Wild places deserve better

A few years ago, my husband and I were fortunate enough to have jobs as caretakers and visitor guides in the Frank Church River of No Return Wilderness, at the Stonebraker Wilderness Ranch in Chamberlain Basin.

We were very excited when we arrived at a U.S. Forest Service guard station airstrip in a small plane. (Although motorized travel in designated wilderness areas is prohibited by the federal Wilderness Act of 1964, some existing airstrips were grandfathered into the act.) Because the ranch was in the wilderness proper, we had to walk there over a hill, about a mile from the guard station.

The ranch house was built in the 1890s of hand-hewn logs. A large barn of very weathered boards was still standing straight, surrounded by antique farming implements and various outbuildings, all waiting to be explored.

We had always enjoyed hiking and boating in other wilderness areas, but our experience of actually living in the Frank was incomparable. Our nearest neighbors were moose, ground squirrels and deer. There was no traffic noise; the silence was broken only by birdsong and the howls of wolves. Wherever we went was on foot due to the prohibition against motorized vehicles.

Both of us will always treasure this experience of wilderness.

I was shocked to learn that U.S. Forest Service Regional Forester Harv Forsgren had granted the Idaho Department of Fish and Game’s request to land helicopters in the Frank in order to radio-collar wolves. In the past, such permissions have been granted only for emergency situations, such as rescuing sick or injured people.

I have heard, although I do not know it for a fact, that when the Frank was first designated as a wilderness, bulldozers brought in by the USFS to tear down structures were buried rather than driven out in order to not violate the 1964 Wilderness Act. During our summer there we saw the airstrip being rolled by a team of mule skinners who rode their mules from one strip to another.

In view of this history, what possible reason is there to break precedent now and violate the law?

On a short-term basis, I shudder to imagine the effect this will have on the overall character of the wilderness, not to mention the stress it will impose on its resident animals. In the long term, this exception to the law could very well set a dangerous precedent which could begin irreversible changes in the Frank and other designated wilderness areas – ATVs, snowmobiles and eventually large trucks? And, of course, roads. How long would it take for this contagion to spread to Mount Baker and Glacier Peak?

Clearly the USFS is looking down a slippery slope here. Remembering a statement on the agency’s Web site (“You own your national forests and grasslands and we are here to serve you … please think of ways we can better serve you and let us know.”), I thought: You can better serve all Americans by upholding the Wilderness Act in order to preserve our wilderness areas for us and coming generations. You should therefore immediately reverse the permission for Idaho Fish and Game to violate the law.

The USFS Web site statement above made me realize that we have a precious heritage in this country of having natural areas to visit for recreation as well as places to experience nature in peace and solitude. Quiet enjoyment of wilderness does not include helicopters overhead, and it’s important for the public to let the USFS know it can better serve us by keeping them out.