Resident feels outside conservation groups opinion false

It is ironic that under the article headlined court halts national forest logging we have a photo of a destructive wildfire in obviously dense, un-thinned forest land.

Indeed, the story involving 4,000 acres of thinning in Boundary County was full of ironies. A suit brought in a distant court on a local resource issue by out of area plaintiffs. Boundary County officials apparently arguing for the project solely on economic grounds, setting themselves up for the Lands Council and the Wild West Institute's claim that the logging would deeply harm the region's ecosystem which is obviously false. Moreover, the two environmental groups were richly rewarded by Judge Ferguson who wrote, "We have held time and again that the public interest in preserving nature and avoiding irreparable environmental injury outweighs economic concerns." Economic concerns equal environmental destruction?

Neither the judges, the Boundary County officials, nor the two environmental groups seem to get it. The issue is neither. The central issue is that the public interest is best served by healthy, reasonably fire safe, properly stocked and productive forests. Mechanical thinning plays an indispensable role here, and the project should have been argued on its merits, not emotion.

A note on some of these self appointed environmental watchdogs: Although they have a role to play, there seems to be little accountability as to actual active membership, funding, or their scientific or experiential credibility. Ideologically driven, they seem convinced that they alone have the answers and that local people are unqualified and not to be trusted with local resource issues.

The practice seems to be to get local people out of the loop, and the best way to do this is to remove a local issue to a venue like the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals.

Thank you,

Cleve Shearer

Bonners Ferry