend our many meetings that determine their fate… nor can they vote for politicians who decide to only represent humans who can vote, excluding animals from consideration. And, it appears that politics always trumps real science in that determination of saving wildlife.

Now I realize that many of the people in attendance do not understand science but have religious convictions instead. For them the biblical passage of man having dominion over the animals is their key reference. However, other biblical references discuss God instructing Noah to build an ark and load it with all the animals, two-by-two, in order to save them from a 40-day flood he will cause to kill the evil humans who worship golden idols more than him. How do you all feel about that?

I say let’s all be good stewards of these lands and protect the wildlife in their home, but allow Mother Nature to have her way rather than man with his machinery.

Baum is a resident of Martin City.