Closing roads for griz doesn't have to be controversial
I was really disappointed to see the following headline in
the Missoulian (and apparently the Spokesman-Review as well) this morning: Grizzly plan would shut
down roads. While I know that reporters
like to paint everything as black and white, I was hoping that perhaps we’d
started moving a little bit beyond such oversimplifications. I was wrong.
And the headline was not the worst part -- tThe article opens with the following line:
Hundreds of miles of backcountry roads used by outdoor enthusiasts would be closed under a new federal plan to protect grizzly bears in the Selkirk and Cabinet mountains that stretch from northeastern Washington to northwestern Montana.
That certainly sets the tone, which is quickly followed by an explanation of the results of the environmental analysis:
Grizzlies would benefit most from barricading as much as 1,800 miles of Forest Service roads; erecting gates on as much as another 490 miles of roads; and eliminating motorized use on 57 miles of trails.
Barricading is somewhat provocative language. But the agency didn’t choose the alternative that would most benefit wildlife, instead they chose a much less protective alternative that would, “block about 325 miles of road, while reopening other roads for motorized travel. About 30 miles of trail would be closed to motorized use.” Okay, now we’re only blocking roads, not barricading them. And of course, all of this is the result of a decade of litigation from environmentalists. At least the writer didn’t say environmental extremists or obstructionists, but you can certainly read that between the lines.
On the positive side, the article does actually explain that most grizzlies who have died in the area have died near roads, but it does not do justice to the available science about roads and griz. Nor does it once mention how many roads would remain open for access for motorized and nonmotorized recreationists under either alternative. The article fails to point out that closing roads can improve nonmotorized recreational experiences, including hunting, as well. (Instead it says it would close roads to hunters.) In addition, it never discusses the clean water benefits, or the job opportunities that would be created, if the agency actually reclaimed the roads they are proposing to close.
But if the reporters included all
of those benefits of closing roads then the issue might not appear as
controversial as it does from this story.
And without controversy, of course, it’s a lot harder to sell
newspapers. The decision affects the Lolo, Kootenai and Idaho Panhandle National Forests. There’s a comment
period open until June 22 if you’re interested in weighing in to support the
ecologically appropriate plan. We'll post more information on commenting as soon as we can.
Blog Post Information
Blog Archive
Blog Categories
Site-Wide Search
Subscribe to The Dirt
