Wilderness plans may not be what they seem

The recent article regarding the Friends of Scotchman wilderness EcoFlights around the Scotchman Peak area included several familiar incorrect and misleading statements regarding the area and the failed campaign for wilderness.

Despite the contrary claim, a designated wilderness would indeed prohibit motorized (and any wheeled) use. The argument that a wilderness would be no change in current management is specious at best, because those restrictions were first put into place in 2015 (despite repeated false FSPW claims that it was earlier), possibly timed with the upcoming wilderness bill of 2016. The local U.S. Forest Service (USFS) administrative restrictions (which do not follow national policy and conveniently skip Congress) created legally questionable de facto wilderness, so this lawful use should be restored in the future.

Rose Olson stated there is not a lot of logging opportunity in the area. Actually, a large portion of the Clark Fork front is heavily forested and is critical big game habitat. This habitat has been degraded by over-thickened, dead and dying timber and could be substantially improved by a helicopter-supported forest health project and prescribed burning, neither of which would be permitted in a wilderness. The USFS planned to carry out similar work in the same area, for the same reasons, in the early 2000’s, but the project was scrapped in part due to pressure from environmentalists.