Comments about 50:50 at Idaho Falls, Idaho roadless area hearing.
by Ralph MaughanBeginning at 7 pm June 21, the hearing on the roadless areas for the Caribou-Targhee National Forest in Eastern Idaho began. About a hundred people attended and testimony was split about evenly.
Supporters for protecting the roadless areas hailed mostly from Pocatello and Idaho Falls with the opponents coming overwhelmingly from rural places such as Ashton and St. Anthony, Idaho.
I was struck by how utterly different the assumptions and views, of not just the proposal but views of the nature of the world, differed among the two sides. It was a real culture clash.
Many of the themes have played out in Idaho hearings before.
1. Supporters of not building roads in the rest of the roadless areas argued that nature has managed itself well for thousands of years without roads and without human management. Opponents argued that unless road were built the forests would burn down like in Los Alamos and also that the valuable resources present in roadless areas could not be used.
2. Supporters of President Clinton's plan said valuable extractable resources were not present and that's why the areas were still roadless after all these years. The valuable resource was the roadlessness itself, the scenery, solitude and wildlife. Opponents said failure to manage these areas and develop the resources had led to a loss of jobs and that people who sought solitude didn't have good family values.
3. Supporters called the proposal a bold plan and a move away from wasteful federal subsidies to the timber industry in the form of taxpayer built roads. Opponents derided President Clinton and said the proposal would "lock up" the forests for the average persons and the "handicapped."
4. Supporters said the proposal would protect Idaho's backcountry heritage for our children and grandchildren. Opponents said families needed off road vehicles to realize family values and heritage.
5. Supporters said tracks by off-road vehicle riders and roads in those parts of the forest with roads led to water quality problems, bad esthetics, and the displacement of wildlife. Opponents of protecting roadless areas said roads are needed for access, don't harm the forests, and, if anything, the forests had too few roads because they are still places people have to walk. Erosion tracks by ORVs are made by the few, and what was needed was better education of the ORV riders. The number of deer and elk in Idaho are near historic highs, so they are obviously not harmed by roads. This view is interesting (elk at an all time high) because of the contrast with those who say the wolves are decimating Idaho's elk and deer populations.
6. Quite a few supporters, commented that Alaska's Tongass National Forest should be subjected to the roadless area protection process. The Tongass is America's largest national forest.
7. Most alarming to me was the view of the opponents that the government and environmentalists were trying to lock up the forests and destroy communities, and to make it "the King's forest." This phrase was used a number of times.
Some one is poisoning the well, telling rural folks that this is about a bigger effort to remove them from their communities and make it all wilderness. This kind of grassroots rumor creation could eventually lead to violence if enough people believe those with whom they disagree are out to do them in. I felt the much ridiculed "black helicopter, UN troops, view was bobbing just below the surface.
I saved my ire for the representative of the Idaho attorney general's office who said the state of Idaho did know where these roadless areas were because of a lack of maps and lack of time. He asked for more time to comment, and said the state would sue for a second time (they lost the first) to delay the process. I ridiculed him for leaving the meeting, which he did right after his statement, and recounted 28 years of history of efforts to resolve the roadless area controversy in Idaho by prominent Idaho politicians and others, and I wondered by the AG's office was so ignorant of the matter. Then I said it was all about the presidential election. The roadless area process will be killed by President Bush and implemented by President Gore. No one seemed to disagree.
There was a lot of cheering and clapping from the opponents. Supporters were more restrained, and obeyed the Forest Service who said not to cheer or jeer. I thought once the protocol had been broken by the opponents, the supporters would have done well to have responded in kind.
A final irony. A number of those opposed were young, strongly built men who argued they could not get to their favorite place unless they had their off road vehicle. A woman of 52 and a man, aged 65, told how they didn't need machines to get themselves into the backcountry.