A recent story in the Ely Timberjay may greatly interest anyone who enjoys the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, but it is unlikely most paddlers will ever see the story or be aware of the issues it raised. However, on their next visit to the wilderness, paddlers may notice dirty latrines, eroded portages, and other evidence of cutbacks in on-the-ground maintenance and management.
A recent story in the Ely Timberjay may greatly interest anyone who enjoys the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, but it is unlikely most paddlers will ever see the story or be aware of the issues it raised. However, on their next visit to the wilderness, paddlers may notice dirty latrines, eroded portages, and other evidence of cutbacks in on-the-ground maintenance and management.
According to the Timberjay story, the U.S. Forest Service, pummeled by never-ending lawsuits from environmental groups, is coming up short in funding and resources for wilderness maintenance. The agency will field about half of the usual cadre of wilderness rangers this year, due to budget shortfalls. In addition, a substantial amount of staff time will be devoted to addressing ongoing litigation—staff time that ordinarily would be devoted to wilderness management.
Currently, environmentalists have three active lawsuits against the Forest Service regarding wilderness issues. There is the Chain of Lakes case, where environmentalists are trying to reduce quotas for small motorboats on lakes along the edge of the BWCAW. Another suit was filed regarding multiple aspects of the Superior National Forest 10-year management plan, including BWCAW issues. Then there is the South Fowl Snowmobile Trail suit, where a dispute over the placement of a snowmobile trail outside the wilderness has morphed into a courtroom attempt to expand the wilderness and ban motors from two of the most popular walleye fishing lakes on the North Shore—North and South Fowl.
While the outcome of these suits may have devastating consequences for traditional users—primarily anglers who have legally used small boats and/or snowmobiles on the various lakes involved in disputes—it is fair to say the court actions will have little effect on the average BWCAW paddler or the ecological health of the canoe country. Some folks interviewed in the Timberjay story, as well as an editorial in the same issue, suggest the litigious approach to resolving wilderness issues is significantly eroding the Forest Service’s ability to manage the BWCAW and driving away more moderate individuals who believe conservation ought to accomplished somewhere other than in a courtroom.
Wilderness advocates representing the organizations filing the suits were unrepentant when interviewed for the story and in subsequent letters to the editor. They believe litigation is necessary when other measures fail to accomplish their goals and agendas. They seemed indignant that litigation is draining the Forest Service’s wilderness funding and human resources, apparently assuming that the government ought to pay the legal costs out of some other pocket.
Blame was also placed on the Bush Administration, because national spending priorities have changed in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. While there is some truth to this argument—Forest Service budgets have been reduced—one may also reasonably argue that in times of funding shortfalls it is imperative for all to make sure the money available is wisely spent…on the ground.
Unfortunately, the advocacy groups sit in a catbird seat, because litigation results in limited expense to the organizations or their leadership. Legal assistance is usually pro bono and if the advocacy group wins a court decision, the Forest Service is required to reimburse their legal costs. The Timberjay reported the agency has paid out over $300,000 in such judgments during the past 10 years. This suggests the BWCAW may be locked in a doom loop of perpetual conflict, litigation, and pay-off.
The Timberjay editorial and letters to the editor also suggest that a growing number of folks believe wilderness advocacy groups are fiddling with esoteric lawsuits while pressing issues of great consequence are unattended. Emerging research suggests the canoe country is already being affected by climate change and that a hotter, drier climate may rapidly transform the area’s lakes, waters, and wildlife.
A century of fire suppression and the elimination of logging have already altered the natural composition of the forest, as was evidenced by the massive destruction of mature trees in the 1999 July 4 blowdown. The mushrooming development of trophy cabins and homes around the perimeter of the BWCAW (with more than a few owned by members of wilderness advocacy groups) further stymies efforts to restore wildfire to the canoe country due to the risk of property loss when a wilderness fire…runs wild.
While the confrontational, litigious approach to BWCAW issues may be effective for advancing an agenda and give some of the radical elements within wilderness advocacy some self-satisfaction that they are “stickin it to da man,” it fails the acid test of true conservation. In any form of conservation, it is imperative to trust the abilities and decisions of the professionals who are hired to manage our lands, waters, and wildlife. Litigation should be used only as a last resort, and only when the outcome of the lawsuit will result is a sea change in management direction or resource protection.
BWCAW advocates abandoned this premise decades ago in favor of a strategy where the minutiae of day-to-day management decisions are decided in a courtroom. I suspect history will not look kindly on this brand of wilderness advocacy. And, although some wilderness advocates haven’t realized it, the page of history has already begun to turn.