The Forest Service has released its draft plan for weed management in the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness. Their proposed project would not only violate legally mandated Wilderness character but would also likely prove ineffective. Research has suggested that prevention is the best way to address weed infestations. Herbicide application or introduction of exotic insects to control weeds may only compound the problem. The Forest Service is accepting comments on their proposal until May 19. Please send an email to comments-northern-clearwater-powell@fs.fed.us. Include Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness Invasive Plants Management Project in the subject line.
Background
Weeds have been spreading through the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness for many years. Little was done to stop the spread or prevent more weeds from entering the Wilderness. The Forest Service claims that it was implementing weed control through some hand pulling, other cultural work, and herbicide spraying but that program did not work. Because they never prioritized nor fully implemented this previous program, we will never know if it could have worked. Prevention measures in other natural areas have proven the best, if not the only, way to keep weeds from establishing populations. Introductions of herbicides or non-native, ‘biocontrol’ insects can cause even greater impacts than the weeds themselves. The Forest Service avoids instituting prevention strategies because these would alter Wilderness use methods. In essence, weed prevention would require managers and visitors to consider wilderness as Wilderness, rather than as merely a playground, and would cause the agency to realign recreational use with true Wilderness character.
The Proposal
The alternative preferred by the Forest Service is to apply herbicides on over 4,000 acres annually in and adjacent to the Wilderness and to release non-native insects in 50,000 acres over the life of the project. This most extreme alternative in the document limits weed prevention measures to voluntary, weed-free feeding of livestock for 48 hours before Wilderness entry. A weed monitoring program would supposedly be implemented but is not clearly articulated in the draft plan. None of the alternatives analyzed for the project emphasize scientifically-supported weed prevention.
The agency adopted a similar program in the Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness. Initially implemented as a temporary measure, it could now likely continue in perpetuity. The Forest Service claim that this other program could be successful in the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness is suspect, as it has not worked in the adjacent Wilderness.
Proposal Problems and Alternatives
The Forest Service justifies the project by claiming it would keep Wilderness ‘natural.’ This rationale is belied by the fact that the agency is not treating the most prevalent and extensive weed, cheatgrass, and would introduce non-native insects to control weeds. The Forest Service also advocates stocking fish in high country lakes, which, as scientific research suggests, wreaks havoc on natural, aquatic ecosystems. The proposed alternative does not so much keep non-native species out of the Wilderness as it lets managers’ personal biases determine which plants and animals would live and die in the Wilderness. Human control is the polar opposite of Wilderness and is fundamentally the reason why this proposal is so wrong.
Points to Consider in Your Comments
1- Focus on weed prevention. Research has indicated that prevention is the best way to initially avoid weed infestations. Prevention measures would require mandatory quarantines of stock animals, equipment inspections at trailheads, and closures of affected areas until they are weed-free.
2- Reject introduction of non-native insects. The Forest Service decries non-native weeds but recommends deliberate introduction of exotic insects to combat non-native plants – an incredibly hypocritical, direct violation of Wilderness character.
3- Deny use of herbicides. The proposed alternatives would unleash the ‘herbicide treadmill,’ as increasing weed resistance to herbicides necessitates perpetually greater application doses. Limited herbicide use, if at all, must end after a disclosed period of time.
4- Insist on appropriate monitoring and follow-up. This project must be monitored annually and reassessed after five years. If little or no success in weed abatement ensues, the agency must revise the project.
Please send your comments by May 19 to comments-northern-clearwater-powell@fs.fed.us. Include Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness Invasive Plants Management Project in the subject line. You can mail your written comments to Powell Ranger Station, Lolo, MT 59847.
