(208) 882-9755 foc@friendsoftheclearwater.org
Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Search in posts
Search in pages

What’s wrong with the CBC Agreement and Work Plan

Shale Mountain, Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forests, Chuck Pezeshki Photo Credit

The Clearwater Basin Collaborative has released their “win-win” proposal for protecting lands in the Clearwater Basin. The only problem is, the proposed legislation will do more harm than good, if carried out! Here’s why:

  • The proposal could allow the Idaho Fish & Game Department to “manage for fish & wildlife populations” in new designated wilderness areas–code word for landing helicopters and using other motorized/mechanized equipment. This language is contrary to the 1964 Wilderness Act.
  • The proposal could allow outfitters to maintain existing structures and/or camps in newly designated wilderness, grant outfitters veto authority over the Forest Service in whether or not a structure/camp ever needs to be relocated, and would pay outfitters for maintaining trails on the national forest. The 1964 Wilderness Act prohibits commercial services and makes a narrow and limited exception for services like outfitting. This proposal does just the opposite.
  • The proposal will support a North-South All-Terrain Vehicle Route between Avery and Elk City. We have serious concerns about what this means.
  • There are approximately 1.5-million acres of roadless wildlands in the Clearwater Basin. Besides the potential toxic language in future legislation, only 1/5 or 300,000-acres will receive wilderness designation. Paltry to say the least.
  • A significant increase in logging of roaded areas on the national forests, like Clear Creek.

Stay tuned for further analysis of this so-called “win-win” proposal.